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!
People keep bringing this up like its some kind of serious competition.
The other contestants for win are a bit dubious to say the least,so I was thinking this might be one poll we dont actually want to crash.
Thats leaving aside the fact that its bad style to vote for yourself LOL,or have your minions vote for you..:-)
Polls close Tuesday January 13, 2009 at 10:00 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), which is 5:00 p.m. (EST) and 2:00 p.m. (PST).
# Vote totals are not final until certified.
# Vote totals are subject to periodic correction for identified cheating.
# Cheaters will be banned from accessing the site for the duration of the voting.
# In the event of identified cheating, the decisions of the judges as to the manner of correction is final.
Well I’ve voted for Pharyngula but looking at the competition don’t know if you really want to associate with that crowd.
How would anyone get any votes then… :-)
I’ve been tossing a vote your way when I think about it and the poll lets me. But Watt’s Up has been running at 50% more votes than Pharyngula every time I vote/look.
Dr. Steven Novella’s blog is up for vote here:
Science based medicine.
http://medgadget.com/2008bestnewmedical.html
You’re up against the Bad Astronomy blog, though. Is that really such poor competition?
Now that’s a blog worth voting for.
There is no way WUwT has more readers than Pharyngula AND BA combined. I await the “adjustment” on their over 9500 votes for that ridiculous site. (I read their top article today concerning GW and the El Nino effect and am left with the impression that straws of the most meager substantiality are being grasped)
JC
You certainly got my vote. I agree that it would be nice if you were competing against more legit science blogs, but here’s hoping you win regardless.
Thats leaving aside the fact that its bad style to vote for yourself LOL,or have your minions vote for you..:-)
But the whole point is to see who has the most minions! Or the most minions loyal enough to remember to vote every day, at least.
I voted for Bad Astronomy this time, I’ve just finished Death From The Skies, and I’m halfway through “Bad Astronomy, and I have to say they are some pretty damn cool books, Plus the blog has some really neat information and explanations of recent astronomy events. If PZ gets a book out, I’ll vote Pharyngula next year :)
So what’s up with Watt’s up with that? Is it just a climate change denialist website? Info please.
And while you’re there, please vote for the best comic, Jesus and Mo. http://www.jesusandmo.net/
AnthonyK – I read a few of their posts – and simply cannot read more. I have to presume they are “officially” a Warming Denial site – as the two I read offered up vague explanations (oh, plenty of graphs and data to back up their explanations) of why things were going one way or the other – none of them appeared grounded in any sense of reality.
They are rather obviously playing to a crowd not necessarily in possession of the strongest faculties.
One article “Explained” GW through the El Nino effect (and left one to wonder where the driving heat from this effect arises), another noted an error in the CO2 record from Hawaii for last month – and thereby drew “doubt” to all the data. There was no mention that the anticipated low point in CO2 was still higher than any year prior – or that it just might have anything to do with any reason other than “poor recording”.
As a purported science site, I am less than impressed with WUwT.
Go have a read for yourself and see what you think. It helps to have some knowledge of the background data though – since Science is about the acts of discovery, not the act of the pulling of the wool. I am not a Climate Scientist myself, but I have spent some years reviewing, peripherally, some of the data.
JC
It would appear the wingnuts are intent on crashing as many of the awards as possible this year. I don’t frequent wingnut sites but my guess is there is a campaign going for the climate denialists, etc. Andrew Sullivan is running away with Best Blog. That tells you something right there.
The site isn’t even loading for me.
I’ve been voting for Pharyngula each day, but in all honesty I didn’t see it entirely as voting for you, but as voting for you…+ us.
:)
I, too, have been suspicious that there’s a coordinated campaign by the AGW deniers, which would make it even sweeter to win legitimately (it could still happen!).
SC, #18: That could be plausible – the current top spots for European and for Aussie/NZ best blogs are both AGW deniers. The UK one is a general right-wing nutcase; while she’s an AGW denier too (as well as a creationist, that’s not the main thing she’s known for.
The site loaded for me, but it took a few minutes. Literally.
The whole idea that anyone is cheating comes from certain groups that are losing- they don’t seem to get that one might be asking others they know personally to vote for certain blogs or that some popular blogs are asking their readers to vote a certain way. In a number of categories, I wonder how the blogs were selected since they don’t seem to fit into categories but then that is the nature of these awards.
Yeah. Voting? I find all my blogs by referral from interesting bloggers. It may make my reading somewhat narrow, but in a choice between narrow and stupid, I’ll take narrow.
In Middle East or Africa blogs, Chris Blattman has been doing a stellar job for a long time. Juan Cole I will check out.
wow… actually took the time to read the drivel posted on the one in the lead… people actually buy that? The first AGW post talked about the loss of polar sea ice as a negative feedback loop for warming, completely ignoring the effect of albedo (or rather misrepresenting the importance of angle of incidence as opposed to the amount of incoming solar radiation in measuring albedo).
Being a lurker at a number of blogs including Real Climate, Watts up With That and this one, I now see that due to your complete lack of civility and class you don’t stand a chance of receiving the nod for best science blog. It’s too bad…. maybe you should spend more time on the “science” part or spend some time on those “truly awful” blogs, you may learn something.
JayGeils
For anyone curious, JayGeils illustrates what is perhaps Watts’ other defining mark: Acting gentlemanly and then accusing anyone who contests his position of ad-hominem attacks while claiming the moral high ground (i.e. “Why is it that my opponents cannot be civil?”). He’ll do this for days before he’ll admit he might have been wrong, even when he does something as mind-numbingly stupid as correlating time with time and saying it’s signficant.
Between that and terrible analysis (Search for “Anthony”, Watts’ first name, on Open Mind and despair), you’ve got WUWT in a nutshell.
Watt’s Up is 2000 votes ahead of us. I suspect cheating on the other end. *snort*
Gosh, Andrea – you’re right. That never occurred to me.
In fact, my suspicions arise due to watching the devious antics of these industries and their slimeball think tanks for the past several years. A coordinated campaign of that nature would be completely expected (perhaps you never checked out SourceWatch…). Also, does anyone have traffic stats for this ridiculous blog? Does it have a level of regular readership that would be expected to translate to this number of votes? Is there a larger blog that’s pushing it?
Too…many…stupid…JayGeils…puns…
Must…resist…
I visit both Pharyngula and WUWT almost daily. Both are interesting science oriented blogs. Pharyngula is more a cult of personality sounding board for angry atheists (which includes me) than anything else.
WUWT is a straight forward climate data site hosted by Anthony Watts, a veteran meteorologist who is openly skeptical of AGW. Hardly an “unscientific” website. You may not like his view of the science but he presents scientific data and allows discussion without resorting to the kind of ad hominem flourish that is so characteristic of this site (which I must admit a I rather enjoy).
Climate Audit, last year’s co-winner of the award, is a dry but hard-core science site dedicated to statistical issues in the mainstream AGW literature.
The strong opinions expressed here against WUWT and ClimateAudit are more an indictment of the partiality of the commenters than any deficiency of the blogs or their authors.
I’m sure some of PZ’s minions will now get out the long knives, and perhaps the Grand A-Hole himself will smite me if I am lucky, but the truth is Watt’s Up With That is just as worthy or more so of the award as Pharyngula.
Not that these awards mean anything to actual human beings or the world in which they live.
Looking through the comments here, I see little discussion of science. Mainly angry words and paranoia. Do you think it is intelligent to vilify people who disagree with you?
I agree with PH. I came to this blog looking for some science as it was nominated in this category. I find an article about cosmetic surgery, something about invective and loathsome people, this thread about weblog awards, some offensive remarks about someone called Ann Coulter, the atheist bus ads in spanish, and an angry rant about the remarks of some Israeli extremist. No science at all in the six latest posts. Perhaps it was accidentally put in the wrong category?
I agree with PaulM opinion in comment 30. This is a culture war blog which is very long on invective and anger but very short on science. I really do not see how it can be considered a science blog.
Just so that Professor Myers’ regular readers are aware, some of these more curious comments are coming from discussion hosted on ClimateAudit here.
Lance, you claim that, “The strong opinions expressed here against WUWT and ClimateAudit are more an indictment of the partiality of the commenters than any deficiency of the blogs or their authors.” But this is only half correct. First, this is a much larger allegation than you realize; with a partisan audience, Mr. Watts (and really his guest authors moreso than him) can get away with sloppy or flawed analysis. Science isn’t only about the data – good data but with flawed or incorrect analysis is not science.
There is something larger here, though, that plays off of that first part. Mr. Watts claims he’s merely skeptical of the “doom and gloom” associated with AGW, but this stance is not validated by the discussion he hosts on his site. He may not directly partake in it, but most of the discussion in the comments quickly devolves into bashing Gore, Hansen, the IPCC, or the climate science community in general. Massive groupthink occurs at some of these “skeptical” sites, where ideas feed off a very small but enthusiastic community, thus growing into memes which refuse to die. The moderators at WUWT do nothing to quell the anti-science, anti-intellectual rhetoric that is peppered throughout the discussion there.
You can’t really group WUWT with CA, though (although the same group of players occasionally post at both sites). I won’t judge CA’s merits as “Best Science blog,” because I can at least respect its strong editorial policy to at least attempt to keep its discussion in the realm of science. Mr. McIntyre actively moderates discussion to keep things out of the realm of politics and person-bashing, which is a smart move. Sure, his audience (which is much the same as over at WUWT) may have the same partisan attitude towards the topic of climate science, but at least McIntyre attempts to maintain a facade of objectivity, whereas that facade is in name only at WUWT.
I will admit here that in visiting the Awards page, I have not yet voted for this site as a Science blog – since a majority of the time, it isn’t.
But that does not mean WUwT is – or at least, it is a “Science Blog” in the same way AiG is a “Science Blog”. The contradictions I found in a few minutes of tortured reading were just all over the map.
I have not voted for Pharynula – or BA – as a top “Science” blog site because as noted by others above, much of the time, it is far more social than Scientific. I wouldn’t be here otherwise. Science is great and I have my other areas for that – but here, we storm the castle more often than not. Storming the Castle is not Science. It is way more fun.
JC
PaulM: “No science at all in the six latest posts. Perhaps it was accidentally put in the wrong category?”
Fortunately, the posts are categorized. If you’re not interested in the non-science posts, just point your browser to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/science/
@ PH,
So do you think James Hansen is a honest man? If so what do you find is flawed in his research publications? What I am asking for is specifics.
mark of class: Watt’s comments are calling PZ Hitler, lol.
Smarmy little brats aren’t they.
I think the trouble with the Middle East category is that most everyone who isn’t deathly afraid of the terrrists or Armageddon or some such thing is severely Middle-East-fatigued by now. I know I can hardly be bothered to care about why they’re bombing each other this week.
Can we make him Jay Geils Banned?
Um, see “Chemical replicators” four posts back. Even if you didn’t bother to read it, the name should have given you a clue. You don’t have much respect for empirical research, do you?
Moreover, “Brunswick…” five posts back is about the teaching of evolution (science) in public schools.
(And the radio show that precedes that one, as it turned out, was a rerun of last week’s – about the year 2008 in…science.)
Thanks for your angry and unscientific characterization of Climate Audit. It inspired me to put $100 in the CA tip jar.
Holy shite! Who left the back door open?
Oh, that’s original. Could y’all at least try to make your snipes a little less boring and predictable?
(By the way, aside from administrative posts, the ones preceding those I mentioned dealt with McCain’s comments about research funding, cephalopods, defending science from the likes of Ken Ham,… – you get the point, I’m sure.)
Posted by: IST | January 12, 2009 11:03 AM
“,,,, completely ignoring the effect of albedo (or rather misrepresenting the importance of angle of incidence as opposed to the amount of incoming solar radiation in measuring albedo).”””
No such ignoring took place at all.
Read further, or better yet comment yourself, and you’ll discover there is no ignoring of anything AND anything you add will be fairly responded to.
There is no question WUWT has very good and in depth science dicussions.
AND IMO the past few months at WUWT has presented irrefutable evidence that AGW is a fatally flawed and dicredited theory.
Where did all the pseudosceptic morons come from?
So we’ll be seeing a Nobel prize any time now? Until it’s published in the literature and peer-reviewed, all I hear is TEACH THE CONTROVERSY.
Just because you want something to be true doesn’t make it true.
The blogger over on the other site sent them here to gripe. That was the most boring thread I’ve ever read.
So we’ll be seeing a Nobel prize any time now? Until it’s published in the literature and peer-reviewed, all I hear is TEACH THE CONTROVERSY.
Just because you want something to be true doesn’t make it true.
Are we being hacked or something? The system is acting weird.
There’s definitely some net-weirdness going on.
PZ! Something’s broken!
Trent asked in #35
“So do you think James Hansen is a honest man? If so what do you find is flawed in his research publications? What I am asking for is specifics.”
No Hansen is not honest. Despite the you apparently missing all of them the exmaples are many.
Try this one for starters.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/01/global_warmmongering_more_silk.html
And visit more often
icecap.us
WUWT
and CA
You’ll very quickly discover how bad the IPCC/Hansen science is and how their lack of ethics has them staying their dishonest course.
@Steve H,
So have these findings been published yet in a peer reviewed science journal? If not when can we expect to see it?
That’s funny folks. A couple of you immediately play that “peer review” canard to avoid finding out how bad the AGW case is.
Given that so many completely baselsss attributions of observations to AGW have been made by you and yours I’ve found that to be one of the lamest plays by ya’ll.
It has come to be that little or nothing of Hansen’s “peer reviewed and published” work is reliable.
The flaws as simply too tremendous.
But you wouldn’t know that unless you applied a little curiosity and studied the blog reporting of Hansen’s crap in-crap out problems.
You too can easily see the problems.
You should never avoid informative sources and discussions.
WUWT CA or
http://www.icecap.us
Peer-review is the backbone of science, it’s a means for those who are informed on the matter to assess the merit of an argument as opposed to exposing it to the ignorant. Peer-review matters because peer-review allows for the weeding out of bad ideas.
If like you are saying that the argument against AGW is obvious, then it should have no problem passing the peer review process. It’s dishonest to bypass that process and preach to those who aren’t in the know, it’s a tactic that creationists use. Any battle that has some truth behind it is worth fighting out in academia. Otherwise you are just being a creationist preaching to the ignorant.
The real J. Geils would be insulted.
@Steve H.
Look up “Burden of Proof”. We’re not arguing with the scientific consensus (that would be rather arrogant of me, anyway, being no climatologist). We’re not the ones making the assertion. You and yours are. If there is really a case, it should have no problem passing a peer review process.
Oh dear I was told this was a science blog.
Surely it should be filed under bigotry, lies and hate.
Or you can just make a single stop:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_skeptics/common_claims_and_rebuttal
Or you can just make a single stop:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_change_skeptics/common_claims_and_rebuttal
Kel & Paul,
Take off your peer review helmuts and read.
I am not preaching anything and have no burden of proof.
Hansen does and has failed miserably.
But again you wouldn’t know that because you have apparently missed or avoided the entire unfolding and lengthy discussions that go into extensive details on every angle of the IPCC assertions.
There is no “peer review” rhetoric of yours that can susbstitute for those wide open, in depth presentations and conversations that have fully refuted Hansen’s folly and consensus.
If you are mistakenly believing the peer review process has not been corrupted or that no skeptics have peer review published work then this is another demonsrtation of your lack of work.
And again those boiler plate canards about peer review, publications and consensus are no match for study.
Paul, what makes you think you (or anyone else) can’t argue with the “consensus”? Suppose the consensus is contrived or simply wrong?
I guarantee if you go study the reports and conversations you’ll have some serious concerns about that consensus.
Go and see for yourself. When an in depth thread generates 150 to 200 comments involving many with data input
the discussions are very informative.
Your desire to pretend they don’t exist is a lousy excuse for not chimming in.
Why do I get the feeling my comments should not be allowed here?
That’s funny, I don’t see your comments being blocked, censored, or edited. Unlike some comments I’ve recently made at an AGW denial website.
@Steve H,
I just read the article you linked too. Could you explain to me what homogenization is in regards to data analysis and why it is inappropriate to apply it in this case?
In the article it notes that 2008 was the coolest year since 2000. Why is this considered significant? The article seems to be unaware what is regarded as statistically significant, in the field. Do you know how climate is defined and why it is defined that why? I ask because the article you cited seems to be unaware of these basic definitions.
I also want to note that your article fails to substantiate your allegations of dishonesty by Hansen.
Again, if they are fully refuted, why aren’t they being published in peer-review? It’s where science is done whether you like it or not. Your rhetoric is the same as a creationist’s, it’s being intellectually dishonest to bypass the peer review process.
I ask again, if AGW is such an easy target to disassemble, why when the scientific consensus is that AGW is happening is the battle against it being fought out in the public arena?
@SteveH #61:
So basically you’re claiming that a bunch of armchair climatologists on the internet are smarter than the general consensus of thousands of experts? That seems unlikely.
It wouldn’t be an upgrade if something didn’t go wrong.
Whenever I see the arguing of allegedly scientific data occurring in the public arena, my BS detector goes off big time. There is only one place for scientific data to be argued. The argument must occur in the peer reviewed literature. Otherwise, the argument is just mental masturbation, at least on the side pushing the data without getting it into the literature.
I work in a highly regulated industry. If I don’t write down what I did in my lab notebook, the work never occurred. No matter how much subsequent data I might have. My notebook and other data gets summarized in reports for clients and possibly a federal agency. If the data is not available, it can’t be in the report. No report, we can’t get paid. Why isn’t an academic trying to publish some data? Academia is publish or perish. Not having the data “in press” (accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal, but not yet in print) indicates that possibly the data is faulty, especially if it is more than 6 months old. Otherwise, it would be printed or in press.
What kind of scientist downplays the importance of quality control in debates and overstates the public role?
Ah, welcome to our hate-filled, non-science blog, climate change conspiracists. There isn’t actually anything technical here – we’re just a bunch of self hating athiests led by a loony, liberal, biology professor, who meet to moan about how terrible the world is, and make stuff up. It seems you’ve caught us with our pants down
Oh, and did I mention that is we who invented and are propogating the Anthropogenic Global Warming hoax?
Yes this is myth central!
Any questions?
Good, now fuck off.
The best response to these Climate Auditors came from eewolf awhile back:
I find it unlikely that a blog I haven’t even heard of from people making fun of it for being anti-GW gets more votes than fucking Pharyngula and any other blog but the 3rd place combined.
Wow,
Impressive responses!
Especially #69.
Trent,
OK so you read the article and apparently missed the central point of it entirely.
Your straw man diversion is silly.
You can’t understand the piece?
Read it again.
It doesn’t make any claim of particular significance that 2008 was the coolest year since 2000.
Yet you claim the article seems to be unaware what is regarded as statistically significant?
Your silly stunt is useless.
Of course the simplistic relevence of a cooling year or years is thoroughly understood by the author.
I find it amusing when alarmists point out some petty thing as if the skeptics haven’t grasped it.
Again, you missed the point.
Try again.
Better yet waltz over to icecap.us and study up.
Chime in at Wattsupwiththat and tell the group how they just don’t understand how climate is defined.
That will sure fly.
Perhaps the discussions there are above your pay grade?
Are you equally concerned about defining climate when one of your pals attributes Hurricane Katrina to AGW?
The many different categories where Hansen, his science and the phony consensus falls flat is beyond a debate locked in bromides.
If you do venture over to join the excellent discusssions please bring more.
AnthonyK,,, Don’t bother. You’re illequipped.
@SteveH #72:
Somehow in all that, you forgot to answer Trent’s specific questions, so I’ll ask again. According to the GISTEMP documentation:
If you think this practice is inappropriate, why? If you think the algorithm fails to meet its stated goal, why? The article you linked to does not explain either of these things; it just complains that in one particular instance the trend line changes from cooling to warming.
By the way, your post contains almost nothing but ad hominems. I thought the blog you hail from is supposed to be above that sort of thing?
I forgot to link to the source for my quote. It came from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html
Ewww…they’re getting a might testy.
That site is moderated so tightly that they can’t swear, argue, mention religion or have any fun. I find it hard to believe they have so many more readers than we do.
To the ‘GW denialists or Anthropogenic GW denialists’ who have wafted in to Pharyngula. Did you ever find that B-52 that crashed on the moon, those giant Brazilian crickets that were eating children, perhaps you’ve made a pilgrimage to Mt. Ararat, might check and see if your aura is up to the hike. Have you spent some quality time with Uri Geller? Talk to Elvis recently?
Real science is in peer reviewed science journals. The scientific debate on anthropogenic global warming ended nearly 20 years ago. Date since that time (also published in peer reviewed journals-look it up yourselves) has only refined the scope of the problem and the necessity of long term planning and action. Get over it.
/deep breath/
There, now that I’ve got the vitriol out of my system, here are some questions for GW denialists (or Anti anthropogenic GWD’s) to ponder. 1) Do you believe that people whose scientific results point to potentially catastrophic scenarios, like those results anymore than you do? 2) Do you believe scientists enjoy being the bearers of bad news? 3) Do you seriously believe that the great majority of scientists who have spent their research careers on this topic are lying to you? 4) Do you believe that the majority of researchers are incompetent so as to not have considered ALL of the objections and been forced to accept conclusions they themselves find objectionable? 5) Do you seriously believe there is a pro-Global warming cabal out there? 6) What would they have to gain by a worldwide conspiracy, i.e. how much greater would be the future loss when the conspiracy was unmasked? 7) Do you (all) believe that the scientific community is so craven and debased that each scholar would rather have their own moment in the sun and by so doing, undermine for generations, that uniquely human endeavor called science? And of course the one already asked of GWD’s: 8) Where are your peer reviewed papers? If you answered even a qualified ‘yes’ to more than two of the above, remove the tin-foil hat, crawl out from under your pyramid, chuck the concentrated water pills, take off those magnetic bracelets and get thee to a research library!
Oh get real folks.
Among many other fatal flaws, there have been many problems with reporting stations and the data reports from those still remaining and reporting.
As if the other pieces to the AGW Hoax puzzle aren’t impressive enough. Take a look at this alignment of weather reporting stations shutting down and the cooincidence of so called global warming.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Stationdropout.jpg
Which is from here
http://icecap.us/
and linked to here
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSU_Satellite_Temperatures_Continue_to_Diverge_from_Global_Data_Bases.pdf
Again, why are you evangelising your position to us instead of fighting for it in academia where the current consensus is contrary to your point of view?
