I don’t know. People keep telling me to turn out the vote for the 2008 Weblog Awards, but given that it’s a race between me and two truly awful pseudoscientific denialist blogs, it’s hard to work up much enthusiasm. It was much more fun when it was a competition between me and Phil Plait, where at least I felt like it was legitimate contest, and any winner would have brought some credit to the award.
So go ahead and punch a button if you feel like it. But I will remind you: no cheating of any kind. The people who run this award have some weird rules, but they aren’t dummies, and they do scrutinize sources and voting patterns very carefully, and will throw out votes that have a hint of illegitimacy. The only thing more embarrassing than winning this contest might be losing it because a large number of votes for me were discarded.
For an even worse example of inappropriate nominations, take a look at the Best Middle East or Africa blog list. It’s a swarm of ignorant neo-cons up against an actual scholar of the Middle East, Juan Cole of Informed Comment. And the ignoramuses are winning!
Stevie, you will never understand science. I do, as I’ve been doing it for 30+ years. You are obviously not a scientist. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be spouting the nonsense you have for days. Time for you to go away.
Redflagged as a probable idiot.
killfiled.
Steve.
You seem unable to discuss this subject coherently. You haven’t demonstrated an understanding of climate science. You haven’t demonstrated an understanding of the non-science that you continually link. You have failed to convince me that you have any interest in expanding your understanding. You have only succeeded in convincing me of your confusion. I do empathise. But you must understand that there is no magic cure for the confusion under which you are suffering. Understanding is going to take effort on your part. And nobody else can make the effort for you. Unless and until you demonstrate a willingness to undertake this effort I see no benefit in continuing this conversation.
You folks are distoritng the truth.
The bulk of my contributions here have been the work by others who do certainly understand science,,, AS WELL AS YOU.
It’s your choice to pretend otherwise.
Nerd,
You appear to be a rampant nit wit with little or no concern for the totality of science in any arena.
Declaring everything I share here to be nonsense speaks for itslef.
Sven,
all you need do to prove I am an idiot is point to ANY scientific proof that Human CO2 is warming the planet.
Hugh,
I find your approach incoherent as well.
You don’t digest or respond to mush.
And this notion that I haven’t demonstrated an understanding of climate science?
Well since ya’ll have declared every expert skeptic to be lacking the same I’m hardly surprised.
You degree that all of the work I have linked to is non-science, you don;t bother to study it then claim I’ve failed to convince you that I have any interest in expanding my understanding?
You’re the ones hiding behind the AGW curtain afraid of questioning it’s holy crusade.
Your cure is obviouos yet elusive for you.
I regularily review the other side’s work unlike you.
Nobody else can make that effort for you.
No, you’re rather shut up the entire debate.
There is no human CO2 warming of any significance, if at all.
Yet you are so smart you have been completely convinced there is without so much as any measured and replicated proof it is happening.
Well you’re quite the models of science experts.
Stevie, will the LIES ever stop? Quit trying to get the last word in. Won’t happen. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Get with reality. It’s a nice place to be. No delusions.
The fact that AGWers have abandoned the importance of skeptisism in science is proof positive this has turned into a crusade.
Add that fact to the misrepresentation of historical CO2 and historical temperature and AGW is a corrupted science.
When human trigered water vapor increaases are used as the excuse for warming while neglecting the negative/cooling effects of additinal coud cover it’s not difficult to become curious and skeptcal.
But there seems to be no red flag that triggers curiosity with the likes of ya’ll.
True believers sway not from the path of the AGW crusade.
I wonder, are some of you 911 conspirators also?
CO2 is a natural trace greenhouse gas.
Humans contribute a small proiton of that trace.
A minor reduction in human CO2 will produce not one shred of benefit. Making all of the cap and trade, carbon taxes and other AGW fighting policies entirely insane.
Not lies as you fantasize, but insane.
Stevie, still angry the big boys who understand science see through your piddling ignorant arguments. No conspiracy, just the need for the properly documented evidence in the peer reviewed primary scientific literature. Where carbon dioxide, methane, various nitrogen oxides, and other strong absorbers in the IR are considered greenhouse gases.
Now, who are we going to believe. Scientists, who strive for the truth and are honest with each other professionally, or an admitted crank, who has been caught in lies, and has an agenda? That isn’t a hard decision. Now it is time for you to go away. You know that. Here is the 25 cent question. What do you really hope to gain by continued posts?
Oh Nerdie,
Now your imagination has now contrived that I’m “angry”. How informative. You can park that next to the rest of your high quality contributions.
Despite whatever it is you imagine you are “seeing through” you don’t see this issue very well at all.
That’s why you can lecture on the certainties of AGW while never seeing any proof of it.
Yammer on about carbon dioxide, methane, various nitrogen oxides and forget about water vapo, the sun and historical records.
Your primary deficiency is your mistaken and narrow minded condensing of the issue into “Now, who are we going to believe”
That’s sheep-like.
And I haven’t even suggeted you “belive me”. I haven’t claimed to be a scientist or to have done any scientific analysis.
You can’t even get that straight. As simple and obvious as that is.
It’s no wonder you perceive the AGW debate as you do.
You haven’t recognized the many honest skeptics who are Scientists.
Your imagination runs wild with yor charges of “an admitted crank”
“who has been caught in lies”
” and has an agenda”
I did not admit to being a “crank”,,,,tha’ts not nice.
I haven’t lied about anything
and I have no agenda.
The agenda is in the AGW crusade and all of the lunacy it represents.
You can’t get anything right.
Your mantra, Greenhouse gas greenhouse gas greenhouse gas greenhouse gas, is the stuff of Jonestown.
You’re an an expert on Bullshit but miss the real bullshit entirely.
It’s funny while you demand peer review published studies your side spits out garbage all the time.
Are you honestly so lame as to think your side validates their garbage?
Such as blaming ocean dead zones and acidification on anthropogenic carbon dioxide?
Obama appointed an OSU professor to head NOAA after she ponied up a bogus study on dead zones.
This is Science by supposing.
Others claim ocean acidification.
Here’s a good refuting of that.
http://www.gemarsh.com/wp-content/uploads/SEAWATER%20pH%20&%20ANTHRO%20CO2%20V2.pdf
Your bullshitters connect Katrinna to AGW, along with California wild fires, various droughts here and there and even increased snow. All from AGW. The list is nearly endless of cockamamie attributions of observation to AGW.
Many of those observation attributions require warming that hasn’t even happened yet.
Who’s the bullshitters?
We got clowns forecasting 100 million AGW climate refugees, widespread AGW wars, and 10s of other ridiculous presumptions without a shred of any scientific basis.
It’s a process of piling up bullshit to substitute for the non-existent proof of AGW.
Kooks make this bullshit up, not scientists.
Figure it out.
See here.
509 and counting.
Stevie, still showing your are an ignorant advocated of an unscientific theory? Until you quit linking to U-tube, and start citing the primary peer reviewed scientific literature your are a known fraud, failure, liar, and bullshitter.
Save yourself further embarrassment by ceasing to post here.
Here’s some current bulshit.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5590775.ece
January 26, 2009
Polar bear ‘stranded’ on The Thames
Gee Stevie, more nonsense from the non-scientific idiot. 1000 posts, as I said, nowhere near a record. Just a milestone for those who think not.
TSIB.
Concerning your ignorance (as opposed to your mentioned stupidity), go spend a day or two at http://realclimate.org, and then come back here.
That U-tube is a lengthy compliation of busslhit claims made by YOUR unscientific clowns.
All three of these scienctific links have interesting new stuff
wattsupwiththat.com
climateaudit.org
icecap.us
Much of it sceintific
Oh that was so embarassing.
Stevie, on the one to ten scale of evidence, U-Tube is a minus two. Absolutely no quality control. What part of integrity of of evidence are your missing? The primary peer reviewed scientific literature is plus ten. Why do your insist on meaningless citations?
Nerd,
I hardly need any kindergarten lesson you on U-Tube from you.
But once again you miss the point.
It’s completely irrelevant that U-tube is used.
That particular U-tube is a string of real scanned news reports of the bullshit scienceless claims AGWers make.
No peer review, no science, no sanity.
I suggest you know of the many ludicrous claims made. But you’re just being dishonest attempting to cast the skeptic side as loons and yours as all science based.
A foolish and weak attempt.
On the other hand there just isn’t the plethera of crazy baseless claims coming from the skpetics.
Oh you try and cast some of them as such. Everytime a skeptic mentions some cold weather event you strawman out the lie that they were suggesting that one event prooves there’s no AGW.
Your pals all trot out the “weather is not climate” mantra.
Of course most people realize that without that lesson.
But your camp is in far more need of that advise than ours.
With all of their weather observations held up as evidence of AGW you’re the pot calling the kettle black.
One of our local loyal warmers, who claims some sceintific understanding, is forever making that charge but then turns around and tells people Katrinna was AGW related.
The tremendous hypocisy on your side is one of the more disturbing and problematic parts to the fallacy of AGW.
Real science, that’s passed through genuine peer review, been replicated, observed and measured doesn’t need any of the hypocracy and bullshit claims to be sustained.
In the case of AGW science it has been wide and deep.
No go watch that U-tube and see just how stupid you crusade is.
Do something besides your lame display here. You’re losing terribly.
Here is some really good data.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Decadal Occurrences Of Statewide Maximum Temperature Records
http://hallofrecord.blogspot.com/2009/01/decadal-occurrences-of-statewide.html
Even Nerd could learn something.
Stevie, you keep missing, no peer reviewed primary scientific journal citations equals no evidence. What a shithead. So who cares about weather in a discussion of climate. What a confused little boy. Run along. The smart people are playing.
“So who cares about weather in a discussion of climate”?
