major_silva's forum posts
Another blog graph. How quaint.Data is all accurate. The red comes from Dr. Mann's hockey stick data. The other two don't use a process that **** with data due to an agenda. You're the only one with an agenda here. How do I know? All your arguments hinge on unsourced, untested, unverified non-reviewed data. Why would you choose to back your claims using only what can be considered, at best, other people's opinions?[QUOTE="major_silva"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Yea called the hockey stick graph used by the IPCC and then NASA on that graph you linked.
Read data is hockey stick data (debunked). The other two are reality. Notice a difference?
KC_Hokie
yet ur still gonna find a way to deny it?Yea called the hockey stick graph used by the IPCC and then NASA on that graph you linked.[QUOTE="TopTierHustler"]
[QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]I can read it perfectly....that graph used the Vostok ice cores for 649,950 years and the hockey stick data for the recent part (which is a huge spike). KC_Hokie
Read data is hockey stick data (debunked). The other two are reality. Notice a difference?
Another blog graph. How quaint.We were discussing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, not temperature anomaly. Also, you really should take a second look at those graphs. One covers a time period of less than 50 years whereas the other covers a period of 1000 years. That is a disingenuous comparison at best. Additionally, you again state that the hockey stick graph has been debunked but I have not seen you provide any proof for that claim.This is what satellite data shows in terms of warming:
This is what the debunked hockey stick graph showed...lol!:
KC_Hokie
[QUOTE="major_silva"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]Of course it was. The hockey stick data due to climategate went down in flames. They were busted deleting data that showed cooling and creating a mathematical formula that showed warming (where there was none).Again, your only source are graphs derived from a blog website. Where are the peer-reviewed papers? If the scientific community, the peers, agreed that the hockey stick data was false, as you've said, then you should have no trouble finding reputable, published literature that supports your claim. I'll await.They're from Steve McIntyre moron...a well respected climatologist who worked at NASA. I'll ignore the ad hominem for now. What I do find funny is that you grasped on the argument that a small percentage of scientists disagreed over the source of global warming, and now you're hinging your entire argument on one man that writes on a blog. I'm still waiting, it shouldn't be difficult to do what I've asked.This was confirmed throughout the scientific and mathematically community.
Graph 1 is the hockey stick data....the other two are reality. Notice the difference?
KC_Hokie
It was not 'debunked' by any means. If that was true, then where are the peer-reviewed journal articles with the revised data? You say that the scientific community agreed, and that is patently false, but again, I ask you to provide peer-reviewed evidence of your statements or they shall be considered nonsense hereforth. Lastly, I have done you the courtesy of providing solid scientific data from reputable sources. Scientific data that has been published and reviewed by referees whose sole purpose is to find shoddy data. All I ask of you is to be as thorough with your "opinions".Of course it was. The hockey stick data due to climategate went down in flames. They were busted deleting data that showed cooling and creating a mathematical formula that showed warming (where there was none).[QUOTE="major_silva"][QUOTE="KC_Hokie"]The hockey stick model was debunked by that scientist who worked at NASA. The scientific community agreed.
So any graph using the hockey stick data is false.
Again, look up climate-gate if you don't believe me.
KC_Hokie
This was confirmed throughout the scientific and mathematically community.
Graph 1 is the hockey stick data....the other two are reality. Notice the difference?
Log in to comment