Steve, why are you changing the subject? You brought the homogenization article up. You should be ready to defend it when challenged.
Gawds balls! Is this the best they have?
The amount of restraint we are all showing in not trolling them is amazing.
Six being the magic number selected because the seventh post was this one. These guys are well-trained in the art of cherrypicking.
Oh we’re having fun now.
“Evangelising”?
Oh brother, wake up and read.
“cherry picking”?
Not at all. Go read.
Are you folks NEWBIES to the AGW battle?
This is the only thread I’ve waded into here but wow are you limited.
Why are you ignoring the sceince that refutes AGW?
Does it have to be delivered here?
Go to WATTSUPWITHTHAT.COM and chime in with your small points of no interest.
AS FOR YOUR USELESS STRAW MAN QUESTIONS…
1) Do you believe that people whose scientific results point to potentially catastrophic scenarios, like those results anymore than you do?
APPARENTLY THEY DO. THEIR RECKLESS ADHERENCE TO THEIR FLAWED SCIENCE AND MODELING LEAVES THEM WANTING THEIR THEORIES AND PROJECTIONS TO BE ACCURATE WHEN THEY ARE NOT.
MY QUESTION TO YOU IS DO YOU BELIEVE THE HUNDREDS OF SCIENTISTS AROUND THE GLOBE WHO HAVE REJECTED AGW DON’T CARE ABOUT THE PLANET?
2) Do you believe scientists enjoy being the bearers of bad news?
ENJOY? IS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE CLEVER? SOME SEEM TO, OR AT LEAST BENEFIT BY DOING SO. CERTAINLY SOME MAKE A CREER OUT OF IT AND MAKE THEIR LIVING DOING SO. OTHERS LIKE GORE MAKE MILLIONS DOING SO.
3) Do you seriously believe that the great majority of scientists who have spent their research careers on this topic are lying to you?
THERE ARE MANY SCIENTISTS WHO HAVE COMPILED A GREAT DEAL OR WORK WHICH DISPUTES AGW. I’LL WAGER THERE ARE FAR MORE SCIENTISTS TODAY WHO REJECT THE IPCC/HANSEN AGW.
4) Do you believe that the majority of researchers are incompetent so as to not have considered ALL of the objections and been forced to accept conclusions they themselves find objectionable?
THE LOYALISTS HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THE FLAWS IN THE DATA AND MODELING. SOME ARE INTIMIDATED AND OTHERS HAVE LEFT THE IPCC REJECTION THE ORGANIZATIONS CONCLUSIONS.
5) Do you seriously believe there is a pro-Global warming cabal out there?
NO, THAT’S A STUNT YOU ALARMISTS USE. THERE IS HOWEVER AN AGENDA DRIVEN COLLECTION OF PEOPLE AND AGENCIES WHO FUND THEM WHO WANT TO SEE THE POLICIES GENERATED BY AGW FEARS ENACTED.
6) What would they have to gain by a worldwide conspiracy, i.e. how much greater would be the future loss when the conspiracy was unmasked?
AGAIN THAT’S AN ALARMIST’S STUNT. I’VE NEVER READ ANY SKEPTIC CLAIM THERE WAS A GLOBAL CONSPIRACY.
YOU FOLKS MADE THAT UP.
7) Do you (all) believe that the scientific community is so craven and debased that each scholar would rather have their own moment in the sun and by so doing, undermine for generations, that uniquely human endeavor called science? And of course the one already asked of GWD’s:
NO ONLY THE MINORITY PART OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY CONTINUING TO PERPETRATE THIS AGW FRAUD.
8) Where are your peer reviewed papers?
THE SENATE REPORT LISTS AND LINKS TO MANY. GOOGLE FOR OTHERS. BUT KEEP IN MIND THE CLOSED DOOR AND CORRUPTED PEER REVEIW PROCESS. IF ALL YOU CAN DO IS LEAN ON THESE BROMIDES THEN YOU MAY BE LACKING CURIOSITY.
IF YOU ARE INCAPABLE OF STUDYING THE ISSUE TO BETTER GRASP THE DEBATE THEN PERHAPS YOU SHOULD SEEK HELP.
UPGRADING YOUR KNOWLEDGE IS EASY IF YOU SIMPLY READ.
And try not to use potty mouth language.
Wow, I’m convinced. The Argumentum ad ALL CAPS always wins me over.
PZ #81
It’s like describing Expelled as one of the top 12 highest-grossing documentaries: surprise, it’s number 12.
You’re preaching to the wrong community. Science is fought out in academia, fighting it out in the public arena without that academic support is just evangelism.
Pull laces tighter … must. not. troll.
It’s hard to restrain my sluttiness.
It’s a conspiracy!
Ah, at last the writing is on the
walltinfoil hat. PZ, I guess that explains your massive wealth and copious bling – it’s from all the payoffs you get for the scam (or possibly scamola) that is the corrupted peer-review process.Mind if we cash in on the deal, too? I’ll go set up a PayPal account and start supporting AGW the second the clams start rolling in.
Why do AGW deniers use the same arguments as creationists? “There’s plenty of evidence to support creation”, “the peer review process us corrupt”, “the burden of proof is on the Darwinists”, etc… A simple Find / Replace on certain words and you could use that caps-button rant for an ID advocate.
While I can’t speak for anyone else, I certainly am. You do realize that this blog is about biology, not climate change?
[Remaining quotes decapitalized for humanitarian purposes]
Based upon Wikipedia, I suspect you would lose that wager.
Wikipedia again suggests otherwise: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_conspiracy_theory/
So you do think there’s a conspiracy. You’re just not willing to call it a “global” conspiracy, despite scientists around the globe agreeing with the IPCC position (see that first Wikipedia link again).
And you still haven’t answered any questions about why the GISS homogenization method makes James Hansen dishonest. Are you going to respond or just continue to evade?
Newbies.
OK, loosening up the laces, rolling off the fishnets.
You weather people are just so lame. Try harder.
Gosh PZ, bid up to 10 cents a pound for trolls.
#77 Steve H.,
Wow, I didn’t know about that fraud. Add one more to the long list.
@ SteveH,
You said in post #72:
Yet the third paragraph in the article says:
Can you explain this discrepancy? You then go on to say:
I am sorry but you seem to have mistaken vigorous assertion for fact. Can you please point out to how I am mistaken in my reading of the article. Appropriate quotes from the article would be most helpful. I will ask again: Do you know how climate is defined and why it is defined that way?
Why would I? If you are an example of a regular then I think I will spare my self the trouble.
Are you going to get back to me on you objection to using homogenization on the data or not?
#92 Brian Macker:
Oh, good grief. Doesn’t it strike you as the slightest bit odd that the dramatic 1990 upturn in mean temperature shown in that link does not even remotely resemble the actual summaries the actual summaries published by GISS, such as this one? You don’t suppose they could be aware of that effect and have designed their methods to compensate for it, do you?
Good action here, 94 comments, sorry I didn’t know this was a biology blog. This is the only thread I’ve visited.
We’re having fun though.
I used the caps to contrast with the questions. No other feeling involved.
Trent,
Are you restricted?
Yes the 2008 cooling was obviously stated but it was not presented at some significance beyond the point of the article or how you contrived it. Which you seemingly did purposefully so as to draw your false conclusion that the author has no understanding of climate. That is of course ridiculous. But that how you folks play this game.
The author did no make any assertions that the 2008 cooling was in itself climate significant. That’s your stunt. And one you made up while ignoring the greater points. This article was not making weather into climate. That’s another alarmist’s stunt.
Weather is not climate ect ….if you think that needs to be pointed out you best direct it to your camp who are forever attributing weather observations to AGW/climate.
You will find clear understanding of climate at WUWT , icecap.us and climateaudit.org. Treat yourself to what you are insisting I must provide you here.
Kel, brighten up fella.
Is it your preference to restrict skeptics to the heavily biased academia while the Gore evangelical machine travels the globe preaching?
What a farce play you made. .
Ian,
Your scientist tally comes from wikipedia? Gee, without even looking I’ll bet the 1000s of scientists and IPCC BS is there.
And you need to read more.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSU_Satellite_Temperatures_Continue_to_Diverge_from_Global_Data_Bases.pdf
You’ll find the stations and reporting are unreliable.
And Hansen has used much of the raw sloppy science without valdiating it. Such as was the September temps carried over into October and other missteps.
Brian, of course you don’t know about the AGW fraud. You’re avoiding it.
For all.
climate change and peer review
http://www.cejournal.net/?p=607
Really folks the stuff the AGW crowd is piling up at the feet of AGW is near comical. Everything imaginable they are already “witnessing” as resulting from warming yet to happen. And they’re attributing every environmental ailment to AGW. Such as Ocean Dead Zones where OSU researchers merely supposed they could be caused by AGW so therefore they are. And they go out evangelizing it with reports to the press.
Nice science in academia there.
For more on the AGW fraud go to
icecap.us. for info
wattsupwiththat.com info and blog
climateaudit.org info and blog
Sorry to the blog host if I have violated your rules
Denialist?
Next thing you know you athiests will be rebuking WUWT.
Or perhaps a good old fashion shunning will be the order of the day.
the contest was Al Gore’s bought and paid for shills, Real Climate, versus reality.
And reality is doing fine.
“So you do think there’s a conspiracy. You’re just not willing to call it a “global” conspiracy, despite scientists around the globe agreeing with the IPCC position (see that first Wikipedia link again).”
Yes, it’s all a conspiracy to get the Democrats in power and fly Gore around the world. Or so the various folks tell me. The plan goes a little like this:
Step 1: Manufacture hysteria about global warming driven by fossil fuel usage.
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Profit!
What, when did I say anything about Gore? What I said was that it’s dishonest to go against scientific consensus in the public arena and pretend that an opposing voice is not only equal merit but that your arguments have more validity. I said that you are playing the same tactic as creationists, which you quite clearly are doing.
When have I expressed an opinion in this thread beyond saying that bypassing the scientific community is intellectually dishonest?
Oh wait, I also suggested that Steve Novella’s blog is a great read. But that’s external to the global warming debate.
I’m not exactly sure what “BS” you’re referring to, but since you’re not interested in reading it yourself, I’ll summarize it here. The page lists 46 specific “national and international science academies and professional societies” that have released statements or reports concurring with the IPCC (including the IPCC itself), two that have released noncommittal statements, and claims that:
It then goes on to describe some specific surveys with mixed leanings.
Yes, it’s Wikipedia, and anything on Wikipedia should be taken with a grain of salt. But it’s better than making grandiose claims without providing any source whatsoever. If you have a more trustworthy source, name it.
The link you pointed me to doesn’t seem reliable itself. The station drop-off graph indicates that, as of 2000, there are approximately 1000 urban stations. Yet the “NASA Urban Adjustments” table indicates that there are more than 4000 urban stations. Well, which is it? Are there 4000, and the station drop-off graph is severely under-reporting them; or are there 1000, and 75% of the stations in the table are not actually urban? Or perhaps the number of stations has replenished since 2000 to a figure larger than the mid-60s peak, in which case the station drop-off graph would appear to be intentionally misleading.
And you still haven’t answered the question.
Pharyngula is just a hate site with no science. Let’s see what the commenters have to say at these bastions of reason have to say:
Watts Up With That
That comment appeared despite the fact the site seems heavily moderated.
Climate Audit
What kind of person can be afraid of the likes of us?
Wait, we are scary because that person read Mein Kampf? Makes Facilis seems like he has a good grasp of logic.
Rey Fox,
To be fair, step 2 is not “????” and if you do not understand what they intend to do, you certainly can not be a fair judge of how Global Warming is a hoax.
Step 2 involves setting up a carbon trading market where carbon credits are alloted to companies via fiat. If these companies run short on their carbon credits then they have to buy carbon offsets from things like Wind Energy companies. Wind energy has no positive qualities or advantages over traditional power companies, it is expensive and unrelable. Adding wind power does not decrease the carbon production, even if CO2 does cause global warming. The only reason that power providers add these things to their system is the government, this increases their costs of service because wind energy requires more regulation power from ancillary power generators which use diesel and natural gas.
Wind power producers end up winning twice, once when they sell their worthless power to the power company and a second time when they sell the carbon offsets on the carbon trading market. Consumers have to pay more for their electricity as a result, and productive industry has to pay a tax for carbon credits by buying these credits on the open market. Neither the consumer, nor industry benefit, or even the public benefit, and Carbon production does not decrease, as has been witnessed in Europe.
If it truly was about reducing carbon, then the government should levy a tax on all carbon at the source, to discourage carbon use, but they do not do that because they want to have all of these offsets for “poor” people. In other words its not politically viable for the democratic party. They should also not only subsidize the nuclear industry, but run a TVA style program nationally so that we produce all of our power via nukes. They should also slow population growth to its natural limit by stopping all immigration into the United States until we have rebuilt our cities to support dense populations, and they should build a national European style high speed train network to elminate the need for people to drive or take short haul flights.
They do not do these things because of the politics involving step 2. Understanding step 2 is essential to the scam. If Global Warming were real, which it is not, you would think that at least the democratic party would support all of the most practical steps to greatly reducing CO2, which they do not because they have to appease their various supporters.
Since Global Warming stopped 10 years ago, and as of December the 10 year trend in now negative, ie cooling, the global warming models have been falsified. In other words they are no longer valid. Science is by it’s nature critical of itself, when it ceases to be critical of itself it becomes dogmatic and religious in nature, and I thought that this site was supposed to be anti-Religion.
William Hershel after discovering the seventh planet was accorded the honor of naming it. He chose the name Georgium to honor the king who funded his celestial observations.
It was only after Hershel’s death that a consensus of astronomers in Germany, agreed to rename the newly discovered planet as a memorial to an observatory, Uraniborg, used by a 16th century German astrologer.
Thus was born a million anus jokes.
All of the AGW Denialists are such amateurs with the naive zeal of Creationists. Just like Creationists they have a fanatical predetermined outcome to which they cherry pick and alter the facts to make them fit. Many are rightwingnuts or Libertarains who see everything as a government conspiracy to take their money. Just like with tobacco, they are deliberately misled by corporate interests buy hack “scientists” like Steven Malloy to disseminate propaganda to try and derail government regulation of their greedy irresponsibility. In all cases it is not science. It is willful deceit.
Here is some real peer reviewed science. I’m sure the Denialists will howl and scream.
Scientists Refute Argument Of Climate Skeptics
ScienceDaily (Jan. 10, 2009) — Scientists at the GKSS Research Centre of Geesthacht and the University of Bern have investigated the frequency of warmer than average years between 1880 and 2006 for the first time. The result: the observed increase of warm years after 1990 is not a statistical accident.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109115047.htm
Cosmic Rays Do Not Explain Global Warming, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (Dec. 17, 2008) — A new study supports earlier findings by stating that changes in cosmic rays most likely do not contribute to climate change. It is sometimes claimed that changes in radiation from space, so-called galactic cosmic rays, can be one of the causes of global warming. A new study, investigating the effect of cosmic rays on clouds, concludes that the likelihood of this is very small.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217075138.htm
More real science:
NASA Study Links Severe Storm Increases, Global Warming
ScienceDaily (Dec. 28, 2008) — The frequency of extremely high clouds in Earth’s tropics — the type associated with severe storms and rainfall — is increasing as a result of global warming, according to a study by scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081227214927.htm
Greenland’s Glaciers Losing Ice Faster This Year Than Last Year, Which Was Record-setting Itself
ScienceDaily (Dec. 16, 2008) — Researchers watching the loss of ice flowing out from the giant island of Greenland say that the amount of ice lost this summer is nearly three times what was lost one year ago. The loss of floating ice in 2008 pouring from Greenland’s glaciers would cover an area twice the size of Manhattan Island in the U.S., they said.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081215091015.htm
And more…
Global Warming Impacts On U.S. Coming Sooner Than Expected, Report Predicts
ScienceDaily (Dec. 18, 2008) — A report released at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union on December 16 provides new insights on the potential for abrupt climate change and the effects it could have on the United States, identifying key concerns that include faster-than-expected loss of sea ice, rising sea levels and a possibly permanent state of drought in the American Southwest.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081216201404.htm
Mayhempix,
Climate change happens, always has, always will. So what should be done about it? If CO2 is the cause, why does the lunatic fringe who believes such garbage as Global Warming not come up with a realistic plan to address the problem which does not further enrich the monied elite at the expense of us common people? Where are the cries from the warmists to stop immigration, especially from low carbon per capita countries such as the 3rd world, into high carbon per capita countries like the United States?
Who is laying out a realistic plan to get all of our baseload power from Nuclear Reactors, which would be owned by the people instead of fat cat corporations? Everyone knows Wall Street hates Nuclear power, and the money people are never going to build them, but I do not hear the Global Warming people crying out in mass for more nuclear power either. Instead they pass laws forcing us to buy things like crummy florescent light bulbs, which have a large amount of mercury in them, and will eventually poison our ground, unlike nuclear waste which could be safely stored deep underground. Its all about money and politics, rich corporations like GE run a cost benefit analysis and figure that they could make more money selling ugly light bulbs and wind turbines than by building nuclear reactors.
I say, we have to get beyond these divisive politics, you believe in global warming, fine, I do not, but that does not mean that our goals have to be different. I believe that both liberals and conservatives, atheists and religious folk both want fundamentally the same things. I believe that we both want to minimize human suffering, and do our best to create a world that is pleasant to live in where every human being can live to their fullest potential. Only an evil person would want anything less for their fellow man, right?
As a Global Warming believer, you likely hate cars because they burn oil and create CO2, as I hate cars too because they require us to be dependent of foreign oil, and lead to the creation of ugly cities, as well as other reasons. See, we are not so different, huh? If we would forget about the fact that we disagree about Global Warming, then we could move on to the creation of nice, clean, beautiful and walkable cities, where people would not have to need cars or live in debt up to their eyeballs. You get what you want with less CO2, and I get what I want with better cities. We both win, and more importantly the life of the common human will be improved, whether Global Warming turns out to be a hoax or not.
There are solutions out there that we can agree on, but first we need to get beyond the political cat calls, and the BS TV pundit terminology such as comparing Global Warming skeptics to emotionally charged historic events like the Holocaust. No more right v. left, because that is what we have been doing for years and we are not better for it.
Only through mutual respect and a focus on our common goals can we begin a new era. The hate must stop because it is not productive. The political sophistry must go as well, and instead we need to focus on our big and final goals, then make practical plans for achieving those goals. Let’s work together, both right and left, in identifying what is in the way of us achieving our mutually shared goals while tolerating each other’s irrelevant systems of beliefs such as religion and Global Warming, after all Global warming is just one of possible reason to do what should be done anyhow, right?
JohnnyB:
You addressed none of the facts and peer reviewed studies I linked to…
why is that?
The frequency of extremely high clouds in Earth’s tropics – those would be the albedo changing, reflecting away that nasty sunshine, type clouds.
The team found a strong correlation between the frequency of these clouds and seasonal variations in the average sea surface temperature of the tropical oceans. -study from a subsidiary of Jimmy Hansen’s den of hysterical climate change.
Last I checked the tropical oceans are firming up into a multi-year cold snap. La Nina is here — get ready for another dry year
Would that correlation, could that correlation, be that the tropical ocean is colder then normal – hence there isn’t any rain to speak of? – You know it is.
{Water}pouring from Greenland’s glaciers would cover an area twice the size of Manhattan Island in the U.S.
Or another way of saying it, Greenland, an area roughly equal to the Mississippi watershed, has runoff equal to 3 months waterflow of the Mississippi river. Gee wizz.
I wonder why a magazine like ScienceDaily would use nonstandard measuring units like “Manhattan Island” rather then gallons? You think they might be trying to alarm people?
But the real question I have for you Mayhempix, are you a paid shill for the climate change industry, or are you just determined to be stupid?
JohnnyB
“…comparing Global Warming skeptics to emotionally charged historic events like the Holocaust.”
I have never heard anyone make that claim… never. Distort much?
If you are referring to the term “denialist”, it is a descriptive used to explain a certain type of behavior. It is not specific to Holocaust Denialists but AGW Denialists love to play the victim and claim that it is to avoid discussing real peer reviewed facts and studies.
denial |diˈnīəl|
noun
the action of declaring something to be untrue : she shook her head in denial.
a statement that something is not true : official denials | his denial that he was having an affair.
Psychology failure to acknowledge an unacceptable truth or emotion or to admit it into consciousness, used as a defense mechanism : you’re living in denial.
AGW Denialists ignore, distort, parse and/or make up facts to support their emotional, ignorant, religious, bigoted, political and/or business points of view. In the case of man-made climate change, denying insurmountable scientific evidence is Denialism.
Scientists at the GKSS Research Centre of Geesthacht and the University of Bern have investigated the frequency of warmer than average years between 1880 and 2006 for the first time. – using the surface station record -well massaged and adjusted to support most any damn thing the climate changers want it to.
But when you discount the surface record and use a more unambiguous record which extends over thousands of years, rather then a just a hundred, you get Stalagmites support cosmoclimatology (Svensmark’s theory).
Oh for fuck’s sake. Whiney little conspiracy denialists. Go away.
This now posted at WUWT?:
“Right now our strongest competition (and gaining) is Pharyngula, which while there is some science there is also about 50% anti-religion topics that reflect the view of the owner. We strive hard here to maintain a civil and interesting exchange and make the science discussed accessible to everyone, and minimize getting off-track on religion and politics. You can check out the other blogs at the link. I’d be just as pleased if Climate Audit won.”
Let’s see here… because PZ Myers includes atheism and poiltics as topic on his blog that somehow negates the science? F for logical failure.
Also WUWT is a consistent forum for crank AGW Denialists in both articles posted and comments, but any scientific articles evidence confirming AGW are never posted )not mention supporting CA) and that doesn’t reflect the view of the owner? A for hypocrisy.
Steve H.
AND IMO the past few months at WUWT has presented irrefutable evidence that AGW is a fatally flawed and dicredited theory.
What an idiot. So, you ignore the peer-reviewed articles and read a blog to form an opinion about a scientific matter? Maybe you need to hand out with creationists, flat earth society, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, moon-landing conspiracy theories and all the other freaks; because after all, their blog posts have repeatedly “proven” their corresponding wacky theories to be “irrefutable”.