Mostly your peers. But they pick and choose when weathersis or isn’t climate. Like I explained above.
There’s no confusion about the hypocricy.
You sure don’t comprehend well for being so proudly smart.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/01/met-office-report-card-at-the-23-mark/
Met Office Report Card at the 2/3 Mark
1 02 2009
Guest post by Steven Goddard
Steve H. the blog-pimp.
Clearly, a labor of love.
Hugh M#496
I was
just pointing out that the climate modelers use "projection" to distinguish the
results of their simulation of GHG scenarios from forecasts or predictions.
The modelers have no chance in their lifetime of meeting the type of forecast
standards that are being discussed. Essentially the argument is that
the models haven’t proven their skill. They could prove their skill based
by showing they can reproduce the past climate, but we really don’t have a long
enough record of high quality data, only 30 or 40 years or so, with a lot of
uncertainties even within that period in forcings like aerosols. We
hope the models can become good enough to shed some light on the 20th century
warming. But they are probably a decade or more away. They
currently cannot predict the el Nino’s, reproduce the earlier temperate zone
snow melts and arctic ice cap melt, reproduce the signature of the solar cycle
seen in the observations, or reproduce the increase in precipitation observed in
the recent warming. That said, most of the uncertainty is in the cloud
parameterizations. You might want to look up some of the other discussions
we’ve had here recently.
Stevie, still not getting what constitutes evidence. Try journals like Nature and Science where the real scientists play. Blogs and U-tube are for loser agendists.
Nerd,
No it is you who doesn’t get it.
There is certainly plenty of “peer review” happening outside of your lofty establishment. And it is being done around the globe by those with much expertise.
You’re simply playing make believe that it isn’t.
Your focus on me versus the expert participants in the works I have posted makes you look foolish. There is a broadening collection of the curious and skeptical scientific community scrutinizing data, new and old, and fine tuning it’s meaning.
In fact many errors by your anointed AGW scientists have been discovered not by your “peer review” but by skeptic’s review. But how would you know this when you don’t follow the subject.
You’d rather disparage anyone who distributes and discusses their work on any blogs even though your side does the exact same thing.
Your targeting me as if it’s the same as addressing the work by those skeptics is very weak. An irrational denial of the scientific debate before your very eyes.
Any read through some of the discussions by those skeptics, and respondent counter points, shows reasonable exchanges of analysis on the compilation of data and it’s meaning. More often than not the result is a better arrangement, interpretation and reliability of the science.
But again, how would you know? You don’t follow the work.
Instead you dismiss ALL of it out of hand with an irrational declaration that either it doesn’t even exist or if it does it’s invalid because it doesn’t take place within your prescribed institutions.
For someone so experienced in scientific work your sure do follow an exclusive doctrine. Whereas a genuine interest in science would welcome
contributions from all quarters.
IMO that makes you a detriment to science. But your self appointed position as elitist, judge jury and executioner, has you imagining yourself to be the protector of science which you are surely not.
You’re no more than a defender of a crusade attempting to obscure and obstruct dissent.
Here’s a perfect example, evidence, of the improvement of data and science from the work and discussion you condemn.
It covers the current story that interpolated data showed a warming Antarctica.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5044#comments
West Antarctic Stations
“Is it not a little ironic that the weather station that provides the largest warming signal in W Antarctica has been pretty much buried under the snow and had to be raised from the dead?”
Here’s a stark example of how you peer review failed and blogger skeptics corrected false data.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/dissing_hansen.html
In October, two independent monitors at Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, performed their own detailed analysis of Hansen’s reported data. What they found should disturb us all. They discovered that the GISS readings from across a swathe of Russia that appeared to reveal a warming of 10 degrees above average were not readings for October at all. They were a repeat of September’s readings.”
Here’s a current whopper where your peer review failed miserably and the skeptic’s blog worked.
It seems the latest Antartica warming claims were from fuzzy data.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5054
But then Nerd, you mistakenly think “peer review” equals independent duplication. Now don’t you?
Read and learn.
I meant replication
Africangenesis
My understanding is…
Scientists use various models. Each model runs a number of scenarios. The data thus obtained is assessed by scientists. And compared to observations, made by scientists, of past and present climate. Then scientists use their assessment of the data to produce forecasts.
For some reason this is hard to understand. So let me introduce an analogy.
A carpenter uses tools to build a chair. You say, that the chair can’t be a chair, because somebody told you, that a hammer is not a chair. The carpenter explains to you, that the hammer is a tool, and isn’t supposed to be a chair. If, after that, you continue to sit on the ground, then, I think it must be, because you want to sit on the ground.
A carpenter uses tools to build a chair. A buyer of the chair notices the chair has problems in it’s design which makes it not function very well as a chair. The carpenter replies that he doesn’t make chairs. He just uses tools to assmeble woood according to his design.
The buyer then asks, did you get that design peer reviewed?
The carpenter says, yes my brother looked it over and says it’s a good design, plus it was pulished in the Sunday paper.
The buyer says, Ok but it’s a bad design that makes a lousy chair.
The carpenter explains to you, that the peer reviewed, published design projects that it will be good chair.
The buyer says, well why don’t you sit in it and see for yourself.
The carpenter says, you’re not carpenter, what do you know?
The IPCC does not release their data to allow independent replication, the peer review process has not provided any independent replication that validates AGW.
That makes the AGW theory, peer review and the campaign to push policies addressing it a sham.
Yawn, still no real evidence from Stevie, just some made up stuff. What an ignorant bore.
Nerd,
The made up stuff is coming from your peer reviewed experts.
Do you mean “real evidence” like the recent interpolated warming in Antarctica?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/full/7228356a.html
It’s real, peer reviewed, published and wrong.
It seems the latest Antartica warming claims were from fuzzy data.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5054
I wonder why peer review didn’t catch it?
Perhaps peer review doesn’t replicate or validate?
Steve H., you’re pointlessly persistent, aren’t ya?
Re: The October 2008 glitch, that was fixed as soon as it was noted, and it’s not news.
Re: “the latest Antartica warming claims were from fuzzy data.” What’s your point? Fuzzy or not, what does the data indicate?
Sheesh.
Stevie, you are an agendist who will quotemine, misrepresent, and tell actual lies to promote your agenda. (See, even I can compliment you.) The difference between you and a creobot idiot is subject matter. You have the same thinking process. Now compare this to the scientific method. Especially, where you must provide real evidence gathered and published in a way that confirms the reliability of it. That is called peer review.
Now, why aren’t you writing nice paper Science or Nature to support you hypothesis? It is what I would do. But then, I am a real scientist who understands that your alleged evidence is not paperworthy. To bad, there goes your chance for fame and fortune.
It is long past time for you to take your tainted evidence elsewhere.
Gee John, my point might be that your lofty peer reviewed Hansen and company don;t cath their mistakes the skpetics do. And those mistakes mistakenly ramp up warming.
“fixed”? That’s a good description, since the fix is in.
Those September temps carried over and used for October is not an isolated insitdent. There have been many such problems with the IPCC background work and modeling.
On the Antartica story it’s the same thing. Bad data used to publish a falsely determined warming and your trusted peer review system proved again it is not reliable as skeptic blogging scientists found the errors.
But here we go with another chapter of excuse making fixes.
I don’t know why you let so much crap float by without any skeptisism. It’s amazing.
All told the collective problems amassing with the AGW theory and all it’s loyalists making countless baseless
claims waves a red flag of fastal flaws no one should be missing.
But your confidence remains high?
Nerd’s even worse.
His zombie-like adherance to AGW is as irrational as it gets. His ultra failure to recognize the scientific methods critiqing and finding flaws in AGW is extreme denialism.
Yet at the same time he can’t admit that the Hansen/Mann/AGW
regime has gathered, peer reviewed and published in a way that fails to maintain the reliability he peddles.
His repetetive knuckledhead calls for me personally to write and publish science papers is just silly.
And to publish in “Nature”? Hmmm.
That’s where the recent “errored” Antartica Warming
report was published.
The one where bad data lead to false “interpolated” warming” in Antarctica.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v457/n7228/full/7228356a.html
AFTER PEER REVIEW.
But Nerd is a real scientist who understands that peer review can make fiction into fact.
And if it’s AGW scary it’s paperworthy.
The tainted AGW evidence as undermined the very publications and science establishment Nerd champions.
Stevie, still wrong after all your rant. Get with the program. You have no evidence to convince those of us with scientific backgrounds here. We only look at the scientific journals. So why waste your efforts? You need to get perspective. Until you publish your data in a peer reviewed journal, it will not get looked at by us. So why are you not writing that paper? I keep hearing bawk, bawk, bawk. Until then, you are just another liar and bullshitter for psuedoscience posting on a blog and not a true scienist.
NoR, True Scientist, PhD.
Expert and icecore evidence that CO2 does not drive temperature.
It’s amazing that you alarmists can’t graps the most basic flaws in AGW science.
The evidence you keep requesting is the very ice core and other data used by the IPCC.
As displayed in this U-tube video.
Now you can play your make-believe that because it is on U-Tube it’s a fake video with fake data it’s the identical data used in your peer reviewed journals.
You’re like flat earthers standing on the shore watching ships return from the abyss of the horizon and you insist they they never went there.
And you refuse to take the short trip yourself because of your faith in the flat earth.
IMO that makes you pretty stupid.
And to think you have sceintific expertise as well?
Wow.
With Al do Respect, We’re doomed!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/28/AR2009012803318.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
and
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,485064,00.html
What this has come down to is a corrupted IPCC with it’s scientists and supporters working to prevent themselves from being accepted as wrong and those who they have been ridiculing as right.
They just can’t stomach the embarassment they have brought upon themselves.
Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception.
