The ldsfaqs / Climate Change MEGATHREAD

[_Res Ipsa]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/19/the-1970s-global-cooling-consensus-was-not-a-myth/

This page overviews the original review of papers that tried to claim the "70's Cooling Consensus was a Myth", and then it presents an overview of the review of papers that debunks that review.
It further shows that AGW "scientists" and proponents are unethical, by clearly omitting key sources and studies that were in fact accessible (as they were to this new reviewer) in order to make their claims.

This is not "science" and valid scholarship that is occurring by AGW proponents it's propaganda.

Conclusion of the review of all available/accessible scientific papers related to the climate.

86 Papers supported Global Cooling
58 Papers were neutral
46 Papers supported Global Warming
30 of the above studies supported a possible coming Ice Age.

Also, at the bottom of the page, there is a link listing all papers and scientific journals etc. reviewed.

When will you stop lying, FAQs. The blog post you've now linked to twice was not a review of all available/accessible scientific papers related to the climate. Doing that kind of review requires you to set up search parameters in advance, look at all the papers found by the search, and then classifying them. That's not what the author of your linked blog post did. The author combined the original paper, which was done properly, with someone else's search to find only cooling papers. That's cherry picking -- not a valid survey of all literature.

By the way, I'm still waiting on that testimony about Michael Mann...

[_ldsfaqs]

FAQS, you are completely delusional. I know the quote that you are referring to. Mann didn't say it. And you've misquoted what the actual person said in a way that is absolutely misleading. Over and over again you post flat out lies because you are too lazy to check your dishonest sources. So, produce the testimony that Mann said "they need to get rid of the Medieval Warming Period" or be, once again, a proven liar.

"We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1rj00BoItw

"Video of Dr David Deming's statement to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works on December 6, 2006. Dr Deming reveals that in 1995 a leading scientist emailed him saying "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period". A few years later, Michael Mann and the IPCC did just that by publishing the now thoroughly discredited hockey stick graph."

---

I live by facts and evidence, not delusion.
However, you most certainly live by delusion by believing made-up "science" by LYING about the quote and my quoting it, and for the sole purpose of a Leftist agenda.

While Dr. Deming doesn't outright say his name with the quote, from statements he later makes in the video, it's clear who he's referring to, or those associated to Mann because he states in the original quote that the email came from a "major researcher in climate change".
Also, other evidence I've seen over the years further verifies this that it was either directly Mann or someone closely working with him. Since Mann with the IPCC was the first to come up with the Hockey Stick and the removed Medieval Warm Period some 4 years after this email Dr. Deming received, it's clear what we have happening here.

[_Maksutov]

However, you most certainly live by delusion by believing made-up "science" by LYING about the quote and my quoting it, and for the sole purpose of a Leftist agenda.

[_ldsfaqs]

When will you stop lying, FAQs. The blog post you've now linked to twice was not a review of all available/accessible scientific papers related to the climate. Doing that kind of review requires you to set up search parameters in advance, look at all the papers found by the search, and then classifying them. That's not what the author of your linked blog post did. The author combined the original paper, which was done properly, with someone else's search to find only cooling papers. That's cherry picking -- not a valid survey of all literature.

By the way, I'm still waiting on that testimony about Michael Mann...

What you just stated is an absolute LIE... and you have the gall to claim I'm the one lying.
What actually occurred contrary to your lie is the new researcher found MUCH MORE sources and thus climate papers, thus creating a new and more COMPLETE study of the issue.

You outright LIE here by claiming he only found more "cooling" papers, and I can prove it.

The original study found: (quoting the article)
"In total, PCF-08 reviewed 71 papers and their survey found 7 cooling papers, 20 neutral papers and 44 warming papers."

The new study found: (which included the ones found in the original)
86 Papers supported Global Cooling
58 Papers were Neutral
46 Papers supported Global Warming
TOTAL 190
30 of the above studies supported a possible coming Ice Age.

Now, do you know how to do MATH???

Showing this to you clearly shows how the original researchers were clearly omitting Global Cooling and Neutral papers to support their agenda, since the new researchers only found 2 more global warming papers than the original researchers. But the original researchers OMITTED 79 Global Cooling Papers saying there were only "7"!!! Neutral they omitted 38.

It's not simply a "bad" researcher that finds only 71 Climate-related scientific papers when there are 119 MORE they could have found.

You just see what you want to see buddy, not the full facts and truth!

[_Res Ipsa]

FAQS, you are completely delusional. I know the quote that you are referring to. Mann didn't say it. And you've misquoted what the actual person said in a way that is absolutely misleading. Over and over again you post flat out lies because you are too lazy to check your dishonest sources. So, produce the testimony that Mann said "they need to get rid of the Medieval Warming Period" or be, once again, a proven liar.

"We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1rj00BoItw

"Video of Dr David Deming's statement to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works on December 6, 2006. Dr Deming reveals that in 1995 a leading scientist emailed him saying "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period". A few years later, Michael Mann and the IPCC did just that by publishing the now thoroughly discredited hockey stick graph."

---

I live by facts and evidence, not delusion.
However, you most certainly live by delusion by believing made-up "science" for the sole purpose of a Leftist agenda.

Okay, lying liar. Here's the actual e-mail: http://di2.nu/foia/1105670738.txt Deming completely misrepresented what it said.

Hi Keith and Tim – since you’re off the 6.2.2 hook until Eystein hangs you back up on it, you have more time to focus on that new Box. In reading Valerie’s Holocene section, I get the sense that I’m not the only one who would like to deal a mortal blow to the misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature. The sceptics and uninformed love to cite these periods as natural analogs for current warming too – pure rubbish.

Mann was neither the author nor the recipient.