Ever since this:
On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground
Svante Arrhenius
Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science
Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf
(yes that’s _1896_)
anyone with a basic understanding of physical science knows that a warming effect from the increased CO2 we’re putting into the atmosphere is the _default assumption_. Predicting the exact consequences is a lot trickier, but that’s a secondary question. You can see from the tone taken by the denial contingent that they think _no_ warming is the default and warming requires special proof, which is exactly the wrong way around. If I insulate my house and leave the heating on, I kind of expect my house to get warmer, and if you expect me to believe it won’t, I need some pretty strong evidence. But apparently insulating the planet and leaving the sun shining is completely different.
@James Mayeau
No one here takes you seriously because of your incoherent emotional misleading rants about Jimmy Hansen. He sure makes you angry. My guess is because someone else told you he is “evil”. And since you are clearly not a scientist and choose and distort to support your predetermined conclusion, you are no different than any other type of religious zealot.
Quick responses to some of your illogical idiocies:
The ice sheet of Greenland is melting at an unprecedented rate… the Mississippi River is a seasonal drainage run. Do your apples always taste like oranges?
“Non-standard measuring rates” (sic) are commonly used to relate statistical info to the general public. It does not change or distort any facts.
Science Daily aggregates studies and press releases from various scientific organizations and universites about all topics… it does not write them. You can click on the link at the bottom of each summary to go to the source.
But this my favorite:
“But the real question I have for you Mayhempix, are you a paid shill for the climate change industry, or are you just determined to be stupid?”
I laughed when I read that because you sound just like a paranoid 911Trufer. Anytime someone refutes their foolishness the Trufers always cry “Israeli Agent! Mossad! Illumatii shill!” While Steve Malloy is definitely a paid shill for corporate AGW Denialism just as he was by Big Tobacco, I am not. If by “stupid” you mean do I believe in solid peer reviewed scientific evidence instead of insipid denialist propaganda, I guess according to you I must be. BTW how is the Ministry of Truth doing these days?
Grammar and Typo Police
Also WUWT is a consistent forum for crank AGW Denialists in both articles posted and comments, but any scientific articles confirming evidence of AGW are never posted (not to mention supporting CA) and that doesn’t reflect the view of the owner? A for hypocrisy.
@Mike #39
Sorry. His Angel is a centerfold.
Here is an example from JohnnyB on the previous thread showing how nice, courteous and civil he is:
“…why does the lunatic fringe who believes such garbage as Global Warming…”
I’ll bet Jebus guides him in his quest for a better world.
@Mike #39
Can we make him Jay Geils Banned?
Perhaps we can strand him on Monkey Island?
Posted by: mayhempix | January 13, 2009 10:19 AM
@James Mayeau
No one here takes you seriously
You speak for no one? Are you no one’s press agent?
Hell I believe you.
ooooppsss!
#212 was meant for another thread.
LotharLoo
Only you alarmist loons ignore the the other side.
Your weak glances at reality don’t cut it either.
“creationists, flat earth society”
Oh how lame can you get.
And “9/11 conspiracy theorists”??? Now that’s funny.
There is nearly a total alignment of AGW and 911 conspiracy believers making you and your loons beyond measure.
Your IPCC/AGW case is now so faulty that it is you clinging to the flat earth-like science.
Your camp can’t even progress to recognizing the MWP was global, that the mini ice age was as well, and that the IPCC reports themselves discount connections between hurricanes and AGW.
You make up connections bewteen AGW and every day observations like silly children. Then scream with profanities when you’re called on it.
It is you and your doing the ignoring of reality and science. You can’t even recognize the countless sceintists rejecting AGW.
Everything is make believe with you folks.
Re: Feynmaniac #70
I seldom post here but read often. Pharyngula and it’s comment posse are an inspiration.
WUWT IS a nutshell.
And I’m not cleaning this mess after the denial brigade evacuates down their troll holes.
SteveH, please cite the primary scientific literature to back up your arguments. Do not link or cite to any other source, as it will be ignored. Peer reviewed journals only.
That is how your convince us. We are here for the convincing, but the proper evidence is required.
Posted by: James Mayeau | January 13, 2009 11:30 AM
“You speak for no one? Are you no one’s press agent?
Hell I believe you.”
Sorry to disappoint your paranoid addled little brain but I speak for no one but myself.
But your conspiracy fantasies speak volumes about you. Tell me… are the Islamo Fascists hiding under your bed waiting for the Commies and Atheists to join them before they set out to eat the children and destroy the Christian US?
“Only you alarmist loons ignore the the other side.”
Oh, the irony!
“You can’t even recognize the countless sceintists rejecting AGW.”
Please show a comprehensive list of peer reviewed scientists who reject AGW.
Nerd of redhead,
Here’s the ultimate debunking
but there is much more refuting of the various pieces of the AGW puzzle that can be found on icecap.us if you merely scroll down and read. It’s all very interesting regardless of the AGW mantra that it doesn’t even exist.
You cannot simply neglect to do so and then pretend it doesn’t exist simply because I or someone else doesn’t bring it all to you.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf
Falsification Of
The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects
Within The Frame Of Physics
@ SteveH,
At some point I am hoping you will actually answer the questions.
1. What specifically rules out homogenization as tool for looking at data? This is the fourth time you have been asked.
2. How is climate defined and why is it defined that way?
The section of the article that I quoted refutes your assertion. The article mentions 2008 as the coolest year simply to refute the notion of a warming Earth; the act of doing so reveals a vast ignorance of what constitutes climate.
You can scream and shout all you want that it “aint so” but it is true that the author of your linked article is clueless. Tell me. Steve, what is the difference between weather and climate?
That is correct Steve. Now why is it that you linked to an article that seems to not know the difference?
You just committed the logical fallacy of Tu quoque .
Why are the peer reviewed journals not enough? Oh, I forgot they are corrupted. Care to substantiate this allegation? Tell me, why is washed up T.V presenter more credible than than a geophysicists?
SteveH, still no citition to the primary scientific literature. Just a link to an anti-AGW website, which means you have nothing. Either cite the science, which is found in the primary scientific literature, or you don’t have science. Make up your mind whether you have a scientific or non-scientific argument, then live with the consequence.
So, either cite the primary peer reviewed scientific literature, or acknowledge your argument is non-scientific.
@James Mayeau
Oh? What is this then? Improved estimates of upper-ocean warming and multi-decadal sea-level rise
Damm! I am sorry! I forgot that you lot regard the process of peer review as corrupted. How very uncivil of me. We all know that a blog by meteorologist is a much more rigorous method of doing science. NOT
mothra #76
What he said.
Trent,
What a bozo. It’s only your twist that makes the leap that a cooling year=cooling climate. That way you can avoid the context and greater meanings while echoing that petty weather is not climate bromide. A bromide concern which vanishes every time a AGW loons evangelizes some new weather obeservation to be AGW caused.
Redhead,
The link is a detailed scienfitic report by two German physisists which thoroughly discredits AGW, top to bottom.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf
Here it is again.
Now pretend you didn’t see it, or claim the link is a web site, or condemn the authors without reading it or ignore it completely so as to preserve your confusion.
Here are abundant links to everything you folks pretend does not exist. Including peer reviewed skeptics.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=b84196ff-802a-23ad-4827-17b10ab7dfcc
But since you refuse to read icecap.us, CA and WUWT no doubt you’ll use the usual excuses to continue avoiding the vast science community that rejects AGW.
Instead choosing to follow your government led farce like good little children.
Steve, why aren’t you citing the link. Maybe it is not to a peer reviewed journal? All data is suspect until some quality assurance is done. In science, that is peer review.
the vast science community that rejects AGW.
Okay, if you’re going to throw arguments from authority around, let’s play. You show us your community, we’ll show you ours. Deal?
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!
Ignorant neo-cons?
If Im not mistaken, the current leader, Micheal Totten, has spent several years in various embeds with US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. While he may not have the academic credentials of Mr Cole, I fail to see how someone with up-close experience of the current military actions can honestly be labelled “ignorant”. In fact based on reading your last several posts, this will be both my first and last visit, as your “blog” seems to offer nothing more than smug ignorance, bigoted judgementalism, and autoerotic literary masturbation
You’re catching up now that there’s a campaign on DailyKos (see link) to prevent the climate change denier from winning… good luck?
Ashamed to admit Im an athiest(sic), it was a pleasure to meet you.
OK SteveH…
After reading through a bunch of the cherry picked propaganda posted on corporate shill Inhofe’s site buried deep inside was this gem: A July 2007 review of 539 abstracts in peer-reviewed scientific journals from 2004 through 2007 showed that only 6% reject the AGW consensus outright. So much for the overwhelming numbers of scientists you claim reject AGW.
Has the CO2 falsification paper you refer to been corroborated by other scientists who went through and checked the math and validated how it was used? I find it funny that you are so convinced that they are right and yet I’ll bet you understand virtually none of it. One paper against an overwhelming consensus proves nothing.
I also seem to recall that the Bush government spent the last 8 years rejecting AGW so your “follow your government led farce like good little children” has more truth than you realized when you wrote it. Ooopppsss!!!!! The irony… it hurts!
There is nearly a total alignment of AGW and 911 conspiracy believers making you and your loons beyond measure. – Steve H@125
Against very strong competition, this entry wins Steve H. the “Lying fuckwit of the thread” award!
Redhead,
For the third time.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf
Falsification Of
The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects
Within The Frame Of Physics
Stu,
Yeah let’s play. Your AGW consensus is a fraud.
http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf
The IPCC Can’t Count
– Author and Reviewer numbers are wrong
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/
Professor denies global warming theory
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=b87e3aad-802a-23ad-4fc0-8e02c7bb8284&Region_id=&Issue_id=
Politically Left Scientists Now Rejecting Climate Fears
Peer Reviewed Denialism
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=A17DEFA8-802A-23AD-4912-8AB7138A7C3F
mayhempix,
I see you stumbled right past the scientists who reject AGW.
It has but does it matter to you if the CO2 Falsification study has been checked? No. You’ll reject it unless Hansen or Gore tells you otherwise.
KnockGoats,
Are you paying attention? Google 911 conspiracy and see the left wing kooks,,, all of whom are on members of the AGW
club.
http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/IPCC_numbers.pdf
The IPCC Can’t Count
– Author and Reviewer numbers are wrong
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/
Professor denies global warming theory
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=b87e3aad-802a-23ad-4fc0-8e02c7bb8284&Region_id=&Issue_id=
Politically Left Scientists Now Rejecting Climate Fears
Steve, you realize nobody’s laughing WITH you, right?
Also, the correlation between fake atheists and those unable to spell the damned word seems to be an almost perfect 1.
Stevie is having trouble with the concept of primary scientific literature. Until that changes, I will just consider him a fool. Not even a well meaning fool, just a plain fool, for wasting a lot of energy with nothing of substance and quality to back him up.
Posted by: Steve H. | January 13, 2009 2:14 PM
“mayhempix,
I see you stumbled right past the scientists who reject AGW.”
Ummm… no. I just responed with what percentage of the total they represent. But of course you missed that obvious connection.
You keep going on about that, but do you really think that if there are any alarmists on the “other side” that it admonishes your own behaviour? Yes there are alarmists out there, and there is a lot of misinformation spread by people who don’t know, but that does not make the denialist behaviour any less apprehensible.
The simple fact is that science is done in academia, and by subverting that you are going to be met with hostility. The reason we have that system is that there are millions of people time and time again who preach they know better than the scientific community and they turn out to be wrong. If it’s as obvious as you state, then why aren’t you submitting papers to respectable journals? Or is it only obvious to those who don’t have training in the matter?
Looks like you wack-job true-believers are going to lose this one. Your rabid, ignorant adherence to a now-clearly falsified AGW theory reminds me of another scientifically-iliterate group who despite mountains of evidence to the contrary are convinced that vaccines are reponsible for autism. But they are vocal and loud and politically correct, so the media give them plenty of airtime to confuse the public with junk science just as you all do with AGW. But eventually this whole global warming hoax/scare will be seen for what it was: as one of the most bizarre episodes in the history of science. Then you central planners will have to find some other way besides carbon to control the lives of the rest of us and fulfill your Marxist fantasies. Good Luck.
Not one citation of the primary scientific literature to back up your piddly arguments. Massive failure to argue scientifically, hence massive failure to prove your point. Massive waste of our time with nonsense.
Kel,
The only reason you cling to your view that denialist behaviour is apprehensible is you have failed to study the issue and afford yourself the benefit of knowing and understanding the plethera of sceince that refutes AGW.
You’re either lazy, or too biased, or agenda driven.
Something?
Because over the past few months the amount of data, science and expertice which has come to light debunking
AGW, on many aspects, is easily accessed and understood.
You and yours have no legitimate excuses for not knowing more.
Especially your nonsense about me subverting academia.
Spread some of your irrational hostility to this professor.
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/
Professor denies global warming theory
Despite your confusion, he shares a large and growing segment of academia which rejects AGW.
the reason I don’t comment in the public about global warming is simply that I’m not qualified to comment on global warming. When the climatologists who work on the material have spend decades training themselves and doing actual research, there’s no possible way I can get my knowledge up to an appropriate level in order to be comfortable talking about it.
I’m a Computer Scientist, not a Climatologist. I’m not pretending to be a climatologist, I’m not going to go against the climatologists in the field who know the intricate details so much better than I, I’m simply a consumer of scientific information.
My beef with you is that your subverting the process that makes science the pillar of knowledge it is today and instead preaching to people who don’t know in order to push your agenda. You undermine the scientific process in the same way that creationists do by preaching to the uninformed masses.
Stevie has a newspaper article. Yawn. Of no consquence.
Notice I haven’t given my opinion one way or the other on the global warming issue. It’s not that I’m completely oblivious on the topic, it’s just that the point I’m trying to make needs not my opinion on the matter one way or another. I’m dismayed at the attempt you make to subvert the process of science, because my agenda is seeking truth and the scientific method is the best filter of bad ideas I have come across. I’m defending the process of science, that’s all my point has been throughout this thread (also to praise Neurologica)
@ Steve H.
Ever tried to convert a Jehovah witness? Won’t work.
Same here at Pharyngula. Don’t forget you are arguing with “Anointed” scientific minds here. They know the TRUTH without need for empirical validation. Nothing can falsify their AGW hysteria.
Welcome to “post-modern” Science. (New Age science!)
Asking for empirical validation through the channels of validation in science? How dare we?!?
Unlike Kel, I am a working scientist with 30+ years experience. I am very familiar on a day to day basis of how science works. I have also been a skeptic for almost as long. That is why I keep harping on the primary scientific literature. It is one way to separate the actual data from the pretend data, since the peer review process helps to confirm its validity.
Anybody can write a sceintific paper. But, in order to get it published, you have to present the data honestly, and the data has to back up the points and conclusions of the papers, and follow the rules of science. You also have to cite and know the prior literature. Anytime I ask somebody why don’t you write up the data, and they don’t get cracking on the manuscript, it sets off my BS detector. My BS detector is need of repair due to the amount of BS slung around here today.
Like Kel, I have not argued my position one way or the other. But fellows, you haven’t won me over due to the lack of rigor with your arguments. So, it is time to either publish or shut up.
Please tell me how to empirically falsify the AGW hypothesis.
Sorry, was me.
By showing that the current mechanisms attributed to global warming are not man-made. And instead of publishing on a blog, and this is very important, submit your articles for peer review.
@Kel (#159)
You wrote:
“By showing that the current mechanisms attributed to global warming are not man-made.”
Nature will take care of that, and the signs are not good for AWG alarmists.
Kel,
What BS. If you can’t understand enough about AGW to comment than that’s fine. It hardly takes a climatologist to understand or comment.
Do you also think parents subvert education if they should comment in school board meeting on how the school is run because they aren’t teachers or administrators?
You have crossed into ludicrous with that subverting crap.
I have no agenda I am pushing at all.
For some irrational or lazy reasons you think there is no one in the pillar of knowledge that rejects AGW.
I am not preaching at all. Instead I am directing your attention to what you are clearly missing.
The academic and scietific community that rejects AGW.
Get over yourself.
It is you who contributes to the undermining of the scientific process by obstructing the full vetting of it.
And it is you who are among the uiniformed masses.
Redhead the newspaper article is about a respected expert scientific academia professor who rejects AGW. He among the many others are of enormous consquence.
Kel,
You are confusing the vetting of science with subverting it.
Vetting is seeking the truth and if that is your agenda then yo may someday obtain a better understanding and will be really dismayed, downright pissed, at how you have been misled.
Sooner rather than later real science will be finish filtering the sloppy science and bad idea of AGW.
Despite your defending the hoax under your pretensae of defending science and academia.
Then surely have a platform on which to fight it scientifically.
And so we descend into a sibling society where being learned on a subject is a matter of saying one is learned.
lol, surely this is projection. Since all I’ve done is touted the scientific method.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. They aren’t subverting the scientific method, they are merely vetting it.
Stevie, no primary literature, no lookie. Anything less than that, which is all you have, is a waste of my time.
It seems that “Whatts up with that” won in the scientific category.
That’s good news!
Whats Up With That has won with a plurality of about 5% of the votes cast.
The combination of WUWT and Climate Audit have just under 50% of the vote
@ Tom Gray (#166)
The contest wasn’t about AGW. It was about science!
Again, science is not done on the blogosphere, it’s done in academia. If you think winning an online poll is a validation of the work, then surely it should be a cinch to get that view validated by those in the know.
Woohoo!!! Global Warming is a lie! A web poll proved it!!!
Dumbasses.
Nerd of Redhead | January 13, 2009 5:00 PM
Stevie, no primary literature, no lookie. Anything less than that, which is all you have, is a waste of my time
Nerd, please consult the book “proofs and Refutations by Imre Lakatos who is a successor to Karl Popper. Lakatos main idea that there is a distinction between formal and informal research with the latter being the more fruitful. Scientific progress does not take place in the pages of science journals but in the interactions of scientists and others in conferences, lunch rooms etc. Lakatos referred to mathematics but the extension to science is obvious.
Lakatos extended Poppers work to include the concept of progressive and degenerate research programmes. This would be of interest to the discussions here.
The Wikipedia article on this book is as follows:
Lakatos’ philosophy of mathematics was inspired by both Hegel’s and Marx’ dialectic, Karl Popper’s theory of knowledge, and the work of mathematician George Polya.
The book Proofs and Refutations is based on his doctoral thesis. It is largely taken up by a fictional dialogue set in a mathematics class. The students are attempting to prove the formula for the Euler characteristic in algebraic topology, which is a theorem about the properties of polyhedra. The dialogue is meant to represent the actual series of attempted proofs which mathematicians historically offered for the conjecture, only to be repeatedly refuted by counterexamples. Often the students ‘quote’ famous mathematicians such as Cauchy.
What Lakatos tried to establish was that no theorem of informal mathematics is final or perfect. This means that we should not think that a theorem is ultimately true, only that no counterexample has yet been found. Once a counterexample, i.e. an entity contradicting/not explained by the theorem is found, we adjust the theorem, possibly extending the domain of its validity. This is a continuous way our knowledge accumulates, through the logic and process of proofs and refutations. (If axioms are given for a branch of mathematics, however, Lakatos claimed that proofs from those axioms were tautological, i.e. logically true.)
Lakatos proposed an account of mathematical knowledge based on the idea of heuristics. In Proofs and Refutations the concept of ‘heuristic’ was not well developed, although Lakatos gave several basic rules for finding proofs and counterexamples to conjectures. He thought that mathematical ‘thought experiments’ are a valid way to discover mathematical conjectures and proofs, and sometimes called his philosophy ‘quasi-empiricism’.
However, he also conceived of the mathematical community as carrying on a kind of dialectic to decide which mathematical proofs are valid and which are not. Therefore he fundamentally disagreed with the ‘formalist’ conception of proof which prevailed in Frege’s and Russell’s logicism, which defines proof simply in terms of formal validity.
On its publication in 1976, Proofs and Refutations became highly influential on new work in the philosophy of mathematics, although few agreed with Lakatos’ strong disapproval of formal proof. Before his death he had been planning to return to the philosophy of mathematics and apply his theory of research programmes to it. One of the major problems perceived by critics is that the pattern of mathematical research depicted in Proofs and Refutations does not faithfully represent most of the actual activity of contemporary mathematicians.[citation needed]
A proven liar and bullshitter recommends reading. Guess what are the odds of my doing so. Either cite the primary scientific literature to back your points, or shut the fuck up. I am not interest in anything less. What part of that are you having trouble with?
Here’s the question du jour for you. Why isn’t the data you keep trying to show in the primary scientific literature? If all it requires is a write-up, time for you to get busy. You should have it all organized. If there are flaws in the data, time for you get honest and acknowledge that too.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | January 13, 2009 5:49 PM
A proven liar and bullshitter recommends reading. Guess what are the odds of my doing so.
Two questions:
a) Did you actually read my comment?
b) Have you the slightest idea who I am?
Guys, you really should read Steve H’s pdf link @130. It’s hilarious. It has a section about the warming mechanism in glass greenhouses (which is about convection, mostly); notes that the “greenhouse effect” is different; and concludes that AGW is false. It’s the funniest fail I’ve seen in a while. “No AGW because CO2 is not a pane of glass”. Pfft.
@97 James Mayeau: Do you have even the smallest shred of evidence that Real Climate and AAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLL GOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRE!!!11!ELEVEN!1! have any connection whatsoever?
If so, then post it, and then we’ll talk.
If not, then STFU and begone, foul troll.
@172 Tom Gray: Have you the slightest idea who I am?
Attention, fellow Pharyngulites: We have a troll here who does not know who he is. Can anyone here help him find out?
I have no idea who he is. You? Maybe he’s off meds.
@Tom Gray
How many guesses do I get? Are you a Blues singer?
I have a riddle!
What do I have in my pocket?
I googled Tom Gray. There’s a Tom Gray that’s the deputy executive director of the American Wind Energy Association.
Tom Gray @172, why should who you are be relevant to our evaluation of what you post? Your posts should stand on their merits, such as they are.
OK. Come back then.