“I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only “reform” I could envisage, would be its abolition.”
Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception.
Steve H.:
So, other than self-acclaim, what official status does this “Panel” have?
Stevie the LIAR and BULLSHITTER. Write your paper. Or shut up. Any other choice is that of a man with no integrity. Just somebody who you turn away from or use for evidence that the other side is right. Show us your integrity and write that paper.
John, are you asking me what the IPCC is?
Steve, nah, I forgot to paste the hyperlink in.
Question stands: other than self-acclaim, what official status does this “Panel” have?
Steve H., see, is a skeptic…
Like all skeptics, he’s skeptical of his own claims. Checks ’em out, see?
So I’m sure he ran the following Google search:
“ipcc expert reviewers panel” -vincent -gray
… Right?
What? Stevie actually see what he says is what his citation says? Wow, a novel concept. Might keep him from getting caught with his pants down.
This is the IPCC link I forgot to paste above.
Well, I’m sure the Shadow Gummint (TM) just removed all that stuff, see… since it was embarrassin’, or sumpin’…
Or, alternatively, Gray’s a coal scientist who signed up to see a copy of the report to comment on it–like an awful lot of people could, actually (see JM’s link)–And then called himself a member of the IPCC “expert reviewers panel” in a press release… At which point the climate ‘skeptics’ ate it up and echoed that claim happily in a few hundred ‘skeptical’ posts…
Because they’re, y’know… so… umm… skeptical.
Either way.
Gasp, a denialist (versus a real skeptic like myself) deliberately lying to score some points for his side? Who would have thought that possible?
You guys got learn to be be careful and nice.
Nerd, from his high horse, this was a deliberate lie.
Lame Nerdie, really lame.
You could have easily googled Gray yourself and found that he was an IPCC reviewer for 18 years.
He has as much or more credentials than anyone you can point to.
But instead you took the AGW scientific approach and condemned the man as a lie.
This guy is realy smart.
Now why can’t we all just get along?
http://exileonthewing.wordpress.com/2008/03/29/challenging-the-ipcc/
“Only one individual has been a reviewer of all of the reports issued by the IPCC. Dr. Vincent R. Gray has had a long career in scientific research in the UK, France, Canada, New Zealand and China. He has published many scientific papers in professional journals, founded the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, and is author of the book The Greenhouse Delusion.
[-]
He shares the 2007 Nobel Prize that went to the IPCC. But in October 2007, after 17 years as an expert reviewer for the IPCC, he stated:
[-]
“I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only ‘reform’ I could envisage, would be its abolition….Yes, we have to face it. The whole process is a swindle, The IPCC from the beginning was given the license to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide ‘evidence’ that carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using peoples’ opinions instead of science to ‘prove’ their case…. The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable….Sooner or later all of us will come to realize that this organization, and the thinking behind it, is phony. Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens.”
More
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=312&Itemid=1
More
http://www.nrsp.com/people-vincent-gray.html
Dr. Vincent Gray, Expert Reviewer for the IPCC, Wellington, New Zealand.
Author – “The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001”
Dr. Vincent Gray is a New Zealand-based climate scientist and an official expert reviewer of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientific reports. Dr. Gray says, “The true opinion of the IPCC scientists is to be found in Chapter 1 of Climate Change 2001, page 97: “The fact that the global mean temperature has increased since the late 19th century and that other trends have been observed does not necessarily mean that an anthropogenic [human caused] effect on the climate has been identified. Climate has always varied on all time-scales, so the observed change may be natural.”
Dr. Gray has published 125 “Greenhouse Bulletins” and 103 “New Zealand Climate Truth Newsletters” (for recent ones click here) as well as being the author of “The Greenhouse Delusion”.
Dr. Gray has a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from Cambridge University, England and has had a long career as a research scientist in Britain, France, Canada, New Zealand and China. Dr. Gray has published over 100 scientific papers on energy and materials, plus a dozen in climate science.
Here are some recent items in the media by or about Dr. Gray:
* October 26, 2007: “IPCC too blinkered and corrupt to save,” by Lawrence Solomon, National Post, Toronto, Ontario, about Dr. Gray and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
* May 28, 2007: “IPCC process is unscientific and flawed, say other scientists”, three letters to the editor, from NRSP Allied Scientist Dr. Madhav Khandekar, Executive Director Tom Harris, and Dr. Gray, The Hill Times, Ottawa, Ontario.
You didn’t notice I linked to him?
Wow, I thought that was obvious.
Yeah, I googled him.
Oh I got distracted by my friend Nerd.
There is much Vincent as written.
Alarmists assassin Lambert doesn’t even come close to disparaging him enough to dismiss either his credentials or his critiquing of the IPCC.
That would be wishful thinking by IPCC supporters.
Vincent
For the past few weeks I have been immersed in commenting on the latest draft of the fourth IPCC “Climate 2008” report. As is usual on these occasions, I am allocated a secret username and password to access the website, and I may not download the Chapters until I have signed a sworn statement that I will not reveal the contents. Every page has “DO NOT CITE DO NOT QUOTE” on it. I have previously kept to this faithfully, but now…. the draft has now been made public, and apparently the Chairman, Dr Pachauri, was not informed. Who, exactly took the decision? It just shows you that the entire exercise is controlled by politicxians and not by scientists.
Anyway, it means I am released from my pledge and can tell you all about it.
There are 11 Chapters plus a Sunmmary for Policymakers and a Technical Report.
It is a piece of strident propaganda. The main conclusions are repeated over and over and over again They put “Questions” at the end of each Chapter which repeat everything yet again. As I disagree with much of what they say I just cut and paste my comments over and over again.
They make no bones about suppressing any information they do not like. The most important example is McKitrick and Michaels 2004 Climate Research Vol 26 pages 159-173 which shows that the surface temperature record is biased. A statistical study on station records and the total record between 1979 and 2000 shows a significant influence of population increase, fuek usage, prosperity, and even literacy. They also find a bias from “incomplete data” particularly that from Russia. It amazes me that they will Incorporate “annual avergae temperatures” when several months, usually the cold ones, are missing.
Their biggest difficulty they have is that temperature measurements in the lower troposphere, where global warming is supposed to happen, show no evidence of it,. The radiosondes (which I forwarded in Newsletter No 86,) show no temperature change between 1958 and 2004. The satellite measurements show no temperature change between 1979 and 1997,but is then followed by a large sharp peak in 1998 because of the El Niño ocean event of that year, and since 2001 has shown a modest warm spell..
They use strident and insulting language to denigrate and destroy the value of the radiosonde records. Yet they faithfully record all the “natural” climate changes ove the period, suich as volcanos and eEl Niño, so they cannot be far out All they do not show is “global warming”
What have they done? First there was a massive campaign to suggest that all the measurements needed interminable “corrections” , Neither of these records has been affected significantly by this campaign, but now they say that after the “corrections” both the lower troposphere measurements now agree with the surface record.,,,,,,,,,more at link
Steve H.:
You’ve reverted to assertion and blog-pimping (not that I expected a straight answer from you).
I see I need to clarify my question, to which you have yet to directly respond: other than self-acclaim or a blog opinion, what official status does this “UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel” have?
Hugh M.,
“And compared to observations, made by scientists, of past and present climate”
You are missing the results of the comparisons. Those are called diagnostic studies. It is these studies that show that the models are not yet ready for the task of attributing and projecting the small recent energy imbalance. Despite this poor performance, some modelers go ahead and run future GHG scenerios. These are called projections rather than forecasts, because the don’t have any source of external variability other than GHGs, so the only “natural” variability they have is internal. The models can’t meet forcasting standards, because they can’t prove their skill with actual predictive success. That would take at least a dozen or so decades of quality climate data, we only have 3 or 4 decades of quality data that unfortunately was weak on aerosols in the first couple of those decades.
AG, I see you’re following this thread; any comment on Steve H.’s claims?
John,
Come on buddy, you already know the answer to that.
But riddle me this.
How can alarmists tout “peer review” as necessary for anything sceintific then turn around and dismiss IPCC Peer Reviewers when they don’t like what they concluded?
Are the only qualified Peer Reviewers for the IPCC those who concur with AGW?
You are either claiming the IPCC Peer Review process is shody or you are claiming those who rejected AGW were not qualified. Sweet. Is that another scientific approach?
So that leads me to revisit Nerd’s obsession with Peer Review. Apparently if one selects the right “Peers” you’ll get the right “Review”?
I have another question.
Regarding this
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html
What good did Peer Review do when
“IPCC Observations chapter Lead Author Dr. Kevin Trenberth participated in a press conference warning that global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity”
when
“The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.”
An IPCC hurricane expert resigned in protest over this.
SH:
I wouldn’t ask you if I did. I can find nothing that is not self-referntial about them, other than opinion pieces by ideologues such as you.
Why the scare quotes? :)
Sigh. Peers, in this context, are others who are experts in the same field as someone.
A consensus is the overall judgement of a set of peers.
These are not complicated concepts, except in your own mind.
The Nerd (OM) is an actual scientist, he lives this stuff, and he knows better than I for that very reason (I don’t).
Still, I know there’re not such as “the right peers” – someone is either a peer or is not, so I know you have no point by implying otherwise (wrong peers! Heh).
Fine. How many did not?
This is of relevance, inasmuch as consensus amongst peers is that whereof we’re speaking.
Stevie still trying to spread his non-peer reviewed LIES. What else can we expect from an agendist with no integrity. Write your paper Steve. Your failure to even attempt on says all any sane person needs to know about your lack of scientific principals and integrity.