He didn't say he wanted to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period. He wanted to deal a mortal blow to the assholes like Monckton and Heller and you who "misuse" myths like a global medieval warm period. Just like you do now. The medieval warm period was not global. That's what the actual science says. But you can't face up to the simple truth, and so you have to create wild conspiracies and falsely defame scientists whose only crime has been trying to figure out what's going on with the climate. Shame on you. Really.

[Guest]

It appears that the PCF-08 authors have committed the transgression of which they accuse others; namely, “selectively misreading the texts” of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979. The PCF-08 authors appear to have done this by neglecting the large number of peer-reviewed papers that were pro-cooling.

I find it very surprising that PCF-08 only uncovered 7 cooling papers and did not uncover the 86 cooling papers in major scientific journals, such as, Journal of American Meteorological Society, Nature, Science, Quaternary Research and similar scientific papers that they reviewed. For example, PCF-08 only found 1 paper in Quaternary Research, namely the warming paper by Mitchell (1976), however, this review found 19 additional papers in that journal, comprising 15 cooling, 3 neutral and 1 warming.

I can only suggest that the authors of PCF-08 concentrated on finding warming papers instead of conducting the impartial “rigorous literature review” that they profess.

If the current climate science debate were more neutral, the PCF-08 paper would either be withdrawn or subjected to a detailed corrigendum to correct its obvious inaccuracies.

As this study clearly shows, agenda from Leftists overrides doing actual fair, impartial, and accurate science.

[_Res Ipsa]

You actually have the read, FAQs. Direct quote from the blog post:

However, my literature survey was facilitated by the work of Kenneth Richard in 2016 (hereinafter, KR-16) at NoTricksZone, in which he has assembled a large database of sceptical peer-reviewed literature.

My description, and my criticism of what the author did, is accurate. He should not have just added a bunch of pre-selected skeptical literature to the database. If the original search parameters were too narrow and missed articles, he should have formulated a new search and used the results of that.

[_ldsfaqs]

You actually have the read, FAQs. Direct quote from the blog post:

However, my literature survey was facilitated by the work of Kenneth Richard in 2016 (hereinafter, KR-16) at NoTricksZone, in which he has assembled a large database of sceptical peer-reviewed literature.

My description, and my criticism of what the author did, is accurate.

It is NOT... You've clearly not done a professional study, because if you had you would know that "facilitated" means it was a reference point to help in ones own work.

Those papers DO exist... AND he found more than just Global Cooling Papers.
Did your math brain somehow not process the 38 more NEUTRAL Papers he found, and the 2 more Global Warming Papers?

I mean, you also completely ignored his methodology, that he DID do his OWN SEARCH!!!
Such as the ADDITIONAL Search Terms he used, etc. That doesn't come from simply "copying" someone else data collection.
FYI, he did not say he "added" someone elses work to his. Those are your lying words because you want to cover up your lie.

by the way, I like how you don't correct yourself on everything else I debunked you for.

Let me put this another way for you to understand the word "facilitated".
Someone makes a claim, such as the original study.
Someone else finds that claim "wanting" by doing a basic overview of research papers.
Someone else comes along, says to themselves "hmmm, that's right, I'm going to do my own full and proper study to see if this is accurate".
That someone then conducts their OWN STUDY, due to the above study facilitating the idea and information related to it.
NONE of this means he didn't do his own study... The information clearly shows he did, if you had actually fully read it, instead of stopping where you thought you could get an "aha... I can debunk the study cause someone else gave him the idea, though I'm going to claim he just took the information from the other individual, that he didn't do his own search".

[_Res Ipsa]

It is NOT... You've clearly not done a professional study, because if you had you would know that "facilitated" means it was a reference point to help in ones own work.

Those papers DO exist... AND he found more than just Global Cooling Papers.
Did your math brain somehow not process the 38 more NEUTRAL Papers he found, and the 2 more Global Warming Papers?

I mean, you also completely ignored his methodology, that he DID do his OWN SEARCH!!!
Such as the ADDITIONAL Search Terms he used, etc. That doesn't come from simply "copying" someone else data collection.
FYI, he did not say he "added" someone elses work to his. Those are your lying words because you want to cover up your lie.

by the way, I like how you don't correct yourself on everything else I debunked you for.

Let me put this another way for you to understand the word "facilitated".
Someone makes a claim, such as the original study.
Someone else finds that claim "wanting" by doing a basic overview of research papers.
Someone else comes along, says to themselves "hmmm, that's right, I'm going to do my own full and proper study to see if this is accurate".
That someone then conducts their OWN STUDY, due to the above study facilitating the idea and information related to it.
NONE of this means he didn't do his own study... The information clearly shows he did, if you had actually fully read it, instead of stopping where you thought you could get an "aha... I can debunk the study cause someone else gave him the idea, though I'm going to claim he just took the information from the other individual, that he didn't do his own search".

My God, FAQs, you actually didn't read the blog post, did you? You keep contradicting the author.

Some people may wish to ignore the KR-16 database as being from a so-called “climate denier” blog. However, almost all of the papers in KR-16 are from peer-reviewed literature and consequently it is a valid database. It is also worth noting that 16 of the papers used in the KR-16 database are also contained in the PCF-08 database.

The combined PCF-08 and KR-16 databases form the benchmark database for the current review. It was intended to significantly extend the benchmark database but, on searching the relevant journals, only 2 additional papers were found and these were added to form the database for this review.

Nope. You didn't bother to read it at all.

[_Res Ipsa]

by the way, Skeptical Science went through the No Trick's Zone database, and his material doesn't refute the original paper. At all. It's a giant exercise in goalpost moving. https://skepticalscience.com/70s-coolin ... art-I.html