This is so funny, because I’m (still, slowly) reading Isaacson’s Einstein biography. Just yesterday I was reading the chapters about his work that turned physics on its head. Hard to imagine anything more revolutionary, and he wrote it up in 1905 at the same time as he was finishing his dissertation – didn’t even have an academic job yet. Where were these radical challenges to the scientific consensus published? Physics journals!
This is one of the most pointless, futile and abusive “discussions” I have seen. Like much of this blog it is about religion rather than science.
Global warming isn’t something you believe in. It is something you measure. Concensus is an appeal to politics by those who cannot debate science. Science is about questioning and scepticism, not about settled belief.
Well, if I had to guess, Tom Gray is asking Nerd of Redhead, “Er, have you the slightest idea who I am when you call me a ‘proven liar and a bullshitter’?” and not “Do you have any idea what an important person I am?”. Since I do not recognize his name myself, I have no idea if Nerd does indeed know Tom Gray as a proven liar and bullshitter; I merely note that Tom Gray seems more puzzled than arrogant.
However, I do note that Tom Gray undermines his own point @#170 given his earlier comment @#31; “I really do not see how it can be considered a science blog”.
If science were to follow Lakatos’ method, then an informal public blog arguing about science and culture would be almost as valid as a peer-reviewed published journal… would it not? At the very least, it ought not be excluded from being called “a science blog” on the grounds that arguments and discussions occur on it. If not, then why not?
The accepted science is that AGW is real and has to be minimized.
The skeptics can test it and revise it. But they don’t seem to bother.
They won’t do the science.
Equating backing the science to religion is silly.
True story: “atheist” was the word that lost me the school spelling bee in third grade. I had never encountered the word before then.
#148 george h.:
Um, no. See, there’s one teeny tiny little difference between the AGW crowd and the anti-vaxxer crowd. AGW is supported by the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Anti-vaccination isn’t.
Steve H.:
Your complete failure to respond in any way to the simplest of inquiries about the “proofs” you bring to the thread reveals you to be a dishonest tool. Feel free to shove off now.
I have no idea who Tom Gray is. He seemed to be indicating that the primary literature was not where science was done, so I blew him off like the other two idiots who were arguing that their non-primary scientific literature was valid science. I was just using the skeptic technic where I took control of the information out of their hands and put it into a third parties hand (the scientific literature). I was not surprised when they failed that test.
Just for the record, I have been watching the AGW situation since the ’70s, and all the information I have seen to date indicates that the idea is correct. I understand the difference between climate (what one expects), and weather (like the unseasonably cold air that arrives tonight/tomorrow/tomorrow night) which the earlier deniers couldn’t seem to discern the difference between. The extent of warming may be up for debate, not whether it is occurring.
Tom Gray, if you are not one of the anti-AGW posters, my apologies.
The skeptics can test it and revise it. But they don’t seem to bother. They won’t do the science.
Completely false. One of the two main satellite global temperature records is maintained by sceptics who have published frequently as have many others.
You are not backing science by your unquestioning belief that the science is settled. You are creating a religious cult. There is a very great deal still to be understood about the drivers of our climate, both past and present.
Science is about questioning and scepticism and evidence and its correct interpretation
Which is exactly what Climate Audit with its highly technical statistical auditing and Anthony Watts’ surface station auditing do. Is there any comparable real scientific work done here?
Alan, it ain’t science until the paper is at least accepted for publication (in press). I have no idea what the other blogs you mention do, but blogs are not truly scientific unless it can cite the primary scientific literature (even with just “in press”) for the data they show. The earlier posters were missing this. If you have the citations, give them. Realize we hear so and so believes in creationism, but if you look at their papers, pure science, not creationism (religion). That is why it is important to be able to judge the papers ourselves.
Highly technical! OH NOEZ! I’m shakin’ in my boots!
I was talking about the IPCC and the community of experts in the disciplines relevant to AGW. A consensus is based upon an examination and evalution of research published in the peer-reviewed literature (as, decades ago, was the consensus concerning the health effects of cigarette smoking, which faced similar well-financed “skeptic” campaigns – see Allan Brandt’s The Cigarette Century).
Real scientific work can be carried out by novel means and nonprofessionals, but it then needs to be written up and peer-reviewed, meeting scientific standards. Dr. Myers frequently posts about peer-reviewed science in his field (in which I’m no expert, to say the least, and I don’t pretend to be), and many of the commenters here are working scientists with active research agendas. But I don’t think anyone thinks that what appears here is equivalent to science published in peer-reviewed journals. That would be nuts.
Alan, it ain’t science until the paper is at least accepted for publication (in press)
Nonsense. Most science is never formally published.
Highly technical! OH NOEZ! I’m shakin’ in my boots!
If you do not have advanced statistical knowledge you are not qualified to have an opinion on Steve McIntyre’s work.
@Alan,
So what are your credentials?
Real scientific work can be carried out by novel means and nonprofessionals, but it then needs to be written up and peer-reviewed, meeting scientific standards.
So it can be labeled as blasphemy by the clerics and gate keepers of the religion of sustainablility.
WUWT?
You don’t say. Do go on, please. Enlighten us more about “science”.
Are you suggesting that the editors and reviewers at the journals in the relevant fields do not have such knowledge? I was chortling at your use of “highly technical” and how it reminded me of references to “distinguished and learned” theologians. Does McIntire wear a white coat, too?
Do you people realize how much you sound like creationists?
Oh, well – I’m sure ExxonMobil appreciates your antiscience efforts.
Oh you silly people.
Steve C says
“The skeptics can test it and revise it. But they don’t seem to bother. They won’t do the science.”
How does one make such a ludicrous statement? Are you that disconnected?
The scientific work by skeptics is extensive and around the globe from Australia to Belgium, UK, Germany, the US and many others places.
Your ridiculous excuses for avoiding, ignoring and condenming the extensive work done by scientific experts (in the same related fields as the IPCC) grew stale long ago. Adding profanity makes it stale and adolescent.
Academia saw fit to publish this. Take a read. It’s about an IPCC hurricane expert who resigned becasue his superior misrepresented the IPCC position on hurricanes and AGW.
This is why so many of you think more hurricanes are coming from AGW. A liar at the IPCC
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html
Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4’s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic.
Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.
I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.
Cont. on link
Sorry Alan, as a professional scientist with 30+ years experience, if it ain’t published, it doesn’t exist. Just if I don’t write my experiments into my notebook, I never carried them out. If work extends the field, it will be published. Unless, of course, the work isn’t scientific, and is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. So anything other than quoting the literature will get you nowhere with me.
So academia = this guy’s blog?:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roger_Pielke_Jr.
What part of peer-reviewed literature do you not get?
Here’s McIntire’s page, btw:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stephen_McIntyre
Nerd, you sound like an ivory tower academic. In the real world all kinds of science gets done every day and is never published because it is done for immediately useful purposes – not for academic status and promotion. Most published science is actually pretty useless and read by few except its authors.
Wow, AGW even have their own ad hominem slagging website.
I see it doesn’t get around to mentioning that Steve was an official IPCC 2007 reviewer.
Nasty-minded, slanted cherry-picking like that certainly helps their cause better than actual science, doesn’t it? Actually I’ve yet to find an AGW site that doesn’t spend most of its time censoring, banning and denigrating any scepticism. This ugly behaviour probably accounts for the declining public confidence in their assertions.
@Steve H. #82. Thank you for proving my point! To quote Monte Python: “say no more, say no more.”
I do keep up on the literature as it relates to evidence and most especially impact on regional biotas. The overarching important data are:
1) CO2 properties- it is a greenhouse gas;
2) CO2 levels- have been measured in old and new ice, in sea water, ‘micro vacuoles’ and larger gas pockets in rocks, igneous and metamorphic, on land and undersea, and in our present atmosphere at various altitudes. CO2 levels are higher now than at any time period for which there is data.
3) Localized greenhouse effects have been measured via IR satellite imagery around factories with high CO2 emissions.
4) CO2 (obviously) contains carbon which occurs as 3 (THREE) isotopes. The ratios of these isotopes are known for the lower and upper atmosphere, from minerals, from fresh and salt water, from living and dead organics.
5) These ratios and the isotope decay rates allow us to date individual samples- the resulting dates can be and are corroborated by other dating methods. The Carbon ratios indicate that the recent CO2 rise is anthropogenic in origin- the smoking gun as it were.
That is enough already but I will talk about global temperature. Overall global temperatures show an increase. Where I live there is (charitably) about 120 years worth of data. The measured temperatures will NEVER be too cold with respect to placement of the instruments and, errors in measurement due to instrumentation can be accounted for. So, with biased data that could register warmer temperatures throughout, but steady improvements in technique and instrumentation that removes such biases as we approach the present time, we should expect an overall slight cooling trend. Our readings indicate warming.
The AAAS has a policy statement on global warming- look it up- that’s scientific consensus in the U.S. The Union of Concerned Scientists has a similar statement- again scientific consensus- that’s international. So, your argument from numbers is irrelevant (data) or false (scientific consensus).
I specifically used the word ‘cabal’, not as a rhetorical device, such as your use of ‘alarmist’) but to make a point. My questions forced you to choose (unwittingly as it turned out- but I bet you do a great many things unwittingly) between numerous independent individual researchers publishing global warming evidence versus an overall tacit or explicit agreement among scientists to only publish global warming evidence. Your overall yes responses shows you to be a master of projection. If your responses had indicated individual researchers were to blame, then you lose the argument straight forwardly as the test of scientific theories is independent researchers obtaining similar results. If you had answered in favor of the cabal, and you (also) did by saying there specifically was agenda driven ‘science’ (Cabal- a small number of individuals joined in a group for a specific purpose or scheme), then you loose Q.E.D.
In your ‘yesness’ you failed to address the important question: why scientists would push a global warming agenda, which, if shown to be false is detrimental in both short and long term. Your answer was of the “I know your are but what am I” variety. To better frame the issue for you: People die for ideas- look at the Middle-east. An agenda of collectively pushing false research results destroys science- the life’s work of those very same researchers, it is detrimental to themselves, their research community, family, friends and leaves a poorer and lesser world for their descendants.
Finally, I am working on a paper on faunal changes in North Dakota with regards to the insects. A small portion of the recent (last 50 years) change in the ND insect fauna can be linked to climate.
Here’s the description of McIntire from SourceWatch:
What part of this is slagging? Factually incorrect?
This kind
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/you_too_can_be_a_leading_clima.php
or a different kind? (It’s an honest question – are “official” reviewers different from “expert” reviewers?)
Projection, ladies and gentlemen. Projection.
Oh gee Mothra thanks for the entry level middle school AGW framework. I’ve never heard or read anything about that stuff,,,,,,,,,oh gee again.
And with such condescension.
“why scientists would push a global warming agenda, which, if shown to be false is detrimental in both short and long term”
That is a more than frequent question posed my friend and those before you when given the detailed answer fall all over themselves to NOT get the points.
The answer is perfectly simple. Many of the consensus scientists support for the AGW theory with grounded in data yet to be subjected to sufficient scrutiny. Then we have additional years of better science and many more experts applying their scrutiny. We have many scientists changing their view on AGW and are now rejecting the theory as flawed and invalid.
Of those remaining loyal to AGW science some are dedicated to that science, some are still evolving their own viewpoints, and many are of the viewpoint that the policies about to be generated to fight AGW are needed even if it is invalid. There are those who see AGW as the best way to get those policies enacted. And the various environmental agenda issue hitched to global warming are many. Every enviro- researcher and advocate has leaped on board the AGW train. There is much riding on AGW. Including reputations. So the end justifies the means for many who defend this very bad IPCC science. Are there black helicopters and secret meetings? Not likely. But there is a broad concerted effort to sustain the threat of AGW in order to avoid embarrassment and to advance the many cause riding this wave.
The fact of the matter is AGW fighting policies will certainly be extremely harmful, they won’t reduce CO2 or global warming and the bulk of the related objectives are extreme and without merit. So while the AGW agenda seeks to expend countless billions dealing with sloppy AGW science genuine environmental work will be shortchanged and left in perpetual fiscal crisis.
I want real environmental work done with our resources.
sourcewatch is a creature of CMD whose AGW slant is crystal clear from their website:
… says Sheldon Rampton, research director for the Center for Media and Democracy, a nonprofit organization that promotes media literacy. … ‘But the global-warming skeptics certainly haven’t given up. And they seem willing to promote anyone who can be half-plausibly sold as an expert.’
The selection of comments and quotes about McIntyre is obviously intended and designed to discredit him along the above lines which is precisely why you quoted it.
Re the IPCC 2007 Review, I quote McIntyre:
I was a reviewer for IPCC 4AR and made many constructive suggestions on the Paleoclimate chapter both in the first draft and second draft. Most of my comments were ignored, but it’s not that I didn’t participate.
Also when I tried to get supporting data on two unpublished paleoclimate studies from the authors (after IPCC refused to provide it and referred me to the authors), IPCC gave me notice that I would be expelled as a reviewer if I attempted to get supporting data on unpublished studies from the authors.
Official or “expert” – I neither know nor much care. But a reviewer who wants to check the conclusions against the data is at least attempting a competent review, while an organisation that obstructs that outcome is a political farce rather than a scientific enquiry.
Interesting that the edit history for the sourcewatch page on McIntyre consists solely of this comment:
What are the ‘unreported ties’? Does this mean he receives financial compensation? If so, why is this not stated clearly if true? If the ‘unreported ties’ are non-financial, i.e., ‘my daughter’s father-in-law works for an energy company’ what relevance does this have, other than to imply something that is meant to be misleading?
Of what specific relevance has the phrasing ‘does not have an advanced degree’ meant to imply? If the author is unqualified to comment on subjects in his field of interest, why not state this clearly and offer the reasons why?
If there are facts to back up the negative phrasing in the article, why not include references in the article pointing to those facts?
Quite.
Where AGW theory has got it’s computer model badly wrong is in the method by which it arrives at a value for co2 climate forcing.
It makes some WAG’s at the strength of a few other parameters and then attributes the rest of the late C20th warming to CO2.
Problem is, it fails to take into consideration a couple of extremely important factors which as we speak are overpowering the co2 forcing and pushing global temperatures downwards. These two factors are: The oceanic oscillation cycles and the underestimated solar forcing.
It turns out that the run of strong el nino’s which have forced up the global temperature in the final 3 decades of the C20th have been fed by a large subsurface body of warm water called the pacific warm pool. Because it is well below the surface, and it hasn’t been measured by sea surface temperature measurements, or satellites, it’s accumulated energy isn’t represented in the temperature record. You can read all about it over on Watts Up With That. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/11/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of-the-global-warming-since-1976-%E2%80%93-part-1/
Be sure to check out part 2 a couple of posts above. The work has been done by Bob Tisdale. One upshot is that the parameterisation solar forcing is underestimated because it fails to take into account the energy which has been hidden in the Pacific Warm Pool.
Judging by the current transition of the pacific decadal oscillation to it’s cool phase, as eveidenced by the back to back La Nina’s over the last two years, the warm pool has given us what it has got for now and we may well be in for a prolonged spell of cooler climate. Coupled with the dropoff in solar activity expected over the next 20-60 years, it’s looking likely the IPCC co2 driven model will become increasingly falsified by actual events in the real world away from computer models.
Post 207 seems to have been written by someone who thinks that AGW is based on one computer model: “Where AGW theory has got it’s [sic] computer model badly wrong is in the method by which it arrives at a value for co2 climate forcing.” Bad start, really.
Steve H @204 now claims that he knows all this obvious stuff about CO2 and global warming. He hasn’t, however, explained how all these facts about CO2 can be true but global warming will not happen. We are agog! When will you publish?
We have many scientists changing their view on AGW and are now rejecting the theory as flawed and invalid. – Steve H.
Like who? We need qualified climate scientists, who once accepted the consensus position, and have now changed their minds. Many of them.
More generally, your #204 is a stream of accusations without a particle of evidence. How about providing some?
Besides being a profession scientist for 30+ years, I have been a skeptic for 25+ years. I’ve seen some of the AWG deniers literature. I am very unimpressed with the data and its lack of quality control. It has all the earmarks of being as scientitic as ID/creationsim. Citing web sites doesn’t alter that. The primary peer reviewed scientific literature is a good third party measure of the information.
Now, why isn’t the AWG deniers getting their data into the primary peer reviewed scientific literature? The only reason I see is that the data is flawed. Publish or shut up.
@207: you claim that “It turns out that the run of strong el nino’s which have forced up the global temperature in the final 3 decades of the C20th have been fed by a large subsurface body of warm water called the pacific warm pool. Because it is well below the surface, and it hasn’t been measured by sea surface temperature measurements, or satellites, it’s accumulated energy isn’t represented in the temperature record. You can read all about it over on Watts Up With That. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/11/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of-the-global-warming-since-1976-%E2%80%93-part-1/”
Now, I could just respond with [citation needed], as you’re linking to a blog post, not to climatology literature. But it’s more elegant to actually look within the page you cite, which includes a nice little diagram of your Pacific Warm Pool and this description: “The Pacific Warm Pool, also known as the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool, is an area in the western equatorial Pacific and eastern Indian Ocean where huge volumes of warm water collect due to a number of natural processes (normally attributed to ocean currents and trade winds). The Pacific Warm Pool is visible in SST data and in subsurface ocean temperature data; the warm pool reaches down to depths of 300 meters. Figure 10 illustrates its location. Over decadal periods of time, it expands and contracts in area and increases and decreases in volume.”
So, you claim that the pool has not been measured by SST measurements. As proof, you cite a page which says the pool _is_ visible in SST data.
Your logic is not like our Earth logic.
Their “slant” is in favor of peer-reviewed scientific evidence and against the manipulation of the mass media for financial or political purposes, disguising political positions as scientific ones.
Again, was it factually untrue? What information of relevance did it leave out that would meaningfully alter the gist of the information presented there? What “negative phrasing” are you referring to?
McIntire’s having been “listed…as a ‘strategic advisor'” to that company is not the same thing as “my daughter’s father-in-law works for an energy company,” as anyone with half a brain can see. If that tie exists, it is a direct one.
This question
is hilarious. Hilarious. Saying that he doesn’t have an advanced degree in the highly-technical fields in which he’s purported to be some kind of expert is stating a fact: he’s unqualified as an expert in those fields. (Of course, his lack of formal training and academic qualifications does not, on its own, disqualify him from making scientific claims, nor does it stop him from doing research or submitting articles to scientific journals or attending conferences, but these haven’t passed scientific peer-review and therefore are without merit in the scientific discussion of AGW. Because his research is substandard and not up to scientific snuff, all he’s got is his personal reputation as a dissenting “expert” climate scientist. Well, sorry, but he’s not.
SourceWatch requires references, and every one of those statements is followed by a citation. That commenter (whose questions, you’ll note, were not deleted) could easily have provided other information or contrary information. So can you, if you think you have it and can support it. Go for it.
(And by the way, I’m an academic. If I start a blog and publish there an article by KnockGoats – also an academic – can we then assert that it has been accepted by “academia” and is equivalent to a paper published in a perr-reviewed journal?)
If anyone can be a reviewer, then pointing to yourself or someone else as an “expert” or “official” reviewer – which carries obvious connotations of recognized expertise, which is precisely why deniers are so fond of doing it – is a desperate and dishonest ploy to gain unearned status. What’s particularly sad about McIntire is that, unlike some other deniers (or creationists), he doesn’t appear to be expert in any scientific field or have any real qualifications, so he has to resort to such pathetic ploys. I don’t know anything about the interaction he describes (and certainly wouldn’t take his word for it), but from the looks of things he’s about as competent to review that research as Schlafly is to review Lenski’s.
Redhead,
“I’ve seen some of the AWG deniers literature. I am very unimpressed with the data and its lack of quality control.”
Then you haven’t seen enough and are deliberately avoiding it.
The data and quality control is extensive. You’re review of it is not. Instead you utilize the same tired excuses to marginalize the oppostion. Reducing it to “citing web sites”
while ignoring the extensive content, science, data and experts appearing in many venues including publications and academia.
In this thread you ignored much as you keep repeating the usual mantras. Then close with shut up.
Stephen Wells & Knockgoats,
You appear to be like many other AGW loyalists. Stuck without learning and unaware of the expertice and science that refutes AGW.
You can’t even grasp the most basic refutions or that any real scientists reject AGW.
Wells, apparently unable to find it, asks where is the case that global warming will not happen?
Hey Wells,,, it’s no where. Never mind for you.
KnockGoats,
Same with you. Never mind. There are no scientists changing their view on AGW.
There now don’t you feel better?
Are you stuck here and can’t click your way around?
As for my #204 stream of accusations without a particle of evidence? In my having countless exchanges with the AGW faithful many have openly revealed their stance that it matters not whether AGW is true. They want the policies anyway. Countless other indications have demonstrated the other interests as well.
KnockGoats,
Same with you. Never mind. There are no scientists changing their view on AGW.
– Steve H.
So you were lying. Thought so.
As for my #204 stream of accusations without a particle of evidence? In my having countless exchanges with the AGW faithful many have openly revealed their stance that it matters not whether AGW is true. They want the policies anyway. Countless other indications have demonstrated the other interests as well.
Since you’re an admitted liar, why would I believe this?
Stevie, this is how you separate honest men of integrity from liars and bullshitters. You set up a test, in this case the citations from the primary peer reviewed scientific literature which is a neutral third party, where honest men of integrity either will cite the literature, or acknowledge the data isn’t there. Liars and bullshitters, who are men without integrity, will be evasive and try to keep their arguments going. Guess which side you fell on Stevie. I see you as a man with no integrity. So why should I believe anything you have to say? You might as well go away. Nobody will listen to you.
Hey Nerd and Goat,
Wake up. Especially Goat. I was humoring your ignorance.
You obvioulsy haven’t any intention of discovering anything new.
Nerd. That was laughable. It seems you were talking about Gore or Hansen. And how can you be so lame as to think that I want YOU to Believe ME? I have charged all through this thread that you and yours are not looking at the extensive expertice delivering the solid science of AGW refuation.
I never suggested you “listen to me”.
Up thread there were many opportunities for you to dispute scientis and academia who reject AGW. I gave you quotes and the easy clicks to find your way.
You chose instead to cling to your safety and comfort zone where you avoid such engagement.
That’s why I dismiss you and mocked Goat.
He remains comfortable thinking there are no scientists who have left the IPCC and/or reject AGW.