By the way, peer review is scientific experts in the field covered by the paper and are chosen by the editor for the journal. They are usually senior academics. They are usually anonymous, but the submitter sees their comments. I have been on both sides of peer review. I have recommend both acceptance and rejection of papers. The rejected papers did not follow the principles of science or lacked sufficient evidence for the claims. Steve, from what I have seen, any paper written by you would be rejected since the citations do not say what you claim. For example, on the carbon dioxide not being a green house gas. You either have to refer to someone who ran experiments disproving this, or run those experiments yourself. Just citing someone’s opinion, especially a non-scientist, will get the paper rejected. It took me two minutes to ideate through a series of experiments to prove/disprove carbon dioxide being a greenhouse gas. You can do the same. Then run the experiments and publish the results. Fame will go to you when publish the experimental details showing carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. But if the experiments show carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, you then need to shut up about it not being one. That is called honesty and integrity, which a scientist must have.
John,
I got on the thread kind of late, and could quite follow Steve H’s claims. The interchanges were like stepping into the middle of a jumble, so I looked for specific things I could address. I take it Steve H is wanting cites a lot non-peer reviewed sources, some of them not very credible. I think there are valid inferences that can be made from the peer review literature, that don’t have to be peer reviewed themselves to be credible, but they should be straight forward and easily understood. But I also think there are claims on the natural variation hypothesis side, that exceed the evidence and are as much in need of better models as the AGW hypothesis.
Steve H.,
What specific claims do you think can be supported, but are finding resistance here? I might be familiar with the state of the literature in the area, and can let you know whether I think the claim is supportable, just plausible, or contradicted by the evidence, or that I don’t know what might be the basis of the claims. — regards
Very true. Which was the point of the -vincent -gray search I remarked upon above… Funny thing. Not a lot of hits there, huh? And if you take out the exclusions, you actually just get the pile of credulous BS from the denialist echo chamber you’ve already noticed… and, of course, the Deltoid cite you found, which is rather more illuminating.
The point is: there is no such body as the ‘UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel’ (see the credulous nutter you’re responding to at 537, re ‘Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception.’)…
But it’s instructive how that claim appears to have arisen. You’ll note from the Deltoid link you posted that Gray’s own organization, the so-called ‘New Zealand Climate Science Coalition’ put out a press release in which they described Gray as ‘an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’… (and which, as Deltoid notes, really means nothing more than that Gray signed up to read the reports and comment on them)…
Then, in the ‘skeptical’ denialist blogosphere, this gets trumpeted and repeated a hundred times or so, played up until Gray is a leading climate scientist, shares in the IPCC’s Nobel, a member of this terribly official-sounding panel, so on…
What’s instructive here is how the exaggerations have been amplified over generations. You’re seeing the same process that occurs at the genesis of woo in general, including at the genesis of religions. Claims get passed down the standard telephone chain, and, being precisely the opposite of ‘skeptical’, many of those involved exaggerate a bit in the direction that supports their pet claim–the miracle was this big, our ‘expert’ is this credible, and those amplifications get passed on…
And what comes out the end is the pure BS your nutter has been trying to pass off here as significant.
He might have noted by now, of course, that the only place he’s finding these ‘citations’ is nutbar blogs and newspapers that reprint press releases without looking at ’em too close, but then, that’s what you get when you’ve got no conception of what real skepticism is.
John,
You asked me about reviewers after you linked to a site disparaging them with anyone can be a reviewer. So what do you want from me?
Your/alarmist contention remains to be that all skeptic reviewers are disqualified as either lacking credentials, lacking “climate” expertise or simply nuts.
Never mind that the qualifications of the right peers are no better.
Hansen’s own education is in astronomy not climate science.
But let’s move on.
There many experts in various fields of science who reject AGW. They are without question as qulaified as any still supporting IPCC.
Yet every time this comes up your camp dismisses them in various ways.
Obviously if one selects the right “Peers” you’ll get the right “Review”.
Sigh all you want. But stop pretending there are no skeptics who are experts in the same field as other IPCC members.
And there is much about the problems in the IPCC Vincent wrote about that you waltzed right by.
Save your consensus lecture.
That is not complicated.
You can deny your selecting right peers, those who agree, and wrong peers, those who disagree all you want but that’s exactly what the treatment of peers has been.
I agree “someone is either a peer or is not’ but unfortunately you and Nerd et al reject all who don’t agree.
Your only response to Trenberth misrepresenting the Hurricane-AGW connection is “How many did not?” resign?
Good grief, this is of relevance in as much as your consensus which rejects dissent, is violated by one of the central consensus makers
and set forth a global misperception about hurricanes and AGW. This makes the consensus unreliable at the very least.
Corrupt at worst. And this hurricane bullshit still rides the AGW propaganda train.
Nerd,
There’s plenty of peer review by skeptic experts. You choose to disparage or ignore them all.
That disqualifies you as a participant in any honest dialogue.
How is it that the Journal chosen peers are not discovering the erros that skeptic’s are.
And once again Nerd, I do not write papers and never claimed to write papers.
What you are doing is declaring that all skeptic scientist authors are rejected by you because they reject AGW.
That makes you a flack of a consensus substituting as valid science.
I never said carbon dioxide was not a green house gas.
I did however say CO2 does not drive temperature and you can’t provide any evidence that it does.
Why don’t you run an experiment to prove it yourself Mr. Scientist instead of the folly approach of insisting someone disprove it.
Which is the laugher in AGW. A totally unproven theory with many weaknesses and fatal flaws is propped up because no one has adequately disproven it.
I don’t think we anymore demands for disproving AGW.
You have nothing that shows anything more than CO2 being a trace greenhouse gas.
Historic high levels of atmospheric CO2 have all followed warming, not the other way around.
That isn’t opinion or skeptic sceince. It’s ice core data from the IPCC that Gore uses.
But your lofty self dodges such things.
You’d rather linger like a fool on experiments to show carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
That’s you brand of “honesty and integrity”.
Honesty and integrity? Is that what Trenbeth had when he misrepresented Hurricanes?
How about the many other contrived and baseless attributions to AGW coming from your scientists?
How is it that you ignore all mentions of them? You give your side a pass for bullshit don’t you.
Africangenesis
There is very credible science on the natural variation hypothesis side that refutes many primary components of the AGW hypothesis.
That’s the problem with advancing policies that seek to reduce CO2.
I have mentioned specific areas where the AGW falls flat and linked to thorough scientific demonstrations.
The big whopper is CO2 lagging warming by 100s of years throughout history as shown by ice core data.
Nerd et al reject ALL of them out of hand.
That’s the other problem.
No matter how severe the weakness of AGW is shown there is no recognition or adjustment.
Despite Nerd’s condescending commands this, AGW defending, is not good science.
AJ,
Are all skeptics ideologues?
That must make all AGH proponents chin rubbing, objective and wise experts.
“Very true”?
And there are no UN IPCC Expert Reviewers who are skeptics.
You site a “press release” by Gray’s organization that you don’t like?
Well suppose the IPCC does that and misrepresents their own reports? Trenbeth and Hurricanes.
Gray has been critiquing the AGW science for 17 or 18 years and you conveniently disregard his work entirely.
Yet his experience and expertise are real, true and established.
How about the IPCC Trenbeth/Hurricane farce. What has been “trumpeted and repeated’ more than this fallacy?
It is only the ‘skeptical’ denialist blogosphere” that recognizes this corrupting of science? Yes.
None of you have one word to say about it.
What, have you all bought into the bogus hurricane connection which contradicts IPCC reports?
crickets.,,,,,,,,
No you’d rather pick apart Gray.
What’s instructive here is how you ignore the many AGW fabrications and exaggerations that have been amplified over many years.
A huge list of observations have been falsely attributed to AGW. They get passed around the globe and become “evidence”.
There are no more standards at all.
Any professor can make any claim at all. Write a paper and away it goes.
It’s pure BS eagerly published around the globe and used as evidence.
Speculative claims of current ocean dead zones being caused by AGW got a new head of NOAA appointed.
Recent claims of accelerated NW forest die off attributed to AGW was widely reported at light speed.
So it goes with every imagined connection to AGW.
If it weren’t so serious it would be laughable.
Gee if only there were no nutbar blogs.
Nerd,
Show me any evidence that proves CO2 drives warming. I could tell yo to shut up till you do but that would be mean.
Let me explain this to you in very simple English. I’m assuming you have some familiarity with the language:
Your sentence here is what we call, in the real world, an ‘unattributed claim’. It has no provenance, no reliable source, no validity beyond your own desperate desire to cling to it. Having failed to document it, it stands, like most of everything you’ve said above, as little better than dogma.
Now, I’m not saying it’s completely false, either (just, perhaps, mostly). But as to that, note also that it also lacks qualifications…
Now by ‘qualifications’ in this case, I do not mean qualifications in the sense of Dr. Gray’s credentials, experiences, achievements, or lack thereof–though I note it also lacks those. What I mean is it lacks any sense of measure or proportion… See, real skeptics, and real scientiests, they deal in those. It’s bread and butter to that crowd.
See, what you could have written, if you truly had a skeptical or scientific (or merely honest) bone in your body, might have been, rather, something like: ‘You are correct: I have made an error–I appear to have been somewhat sloppy in stating Dr. Gray’s credentials. Yes, you are correct, the body I stated Dr. Gray belonged to does not exist as any sort of official organization. However, Mr. Gray is an established coal chemist who has published as recently as the late 80s, and is signed up to review the draft IPCC reports and has been doing so for some years, and thus does, at least, have these potentially legitimate credentials for consideration, and you could keep in mind that his organization, at least, calls him an expert reviewer…’
See, that much would be true, for what it’s worth. And properly qualified.
That you did not–and rather let loose with another rather comical volley of unsupported dogmatic assertions (besides attempting to deflect discussion to something–anything, I’d expect, would do for you now–else) speaks volumes as to your general process of ‘investigation’, such as it is, and that of your fellow so-called ‘skeptics’.
