longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 6:42pm:

You told us NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming".  Why can't you simply show us evidence of this?  I have searched all of their websites - and they all say that  the planet is clearly and unambiguously warming.

Why so shy?

Just show us where NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming".

Why is that sooooo difficult for you?

We both know why - don't we LIAR.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 6:41pm:

Heh!!!  An opinion piece on some nut job denier blog is now a " a peer-reviewed publication"!?!?!?

Liar.

Why can't you show us where NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming".?

You keep making this claim.  Where is the evidence?

Let me guess….you are quoting another silly opinion pice you found on another  nut job denier blog, aren't you!!!

Why not just admit it?
Why continue with your pathetic lies?

Just man up.
Don't be such a snivelling little liar.

Show us where NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming"..or admit you are a liar.

You are not fooling anybody

Very_Vinnie wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 7:43pm:




at least TRY to read the article, dope.  this was a peer-reviewed survey done by climate scientists themselves.

rabbitoh08 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 8:21pm:



read the peer-reviewed article fool.

http://www.academia.edu/2365610/The_Bray_and_von_Storch-survey_of_the_perceptions_of_climate_scientists_2008_report_codebook_and_XLS_data

Misrepresentation of Bray and von Storch survey

by Dennis Bray
On May 26, the Online version of the Wall Street Journal posted an opinion piece  titled ‘The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?’  It was written by Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer. The brief bio informs the reader “Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite.”  The posting contains the statement “Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch —most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.”

Since the time of publication, the opinion piece, or parts thereof, has been widely distributed, more often than not verbatim, in the blogosphere.

We, (Bray and von Storch) the authors of the ‘Rigorous international surveys’, find this disconcerting.  Bast and Spencer make claims about our work, which are inaccurate if not outright false. This is not the first time that statements of us have been misrepresented – the case of Ameling in August 2013 was another blatant one; thus it may make sense opposing publicly such claims.

In the WSJ opinion piece, Best and Spencer inform the readers that based on the results of our survey; there is disagreement ‘with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models’. What IS the consensus on the reliability of climate data and computer models?  What are our results compared to so that such a claim can be made?

A second conclusion reached by Blast and Spence reads 'They [climate scientists]  do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change'.  On this account, first, Blast and Spencer do not seem to have taken the time to read our discussion of the use of the term prediction versus the use of the term projection, a paper which itself raised a lot of comments, i.e. prediction and projection, in climate science, are synonymous.

But the point here is the claim of correlation between the understanding of clouds and the ability to assess the future of climate.  What the survey asks is how well the respondent thinks that climate models can deal with clouds.  Admittedly the confidence is fairly low.  However when asked ‘Concerning TEMPERATURE VALUES, how would you rate the ability of GLOBAL models to simulate mean values for the next 10 years’,  (and the next 50 years)’ the response was considerably more positive than that assigned the assessment of clouds. The correlation of the two variables was a minimal .09.

The point being, our results are modified in a way so as to support the opinions of many blog authors, not just Bast and Co. This amounts to manipulations, and to damaging our academic reputation. We, Hans von Storch and myself would like to clarify that, in undertaking the surveys, we attempt to produce results that are as objective as possible.  It is not our intention to provide fodder for this camp or that camp, we are not acting as partisans of any particular persuasion and we do not particularly appreciate being stuck with a label assigned by some third party imagination.


klimazwiebel.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/misrepresentation-of-bray-and-von.html

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 9:10pm:

You told us NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming".  Why can't you simply show us evidence of this?

Why all the evasion?

You make a statement - then run away like a little girl when asked to support it.

You told us NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming".   this is a remarkable claim.  If true - surely you could just show us evidence, couldn't you?

But no.  You can't

It leads me to believe that you are nothing but a snivelling, lying little creep.

Do you have anything to change this opinion that (and everyone else reading this exchange) has of you?

Ajax wrote on Jul 21^st, 2015 at 9:15pm:
Silly man. You've been duped Ajax. So determined a few years ago to find a conspiracy, you're now so deep into your denialism that even the permanent disappearance of ice on both poles wont be enough to convince you that GW is happening. Come on Ajax, what will it take? I'm betting that you've invested so much pride in your denialism that absolutely nothing could ever convince you to eat humble pie and admit that the vested interest money men have made a complete and utter sucker of you.  But you must try. You're family need you to forget your pride, take stock and review everything you've swallowed from these suspect sites and do what every sensible person does in these situations. Follow the money trail. Who has most to gain by feeding you BS!!!  You need to do it now because with each year hotter then the next and more and more extreme weather events your gullibility will become increasingly obvious to those closest to you depending on you to exercise good judgment. Don't let them down. Rethink this Ajax. Greece is aflame in the worst fires they have seen for how long? And this is happening repeatedly in every country every summer its worse. Don't be stubborn, there's too much at stake.      

Radical wrote on Jul 22^nd, 2015 at 12:13am:

True.

But Longweekend is such a complete lying twat - it amuses me to see the lengths he goes to squirm away from the crap he posts.

Isn't that right Longy - you pathetic, dishonest little man.  Still waiting for you to who us where show us where NOAA, NASA, MET and BOM all agree that there has been a "pause in global warming".?


Will you ever own up to being a snivelling little liar?

Or will you just start a new thread and post the same crap again?