As if any grade school ninny couldn’t find them.
It apparently doesn’t matter to you folks how many experts line up in rejecting AGW.
Your eyes are shut, fingers in your ears while screaming shut up and go away.
Impressive.
Prepare for ice age
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2009/20090114065138.aspx
Yes, you did. You have repeatedly asserted the existence of this “solid science of AGW refutation” without providing a single shred of evidence for it, such as a simple literature citation. Obviously, you just want us to take your word for it that it’s out there, somewhere.
Total bullshit. If you ever had any intention of actually engaging in such discussion, you would have responded to at least one of the multiple questions that have been raised about the links you have posted.
And Stevie proves my point yet again. He has no honor, integrity, or verified facts to back him up. Just a shadow of a sockpuppet.
If Steve H doesn’t expect anyone to believe him, or listen to him… why is he posting anything?
SC_OM, your comments on McIntyre are ridiculous.
The published McIntyre and McKittrick refutation of Mann’s first hockey-stick paper must be one of the most widely-cited contributions to the climate change debate and I suggest likely far outweighs in significance and citations most other published work, perhaps including yours.
Since Mann last year attempted to resurrect his broken stick you will be pleased to know that a further McIntyre response has been accepted and is imminent if not already published in the same journal that published Mann.
For the record, Google Scholar lists 72 citations for M&M 2003. Contrast with 779 citations for Mann et al. 1998.
I don’t deny the political significance of the paper.
You’ll have to be more specific, Alan. Are you talking about the 2005 paper in this organization’s journal?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080125154628.htm
In PNAS? If you have a citation, provide it. If it’s imminent, come back when it appears. Or by “response” do you mean a comment on Mann’s paper and not a publication?
It’s a comment. See here and here. Doesn’t seem to have been published yet.
Wait – Alan, are you talking about one of the articles in Energy and Environment? It’s not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. Haven’t we covered this ground already?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_Environment
Thanks, Ian.
Alan – You do know the difference between a letter to the editor and a peer-reviewed research article, right?
http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/iforc.shtml
Nerd,
Here’s my post #135 that provided plenty.
Along with the other posts which included a professor rejecting the IPCC there’s plenty already here.
So let me get you.
I keep giving you the work of scientists and you keep claiming I never did?
Posted by: Steve H. | January 13, 2009 1:27 PM
Trent,
What a bozo. It’s only your twist that makes the leap that a cooling year=cooling climate. That way you can avoid the context and greater meanings while echoing that petty weather is not climate bromide. A bromide concern which vanishes every time a AGW loons evangelizes some new weather obeservation to be AGW caused.
Redhead,
The link is a detailed scienfitic report by two German physisists which thoroughly discredits AGW, top to bottom.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf
Here it is again.
Now pretend you didn’t see it, or claim the link is a web site, or condemn the authors without reading it or ignore it completely so as to preserve your confusion.
Here are abundant links to everything you folks pretend does not exist. Including peer reviewed skeptics.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=b84196ff-802a-23ad-4827-17b10ab7dfcc
But since you refuse to read icecap.us, CA and WUWT no doubt you’ll use the usual excuses to continue avoiding the vast science community that rejects AGW.
Instead choosing to follow your government led farce like good little children.
Stevie, what part of you being considered a liar and bullshitter do you have trouble with. I do not believe anything you have to say. Go away. You blew whatever chance you had.
@227
Great … you refer to a paper that denies the fact CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Jeeze.
Stevie, prima facie evidence of your lying. I’m a chemist and know better. Ever hear of venus? Runaway greenhouse gas effect due to carbon dioxide. And you wonder why I don’t believe you. Or anyone else here after this? GO AND STAY AWAY.
Nerd Ian and Wells,
Are you folks loopy?
You don’t seem to be able to grasp the most simplistic thing.
No I don’t care if you “believe me”.
I want you to read and comprehend the reports I have provided.
Instead you’re all obsessed with nonsensicle games.
There are abundant links to scientific work I have already provided you with.
Yet you read none and respond to none, then claim I never provided them.
You yammer on with “peer review rhetoric” and I give you a piece by a science professor and you ignore it. I think you didn’t like the link of something?
Again, there are plenty of experts in science and academia
who reject AGW. All over the globe. I suggest there are more than those who continue to support AGW. Yes, including former IPCC scientists, which I also linked to above.
Yet you continue to claim they don’t exist.
It is you who have the integrity and thics problems.
Your approach would be the same as if I claimed Hansen and the IPCC don’t exist.
That’s irrational.
As for the bogus hockey stick? If you were even remotely well read on AGW you would have to know Mann has been debunked and even moreso lately.
Other refutions come with the Midieval War Period being scientificly eestablished as a global event which contradicts the claim ti was regional, unsettled and insigificant.
The two hemispheres failing to warm symetriccly contradicts Hansen/IPCC projections.
Sea ice recovery, a decade long cooling trend and a wide range of inconsitencies with the IPCC AGW modeling have been widely examined and continued scrutiny is revealing more problems every day.
If you have missed out on the evolving science then you have been in a box.
You can’t hide and play make believe that it hasn’t and isn’t happening becasue I haven’t broght it all here for you.
Besides, if the prior ignoring here is any indication it wouldn’t matter if I did drag all of of it here.
go to
http://www.icecap.us
http://www.wattsupwiththat.com
http://www.climateaudit.org
Every day new material, discussed at length gets posted.
It comes from all over the place, from experts.
Plus you can drop in there and tell ALL of them they either don’t exist or have no integrity.
I’m, sure they’ll be as impressed as I have been.
There’s a fetid smell in the thread. Must have a liar and bullshitter running around who is spreading their bullshit. They need to go and stay away. Patricia, we are going to need the big shovel and the trebuchet for this.
You quote me for a reason there, Nerd?
It get’s worse as the second link references that clown Inhofe – I interviewed him once when I worked at an Oklahoma newspaper and he’s a moron – and the bogus list of (604 now) scientists. I think there may be a dozen who would have anything close to a background in climate science.
Looks like Steve is just like a creationist – or is one – he keeps posting to refuted bullshit and then steps back and acts like it doesn’t stink and he’s never heard it’s refuted.
Sorry, I guess you can’t understand it.
Here’s a summary below.
And before you ask here’s a comment from that location.
“It does not need to be peer reviewed. Gerlich is not presenting a theory. He is simply reviewing whether the greenhouse theories conform with the – amply peer reviwed :-) – laws of physics. Moreover, the paper is published on Arxiv, which notes “The contents of arXiv conform to Cornell University academic standards. arXiv is owned, operated and funded by Cornell University, a private not-for-profit educational institution. arXiv is also partially funded by the National Science Foundation.”
kravis02 May 28, 2008 04:54 AM CST
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/blog/2007/10/21/summary_of_gerhard_gerlich_criticism_greenhouse_effect
Summary of Gerhard Gerlich Criticism Greenhouse Effect
Sunday, October 21, 2007, 02:12 PM GMT [General]
The following is a summary of the conclusions of
(Dr. Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner – “Falsification of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effects Within the Framework of Physics”)
“5 Physicist’s Summary
A thorough discussion of the planetary heat transfer problem in the framework of theoretical
physics and engineering thermodynamics leads to the following results:
1. There are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effect, which explains the relevant physical phenomena. The terms greenhouse effect” and greenhouse gases” are deliberate misnomers.
2. There are no calculations to determinate an average surface temperature of a planet:
a) with or without atmosphere,
b) with or without rotation,
c) with or without infrared light absorbing gases.
The frequently mentioned difference of 33 C for the fictitious greenhouse effect of the atmosphere is therefore a meaningless number.
3. Any radiation balance for the average radiant flux is completely irrelevant for the determination of the ground level air temperatures and thus for the average value as well.
4. Average temperature values cannot be identifed with the fourth root of average values of the absolute temperature’s fourth power.
5. Radiation and heat flows do not determine the temperature distributions and their average values.
6. Re-emission is not reflection and can in no way heat up the ground-level air against the actual heat flow without mechanical work.
7. The temperature rises in the climate model computations are made plausible by a perpetuum mobile of the second kind [perpetual motion machine]. This is possible by setting the thermal conductivity in the atmospheric models to zero, an unphysical assumption. It would be no longer a perpetuum mobile of the second kind, if the average fictitious radiation balance, which has no physical justification anyway, was given up.
8. After Schack 1972 water vapor is responsible for most of the absorption of the infrared radiation in the Earth’s atmosphere. The wavelength of the part of radiation, which is absorbed by carbon dioxide is only a small part of the full infrared spectrum and does not change considerably by raising its partial pressure. Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects : : : 93
9. Infrared absorption does not imply “backwarming”. Rather it may lead to a drop of the temperature of the illuminated surface.
10. In radiation transport models with the assumption of local thermal equilibrium, it is assumed that the absorbed radiation is transformed into the thermal movement of all gas molecules. There is no increased selective re-emission of infrared radiation at the low temperatures of the Earth’s atmosphere.
11. In climate models, planetary or astrophysical mechanisms are not accounted for properly. The time dependency of the gravity acceleration by the Moon and the Sun (high tide and low tide) and the local geographic situation, which is important for the local climate, cannot be taken into account.
12. Detection and attribution studies, predictions from computer models in chaotic systems, and the concept of scenario analysis lie outside the framework of exact sciences, in particular theoretical physics.
13. The choice of an appropriate discretization method and the definition of appropriate dynamical constraints (flux control) having become a part of computer modelling is nothing but another form of data curve fitting. The mathematical physicist v. Neumann once said to his young collaborators: “If you allow me four free parameters I can build a mathematical model that describes exactly everything that an elephant can do. If you allow me a fifth free parameter, the model I build will forecast that the elephant will..fly.” (cf. Ref. [185].)
14. Higher derivative operators (e.g. the Laplacian) can never be represented on grids with wide meshes. Therefore a description of heat conduction in global computer models is impossible. The heat conduction equation is not and cannot properly be represented on grids with wide meshes.
15. Computer models of higher dimensional chaotic systems, best described by non-linear partial differential equations (i.e. Navier-Stokes equations), fundamental differ from calculations where perturbation theory is applicable and successive improvements of the predictions – by raising the computing power – are possible. At best, these computer models may be regarded as a heuristic game.
16. Climatology misinterprets unpredictability of chaos known as butter fly phenomenon as another threat to the health of the Earth. In other words: Already the natural greenhouse effect is a myth”
Yup, a creationist throws out a bunch of refuted shit and hopes something sticks. Or requests you to waste time on another refutation that they’ll just ignore – again.
Stevie, GO HOME. You have nothing to say, but you keep saying it anyway. Bad Boy!
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/02/all-you-never-wanted-to-know-about.html
http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/the-latest-fad-to-keep-the-denial-crowd-busy-for-a-week/
Bwahahaha.
Good one!
wildlifer,
Your assessment of the 650 skeptic scientists is ludicrous and foolish. Their collective scientific expertise far exceeds what’s left of the IPCC holdouts. From climatologists and meteorologists to oceanographers, geologists, atmospheric studies, physicists, statisticians and hurricane experts they match any of the IPCC talent. Some are former IPCC members.
To discount them all is as irrational as it gets.
“Stevie, GO HOME. You have nothing to say”
I didn’t say it, two respected physicists did.
And they used physics.
Without any “Bwahahaha” or other school yard talk.
Yes you should go all go see what 100s of scientists are saying.
Catch up, wake up and grow up.
Or not, if you like being duped and foolish.
Hansen has made a significant “rounding down” of global warming expectations over the past few days.
The warming trend has been reduced to 0.15C per decade (from the over +0.2C per decade GISS and the IPCC previously used.)
At this new rate of 0.15C per decade, there is no way to reach +3.0C by 2100 and only a little over +2.0C can be reached at this rate.
Here is the quote from Hansen of note:
“Greenhouse gases: Annual growth rate of climate forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases (GHGs) slowed from a peak close to 0.05 W/m2 per year around 1980-85 to about 0.035 W/m2 in recent years due to slowdown of CH4 and CFC growth rates [ref. 6]. Resumed methane growth, if it continued in 2008 as in 2007, adds about 0.005 W/m2. From climate models and empirical analyses, this GHG forcing trend translates into a mean warming rate of ~0.15°C per decade. ”
These numbers were repeated in Hansen’s personal blog and on the official GISSTemp page today.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090113_Temperature.pdf
Read between the lines of this latest release from GISS and you see that there are cracks appearing in the system! About time
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
And more for the eager to learn here’s a very interesting thread. Check out the extensive content in the comments.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/14/distribution-analysis-suggests-giss-final-data-is-hand-edited/#comments
Stevie, you have nothing to say, and proved it by saying it. Go away. Stay away. You are a proven liar and bullshitter with no integrity. Everything you say is considered a lie. Bye Bye.
Gerlich and friend Tscheuschner are jokes as was said at the link:
You can find any number of very long and confused discussions about the greenhouse effect and the second law of thermodynamics including G&T. The simplest explanation of why they are buncum was provided in Rabett Run’s comments by one Flavius Collium who followed Eli in pointing out that the greenhouse effect does not require that the colder atmosphere heat the warmer earth, but
I’d summarize it that the greenhouse gases “hinder the cooling of earth’s surface”.
Same if you use a resistor to heat a less insulated object vs a more insulated one – the insulation in both cases will always be colder than the object but the better insulated one will reach a warmer steady state.
and Eli later provided a simple experiment that demonstrates how an intermediate layer can hinder the cooling of a hotter one radiating to a cold exterior (e.g. just as the earth radiates IR energy through the intermediate atmosphere to cold space.
Weathermen? too funny. Statisticians?? OMG!! IIRC there’s a gardener or two on there as well … lmao
List all their publications wrt their work as primary researchers in climate studies.
Brillaint, wildlifer.
Trouble is the IPCC uses both as well.
So go ahead and do your “lmao” thing. It fits.
When you’re done go bone up on AGW.
What a lot of silly academic snobbery. Let’s be clear. It doesn’t matter if it is a paper or a comment. What matters is if it is right. Time will tell.
And how many here have a paper with 72 academic citations on google scholar? let alone 13,000 google internet hits?
I am a professional physicist. I have read the “Falsification of CO2” link that Steve H provides from icecap. It is utter bullshit. The author devotes huge amounts of space to arguing that the atmospheric “greenhouse effect” is not the same heating effect as seen in glass greenhouses. So what? He also argues that basic laws of thermodynamics cannot be applied to the atmosphere. In his “physicist’s summary”, he manages to claim that “radiation and heat flows do not determine the temperature distributions”, which is equivalent to “the motion of water does not determine where the water is”.
Steve H expects us to be impressed because the paper is on ArXiV. So what? Anyone who wants to can put anything they want to on ArXiV. He expects us to be impressed that it’s by a “science professor”. So what? There are plenty of nutty professors.
@Alan Wilkinson: if someone publishes a paper claiming that 2+2=3 and pi=7, you don’t need to wait for time to tell if it’s right or not.
Stevie H and Alan are still showing us why they can’t be trusted. Guys, the most important thing to a scientist is his professional integrity and honesty. You show neither so any scientist will write you off as frauds, as we have done. If you had any integrity you would stop posting here. If you are honest, you would realize you are wasting both your time and our time by posting here. Bye By frauds, liars and bullshitters. Go elsewhere and find some soft minds who might believe your lies.
Sure, it doesn’t…to the profoundly ignorant and cosmically deluded.
Time has already told. And it’s dishonest to keep switching, as you guys have repeatedly done on this thread, between the present and future tenses. It’s also fatal to your argument – as soon as you resort to fallbacks like “time will tell,” you’re implicitly conceding that he hasn’t made his scientific case in the present. Come back if he does.
You lack a very basic understanding of how science works. Very, very sad. I actually believe that at some level (even if it’s not quite conscious yet) you have some sense of the broad outlines, but aren’t allowing yourself to accept this. If nothing else, I hope our little exchange leads you to read McIntyre’s claims about himself and his work a bit more critically in the future.
The IPCC (not to be confused with the actual working groups) is not conducting primary research. They are a political agency which makes political judgments/recommendations (most of which are very conservative) based upon current research findings that they have compiled.
I care nothing about who they are.
I’m sure they feel the same way about you lifer.
I just love the explanations (rationalizations) these twits come up with so they don’t have to publish the data. The following in the only excuse (true alibi) for not publishing the data in the primary peer reviewed scientific literature:
*Crickets chirring*
Frederick Seitz, former president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, claimed that he had “never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer review process than the event that led to this IPCC report.” Seitz went on to charge that nearly all of the editorial changes made by the report’s lead author, Benjamin Santer, “worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general or global warming in particular.” Others, including the independent but industry-backed Global Climate Coalition (GCC) went so far as to claim that the report had been “scientifically cleansed” in a political effort to emphasize alarm about global warming while deleting references to uncertainty.
“Last week the National Academy of Sciences released a report on climate change, prepared in response to a request from the White House, that was depicted in the press as an implicit endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol… As one of 11 scientists who prepared the report, I can state that this is simply untrue. For starters, the NAS never asks that all participants agree to all elements of a report, but rather that the report represent the span of views. This the full report did, making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them.”
Oh, FFS! I can’t believe I need to post this again, but for the Seitz-Santer story, watch this video (skip ahead to the 28-minute mark if you don’t have a lot of time):
Uh that video is a long propoganda screed which avoids the extensive culmination of both scientists and sceince which makes the speaker look like a completel fool.
Regarding,,,
Posted by: Eli Rabett | January 15, 2009 12:03 AM
“”Gerlich and friend Tscheuschner are jokes,
,,,Eli later provided a simple experiment that demonstrates how an intermediate layer can hinder the cooling of a hotter one radiating to a cold exterior (e.g. just as the earth radiates IR energy through the intermediate atmosphere to cold space.”””””
Eli, is correct if you take “warming” as meaning a correction by greenhouse gas absorption in the wavelength range that CO2 absorbs at, which keeps the earths nocturnal cooling rate from allowing temperatures to fall precipitously low in the arctic winter, such as in the excess of -90F.
On the “consensus”?
“If majorities win, what about the many scientists who reject the claim of man-made global warming? There is a 19,200 name long petition http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm– signed by “17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees… Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists..who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth’s atmosphere and climate. ..(and) ..5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences”. The petitioners are a much more numerous group than the group favoured by the media and they REJECT the view espoused by the alarmists.
There have of course been attempts by environmentalist true believers to sabotage the petition drive. However the organisers have, to their credit, made efforts to ensure its validity. “Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist. ”
But in the dishonest support for the global warming theory the so called “consensus” report on global warming continues to be misrepresented as the outcome of a standard scientific peer-review process.”
As noted up thread, particpants explained how it was not.
Oreskes is a historian of science who’s published (peer-reviewed) on the scientific consensus on AGW. You’ve been circling the drain for a good long while now, Steve. Time to stop clinging to the bowl and to enter the pipes. You’ve got nothing.
(What is it with cranks and multiple punctuation? It’s very disturbing.)
Stevie, still here with your illogical and unscientific propaganda? Why haven’t you shown the integrity to just go away, taking your lies and bullshit with you? You must be uncommonly stupid. You aren’t impressing us at all.
Hogwash. GHGs (except for water vapor) keep the entire planet from having temperature extremes like that of the moon – about a 500° F swing from night to day, 225° F during the day and dropping down to –243°F at night.
About ninety-nine percent of the atmosphere does nothing to regulate global temps.
Hey SC,
You can dispute the expert skpetics (& from IPCC) all day long but for you to say I got is ludicrous. I mean since I posted an IPCC scientist calling the consensus Bull.
That’s nothing? How about the thousands of other scientists?
Nothing?
It’s your camp which is circling the bowl.
wildlifer,
You need training so you can better grasp the subject.
Stevie me boy, you seem to be particularly dumb. Why is that? All this running around telling lies and bullshitting people making you lose track of things? Or, you lie and bullshit because you don’t know any better? I suspect the latter. Go away and leave your betters, people who actually know how to do science, alone. We had your number days ago.
Steve H,
I obviously grasp the basic concepts at play exponentially better than you do.
(odd that you’re so ashamed of your “IPCC scientist” that you won’t call him by name…….)
Not really, I think they know that all they have on their side is misdirection and confusion. Otherwise, they would be publishing their data all over the primary peer reviewed scientific literature.
Stevie, write that paper and quite bothering us. There might be a Nobel prize if you are eventually proven right. Can’t get the prize without publishing, and he who publishes first gets the prize.
I don’t take them seriously enough to dispute them. They’re demonstrated cranks and corrupt, ethically-bankrupt hacks.
Fixed.
Of course I didn’t respond to your other post ’cause I knew you had me with the OISM petition. That one put me in my place.
…
Oh, wait. It’s a total fucking joke. Google “realclimate oism petition project” or just search for it here on Sb. You’re a joke, too, Steve. You just don’t know it.
SC, OM, you seem to be cosmically stupid yourself as well as laughably arrogant and foolishly rude. I note this blogger is enthusiastic about rudeness so I won’t be back to such a foolish place.
But since Steve McIntyre’s response to Mann’s latest has not yet even been published to my knowledge, your claim that the issues have already been decided is empty-headed rhetoric apparently typical of the level of commentary here.
Posted by: Alan Wilkinson | January 15, 2009
SC, OM, you seem to be cosmically stupid yourself as well as laughably arrogant and foolishly rude.
You are correct with one part of that sentence but you are using the wrong adjective. SC is entertainingly rude.
wOOt! Farewell, credulous dupe!
OMG, just discovered SC, OM is a sociologist. Talk about wasting time on the congenitally clueless. Still, I got a laugh out of finding that out.
Right back at ya, J, LB.
Looks like the whaaaaambulance has already taken Alan Wilinson away, so I won’t bother sinking the boot in.
Wowbagger, for your own good, sink the boot. You will feel better.
Ah, yes, the high-pitched squeal that is the call of the Yellowbellied American Dicklacker, inaudible to the educated and intelligent. I’ve often wondered what it sounds like…
Yeah, because even if sociology wasn’t a perfectly valid field of study it would make no difference whatsoever to her having knowledge in another field. For example, you sound like you most likely work at McDonald’s. Does this mean you can’t also wash car windscreens at traffic lights as well?
Wowbagger, you sound as though you have the same professional qualifications as SC, OM. Did you major in insults too?