Well there’s another example.
All that focus on Gray’s credentials while not one word on anything else.
No No No.
Everyting else is a “comical volley of unsupported dogmatic assertions”.
That speaks volumes as to your general process of blind adherance.
The fact that all your read in my last post was on Vicnent Gray is the perfect demonstration of the deliberateness of your camp’s exclusionary and irrational approach.
If you spent a fraction of the time you did on Gray you’d discover the fallacies in AGW too.
Here’s a test.
Here’s a expert case, with icecore evidence, that CO2 does not drive temperature.
Steve H.,
You appear to be bringing up pop stuff that is easy to find. Dr. Gray is listed as a reviewer on the FAR:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-annexes.pdf
and an expert reviewer or author on the TAR, unless he wrote one of the papers they are considering, he is an expert reviewer, but one can be both:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/english/203.htm
He apparently is scientifically literate, and if he participated in good faith, he read the drafts and lots of supporting papers. If he has expressed an opinion, it might well be an informed opinion, but someone with an informed opinion should be able to explain and defend it, and that part of it is probably as important or more than the opinion itself.
I agree and the guy has written much. While comitting a lot of work to this issue.
My main point and the better focus here is the unjust disproportianate judgement and treatment of sceintists and their work.
AGW sceintists face no scrutiny by IPCC supporters while skeptics are condemned.
Within the Inhofe 650 skeptics are many climate and related experts who have perform extensive annalysis in their rejection of AGW.
Yet the Nerd et al, drum up some on that list who they can portray as illegitimate and then dismiss the entire list and all of it’s expert work.
But when the senior IPCC participant Trenberth misrepresents
IPCC reports it’s crickets.
Same goes for the science.
It’s all disproportianate treatment of the facts.
Nerd gets all caught up trying to drum beat the CO2 is greenhouse gas bit but applies no effort to addressing what CO2 clearly does not do,,,, drive warming.
He ignores the entire half of the debate that undermines the AGW theory. And he does so from a lofty perch passing judgement without study.
The many observsations which the IPCC loyals attribute to AGW (miniscule by they own guesstimate) should cause great concern for a genuine science oriented mind.
Not to be for the critics of skeptics.
They have turned on a green light for every cockamamie connection to AGW while at the same time blindly blocking every piece of refutation skeptic experts produce.
That is not science, it’s something insane.
Extraordinary really, in it’s ultra inconsistency and hypocricy.
That’s why I’ve concluded the AGW effort has become one to avoid being labeled as proven wrong, at all costs.
Hansen, Gore and company will sentence science and our populous to any detriment to avoid this.
All in the name of preserving both.
Madness IM laymen’s O
See, kiddo, we are rather at the point where I’m going to need something a bit better than YouTube video links before I’m going to take you seriously.
You seem terribly upset that I’m ‘focusing’ on your error in citing credentials (I’m not so much, by the way, focusing on the credentials themselves, particularly, as you’re claiming, but as you’re clearly more than a bit dim, I’m willing to correct you there, I guess…)
But see, the point I will make again is: by your actions and inactions in this case, you have made it very, very clear you are simply not credible. Nor honest. Nor competent. Nor reasonable. Nor really interested in getting anything right. Nor, for that matter, terribly bright…
Nor, honestly, someone anyone should be wasting much time on, really.
See, that’s the nature of skepticism, and that’s how I can tell you just don’t have it. Real skeptics are (a) precise with their information, and (b) properly concerned when they get it wrong, and (c) willing to acknowledge as much, rather than having the error undermine the rest of their argument. Which also means, and this is a good thing for them, that (d) they are able to learn from their mistakes.
You clearly cannot do this.
So: acknowledge the error, correct it, promise me you will not repeat it, and I might be willing to consider a peer-reviewed paper (which means ixnay on the YouTube videos… I can only take so much dumb in a day) you submit for my consideration…
Otherwise, no dice. This is just how it works, chum.
Oh, also, re:
Empirically wrong. Time spent determining how Gray got promoted by credulous nutters like yourself to the ‘UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel’ without, clearly, your having a clue what that meant: maybe an hour or an hour and a half at the outside, including drafting of replies to a certain tendentious, dishonest denialist in a popular web forum.
Against time spent reading actual climate science, presumably in the hundreds of hours, now… Tho’ I can’t claim to be an expert, by any means, at that point, of course.
But this is a common wingnut trope, of course. The folk who call ’em on their distortions are all underinformed sheep, natch, just following the party line, not clever, independent thinkers, like them… They’re the authorities, terribly well-informed, by dint of reading and then cut ‘n pasting other wingnuts’ BS, of course…
And it doth get a bit lame, after you’ve heard enough of it.
Steve H,
There are legitimate complaints about the hostile and demonizing atmosphere that scientists face who express doubts about the AGW hypothesis. Yes, almost all local and regional effects that are anecdotally attributed to AGW cannot be justified, and are questionable even when AGW is claimed as the cause in peer reviewed papers.
But CO2 has contributed to warming in the past and is contributing to this warming. That is what its direct effect is, and even if the net feedbacks turn out be negative, the net effect of CO2 will be towards warming, even if overwelmed by a cooling trend. The paleo showing that CO2 trails rises in temperature does not mean that CO2 did not contribute to the warming. Something else drove the warming and CO2 was a positive feedback to it. The main implication of the CO2 trailing studies, is that those CO2 levels and temperatures derived from proxies, cannot credibly be used to make a model independent estimate of the climate sensitivity to CO2. The models remain the crux of the issue.
“I’m going to need something a bit better than YouTube video links before I’m going to take you seriously.”
Of course you are that’s why the substance in the video is the point,
not U-tube,,,where, BTW your plenty of your AGW religion is parked.
By your focus on U-Tube versus the content it is you who by your actions and inactions have made it very, very clear you are simply not credible. Nor honest. Nor competent. Nor reasonable. Nor really interested in getting anything right.
How bright does one have to be to utilize a common technology, U-tube, to view another commonly used tool called a power point?
Would it matter if it were parked somewhere else?
I’m sure it is. So how about I treat your U-tube-aphobe
by finding the same thing somewhere else?
Oh bright one.
You other stunt here that seeks to use me as a substitute for the “Real skeptics”— scientists, is a convenient way for you to avoid their work.
Instead you want to challenge me, an observer of the skeptics work.
Those “Real Skeptics” who you avoid are (a) precise with their information, and (b) properly concerned when they get it wrong, and (c) willing to acknowledge as much, rather than having the error undermine the rest of their argument.
Which also means, and this is a good thing for them, that (d) they are able to learn from their mistakes.
Just as you avoid the power point on U-Tube you refuse to acknowledge the Real skeptics and their work.
So ixnay yourself for being a complete hypocrite and obfuscator.
Grays 18 years promoted his own work. Just as other IPCC you recognize have.
What’s more lame than your excuse riddled exclusionary approach?
With all of the material in the past 20 posts all you can do is blather on about Gray and Peer Review.
Heh. Sweet.
Dear, dear. My goodness, do you know what you just did?
You just acknowledged you are not a skeptic.
This is good, hon. We may even be able to pass on group therapy this week. Admitting you have a problem, that is the first step! So congratulations, and here’s your button…
Next step: basic literacy. And then, after that, admitting you are, in fact, a total sucker…
Hey now. Stop looking so shaky. No one said this was gonna be easy.
AG, I appreciate your response. I don’t share your opinion on this matter, but I feel comfortable classifying you as a skeptic, unlike SH, who I consider a denier, since I make it that you are disputing the significance of, rather than the existence of AGW.
Steve H.,
Actually, the focus is on your basis for determining the credibility of opinions. You made much of Dr Gray’s opinion @537 & @547, which you clearly considered authoritative based on his status as an expert reviewer and a physical chemist. AG linked to the list of such reviewers in #562, each of which has no lesser status as an expert reviewer than Dr Gray, and I dare say no lesser academic credentials. I do note Dr Gray is one of the few unaffiliated ones.
Now, can you show the approximate number of these reviewers or affiliated organisations that share Dr Gray’s opinion? Do, for instance, any other of the NZ reviewers share it?
I finally figured out what was bothering me about Steve’s recent posts. The Redhead and I have had heated discussions. Early on, she kept saying “I want to be heard”. I could repeat her arguments verbatim. She still felt she wasn’t heard, because she was defining being hear as me agreeing with her. I feel the same coming from Steve. He is not going to be validated until we agree with him.
News flash Steve, I, and probably we, won’t agree with you. We have heard you, but I (we) also hear the scientists working in the climate field. John and AJ (good work!) and others have shown you are careless with your citations. A real scientist would not get caught out like that. So at the end of the day, I have to believe scientists or Steve. Scientists are required to be rigorously honest in their work and writing. Steve is an avowed agendist who is not real honest. Not a hard decision to go with the scientists, even if the results are tentative and subject to change with more evidence. So Steve, if you want any chance of changing our minds, you need to go away for a few weeks and examine all your alleged evidence for accuracy. Staying in our faces by continued posts will just confirm you are being aggressive, not assertive.
Steve, keep in mind I am still suggesting that if you think you have real data, see that it gets submitted to a peer reviewed scientific journal. But, before you send out a manuscript, you will need to do a rigorous examination of your citations. I know, I’ve been there. That has been part of my constant prodding of you to publish, to get you to look closely at your citations.
What jibberish.
Of course I’m a skeptic, and beyond.
But I was talking about skeptic scientists.
Something I am not. Yet Nerd, for the 20th time addressing me as if I have claimed I am.
And of course none while you all choose to focus and misrepresewnt me not one word about the actual work of scientists.
Nerd,
You are delusional.