This is the funniest thing I’ve heard this year – a bunch of clueless sociologists sounding off about the science of climate change. It’s quite made my day!
You must lead a very dull life. Is it better than the excitement you get when you sit down and make yourself a shiny new tinfoil hat to keep the spy satellites from reading your thoughts? Or the delight you experience when you’ve bought yourself a fancy new bug-sweeper so you can make sure no-one’s listening in on super-secret conversations you and the members of your really cool denialist club have at their meetings?
Wrong. That you have interpreted that from what I wrote speaks volumes about your (in)ability to read for comprehension – and says much about why you seem to believe what you claim to believe.
Once again: wrong. On every count. I am neither clueless nor a sociologist. Oh, and feel free to find and cite the post number where I have commented on the science of climate change.
I take that as a compliment!
I think you’ll find that my comments dealt with the people involved, and with the history and present of scientific practice and politics. I never claimed any expertise in climatology.
That’s pathetic, but if any of the intelligent people here want a little laugh, check out this sketchy little gem:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/stevebio.doc
…I graduated from U.T.S. in 1965. I stood 2nd in Ontario in the then province-wide Grade 13 examinations and was 1st in Ontario (and in Canada) in the high school math contest in 1965…
*snort*
Wowbagger, be honest. Do you feel better now?
Wowbagger, I’m laughing so much it is hard to type.
You are the people that complain what would a mere meterologist know about climate change! Brilliant!!
And the relevance our being posessed of the requisite writing skill to elicit such a response in a person as otherwise drab and colourless as you is what, exactly? Perhaps you should get out more.
Liar. Cite the number of the post where I wrote anything even approaching this sentiment. Go on, it shouldn’t be that hard – even for you.
What are you talking about, Alan?
The many, and increasing, scientists who reject AGW are already more than remain convinced.
I wonder when you misguided followers will catch up.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate
Jan 15, 2009
Hansen’s ideology makes him ‘no longer qualified to be the keeper of the global temperature data’
By Craig James, AMS Fellow in the NYT DotEarth blog
I am a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society and have just recently retired after a 40 year career as a television meteorologist. For the last two years of my career, I wrote a blog from the skeptics point of view in regards to AGW.
I came to this position largely through the writings of Dr. Richard Lindzen from MIT, Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. from Colorado State, Dr. Roy Spencer from UAH and yes, Joe D’Aleo. I believe Dr. Hansen would label these people as “court jesters” as he does anyone who criticizes his work, although doesn’t science progress through critical evaluation of another’s work by such excellent scientists as those mentioned?
I agree with Joe D’Aleo that it is indeed a sad day for the AMS when the society awards a man whose work has been shown to contain errors (such as proclaiming this past October the warmest October of record when September data was used). I believe Dr. Hansen’s political ideology has taken over his science and renders him no longer qualified to be the keeper of the global temperature data.
I doubt he’s going to be able to tell us. I’m guessing it’s probably time for his medication. He’s already been laughing so uncontrollably that he can’t even type ‘meteorologist’. That might well be followed by continence issues.
BTW
Hansen has no education in any climate science.
Wobagger, SC, OM, thanks for the great laugh but I’ll have to go now – back to blogs where people actually know something about science and climate change before they open their mouths – let alone slag off people who know far more than thay do.
I see our uninvited self appointed expert liars and bullshitters are back. Boy, their stupidity know no bounds. If it is science, publish the damn data. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.
Yes, scurry away in fear, Alan – you lying little pissant. Maybe on those other sites you aren’t expected to back up the claims you make.
As long as you’re not including yourself there, Mr. ‘meterologist’…
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/cv_hansen_200702.pdf
I really think the unscientific lying twits are trying to get the last word in. Fat chance.
What’s really funny is that, as far as I can tell, I – along with economists and political scientists – would probably qualify as an “expert scientist” for their dishonest petition. You shouldn’t be dissin’ the social scientists when you’re desperate for PhDs, Alan. You may have just pissed off some scumbag sociologist who had been ready to sell out and participate in your little fraud.
Nerd, do you enjoy discussing science with a bunch of foul-mouthed sociologists and their hangers-on?
I thought you were a real scientist but you seem to have come down to a truly pathetic level. Call yourself a chemist don’t you? Shame. You are really slumming here aren’t you?
Oh, they are desperate for PhDs to sign a petition. Guess what dudes, I have a PhD too. And I’m a real scientist, which carries its own weight. But my training also included separating science from pseudoscience, and you ended up on the pseudoscience side when challenged to cite the primary peer reviewed scientific literature, you kept dodging doing so. It was a test, like James Randi’s paranormal challenge, and your failed, just like all the people who thought they had special powers.
Here’s some sage advice, which you will ignore. Quit worrying about who did what, or signed what, and get the hard data into the literature by writing the papers and submitting them for peer reviewed primary scientific literature. After you have done that, come back. We might have something to discuss. But I won’t leave a light on since I don’t see that happening.
PEER-
REVIEWED
LITERATURE
So simple, and yet so difficult for cranks to grasp.
OT, SC, if you see MAJeff give a big hi from all of us here. We hope his writing is going well.
Will do, Nerd.
And the very last laugh here is that this pathetic bunch isn’t any good even at their only field of expertise – insulting people!
Anyway, I suggest you go and read a couple of the recent posts by the guy who rightly won the contest that you just lost.
First Anthony Watts congratulates Hansen on his recent award, even though they are on opposite sides of the debate. You might learn some humanity.
Second he reports on the current sunspot lapse implications. You might learn some science about natural influences on climate.
Alan Wilkinson wrote:
Coming from you that’s quite a claim. You appear to lack the requisite reading comprehension skills to judge the merits of anyone else’s writing.
You said you were leaving, Alan. You lied. You know what that makes you?
A liar. Why, then, should we accept anything else you’ve claimed? You’ve proved to be more than a little ‘flexible’ with reading comprehension as well, so there’s little doubt in my mind you can’t be trusted to be honest about anything.
We respect those who deserve it. Obviously, this excludes lying pissant scumbags like you.
Too late – you’ve already admitted your admiration for our skills in that field. (Hey Wowbagger, did you minor in snark?)
There is no scientific debate.
The claim that one exists at this point is immoral.
*sob* That was beautiful, man.
Didn’t you say you were leaving?
Heck yes. Did some extra-credit courses in rants, scorn and vitriol, too…
You know, watching these AGW deniers is like watching somebody go to the doctor because he feels a little poorly. Doctor runs the tests and says, It’s tuberculosis. Every doctor says it after that, hundreds of them, but yet the patient simply doesn’t want to hear it. You can show him all the data supporting the diagnosis, but he will not accept it. Why this physical therapist said it’s just a bad cold! And so did that guy who designs the x-ray machine! Nothing to worry about!
The more interesting thing is to find out how much of this has its roots in wingnuttery, wherein the denialists hate everything “liberal” so much that they have closed their minds to truth. They really hate how it confirms things like environmental protection. That Al Gore addressed the issue on the AGW side was the nail in the coffin. Their hatred of him knows no bounds. It’s almost…religious in its fanaticism.
I bet you failed, Wowbagger. But I really must go now …
Alan you’re a douche!
I tried to read through a comment thread at one of the denialist blogs the other day. It was weapons-grade dull. No wonder Wilk and friends have found it so hard to tear themselves away from Pharyngula, and keep trying to get us to go over there. They must be bored out of their minds.
SC, OM I admit it did rank as a cruel and unusual punishment to expect a sociologist to read a science blog. But I did think your rudeness deserved it. Have a good night.
I read several science blogs (including this one) daily, lackwit. It’s the pseudoscience blogs I find unbearable.
You too, Wilk (if you’re really leaving). You’ve been a fun little hacky sack.
“”” Posted by: SC, OM | January 16, 2009 12:44 AM
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2007climatechange.html“”
Oh SC,
You just don’t know how obsolete and inaccurate that piece is do you.
Of course not.
Just like you and Nerd and the rest have no idea how much of the IPCC case hase been refuted and shown to be unreliable.
But you cling, hoping AGW survives. You so want it to.
Now try and imagine what you will look like as the last fools emerging from the fog of deceit.
There has been so much, for so long which could have helped you lond ago. Just like the countless people like me who have already done their homework.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8
New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
Washington DC – An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust” and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.” The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.
Let’s keep this thread alive so that we can exchange ideas while yor AGW world disintegrates.
Deniers be gentle with them. For they know not what they think.
Wowbagger – My old manure fork has 10 tines for shit scooping, that being the most I have ever seen, and a heavy load to toss – I give you at least an eight tine score. *smirk*
That idiot Alan obviously has no clue about true shit slinging. Sarah Palin, George Bush and Rush Limbaugh are 12 tiners.
Minnesota – An abundance of new flat-earther trolls, posers, and chuckleheads in the last several posts has prompted Pharynguloids to declare that denialists of anthropogenic contributions to global warming “bite our butts” and go learn the scientific underpinnings because their incoherent claims may be “falling apart.”
Alan Wilkinson,
You’re an idiot. You cite McKitrick, an economist, during the discussion on global warming and then laugh at someone for being sociologist?
One person says she’s a sociologists and you somehow conclude everyone here is? Way to show off your “advanced statistical knowledge”.
You and your pseudo scientific beliefs deserve only contempt and ridicule. There is no scientific debate here. We laugh at you the same why we laugh at creationists, astrologers, the anti-vaccine nuts, etc.
dude… even I can tell the article is chock-full of quote-mining!
Only meteorologists can competently comment on climate change?
Thats like saying only sports reporters can comment on whos going to win the championship…..
I dont have the time to read all the relevant literature,so I wont comment on the issue,because I currently could not do so competently,but I sure do have an opinion on it.
And I notice that most if not all the GW deniers that have showed up here in the last few days have been arrogant pompous little dipshits,and that is usually a sign that you are not quite so sure about your case than you are trying to make people believe.
And their comprehension and mental flexibility skills are on par with that of any other group of fundamentalists out there,if that.
As I predicted, the non-scientific liars and bullshitters kept trying to get in the last word. Funny how upset they get when you expose their lies. Repeating the lies don’t make them any truer, just ruder, and makes them look very small as a person. They had nothing to begin with and left knowing that they failed. They should have left two days ago. But stupidity knows no bounds.
Guess the AMS doesn’t, either:
(At times I think Steve’s joking – hard to believe someone could keep setting himself up to get knocked down like this.)
Feynmaniac:
Heh. Good one.
Q: What do you call a social scientist who’s corrupt or impervious to evidence?
A: An expert climate scientist.
:-)
Sorry folks, the “meteorologist” derailment is my fault. Steve H alluded to them on his list of “scientists” that AGW was false.
He and AW missed my point (expected). Being a meteorologist or a statistician doesn’t mean one can’t become an expert in climatology, it just means their training doesn’t make them one. That’s why I followed up with a request for primary research done by these signers.
That was never produced.
I don’t doubt they have an opinion on AGW – just as I do – but the fact they’re a “scientist” doesn’t make them an expert on topics outside their field, just as me being a wildlife biologist doesn’t make me an expert on AGW by the fact I too am a scientist.
There is no scientific debate here.
You’re absolutely on target, Feynmaniac, though probably by accident. This isn’t a science blog, it is an encounter therapy group for a bunch of damaged people trying to deal with their inferiority complexes and massaging their fragile egos by clubbing together and beating up anyone they can find to label “different” – much like a gang of skinheads.
No doubt Myers is at least a reasonably competent biologist – not my field so I make no judgement – but as a human being, probably a rather fragile one I suspect, he leaves a good deal to be desired as do his groupies.
But I don’t want you to all rush off and slit your wrists so I’ll leave it at that.
Alan, Alan, if you were a scientist you would understand the need for quality data, which peer review helps ensure. I just see you as a shill for the unscientific. You need to go and find your moral and scientific integrity if you wish to claim yourself as a scientist, Since your posts this week show you have no integity.
So, that odious little lying turd, Alan Wilkinson, came back?
Alan, I’m still waiting for you to back up your claim, to cite the post numbers where I’ve made references to the science of climate change. You seem to consider yourself an expert on something; surely that much research can’t be beyond your capacity?
If this is the same rigour and honesty you and your ilk apply to the study of climate science then I’m not surprised you’re ranked amongst phrenologists, flat-earthers and UFOists in the crank hierarchy.
Nope. Dean’s and Chancellor’s Merit Lists. Heck, if I’d had access to the insult-inspiring stupidity and inanity of a douchebag like you I’d have stayed on for a PhD.
And I seriously doubt you’ll go. You’ve lied before – why should I expect you to stop now?
This
isn’t a science blog, itisan encounter therapy group fora bunch ofdamagedpeopletrying to deal with their inferiority complexes and massaging their fragile egos byclubbing together andbeating upmocking anyonethey can find to label “different” – much like a gang of skinheadswho consistently lies about science – and other things.Fixed it for you. No, that’s okay – you’re welcome.
Even if that you wrote was the case, why do you keep coming back? Is is because you’ve got nowhere else to go? This doesn’t surprise me; you’re the sort of unctuous little prick who, as a child, needed his mother to tie a pork chop around his neck so the dog would play with him.
Oh, yeah. PZ’s real close to the edge. You really need to work on your reading comprehension, textual analysis and linguistic skills. Or – better yet – obtain some to begin with.
Alan’s back again? Oh, Alan, Alan, Alan. Have you asked yourself why, even though you’ve been thoroughly trounced, you’ve been unable to leave? Is it because it’s the most fun you’ve had in ages, and you just can’t go back to the BECCs (Blogs of Excessively Courteous Crankery)? Face it – you can’t help but enjoy our company. And you’re endearing, in a scraggly-cat-we-found-scrounging-in-a-dumpster sort of way. I’d even ask you to stick around, if you could try to keep the lying and pseudoscience to a minimum.
Oh dear, Wowbagger, you’re in a right funk now, aren’t you?
Let me let you into a secret. To insult someone properly it has to have the element of truth that gets under their skin and into their souls and festers there. All your ranting and swearing does absolutely nothing but leave me chuckling.
SC, OM, I have to say so long as we don’t attempt to talk hard science or about anything serious you can be quite amusing.
For example, that was another good belly-laugh hearing a sociologist complaining about pseudoscience!
Nerd, God knows what you are doing here. Why don’t you go to a science blog? Even Realclimate does some science and has quite enough abuse, bigotry and closed minds to appeal to you.
Alan. Are you always such a pompous blowhard? High School film reels were more interesting than you.
*booop*
Alan, my mind is open, just not so open that my brains fall out like happened to your followers. I have read Skeptical Inquirer for 20+ years, and everything you had to say and how you handled being challenged fell into the classical case of woo. I smelled a rat from your first post. As I’ve said, I have been following the AGW argument since the ’70s, and have not seen any reliable evidence to indicate that it is false. All reliable evidence seems to confirm it. And I know the difference between climate and weather.
And the rest of us, for that is its purpose.
My, Alan, you’re very defensive, aren’t you? Whenever people are pushed into a corner but try to pretend they aren’t they inevitably attempt the tired ‘I’m laughing/chuckling/ROTFL’ response. With you it’s particularly transparent, mostly because you’ve already made it abundantly clear you wouldn’t know a sense of humour if one bit you.
You lie and claim to find me amusing; I honestly find you quite sad. You can’t come up with genuine rebuttal. You don’t seem to have any defence against being called a liar – and, when it comes down to it, honesty really is the most important quality one needs to have if one wants one’s argument to be considered.
You’ve proven yourself more than a little dishonest; anything else you have to say can be dismissed out-of-hand.
No, let me let you in on a secret – the expression is…well, I shouldn’t have to explain any further, should I? I guess your English skills are on par with your research skills and your honesty.
I’m going to attempt, once, to explain to you why, although you think you’re saying something intelligent, these comments simply mark you as an ignoramus. My doing so is a compliment – I actually think you are capable of understanding what I’m going to say (perhaps not immediately, but…).
Ignorant people call sociologists and others in the social sciences (call them social studies if you wish – I often do, although it can lead to some confusion) pseudoscientists based on the mistaken notion that we are posing as scientists and that science is defined by the search for eternal laws or some such nonsense. Good sociology is scientific in the same way as good history (usually classified in the humanities) is: Both are empirical disciplines. Both answer their questions – Which scientists become cranks, and why? Which groups supported fascist movements in the 1920s and ’30s, and why? Which people join the antivaccine movement, and why? Why are there more atheists in some parts of the world than others?… – by collecting and analyzing data using methods that are appropriate to the task and that are made explicit. Both define their terms clearly and justify their methods and their definitions. Both analyze their data honestly. This is good scholarship – call it what you will.
A good example in terms of the history of science (well, she’s a historian but it’s more of a sociological study – since I work at the intersection of the two it makes no difference to me) is Naomi Oreskes’ essay in Science, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.” If you haven’t yet read it, you should google it. Another is the book by Allen Brandt that I mentioned above: The Cigarette Century.
Ok, Nerd, I’ll take up your claim. List for us, say, the twenty most open scientific questions regarding AGW.
Wowbagger, I haven’t noticed any corner here – merely a lot of people who don’t know any science but pretend to be able to make scientific judgements. I didn’t realise it was an English class but it is good to know you have another specialist subject beyond insults and abuse.
Steve_C, you can help Nerd with his homework. Can you?
Hell no. I’m way too hung over to deal with your bullshit assignment.
OC, SC, cheer up. I don’t really have it in for sociologists – I’ve known a few quite nice ones. Just stay away from hard science debates and you’ll be fine.
I’m well aware of the cigarette story. I was a chemist, like Nerd perhaps, in a past life.
It’s far too early to write the history of the AGW scientific debate and anyone who tries to do it at the moment is really just engaging in politics.
Let’s see what list Nerd comes up with.
By the way, Wilk, there are currently interesting discussions going on here about science and “race,” the relationship between science and philosophy, the possibility of life on Mars, and more. There are more dedicated-science posts listed on the top left of your screen, under “A Taste of Pharyngula.” Or are you a narrow, single-issue science enthusiast?
Alan, are you still here.? If you had any integrity you would have been gone two days ago. But you linger like a bad smell on the bottom of ones shoes. Time to run back to your sycophants and bathe in their adoration.
?
Says the guy who’s been unable to come up with a substantive response to any of my posts on this thread.
So that’s a ‘no’ on engaging with empirical research on the subject, then? You can read the piece I mentioned online – just a few clicks. See, Alan, it’s remarks like this that make me lose hope for you.
Very disappointing, Nerd. No open mind at all? Or is it really no real knowledge of the subject? Flunked the paper I’m afraid, likewise Steve_C.
SC, OM, sorry I don’t really have time for any more topics – climate change seems more than complicated enough for anyone to get their head around.
And I don’t think much of Myers’ advocacy of insulting dissenters. First it’s a bad idea. Second you’re no good at it. And the lack of any interesting ideas or knowledge on climate change here is not attractive for me.
I will credit this blog with not blocking or censoring dissent though. That is a lot better than most AGW websites.
Good luck with the Martians.
Alan, still trying to spread your lies and bullshit. You should have been gone two days ago. What part of you having no integrity don’t you understand, so I can explain it to you in words of one syllable or less for your limited mind? You came, you posted, you failed to win converts. End of story. Go home.
It comes down to this Alan. You’re a fucking bore. You flunked being interesting.
Nerd, I’m not trying to spread anything, I was just trying to explore your mind but found it empty.
Steve_C, likewise.
Alan, I am not interested in AGW enough to be a advocate one way or the other. All reliable data (versus the type you and your sycophants offered) indicates it is real. So I’m not responding to your inane attempts to question me, any more than I responded to Facilis the Fallacious’ questions regarding his allegedly perfect proof (using circular reasoning) for god. Both are wrong. Show me, not me show you. And you have totally failed. Go home. You are wasting both our times with you continued posts.
Alan, you’ve drifted from contrarian denialism, through a half-hearted defense of your claims, to espousing your opinion of this blog and its commenters, as if we cared. Any focus you had is long gone.
You’re boring. Posting for the sake of it is pathetic.
Nerd, I’m not aware that I offered any data at all.
Neither do I or most other scientific sceptics dispute there are real AGW effects. The questions are around the range and magnitude of these, the impacts and directions of feedbacks and the nature, range and magnitude of natural factors on climate. There are also major questions about appropriate economic analyses, policies and responses.
Since you are neither interested or informed perhaps it is you who should not engage in this debate, particularly as you seem to lapse into mindless abuse at every opportunity.
Anyone else getting the feeling Alan wants some intellectual conversation rather than sycophant adulation? Alan, stop posting and just lurk for a week or two. See how you like the blog, and how you would fit in. That will get you out of our short term memories, and we would be less likely to snark at the initial post. I lurked for about 4-6 weeks before I first posted.
Well, at least that’s a(n implicit) half-step up from the claims that this isn’t a science blog and contains no discussion of science. I accept your apology.
*yawn* *annoyance at the lack of comprehension* *yawn*
Again, you’ve already suggested that we are. Your comment is preserved above. No one believes you really think that.
And yet you’re still here and still unable to defend your assertions. Even if you were to leave immediately, it would be too late for anyone to believe that to be a true statement of your sentiments.
Good grief, no progresss at all.
I go skiing all day and nothing gets done.
The problem is the AGw loyalists don’t adequately scrutinize anything. Not even the skeptics refutations.
They buy hook line stinker the IPCC BS and then fail to consume the scrutiny by others.
Unlike the skeptic who have studied and continue to study the shifting IPCC claims sand science.
You alarmists really don’t want any scrutiny of the IPCC and global warming now do you?
What kind of science process is that? No scrutiny?
No, your idea of “peer review” is not good enough. But then you haven’t studied the problems with that either.
Again because you are not interested in genuine scrutiny.
The outcome scares you.
You can’t imagine what it would be like to have to come to the reaqlization you’ve been duped. And it was not YOU who picked up on it sooner.
Well now, come along. It’s better to be late than to keep watching those ships sail off the edge of the earth.
Stevie, liar and bullshitter. Why would you expect what you call progress? It has been determined that you are trying to sell an inferior product. You have no integrity. Go and stay away. We realize your lack of truth.
Nerd,
You clearly have a malfunctioning sense of judgement.
You percieve things as they are not.
For instance, I provide you with IPCC scientists and many others who reject AGW and you can’t fathom that or address them. So you call “me” a liar. It is not “ME” who has provided the contradictory science which refutes AGW.