You’re more concerned about me, a non-sceintist than you are a real IPCC scientist Trenberth.
He pulled a whopper wiht his careless (dishonest) claims. But a real scientist would not get caught out like that.
Right?
No you’re not interested in anything faulty with the IPCC are you.
How about RealClimate’s Gavin Schmidt lying?
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5093#more-5093
But a real scientist would not get caught out like that?
There really is too much to relay to you now what is happening.
Allow me to pimp these again. Very interesting work that you won’t like one bit.
climateaudit.org
wattsupwiththat.com
icecap.us
Steve H. belatedly shows some honesty:
Because so doing has worked out so well for you, so far… :)
—
“The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” — (attributed to Albert Einstein)
“The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” — (attributed to Albert Einstein)
I knew Albert Einstein.He was a friend of mine. You’re no Einstein.
Aren’t your repeated dismissing of everything doing the same thing over and over again?
Coming up with not so clever ways to dismiss everything without so much as looking at them is not so clever.
At least I’m keeping up with the issue.
And there is a lot happening.
It matters not that a whole league of AGW crusaders ignore it.
As for your “Peer Review”?
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5093#comments
“It’s interesting that a statement (by Monaghan et al 2008 in the Peer Reviewed Literature) that Harry data was “suspicious after 1998″ did not prompt Steig, Mann or any of the other coauthors to assess the issue with Harry
Or drive Gavin Schmidt into a an paroxysm of interest in station data.”
Now Steig and Schmidt make assurances that their use of incorrect Harry data does not “matter”.
I wonder how common this circumstance has been? Where review suspicions were raised without any responding reconsideration on the way to publication?
How often did incorrect data “not matter”?
What good is “Peer Review” if incorrect data does not “matter”?
Steve, why are you continuing to post here? State you reason in two sentences, no more.
Nerd,
Why doesn’t the crumbling AGW crusade science matter to you?
State your reasons in as many sentences as you need.
When you’re done you can have it “Peer Reviewed” for a pretense of reliability. But be careful you don’t break your arm patting yourself on the back.
My my. It’s still posting, is it?
It’s like the energizer nutter or somethin’.
(But I like the ‘crusade’ irony, anyway. Them’s some decent laughs, at least.)
“it”?
Again, more of “clever” wanna be. But not so much.
The crusade ironly hardly works.
The only faith based mission is AGW.
And with blinders and ear plugs fully engaged at all times the AGW Crusade will be on the march for a little while longer.
Ya’ll are putting on quite the display to be recorded in history.
You’ll soon be experiencing not so pleasant feelings of embarassment and other discomfort.
In the end we can all be friends though.
But next time try and retain and apply a little curiosity, sketisim and objectivity before you go all Jonestown.
BTW, Nerd, since you are a scientist and I am not, (do you grasp that yet) can yo give me a link to some climate change paper you’ve authored and published in a peer reviewed Journal? How dare I, the it, ask such a thing?
… it says in its 59th comment…
And now you are the typo police!
I’ll be back late tonight. Have a nice day.
Now study climate so you can bring something.
(/Holds breath with anticipation…)
Steve, are you not wasting your time if we aren’t going to agree with you? Why must we agree with you? What ego problem do you have that requires that we agree with you?
Answer those three questions before you post more lies.
I literally LOLed at the response to your #578, AJ.
<whoosh!>
John Morales#568,
Actually, since I don’t just think AGW exists, but actually believe it is “signficant”, I am not even a skeptic according to a recent poll. I am in the 97%. I think it was a poorly constructed poll however, and its meaning is being deceitfully spun.
John,
That was funny, as meant.
Nerd,
Why does it take so much to get simple point through to you?
I mean look how long it took for you to simply grasp that I am not a scientist and have never suggested otherwise.
You just made that up. Over and over and over again.
Now for the umteenth time I don’t care if you don’t agree with “me”. It’s the science you’re ignoring as I drop it off here.
I am not on an “ego trip requiring you to agree with me.
When this gets to be 1000 comments it will be splendid historical record of the AGW crusaders who defended the
farce long after the red flags and fatal flaws became obvious.
You own the crusade and here will be a perfect record of your ownership.
Africangenesis,
What could possibly make you “think AGW exists, and it’s is “signficant”.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=02&fd=04&fy=1999&sm=02&sd=04&sy=2009
The Cryosphere Today
Compare Daily Sea Ice
Side by side polar ice cap comparisons
CO2 does not drive temperature, period.
CO2 is a trace greenhouse gas and man’s portion if a tiny fraction of that.
CO2 does not drive global temperature, so how is the minute amount of human CO2 doing it?
It aint.
This is a very good and short read.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/On_The_Hijacking_of_the_American_Meteorological_Society.pdf
On The Hijacking of the American Meteorological Society (AMS)
by Bill Gray
Professor Emeritus
Colorado State University
(AMS Fellow, Charney Award recipient, and over 50-year member)
Stevie, you aren’t getting it. I don’t care if you aren’t a scientist (I figured that out your second post), but if the data doesn’t come from a peer reviewed journal it probably isn’t scientific, which means it isn’t science. That is my point, and has been my point for weeks. Now, since you haven’t been and aren’t presenting science, why continue posting? Other than you must make us see things your way. That is an aggressive attitude. You have had your say, and we don’t agree. If you are merely assertive, your next move is to retire.
OH BS Nerd,
You repeatedly insisted “I” publish. Over and over again you straw manned by responding to all that I brought as if it were my work.
That made it easier for yo to ignore.
And here again you degree that no science exists outside of the current establishment peer review institutions.
That is of course ludicrous. But you did say probably doesn’t exist so you’re learning.
And the Peer Review-Science Journal process you tout is not infallible as evidenced by many examples you also pretend do not exist.
Or probably don’t exist.
BUT YOU WOULDN’T KNOW,,, you don’t follow any of it.
In this era of computers, Internet, web sites and data sharing it is ridiculous for you to claim science is not being conducted outside of your prescribed arena of old.
You’re simply fooling yourself or lying.
I don;t think the Peer Review/Science Journals are obsolete. Far from it, so don’t put more words in my mouth.
However there are many things in various fields related to climate science, about AGW, interacting around the globe outside of that arena.
In many cases because there has been resistance, obstruction and refusal of inclusion and submissions.
Just as there are a number of former IPCC scientists who now get their views desparaged because they reject AGW,
scientists with expertise who reject AGW, and you reject all of them.
Ok so now you can quit telling “me” to publish. You can stop drum beating about Peer Review and Journals.
I got that all of that before your first post.
Now, since you haven’t been reading any of the material I have dropped of here you are not qualified to state whether or not it is science.
So why don’t you shut up and go away.
I’ll be here till at least the 1000.
I’ll continue posting because it is likely the most interesting issue out there and the work being performed by the experts is very interesting.
If you followed it like many of your engaging peers do then you would realize it.
Most of them are also aggressive and/or assertive. So what.
It’s an energized issue and debate.
One where you are sitting on some high horse out of sight and ear shot.
Seems you’re the one who needs to retire.
SH bot addresses Nerd of Redhead, OM:
Paradigmatic hypocrisy from a denialist pipsqueak.
Regarding experts and their work, remember this question? Now, can you show the approximate number of these reviewers or affiliated organisations that share Dr Gray’s opinion? Do, for instance, any other of the NZ reviewers share it?
You’re tolerated because you’re kinda funny, and I guess you put in a few pennies in PZ’s bank account, so you’re not entirely useless.
Oh yeah,
And that’s pure pathos right there – funny, but in a rather sad way. Were I a nicer person, I’d pity you.
Anyway, carry on.
Stevie, liar and bullshitter, Go away, you have nothing to say to us, and you know it. We know the difference between sciencey and real science, so you are unable to fool us. You are full of truthiness, not truthfulness.
“You’re tolerated because you’re kinda funny”
Well how tolerant of you.
It’s ok, you can pity me too.
You shoudn’t have to ask me if other NZ reviewers argree. It’s there in the wide open space of the google.
Nerd,
You’re not even funny.
It is not me who is attempting to fool you. It is the real sceince that seeks to unfool you from the grasp of the AGW crusade.
Now go do some homework.
icecap.us
SH:
1. You misunderstand me. PZ is the tolerant one.
2. Nah. You chose (and choose) to be pitiable, and I’ve little sympathy for such.
3. No, I don’t have to. Just showing how you can’t bring yourself to admit the truth.
4. Yes, it is.
Wow, you are a real specimen. You’re trying to patronise a real scientist about “real sceince”? Heh.
I admit, it’s a beauty of a sentence and gives insight into your mind – reification, anthropormisation, neologism, conspiracy theory, mixed metaphor and careless spelling in a single sentence that tries to express a simple idea. Just… Wow!
Stevie, why should I believe you compared to a reputable scientist? You have no good answer to this, except I don’t agree with your sciencey (versus scientific) evidence. You have had your say, and it is time to retire. If you don’t, you are not a rational person, but one with an ego problem. Take the ego elsewhere, It impresses no one here. From this point on, I will be only responding to the as any evidence you present is tainted due to your past lies.
John,
Here’s a simple idea.
CO2 does not drive temperature.
You can use “mind – reification, anthropormisation, neologism, conspiracy theory, mixed metaphor, careless spelling” or any other excuse for not grasping something so simple.
But that makes you foolish.
Nerd of Wronghead,
I wish you could get somethin right. Anything.
But here again you ask “why should I believe you” when I never suggested you do so.
Why would I? I am not a scientist and have not provided any work of mine.
So why do you keep asking your dopy questions?
This isn’t about “me” versus the IPCC you idiot.
I’ve wanted to know why you ignore all of the expert skeptic’s work by denying they exist and beating the peer review drum.