If you have an arguement, or want to simply call them liars, waltz over to one of the blogs where their work is discussed and call them liars.
Or at least pick out something like the debunked Mann hockey stick and share your wisdom on how that it is valid.
So far your approach is silly and child-like.
I urge you and others to read and/or join in at climateaudit.org or wattsupwiththat.com and icecap.us and catch up a bit.
We all buddies.
Steve H., though you may consider it “silly and child-like” to accept the scientific consensus, I do not.
Also, why would I go look at those sites when I’ve got the whole internet? If I were inclined to try to gain further understanding, I would need to actually study climatic science and physics and mathematics, not to be exposed to yet more opinions of others who know no more than I.
” I would need to actually study climatic science and physics and mathematics”
Yeah if you wanted to pursue a career.
But it takes only a medioccre intelligence to dicern the critiqing of the IPCC and AGW to grasp the true nature of the fallacy AGW is.
It’s an amazing phenomenom that so many people have accepted such a farce. It’s sloppy science, delivered by a political agenda and promises to cost mankind much while deliverign not a shred of climate change or societal benefit.
That said, it would be far more justified for me to tell some of you to FO but the truth is onmy side so I can remain rational while you clammor for the farce of AGW to be real just so you can be right.
So don’t bother taking college courses on climate, check out the work current experts have provided.
You’ll see how comedic, yet dangerous, the Hansen and IPCC brand of science is.
This should be 345,,, save this thread and keep it going. About the time it reaches 1000 posts the whole frigghing world will have learned of the con job AGW has become.
Including you.
Steve H.:
No, if I wanted to try to knowledgeably evaluate the secondary and maybe even the primary literature publicly available.
It suggests to me that AGW exists and only its progress and magnitude are in question. As per above, I would need more education to evaluate the claims better. And I wasn’t speaking of enrolling in any institutions :)
Wrong, since I am of average* intelligence, and my judgement is contrary to yours.
It may cheer you to know I regularly read Jerry Pournelle’s site, so I’ve had exposure to plenty of arguments con.
Another reason, were it needed, not to waste my time on single-issue sites about manufactured controversy. Heh.
—
* Better than mediocre, anyway.
http://portal.acs.org/portal/fileFetch/C/WPCP_011538/pdf/WPCP_011538.pdf
Heck,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
And chemists like you are particularly well-poised to answer them. (Do you even read what you type, hypocrite?)
This of course is what AGW denialism is really about, despite the extensive efforts to disguise political-economic positions and arguments as scientific ones.
Stevie, liar and bullshitter with no sense of judgement. We are not buying your lies. We call them lies. Yet you persist. Time to look at your actions, which are not those of an honorable honest man of integrity. Which scientists have to be. Honesty and integrity are required for a scientist to have a good reputation. You have neither, so we don’t believe anything you say. Go and stay away. You have absolutely nothing to add to any discussion.
Well, they don’t have to be men. :S
Caught out in a lie. I confess that as it stands it is a sexist statement and repudiate my statement as is, and change it to men and women of science. (Walks away with head held low in shame.)
Nerd,
you some kind of subbie or something? LOL
And btw,scientists are homo sapiens like everyone else,and prone to lying,cheating etc.Look at the South Korean stem cell guys….Its just that if you cheat as a scientist,you will eventually be found out,because of the scientific method.
“Well, they don’t have to be men. :S”
Ah, and SC of the beautiful mind calls out Redhead’s Nerd. I knew this would happen once we let them have the vote!
Ducking and running.
Clinteas, yes, scientists are human. Those who lie professionally, especially at the cutting edge, are eventually found out. And they are essentially shunned by the rest of the scientists unless they take appropriate steps to repudiate and retract the papers in question. One bad apple can ruin the reputation of a widely respected research team. Any sane scientist finds it much easier to stay honest to begin with.
About that…
:)
SC, OM, I found your #354 interesting and thought provoking. Hope you do not mind if I forward to a few people, like my kids. Trying to raise their political consciousness a bit. At least I got them all out to vote this year.
If joking snarks can pull good stuff out of you like this, I will be all over you this year. (grin)
Still love that beautiful mind.
Ciao bella
Of course not!
(I just discovered that there’s a 2004 HBO film about Lucy Burns and Alice Paul:
http://iron-jawed-angels.com/
– I don’t know if it’s any good, but now I want to see it.)
Looking forward to it. ;)
Likewise.
SC, not trying to drum up business, but check my blog for good news for a change.
Ciao bella mind
Argumentum ad “even a four-year-old-knows…”
JeffreyD! That’s wonderful news! I’m crying a little, I’m so happy for you. I’ll be thinking of you next Saturday (perhaps PZ should dedicate a ‘Best Wishes’ post to the event…). :D:D:D!
(By the way, when I click on your name now it takes me to your TypeKey page. Am I being dense? Can I get to your blog through there?)
Oh Nerdie, Why drag Gore into this.
Al Gore, liar and bullshitter with no sense of judgement. We are not buying your lies. We call them lies. Yet you persist. Time to look at your actions, which are not those of an honorable honest man of integrity. Which scientists have to be. Honesty and integrity are required for a scientist to have a good reputation. You have neither, so we don’t believe anything you say. Go and stay away. You have absolutely nothing to add to any discussion.
-13 in Austin Texas,,,,,,Yeah I know, weather is not climate. Same goes for Hurricanne Katrina.
Now, folks, try and wrap your minds around this. And keep in mind this is but a small piece of the crazy AGW puzzle you fail to recognize.
You can even pop over there and tell them what stupid liars they are to make up such things. :)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/17/divergence-between-giss-and-uah-since-1980/#more-5121
The GISS website shows the graph below, which indicates a steady, steep warming trend over the last 30 years. The monthly average anomaly for 2008 (0.44) is 0.26 degrees warmer than the monthly average anomaly for 1980
By contrast, the UAH monthly average anomaly for 2008 (0.05) is 0.04 degrees cooler than the UAH monthly average anomaly for 1980 (0.09.)
This 1980-2008 discrepancy between GISS and UAH is important, as it is nearly equal to the claimed warming trend since 1980.
The fact that GISS shows 2008 temperatures much higher than 1980, and UAH shows 2008 temperatures lower than 1980, is also a clear indicator that the two data sets are divergent.
Steve McIntyre has coincidentally just done a similar comparison of NOAA USA yearly data vs. GISS USA yearly data, and came to the conclusion that the NOAA slope is even steeper than GISS, diverging from UAH by 0.39C/century.
This would imply that NOAA is diverging from UAH by an even larger amount than GISS is diverging from UAH.
Clearly, problems exist with both datasets.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/17/divergence-between-giss-and-uah-since-1980/#more-5121
This thread is a down blog isolated discussion so try and keep it going as we venture closer to reality when you all punt.
Perhaps the host can occasionaly boost it up to the top of the blog as we reach for the 1000th post.
Stevie, liar and bullshitter, I never mentioned Gore. I haven’t even seen his movie. With you giving this level of LIES, how can you expect us to believe you? You LIE. You have been caught in LIES. You just can’t stop LYING. You have no credibility due to your LIES. What part of this statement don’t you understand? I’ll explain it to you in words of one syllable or less, but you will not understand. Why don’t you just go and stay away?
I just ran a search on “Gore” for this thread.* The poster with the most references to Al Gore is Steve H. Nerd of Redhead did not mention Gore until his post 361, where he responded to the accusation: “Oh Nerdie, Why drag Gore into this.”
Massive fail, Steve H.
*That’s Ctrl-F, if anyone’s unsure.
Stevie, Tis Himself’s post 362 is why I call you a liar. Why SC calls you a liar. Why the regulars call you a liar. Why you have no credibility. It is time to just go home and stay there.
Are guys dippy or what?
Did you not notice I was merely mocking Nerd’s screed about me?
Substitution Gore for my name?
Good grief, wake up pals.
Now what about your “judgement” of the GISS and UAH inconsistencies?
Well first go read a little before you tee off.
Stevie, you have failed. Go home and take you beating like a man. Oh, but then if you were a man, you wouldn’t LIE like you have. You have nothing to say to us. Your credibility has been shown repeatedly to be zero. Ask yourself, why are you still here? There is no good answer. Bye.
‘Tis Himself, don’t you know that we, as leftist liberals, are supposed to slobber over everything Gore does?
Though strangely enough, I have never been able to forgive the Gores for the PMRC.
Nerd,
Well aren’t you the little blog general here. A real take charge cammando. You’re the perfect example of how even science can and has been hijacked by political zealots.
Obviously you’ll need to take additional steps to obstruct and prohibit any further contribution from those you declare unfit.
All for the sake of objectivity, diversity and tolerance.
You’re quite the open discussion advocate aren’t you.
Can you clarify for me who it is you view as liars. Is it just me or is it every lay person and scientist who rejects AGW?
Is there any data from the skeptics which you acknowledge? Much of it originates from the same instructions which the IPCC uses.
So what exactly is your beef? You can’t stand the idea of being wrong and having others point it out to you?
Off with their heads for doing so?
Here’a nother very interesting topic.
Enjoy friends!
ttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/17/all-time-low-temperature-record-for-illinois-called-into-question-by-nws-citing-lack-of-confidence-in-equipment-is-misguided/#more-5145
Stevie, still trying to be heard? Guess what nobody is listening. They, the regulars, are letting me deal with you, unless they wish to stop by and relieve some snark your way. So let me give you the three options for dealing with me:
1. Go and stay away for eternity.
2. Go and stay away for my lifetime.
3. Go and stay away for your lifetime.
Pick your option and get back to me.
Oh Nerd,
Did you actually get appointed by the group? !!!
Or did you self appoint?
I realize that you may be troubled and your aggression is self therapy, but lame you are.
However, there is no doubt others here find the stories/likns I bring as interesting as those commenting there.
Your options are to visit them and learn or ignore them and demand I stop posting them.
By your barking orders out for me to leave you’re not into learning or discussion.
As for your options for me?
Silly. Whether or not you are here and respond makes no difference to me.
Steve, you still here? You have nothing to say to anybody, as you are a liar and bullshitter. Why can’t you just leave? Will you be beaten by your boss if you can’t bring back at least one new sycophant? I am in charge of absolutely zero around here. The rest of the blog is absolutely bored with your lies. What part of that are you having trouble with? You never say. You just believe you haven’t tried hard enough. Again, what part of you being a liar and bullshitter, so nobody is interested in what you have to say, are you having trouble with?
Disengage ignore mode.
Steve H, if it means anything, I have been ignoring you out of the hopes you would get bored and go away. That is what happens with most people like you. While I may give Nerd gentle barbs and I never chose him to be my representative, he has said nothing on this topic that I have any cause to disagree with.
Back to ignore mode.
What Nerd said.
Whining and pimping your blogs is pathetic, Steve.
Threats, eh?
In short, you’ll keep pimp trolling till we ask you to stop it? That’s your “win”?
OK.
Stop it.
I mentioned Gore. I said I thought a bet a large number of wingers became AGW denialists just because they can’t stand Al Gore. It makes them nuts he got a Nobel Prize.
Janine, Leftist Bozo
Oh shucky darn, I knew I was forgetting something.
Just for you, I’m listening to Twisted Sister’s “We’re Not Gonna Take It.”
SC, OM, regarding your #359 – Thank you darling for the best wishes, rather happy myself. (smile)
Yes, realized my TypeKey was not going to my blog despite my instructions, so I (think) I have fixed that now.
Ciao bella mind
Janine,
It’s not so much “me” you are ignoring.
It’s the dismanteling of the IPCC, leaving you a straggler, Janine come lately, to the realization that AGW is possibly the worst science error in global history.
Beyond the Eugenics Movement.
Not surprising though is the mass hysteria that bolstered this new modern farce. People clam on to things for all sorts of reasons.
And with the heavily politicized world of today the ugly monster of politics eats science for lunch.
Really folks, don’t pretend this is about “listening to me” here. Take a look at what you really ignoring.
And if you don’t at least you won’t be able to honestly claim later that no one told you.
You’ve had abundant opportunity yet have deliberately elected to follow the path which leaves you least aware of what’s happening. Ignorance by choice is no defense.
http://www.wattsupwiththat.com really has some good stuff.
Check it out. You’ll appreciate it.
Stevie, me boyo. Liar and bullshitter. Still trolling for fresh meat in the sea of rationality. Not very rational on your part. Steve, you are a tainted man. You and the truth are not in a serious relationship. That was proven by many others prior to my arrival on the scene, which put you definitely into the woo/liars and bullshitters category. You did it to yourself. Time for you to just slip away. There is absolutely nothing of intelligence that you can offer to anybody here, other than an absolute and total apology for your lies, which will have to be be enumerated in gory and total detail. I don’t see you having the cojones for that, so just stay away.
Nerd,
You need to learn more.
One of the more fundemental flaws in the IPCC AGW case is the supposed smoking gun , “hockey stick” theory.
Auditting of the data revealed the theory to be without merit.
Proven to be
Stevie, you are a liar and bullshitter. I cannot learn any real information from you, nor am I even going to look at what lying links you post. What part of that are you having trouble with? I’ll save my information for articles in and American Scientist, where real climate specialists talk about the latest data. You seem to have a lot trouble comprehending the scientific world. You need to fade into the bandwidth, like the idiot you are.
Posted by: ‘Tis Himself Author Profile Page | January 17, 2009
Just for you, I’m listening to Twisted Sister’s “We’re Not Gonna Take It.”
Toss in “Rocky Mountain High” by John Denver and “Nanook Rubs It In” by Frank Zappa. Thinking about it, that is one unholy set.
Gack, didn’t preview, and I am missing Scientific American in the fourth sentence, after: “articles in (SA) and AS”
Stevie, since you are so fucking stupid as a liar and bullshitter:
‘
Everything you post is considered a LIE.
‘
Every link in your post is considered a LIE.
‘
The following is you reason to post at all:
‘
‘
*crickets chirring*
382 and climbing.
Good job folks.
Here’s alink to the Huffington Post. Maybe some of you have heard of it. It’s a progressive website/blog.
Here it has posted a very well written piece by an AGW skpetic.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-ambler/mr-gore-apology-accepted_b_154982.html
Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted
It’s a good read with many blog comments about it.
I’m not liying this really is a good piece and a really progressive web site.
Become a skeptic yourself.
Just like me, you too will reject the IPCC and AGW.
So this is your homework assignment.
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/ohio.pdf
This is the entire
Presentation at
Ohio State University
May 16, 2008
It was good enough for University students so it should work for you too.
Here’s a blog about the presentation and author. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3099#comment-251977
Report back here after reading both.
Steve H., nice to see you so determined to put money in PZ’s pockets by pointlessly upping the comment count.
It’s the one worthwhile thing you’ve done here :)
Maybe it is, maybe it ain’t. Honestly, I could not care less about what you think. It is mildly amusing to see your apparently desperate need for validation, and your mindless persistence. Heh.
How do you imagine these things folks?
I’m not desperate for validation,, and validation for what?
Mindless persistence?
How about the mindless snipping back?
At least I throw in good stuff. You can mindlessly ignore it but that deosn’t make me “desperate for validation” of anything.
Get real and read.
Then get back here to boost the comment count.
Now that’s all till tomorrow.
Steve H., snipping means lopping off. I’m sniping :)
How old are you?
Yeah, that told him!
*facepalm*
Stevie, the ballless,
You are a liar and bullshitter.
You have no integrity.
Everything you say and post is considered a lie.
You don’t have the balls to just go away.
Time to show us you actually have a little manhood, and just fade into the bandwidth.
SteveH,
I read this link:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf
I know a lot of science and it is absolute garbage.
Brian,
It’s the IPCC and AGW which are garage. You don’t read so well. And certainly not enough.
You should have read this instead. It’s an easier read.
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/ohio.pdf
That way you would have mnore of a come back critiquing of it than “it’s garbage”
Now go read it and try bring some substance back.
The rest of you??? What happened?
I go skiing again and nothing gets done.
Go read that presentation and reply with something above Nerdies pay grade.
You’re missing out on discovery of truth for no reason other than your irrational resistance.
I’ll have to cme beack in a while with more.
Jebus, Stevie, you just can’t stop with the LIES. It was garbage, anything you say is garbage (LIES). What more do you need to know? Go away garbage-man.
Oh no, you have to go to wattsupwiththat.com and check out the new stuff.
I know some of you have and now are becoming curious as to why the IPCC would continue their claims when so much of their basis has been shown to be unreliable or flat out wrong.
But what are we to do with the hysterical Nerds who have no curioisty at all?
icecap.us has more too
Stevie the LYING wonder. My mind is too strong for you LIES. I see right through them and into your grubby LYING soul. You have no integrity as you keep repeating your exposed LIES over and over. Why should I believe anything a man with no integrity says? Why aren’t you understanding that? Is it because you are actually that stupid? Or just that batshit insane?
Don’t be manipulated by Nerd. See for yourself what Nerd is afraid to see.
Here’s more lies to ponder. No doubt Nerd’s world would forever silence such blasphemy
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/7710
How the world was bullied into silence
By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, January 19, 2009
One of the most disturbing aspects of the global warming scam is the number of prominent people and entire segments of society bullied into silence. Consider the case of Dr. Joanne Simpson described as follows. “the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” Then consider her statement. “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical…
The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.” No, we don’t all know the frailty of the models! Certainly most of the media and thereby the public and politicians don’t know, otherwise the latter would not be planning completely unnecessary, incredibly expensive and society altering policies. But the opening comment is actually frightening and speaks to why the scam has progressed so far. “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly.”
Undoubtedly, there are positions and times when people are muzzled; national security is a good example. I sympathize with young people starting out on careers. I understand the pressure of maintaining a family and paying mortgages. But none of this should apply to science. It’s a measure of the degree to which climate change has become political. It’s also a measure of the degree of bullying that has occurred. Why would a scientist in an organization directly involved in climate science not feel free to speak out? But they are not the only ones who have kept quiet. Entire segments of society have either remained silent or taken evasive action. Few had the courage to even ask for a full and open debate. Now everything is changing as the claims of warming are offset by the realities of cooling.
Use link for the rest of the story. It details how “Nerds” attempt to bully the sceintific community.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/7710
Stevie, still trying to spread your LIES. Everybody is finding what you say to be false. And yet you persist like somebody who doesn’t know any better or have any other options. Nobody is reading your LIES. You have no integrity since you keep being caught out in LIES. This isn’t a difference of opinion. It is those who have the facts, and those, like yourself, who have untrue (LIES) pseudofactoids. Stevie, I’ll be here several times a day to make sure you know what we think of you. Go and stay away.
“Everybody is finding what you say to be false”
Comical you are.
And how does your “finding” process work? By ignoring the science in order to preserve your ignorance.
I appreciate your attention to the posts I bring.
But please stop pretending as if they are my own fabrications.
That makes you seem irrational and juvenile.
And it is likley there are some who are actually reading them. Even in this isolated thread.
Your time would be better spent getting more informed on AGW
then checking on me without any learning.
Stevie the LIAR. Go away. You have nothing to offer, and your word has been shown to of no integrity. GO AWAY.
Why Nerd, I just had to idea you were able to manipulate all of us so badly? Just what is the base of your nefarious powers?
I have powers? And I can manipulate the regulars? This bunch of free thinkers who regularly criticize me (and I often deserve it)? Somebody has been into the psychodelics, or has delusions of adequacy.
See, there’s Janine checking in. Great.
Nerd cannot qwell the temptation to learn.
The new items at icecap.us are very interesting and address what ya’ll should find close to your ideology.
Have a nice read.
Be brave, ignore Nerd. Have
Stevie, still the LIAR. You don’t understand that we see through your pseudo facts. They don’t stand up to sceintific scrutiny. Which makes you a LIAR. Now, go away, because you have nothing to offer.
Oh yes, Janine trusts my scientific opinion much, much, much more than yours.
I see that a special someone does not understand sarcasm. The only reason why I said anything is because the thread the domain of two. If wonder if that special someone understands why that is?
Oh I got the sarcasm Janine. But thanks for pushing the comment count past 400. 600 to go .
I’m sure some of you are busy reading the skpetic’s work and spinning your heards trying to figure out some new canards to defend the AGW charade.
Just quit trying and enjoy the truth.
But, leap forward and explain to me how you can possibly admit you’ve been duped and wrong.
Just suppose you arrive at where many like me have and see the hoax for what it is. I don’t know that you have it in you to come clean.
Would you in fact continue to endorse what you have learned is a farce just to avoid some personal embarassment?
I find that really lacking in character if that is the cased.
But we shall see, we shall see.
I’ve been on other blogs where participants just like you who fiinally punted with the move that “it really doesn’t matter if AGW isn’t happening, we still need to adopt the policies to fight it for other reasons”.
Then out trots other peak oil and environmental rhetoric to justify the AGW fallacy.
Never mind the plethera of costly cap & trade-carbon tax, energy cost inflating and other destructive policies.
Be honest when you come clean.
The special someone seems to thing that there is a significance to getting a thread to one thousand comments. It think this should let every know what to do here.
BYE!
“That way you would have mnore of a come back critiquing of it than “it’s garbage” “
It made all sorts of basic mistakes. For instance, the issue with CO2 has nothing to do with the heat content of the gas.
It’s also quite clear that radiative cooling is the largest factor, not convective cooling.
See Stevie, other people find what you say to be less than truthful. Truthful, a concept you appear to be unfamiliar with. That gives you a large credibility trouble to over come without apolgizing for your mistatements. Just go away. You did it to yourself. I just point out what you are.
Ok so we got Janine, Nerd and Brian on board pushing for 1000 comments. But do more reading in the meantime.
Brian, you are lost.
No such mistakes were made.
Try again only pay attention
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/ohio.pdf
And there’s this,
British court found eleven substantial errors in Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth
The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
(There were actually 20 inaccuracies presented to the court, but the court only had time to rule on 11.)
If Al Gore were determined to tell us the truth, no matter how inconvenient, he’d be much more diligent about his data and the interpretation thereof. And he’d go back and revise his film and his book to include the corrections.
Also, honest scientists would not urge the schools to play an inaccurate film to schoolchildren and in fact would do their utmost to prevent such an obvious breach of scientific propriety.