That’s foolish.
Yet you answer your own dopey question with a dopey answer.
You’re having a conversation with yourelf.
This isn’t you not agreeing with my science.
It’s you pretending there is only the science you agree with.
That makes you irrational.
I have zero ego problem so you have that wrong as well.
You haven’t even looked at any of the evidence you’re not qualified to respond anyway.
From what I’ve seen you have much catching up to do.
Start here and tell one scientific thing that is wrong.
Steve, here’s a simple idea. You have no hard evidence. That makes you unreliable. In otherwords, a liar and bullshitter. Time to go home. You have no need to post here. You failed due to the unreliability of your evidence.
Steve H.:
It’s one thing to use PZ’s blog to express one’s opinion (and you’ve abused that privilege by repeating yourself ad-nauseam), and another to abuse it.
In particular, I consider your frequent “argument ad link” to be pathetic, and that you use the imperative* annoys me enough not to click. You should link to support your claims, not to make your claims.
What you don’t get is that I’ll respond to your claims, not the claims or opinions of others, in regard to your posts.
Here’s a simple idea. Don’t pimp, don’t link.
Tell me, in your own words, why CO2 does not drive temperature.
In your own words, clearly as you can.
Set forth your thesis. Data can wait.
Should you be capable of doing that, then I’ll respond to it in kind, and perhaps even others will.
It’s the best offer you’re gonna get, if you want real engagement.
—
* Yes, imperative and not very polite.
In order to know to what you refer, I should go click on a Youtube link and waste bandwidth? Bah, easy choice.
PS cut’n pasting is basically the same as linking. No.
John
“Tell me, in your own words, why CO2 does not drive temperature.”In your own words, clearly as you can.
Set forth your thesis. Data can wait.”
?????
Games play you do..
Tell me what is the sense in me conveying in my own novice way what is already available before your eyes? It has been prepared and power pointed in video, by experts, for ease of delivery and understanding.
A task simple this is.
Now lets’ stop the excuse making and horsing around pal.
Just climb off your high friggin horse, go watch the video and then ask yourself what the hell has been your problem with such an easy thing?
The video, one of countless demonstrations of the fatally flawed AGW, is a consice, data based, perfectly easy to understand presentation of the core problems with the IPCC case.
Now either you are lying and have already viewed it and have no response or you are too irrational to watch it.
Perhaps it is your egos which obstruct you?
You’re being ridiculous.
I mean suppose I had my own video and my own research and my own presentation.
Would you go to a link where I parked my video?
Either you would, which would make your objection to the expert one dumb,,, or
you would refuse to go view mine because I am not an approved peer reviewed scientist?
No where in the ice core samples is there an historical record where CO2 increases resulted in temperature increases. No where. Got that?
It should be disturbing for you true believers.
Are you more disturbed about wasting bandwidth?
Or making Nerd mad at you for watching it?
Just imagine his scientific response to you when you come back here with a query of two for him?
Nerd, “John, you are a bullshitter who lies, shut up and go away.”
Steve appears to be quite a bit like Facilis the Fallacious Fool. Parrots and links, but can’t think for himself. That would explain the repeats of refuted links which no self-respecting scientist would have done. And made him look very unreliable.
Stevie, evansions. It is not up to us to tell you what is wrong. It is up to you to demonstrate you are right. Massive failure. Welcome to science. The burden of proof is upon you. Either take up the gauge or run away like a coward.
Steve, this is how you lay out a scientific argument. The general attitude is you are wrong until you prove yourself right. The argument follows that of a mathematical proof to and extent. Lay out your presumptions. Then logical go through to your conclusion, showing physical evidence as required to back up your argument. The links back up your argument, they are not your arguments. Physical evidence is not found in a U-tube video, but rather in a citation to the primary peer reviewed scientific literature where the evidence can be found. If new research, this can be new measurements you have made during the course of the work. That is what is required of you.
John, sorry if I stepped on your toes. Steve needs to learn how to deal with scientists. We aren’t like the general public.
No worries Nerd.
Real specimen here.
Even the padded clue-bat doesn’t get its attention.
No sense, no feeling, I guess.
Nerd,
Here you are yet again treating me like I am a scientist and that that my failure to provide my own data and work is of some significance.
Ridiculous.
Is this how I am to learn how to deal with the likes of you?
How can someone who professes to be so learned and scientific be such an idiot?
My study of real expert’s work somehow means I can;t think for myself?
How’s that?
Refuted links? Yeah, sure you just can’t provide any of the refutation.
Oh yeah that’s right the burden of proof is on the skeptics?
Again you find excuses to avoid the contradictory science.
“No self-respecting scientist would have done.”
What’s that, compile a power point presentation of their data based work?
How asinine of you.
The fact that any presentation ends up on U-Tube is meaningless.
Links, videos and all sorts of AGW science can be found throughout the Internet and U-Tube.
So your repeated condemnation of all skeptic’s work on the Internet is nonsense.
It is not up to me to demonstrate that “I” am right. Besides you don’t accept anything that demonstrates it anyway.
You’ve ruled out everything. According to your hair brained approach there are no valid expert skeptics, no contradictory science, no flaws in AGW and no debate.
Your ignorance is stunning.
I wonder how it is you never applied you standards of proof to the IPCC?
The burden of proof is clearly upon them.
But while you play your games with me, (“take up the gauge or run away like a coward”) the expert skeptic’s work continues without you pretending that it does not.
You’re in your own little world that seeks to address me as an excuse for ignoring the scientific community.
Yes Nerd, the many scientific experts studying AGW around the globe know how to lay out a scientific argument. Their work is extensive.
They don’t need your little lessons.
But you should send your kindergarten lesson to Hansen, Mann et al and remind them of your mathematical proof and the idea showing physical evidence.
They seemed to have forgotten that part.
Physical evidence can found in a U-tube video. Or in a book or anywhere else. What the hell are you talking about?
If a presentation in any format includes references to and displays various measurements such as ice core samples that’s evidence.
Unless your demand to see the ice yourself?
Really Nerd you whole approach is crafted to disqualify everything offered from any scientist not in your peer reviewed journal it’s laughable.
You’ve extended your irrational obsession with the peer review establishment to exclude all written or graphed evidence found anywhere else.
I think you’ve made your point.
Never mind that evidence in primary peer reviewed scientific literature can and has been shown to be wrong.
Scrutinizing of peer reviewed/published work as revealed many problems not detected by peer review.
But you don’t follow it.
The many problems with the recent paper on Antarctica warming make this clear.
Nerd it is you who needs to learn how to deal with scientists. Primarily by paying attention to what is going on. I am not a scientist and I don;t deal with scientists. But there are plenty who are and do. Despite your convenient fantasies that they don’t exist.
You’re definitely not like the general public, or anything resembling an authentic scientist.
If you were an honest scientist interested in the topic of AGW you would follow it honestly. You do not.
That makes you unqualifed to contribute.
But let’s see how Scientist Nerd devours reality,,,, ready Nerd? This is not “me” now, so get a grip.
For the latest, here is what is happening within the AGW scientific community.
It all started at http://www.climateaudit.org/
Antartica waming?
Which led to this Michael Mann piece,,,at “google news” —— you may want to disregard for it’s internet link location????
http://news.google.com/news?btcid=8fffb63511dd67ae
And the Lawrence Solomon response here:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/02/06/mann-s-conclusions-not-to-be-believed.aspx
Mann’s conclusions not to be believed
Mann-made science does not support the hypothesis that global warming is man-made
By Lawrence Solomon
A good scientist, like a good journalist, checks his facts, if for no other reason than to spare himself embarrassment and to immunize himself from charges that he’s casual with the truth, lazy or just plain dishonest. Michael Mann has not checked his facts.
Mann’s article has two main thrusts. First, he attempts to discredit me and others who have criticized his work. Then, he attempts to defend his reputation by claims that distinguished authorities, especially the National Academy of Sciences, have endorsed his hockey stick graph. His graph is an icon in the global warming debate: It convinced the press and the public that 1998 was the hottest year of the hottest decade of the hottest century of the last 1,000 years, creating the belief that Earth was changing dangerously for the worse.Let me deal in chronological order with Mann’s attempts to discredit those he perceives to be his critics.
More:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/02/06/mann-s-conclusions-not-to-be-believed.aspx
John,
Nerd has a default that deletes all dissent but you and others may be interested in this excerpt.
“””When Mann cites the support of the National Academy of Sciences, he is not referring to Wegman’s findings but those of another NAS panel, this one headed by another top statistician, Gerald North. The so-called “support” that the NAS panel provided to Mann would mortify many in Mann’s position.
The NAS did find some of Mann’s work “plausible” — that’s the closest that it comes to actually supporting Mann’s findings — but then it immediately states there are so many scientific uncertainties attached to Mann’s work that it doesn’t have great confidence in it. The committee then proceeds to further downgrade its view of Mann’s work: “Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.’ ”
In short, Mann’s main conclusions are not to be believed.”””
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/02/06/mann-s-conclusions-not-to-be-believed.aspx
Stevie, nice screed with nothing of substance. Until you get scientific in your approach you have nothing. You essentially have admitted you have nothing. So why continue to post when you have nothing of substance to offer? At this point you are being overly aggressive, essentially saying that we must agree with you, or you will stay in our faces. Is this the case? Be honest! Otherwise, you just need to fade into the bandwidth.
and this
“””Why not? Because “Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions” and because he downplayed the “uncertainties of the published reconstructions.” And, the NAS added, because of what Mann did not do — he did not let others examine his data for accuracy and he did not reveal his analytic methods. For this, the NAS rightly chastised Mann: “Our view is that all research benefits from full and open access to published data-sets and that a clear explanation of analytical methods is mandatory. Peers should have access to the information needed to reproduce published results, so that increased confidence in the outcome of the study can be generated inside and outside the scientific community.”
Conclusion about the hockey stick graph: Mann-made science does not support the hypothesis that global warming is man-made.
Conclusion about the new study on Antarctica: The verdict is not yet in, although since the time of writing last week, the prospects for Mann et al. have gone from bad to worse. An embarrassing data error has come to light with the study, charges of unethical behaviour involving Mann’s supporters now appear all over the blogosphere, Mann’s Web site, RealClimate.org, has acknowledged behaviour that many scientists consider unethical, and terms such as “slander” and “abuse” are flying around, along with demands for an apology.
The global warming debate is heating up, even if Earth is not.”””””
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/02/06/mann-s-conclusions-not-to-be-believed.aspx
Stevie, you have nothing to offer. Get out of our faces. Fade into the bandwidth. What is stopping you other than your misplaced ego?
Here’s some advice for you Nerd.
“””By Lawrence Solomon
A good scientist, like a good journalist, checks his facts, if for no other reason than to spare himself embarrassment and to immunize himself from charges that he’s casual with the truth, lazy or just plain dishonest. Michael Mann has not checked his facts.”””
Now stop hiding behind your gutless crusade.
You’re afraid that by the time this thread reaches 1000 you’ll be thorougly shown to be an embarassed baffoon just like Mann.
Just as I predicted way up thread.
However your friends here will enjoy reading the latest on AGW. They have open minds, curiosity and integrity.
Here’s some advice to you Stevie the arrogant toad. Go home. Stay home. You didn’t win. Bye-Bye!
I have no arrogance, you’re wrong about that too.
Word of Mann’s latest scientific folly circles the globe.
“As Mark Twain might have put it, there are three kinds of lies — lies, damned lies and global warming science.”
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3332616/that-famous-consensus.thtml
excerpt,,,,
“MANN cites as evidence of this that his ‘hockey stick’ study was vindicated in a report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences
and seeks to back up this assertion by citing the way the media reported this study as
‘Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate’ (New York Times), ‘Backing for Hockey Stick Graph’ (BBC), and so on.
This is, to put it mildly, disingenuous. While it is certainly true that the media reported it in this sheep-like way — thanks in part to the manner in which the NAS chose circumspectly to spin its own conclusions — it is nevertheless the case that in every important particular the NAS actually agreed with the McIntyre/McKitrick criticisms. Far from vindicating the ‘hockey stick’ graph, the NAS said that although it found some of Mann’s work ‘plausible’, there were so many scientific uncertainties attached to it that it did not have great confidence in it.
Thus it said that Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions
and that they had downplayed the uncertainties of the published reconstructions…Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that ‘the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium.’
What Mann also does not say in his [latest] diatribe is that a subsequent House Energy and Commerce Committee report chaired by Edward Wegman totally destroyed the credibility of the ‘hockey stick’ study and devastatingly ripped apart Mann’s methodology as ‘bad mathematics’. Furthermore, when Gerald North, the chairman of the NAS panel — which Mann claims ‘vindicated him’ – and panel member Peter Bloomfield were asked at the House Committee hearings whether or not they agreed with Wegman’s harsh criticisms, they said they did:
CHAIRMAN BARTON. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?
DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report.
DR. BLOOMFIELD. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his co-workers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.
WALLACE: ‘the two reports were complementary, and to the extent that they overlapped, the conclusions were quite consistent.’ (Am Stat Assoc.)
As Mark Twain might have put it, there are three kinds of lies — lies, damned lies and global warming science”.
SH:
Irony, just not the intentional kind.
arrogance
1. The act or habit of arrogating, or making undue claims in an overbearing manner;
You see that’s Hansen, Mann and the IPCC.
Well Nerd too.
You just can’t recognize it.
Perhaps you’ll eventually recognize the quackery.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/05/fear-and-loathing-for-california/
Fear and Loathing For California
5 02 2009
Guest post by Steven Goddard
“On the same day when President Obama and Prime Minister Brown separately warned of imminent economic catastrophe, the new US Energy Secretary Dr. Steven Chu issued a different catastrophe warning. The LA Times quoted him saying ““I don’t think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen,” he said. “We’re looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California.” And, he added, “I don’t actually see how they can keep their cities going” either.“
This is a terrifying warning of drought, coming from a cabinet level official whom the LA Times describes as “not a climate scientist.” And perhaps a little surprising, since it was only two winters ago when the “world’s leading climate scientist” Dr. James Hansen, forecast a “Super El Niño” with severe flooding for California. Dr. Hansen has also warned of a return to wet El Niño conditions during the current year or so.”
Steve H., a non-scientist lecturing scientists on what constitutes good science is an arrogation.
Thinking you personally can evaluate the quality of the research of professional climate scientists as inferior and the basis for their opinions as wrong is an arrogation.
Continuing to post your links and your pastes to our displeasure out of pointless stubbornness is only bad manners and insipidity.
Thinking that anyone cares about your opinions, well, that’s straight-out stupidity.
StevIe H, the cyberstalker,
Let me mention a few facts
1 We are under no obligation in any form to actually read your posts.
2 We are under no obligation to have to respond in substance to your posts.
3 Your continued posts are acts of aggression.
4 Your only reason for posting is an ego problem in that we don’t agree with you.
5 You need to find profession help to allow you, like a gentleman, to fade into the bandwidth.
6 A Pharyngulite will get in the last word.
Bye-Bye Steve. Enjoy your life elsewhere.
You guys are a hoot.
John,
I am not lecturing you at all. I’m simply a messenger providing that which you ignore. That’s doesn’t make me what you imagine. You’re using me as an excuse for not keeping up on the issue.
But you’re no judge of what is good AGW science since you are not a climate scientist and you do not follow the issue.
Quite the contrary, you’re opposed to following it.
Any lay person can see that is a less than scientific approach. It’sw exclusionary and suppressive.
However those who are scientists are, essentially, lecturing you and everyone else as they review AGW and expose it’s illegitimacy.
You’re striving to address me instead of the issue is silly.
“arrogation”?
Reading the work of experts and sharing it is not an arrogation?
Quit grasping at silly straws.
I’m not trying to or could I adjust the quality of the research. The research speaks for itself. I’m simply passing it on.
But then again, you aren’t following it so how would you know?
Your continued objection to having current events dropped off here is your problem. As well as is your displeasure.
I suspect your displeasure grows from yor realization that this topic you have greatly misperceived.
Having climbed on board the AGW train, for along ride, you can’t see anyway to get off without being embarassed.
The tremendous work by many climate experts has nearly completed the deconstruction of the AGW theory.
Institutions such as the NAS has discredited AGW authors such as Michael Mann.
I never thought anyone here cared about my opinions.
However I did think you would find the evolving scientific work interesting and instructive.
But apparently you’re too smart to be interested and come up with silly reasons to avoid exposure to the global discussion.
Silly like Nerd’s “cyberstalker” bit.
His facts?
They’re nothing but obvious jibberish mascarading as points needing made. They aren’t.
No kidding you’re not obligated to read or respond to anything.
But casting my entires as an arrogant, cyberstalking, aggressive ego attack?
Perhaps my reason for posting is similar to telling a neighbor their house is on fire while they stand there and letting it burn.
So I am curious and persistent.
I find this AGW phenomenom amazing.
I mean here you guys are, self proclaimed science folks,and you’re having grand mal seizures over being shown some sceintific reports on one of the most widespread and significant scientific discussions in history.
You don’t agree with me? Well, No shit.
But your disagreement is with the firemen battling your house fire as you pretend their is no blaze and I’m the problem.
If a Pharyngulite get’s in the last word that will be swell.
But it will be # 1001 and you will be shown your pile of ashes where you house once stood.
Here’s a climate scientist who is lecturing you.
–climate scientist Prof Christopher de Freitas, of Auckland.
http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3774
Quote of the day: “Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation. People are being misled by people making money out of this.”
– climate scientist Prof Christopher de Freitas, of Auckland.
Steve, Why you are stalking this thread? You won’t win in the sense that we will agree with you. That won’t happen. You and your alleged evidence are just too stupid and unscientific.
Now any salesman will tell you when you have lost the sale, which is what you doing (selling an idea), time to find a new prospect. Since all your sales are dead here, you need to find that new prospect.
Bye-Bye Steve.
People amaze me. I was weeks late to this thread, killfiled the borderline-illiterate Steve back around comment 500, and here you-all are still chipping away. Fascinating.
You can keep making this about me so you can remain comfortable with your conformist adherance to and subjective intuiting on AGW.
But as you do so this historical chapter (dance) evolves while you hang out in the back of the room chanting that you’re hate dancing experts who hate dancing.
Or something like that.
And BTW, cheer up.
This sounds like a reasonable guy.
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/04/18/a-time-to-deny/
Steve, NO SALE. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Is Steve H. still trying to sell his “AGW is wrong, if you didn’t love Gore you’d know that” bushwah?
Nerd, just let it go. Let Steve have the last word. He can brag about it to his denialist buddies. Let him salvage something from this debacle.
Steve H.,
In addition to your total ignorance about how science is done and why, you’re barely semi-literate. Why the fuck would you expect anyone to take your stupidity seriously?
PZ, If you watching maybe either Steve H. needs to be plonked, or the thread closed. Steve appears to have some problems with people not agreeing with him. He just can’t allow that. Otherwise he would quit posting. I’m perfectly willing to have him keep his inane ideas, but they need to be somewhere else.
Still NO SALE Steve. Make sure the door is closed on your way out.
I think you’re right. I’m not going to plonk him just yet, but his obsessive behavior is edging him close to the dungeon door. This thread has gone awfully stale, though, so it is now closed.