Stevie, I will do some reading by real scientists. Who tend to believe in AGW as a whole. Rather than self appointed idiots like yourself. Why a thousand comments? Not any record around here. Crackergate ran 30,000+ comments over multiple threads. Every time you view and post, you put money in PZ’s pocket. PZ thinks you are full of shit, because PZ is a scientist too. We believe other scientists, not crackpots who are proven LIARS. Crackergate got him an HDTV. So keep posting, so he can get an HDTV for the bedroom too.
“We believe other scientists, not crackpots who are proven LIARS.”
The skeptic scientists are “crackpots and proven liars”?
How can you possibly be that lazy?
We have climate experts frm around the globe, including some formerly with the IPCC, who have expended a great deal of sceintific study in their conclusions that AGW is invalid.
And you either claim they don’t exist of call them crackpots and proven liars.
Who’s full?
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24934655-5017272,00.html
Facts debunk global warming alarmismFont Size: Decrease Increase Print Page: Print Bob Carter | January 20, 2009
Article from: The Australian
THE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that October in the US was marked by 63 record snowfalls and 115 lowest-ever temperatures.
Over the past few years, similar signs of colder than usual weather have been recorded all over the world, causing many people to question the still fashionable, but now long outdated, global warming alarmism. Yet individual weather events or spells, whether warmings or coolings, tell us nothing necessarily about true climate change.
Nonetheless, by coincidence, growing recognition of a threat of climatic cooling is correct, because since the turn of the 21st century all real world, long-term climate indicators have turned downwards. Global atmospheric temperature reached a peak in 1998, has not warmed since 1995 and, has been cooling since 2002. Some people, still under the thrall of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change’s disproved projections of warming, seem surprised by this cooling trend, even to the point of denying it. But why?
Link for answer.
Read it forward.
Stevie, the illiterate wonder. I’m game for a thousand posts. PZ needs tuition money for his daughter, besides an HDTV for the bedroom. Meanwhile, you are a LIAR and BULLSHITTER. You have no INTEGRITY, since you have been proven wrong time and time again and never acknowledge it. That makes everything you say a LIE until proven otherwise. And it is never proven otherwise. Go home and quit trying to pretend you know something. If you know something, publish it in the peer reviewed primary scientific literature. Good luck with that. They don’t like LIARS any more than I do.
Nerd,
The way you make those declarations you’re sort of like an adolescent Napoleon aren’t you.
Well, your empire is shrinking.
The AGW consensus is phony, the AGW science is crap in=crap out and now the public is abandoning the fraud.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/01/rasmussen_only_41_percent_of_a.asp
Rasmussen: Only 41 Percent of Americans Believe in Man-Made Global Warming
John Kerry is pushing for a costly global emissions treaty and Hillary Clinton testified at her confirmation hearing that “climate change” an “unambiguous security threat.” But it appears a majority of Americans don’t buy the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Rasmussen reports:
Forty-four percent (44%) of U.S. voters now say long-term planetary trends are the cause of global warming, compared to 41% who blame it on human activity.
Seven percent (7%) attribute global warming to some other reason, and nine percent (9%) are unsure in a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Democrats blame global warming on human activity, compared to 21% percent of Republicans. Two-thirds of GOP voters (67%) see long-term planetary trends as the cause versus 23% of Democrats. Voters not affiliated with either party by eight points put the blame on planetary trends.
In July 2006, 46% of voters said global warming is caused primarily by human activities, while 35% said it is due to long-term planetary trends.
In April of last year, 47% of Americans blamed human activity versus 34% who viewed long-term planetary trends as the culprit. But the numbers have been moving in the direction of planetary trends since then.
Stevie, still spewing your lies and nobody is listening. They have your number. You have no integrity as you are fast and loose with the truth. Take your failed message elsewhere, and meanwhile learn what is means to be a man of integrity. Like how to fess up and correct your mistakes.
I have no particular knowledge of climatology or meteorology, so I’m not really qualified to get involved with this discussion. But it does seem… odd to me that during the coldest winter in many years, we’re worrying about global warming.
Furthermore, a cursory search reveals that the IPCC’s most recent report (2007) predicts staggering temperature rises of… erm… 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. With a maximum estimate of a 6.4 degree increase over the next century, causing maximum sea level rises of 23 inches.
Don’t get me wrong. Not being a scientist of any sort, I could well have completely misunderstood the report. But those figures don’t sound all that catastrophic to me.
And yes, I understand that low-lying coastal areas will be flooded eventually with the rise in sea levels. But this is just one of the hazards of living in such an area, just as earthquakes are inevitable hazards of living in California or Japan. People will adapt.
Nor are coastal and weather changes a new thing in human history. In Chaucer’s time, it was reportedly so warm that there were vineyards in northern England. Conversely, in the nineteenth century Britain was rather colder than today. And Roman and medieval records show how much the British coastline, in low-lying areas, has changed over the last couple of millenia. People adapt and survive.
It would seem to me to be a frightening overreaction if we were to follow the draconian plans suggested by environmental groups – crippling our economy, reducing our standard of living, and halting the pace of economic development in developing industrial countries – just in order to put a stop to this relatively non-catastrophic pace of change. I could, of course, be talking absolute crap, since, I must reiterate, I have no qualifications in this field whatsoever, and have only the knowledge available to any layman.
Walton, there is a diffence between climate and weather. Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get. One years weather means nothing to the climate. El nino/la nina cause weather disruptions, along with volcanos. Ten years weather, beginning to get there. Also, on of the predictions of AGW is bigger swings in the weather. Exactly what we are seeing. Overall, the climate is warming.
So, your choice is to listen to professional scientists like PZ or myself, or the listen to non-scientist like Stevie. If you are smart, listen to the scientists. Look at how easy it is to demolish the arguement of the creationists. Same thing here.
Tell that to the Polar Bears.
Tell that to the Polar Bears.
I’m going to ask an open question here; I sincerely don’t know the answer, since I have no background in ecology, environmental science or any related field.
(1) If all the polar bears in the world became extinct tomorrow, would it be likely to have a significant impact on human civilisation, humans’ standard of living or any field of human endeavour? (disregarding the impact on the few small Arctic communities for whom polar bears are an economic resource; their needs are outweighed IMO by the rest of the world’s need for continued industrial growth and expansion.)
(2) If the answer to question (1) is “Yes”, would this projected impact be greater than the (certain) detrimental impact on economic growth, and consequent serious humanitarian impact, of implementing the Kyoto Protocol and other anti-carbon measures?
As much as I love polar bears, I’m far more bothered about human beings. China, India, Brazil and the rest of the developing world need rapid economic growth – including high-pollution industries – in order to get millions of their people out of poverty. We, too, need economic growth, and a supply of cheap consumer goods, in order to maintain the standard of living which we all enjoy. Now, I do understand that environmental changes can also have a serious humanitarian and economic impact (the hole in the ozone layer, for instance). But surely we have to weigh up the greater evil against the lesser evil?
Walton,
Your genuine curiosity if refreshing here. There is much to be curious about the IPCC global warming alarms. And you don’t need to be a climate scientist of “Nerd” to discover the broad refuting of AGW.
As I have stated before
http://www.icecap.us
http://www.wattsupwiththat.con
http://www.claimateaudit.org
are fanstasic sources to watch the unfolding and debunking of the global warming fallacy.
Nerd advises, like many other loyalists, that “weather is not climate”. Well howdy doody Nerd. Thanks a bunch.
That’s obvious to all but,
I wonder why you Global Warming pandamoniumites never remember that when you’re attributing the weather of Hurricane Katrinna to the climate of global warming,
as you do with many other weather events?
Could it be that you are hypocrites? Perhaps even disingenuous?
This is what Nerd and company offer up against the plethera of science which refutes AGW. “Weather is not climate” .
It is nonsensicle what alarmists have attributed to global warming. California wild fires, ocean dead zones, various single year heat waves and as Nerd claims
“bigger swings in the weather.”
There is no more science behind that absurd nonsense than than there is a connection between more hurricane and AGW.
This IPCC hurricane expert resign from the IPCC after a IPCC manager distorted to the media their own papers on hurricanes.
Here’s his resignation.
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm
“Overall, the climate is warming” Really? We currently have nearly ten years of non warming.
But even prior warming is now being shown to be insignificant and historicly routine.
Yes, everyone’s choice is to listen to professional scientists. They are doing fabulous work around the globe. Scrutinizing and amassing a vast amount of data which contradicts the assuptions and projections by the waning IPCC.
Nerd and company are simply lobying to obstruct the revelations from becoming common knowledge.
On the other hand I have never told anyone to “listen to me”. Instead I have delivered the words of real scientists such as Landsea and many others who have discovered and validated major flaws in the IPCC case.
All of which Nerd and company deny and denigrate.
His equating the skeptic’s case to that of the creationists is ludicrous lobbying not to be taken serious by anyone.
Whereas his refusal to acknoledge the many fatal flaws in the sceince, data and projections by the IPCC places him in the flat earther camp.
As for the polar bears? Their populations are rising and are not threatened by AGW at all.
Even the acrtic ice cap has fluctuated over the history of record keeping. The NW passage was clear and navigatable in 1906 long before the Human CO2 emissions rose.
Google polar bear fraud and have a nice laugh.
Here’s a good read for today.
It’s official: La Niña is back
So we’ll have continued cooling while various effects such as localized droughts will again be falsely attributed to AGW. Right Nerd?
And when are you going to bring some substance.
Something more than your junior high school rhetoric.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/20/its-official-la-nina-is-back/
Walton, you are confusing the political and economic consequences of AGW with the science of AGW. I am not saying anything about politics or economics. I’m just talking the science behind AGW. It is there, as much as Stevie and his ilk try to proclaim otherwise and obfuscate the science. If you make your scientific decisions based upon politics and economics, you are like the man who writes a complicated will based upon what his neighbor said rather than having a solicitor write it up. Which one will have an easier time passing being probated (American term, don’t know if the UK uses it) at the end of the day? Which would a Bangladeshi prefer, having to move several hundred miles because the shoreline encroached upon his village due to melting ice caps/glaciers, or having his village intact?
Stevie, still trying to pervert science? You have nothing. You say nothing of consequence. You are a man without integrity. A snake oil salesman.
Walton, this thread is not the place to argue the economics and politics of AGW. Just the science which Stevie the Stupid can’t grasp.
Nerd,
Between you and I. it is I who am the one posting science.
You are attempting to silence it.
Walton should be easily recognizing that.
For it is the IPCC and you who are making scientific decisions based upon politics and economics.
And your jibberish suggesting AGW will force Bangladeshies to move hundreds of miles due toi melting ice caps and glaciers?
What a hoot.
How many times have you watched Gore’s AIT?
Yeah you’re real scientific.
Walton:
But he’s never let that stop him from blabbering on about any other subject, and he’s not about to start now!
Cementhead.
Stevie the LIAR. I have never seen Gore’s movie. This is the second time I’ve had to tell you that. That makes you a second class maroon with a stupid cluster. You need to get off your preconceived ideas. I listen to true scientists in the field who publish in the peer reviewed primar scientific literature. People who see the whole picture. And who are used to telling the truth. That leaves you out. What part of that aren’t you seeing?
Read this and ignore Nerd.
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/pdf/2007%2005-03%20AusIMM%20corrected.pdf
Stevie, you don’t get it. Since you lack integrity, like peer reviewed scientist have, nything you say or link to is considered a LIE. I won’t even look. The fact that you endorse means it is WRONG.
Do us both a favor and go way.
Go away?
Why?
Regardless of your calling everything lies, I’ve been bringing very cogent and interesting work by knowledgeable people who have been scrutinizing the IPCC’s AGW data.
You’re putting on the perfect demonstration of what the persistent support for the IPCC-AGW is all about.
Which is to shout down and silence the critiquing and refuting science accumulating from experts around the globe.
Your foot stomping about my presence and posts here is the stuff of irrational adherence. You’ve also demonstrated no interest in discovering anything contrary to the story lines from the IPCC. Again, irrational.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Alexander_Memo-0509_Corrupt-science.pdf
Memo 05/09
Climate summit. Corrupt science
Will Alexander alexwjr@iafrica.com
Tuesday 20 January 20
Stevie, I am just treating you like any liar and bullshitter should be treated. You have nothing to say of interest. Why should you stay and waste your time? Time I have plenty of.
‘
In order to even be listened to, you need to go away for at least a week, and when you come back, you need to have an apology for all your lies to date. Be sure to include why they are lies in your apology. If you don’t understand and apologize for all your LIES, you still won’t be believed. Welcome to Science. We hate LIARS.
#94: “You don’t suppose they could be aware of that effect and have designed their methods to compensate for it, do you?
Science needs to compare apples to apples. No I don’t trust their “compensations”. Especially since they do not publicly document them.
Steve H,
Get a clue man. I’m skeptical of AGW claims. I just don’t buy your article.
In my opinion that article was total nonsense. So please don’t post fifty other articles to somehow convince me that a particular article is correct. They have nothing to do with it.
I told you two specific reasons why that specific article was wrong. Pointing to some other article about some other issue will not address my concern.
Brian you are all wet.
You and IAN are, deliberately or mistaekenly, misinterpreting the article,,,articles.
You should go chime in on the long discussions and you would understand they are making such lame errors or adjustments as you claim.
That sort of thing is at the IPCC et al.
Green Diesel freezes school buses
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/20/cold-weather-green-fuel-yellow-bus-failure/
they NOT are making such lame errors or adjustments as you claim.
Oceans are cooling according to NASA
http://www.examiner.com/x-1586-Baltimore-Weather-Examiner~y2009m1d21-Oceans-are-cooling-according-to-NASA
Stevie, still spreading your LIES. Your soul, if you have one, must be as thin as piece of tissue paper. Stop your LIES and regain your integrity and soul.
Nerd,
Do you honestly dispise diversity of opinions, debate, and open discussion?
Because your portrayal of the opposing science as nothing but lies is nothing short of bullying obstruction of it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/21/antarctica-warming-an-evolution-of-viewpoint/#more-5224
Antarctica warming? An evolution of viewpoint
Open discussion,,,Nerd
Hehe. So this is how they’re going to spin ANT-BLOODY-ARCTICA warming…
Volcanoes… rrrright. Gee, how long have they been there?
The IPCC hoaxters don’t spin they “interpolate”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/science/earth/22climate.html?_r=1&hp
“Some regions of Antarctica, ,,, have warmed,,,,but others,,, have recorded a cooling trend. That ran counter to the forecasts of computer climate models, and global warming skeptics have pointed to Antarctica in questioning the reliability of the models.
In the new study, scientists took into account satellite measurements to interpolate temperatures in the vast areas between the sparse weather stations.”
Which one of these definitions of interpolate works best?
in⋅ter⋅po⋅late [in-tur-puh-leyt]
1. to introduce (something additional or extraneous) between other things or parts; interject; interpose; intercalate.
2. Mathematics. to insert, estimate, or find an intermediate term in (a sequence).
3. to alter (a text) by the insertion of new matter, esp. deceptively or without authorization.
4. to insert (new or spurious matter) in this manner.
Eitehr 3 or 4 fits pretty well.
But as long as you loyal alarmists don’t apply any curiosity you can be interpolated all day long.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/21/antarctica-warming-an-evolution-of-viewpoint/#more-5224
Give Me a Break: Global Warming
Opposing “science” (pseudoscience or less) that doesn’t come from the peer reviewed primary scientific literature? Give me a break. If it ain’t peer reviewed and published, it ain’t science. But then, if you are a real scientist, you would know that too.
So, we still have shit from the anti AGW people.
‘
http://www.citeulike.org/user/DanHodson/article/3923096
‘
Peer reviewed article (Nature) showing slight warming trend in the antarctic.
PZ, I failed to close the italics in the last sentence. Please fix it if there is italics bleed.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/21/antarctica-warming-an-evolution-of-viewpoint/#comments
“But no, it just couldn’t possibly have anything at all to do with the fact that the entire western side of the Antarctic continent and peninsula is dotted with volcanoes. Recent discovery of new volcanic activity isn’t mentioned in the paper at all.”
But let’s put the volcanoes aside for a moment. Let’s look at the data error band. The UAH trend for Antarctica since 1978 is -0.77 degrees/century.
In a 2007 press release on Antarctica, NASA’s describes their measurement error at 2-3 degrees, making Steig’s conclusion of .25 degrees Celsius over 25 years statistically meaningless.
“Instead, the team checked the satellite records against ground-based weather station data to inter-calibrate them and make the 26-year satellite record. The scientists estimate the level of uncertainty in the measurements is between 2-3 degrees Celsius.”
That is from this 2007 NASA press release, third paragraph.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=8239
Also in that PR, NASA shows yet another satellite derived depiction which differs from the ones above. I’ve added it.
Saying you have a .25 deviation over 25 years (based on one-tenth of a degree Celsius per decade per Steig) with a previously established measurement uncertainty of 2-3 degrees means that the “deduced” value Steig obtained is not greater than the error bands previously cited on 2007, which would render it statistically meaningless.
In an AP story Kenneth Trenberth [IPCC]has the quote of the day:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090121/ap_on_sc/sci_antarctica
“This looks like a pretty good analysis, but I have to say I remain somewhat skeptical,” Kevin Trenberth, climate analysis chief at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said in an e-mail. “It is hard to make data where none exist.”
Stevie, still with the LIES. You lost your integrity due to LIES. Nothing you say or post is believable due to your LIES. So quit LYING. Stop posting. That is your only hope.
Nerd,
Is Kenneth Trenberth of the IPCC is a lying skeptic without integrity?
444
Stevie, anything you say or post is considered a LIE. GET IT? YOU HAVE NO INTEGRITY! Go away, I don’t listen to you, but just post in response to you. You will never get the last post.
http://people-press.org/report/485/economy-top-policy-priority
Global warming dead last
Stevie, the problem is you. You are a proven liar and bullshitter. Nothing you say will be believed, so just go away.
http://icecap.us/
Jan 23, 2009
Antarctica: Still a Cool Place If You Don’t Mind The Cold
By Meteorologist Art Horn
Much has been written of late about a new study out of the University of Washington about how Antarctica is not getting colder but is actually getting warmer. One of the authors is the Michael Mann. Enough has been said about his hockey stick, we all know about its shortcomings.
Recently I had a chance to question Mr. Mann at a talk he was giving in southwestern Connecticut. I asked him if he could explain how global average temperature had only gone up two out of the last seven decades even though eighty percent of all the carbon dioxide humans have put into the atmosphere has been since 1940? His response was that he disagreed with my figure of 80 percent since 1940, he said most of the carbon dioxide had been emitted in the last 15 years. He also was unaware that the global average temperature has only risen two of the last seven decades. He said that statement was simply not true. I can only guess he’s been looking at failed computer model forecasts and a broken hockey stick, not real data. It was quite stunning to hear his ignorance about the trend in temperature for the last seven decades.
Now as far as Antarctica warming goes I thought it would be instructive to actually look at some temperature data from the interior of the frozen continent. Enter Vostok station. Vostok was opened in the geophysical year in 1957 on December the 16th. Since then there has been an almost unbroken record of surface air temperature record. The station is located at 78 degrees 27 minutes south and 106 degrees 52 minutes east or about 780 miles from the South Pole. The station is number 15 in this image of Antarctica (fig 1).
use link for image http://icecap.us/
The station was opened by the Russians but now is run by the Russians, French and Americans. The mean temperature for Vostok in 1958 was -55.4 degrees Celsius. Ten years later in 1968 the mean was -55.7 degrees, slightly colder. Another 10 years goes by and in 1978 the mean at the station is -55.2 degrees, a bit warmer. By 1988 the mean temperature had risen a little to -55.1 degrees. During the 10 year period from 1978 to 1988 the world record low temperature of -129 degrees was reached at the station on July 21st 1983. By 1998 a year after the great El Nino of 1997 Vostok had a mean temperature of -56.6, a bit colder than 10 years earlier.
Last year the station had a mean temperature of -55.6 a little warmer or should I say less cold! The -55.6 is slightly colder by 0.2 degrees than the -55.4 recorded 50 years ago, not much warming going on here and in fact none. See the graph in figure 2 for a visual of how little change there has been at Vostok. Granted this is only one station but the fact remains that this is REAL DATA and not statistical game playing. The numbers speak for themselves. By the way on August 8th 2005 Vostok had an unofficial low temperature of -122 degrees, very cool indeed.
image
See larger image here.
Amundsen Scott AFB (figure 3) at the South Pole (#1 on the map) shows no real annual or summer warming also – with a slight (0.15C) winter cooling. The winter of 2004 was the coldest in the entire record as was the summer of 2000. Read full PDF here.
image
See larger image here.
Stevie. In your case, it isn’t the message, but the messenger. You are tainted due to being caught out in LIES. You didn’t set thing right with apologies and retractions, but set out more LIES. That permanently tainted you. Keep being the messenger. That is surest way of making sure your message isn’t heard.
Nerd,
I suspect you may be your early teens, but not to worry, you’ll mature soon.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/01/23/glacier-slowdown-in-greenland-how-inconvenient/
January 23, 2009
Glacier Slowdown in Greenland: How Inconvenient
Stevie, wrong again. But what else is new. You need to go. You have nothing to say of interest, or veracity. With the latter being the most important.
Nerd,
Were you there?
“a local left-wing blog threw apoplectic fits”
Governor’s Commission on Global Warming made to hear skeptic’s testimony
Profiles in Cowardice
By Paul Chesser
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/01/22/profiles-in-cowardice/
Governor’s Commission on Global Warming,,,was also given the mandate to “study the scientific data, literature, and research on global warming to determine whether global warming is an immediate threat to the citizens in the State of Arkansas….”
Turns out this area of “study” was only allowed to go so far. As is the standard when the Center for Climate Strategies is granted management control of a state’s climate commission (approaching two dozen so far), the prerequisite for CCS to take the job is that no debate of the climate science is allowed. Like the intolerant Al Gore, CCS cannot suffer dissent, flat-earthers, or moonwalk-deniers.
The piece de resistance of the resistance came in a legislative hearing held last week in Little Rock, in which famed atmospheric scientist skeptic Roy Spencer, “Red Hot Lies” author Chris Horner, and two myth-busters from the Science and Public Policy Institute delivered multiple puncture wounds to global warming alarmism. As a local left-wing blog threw apoplectic fits, a Democratic Senate committee chairman tried to shut the meeting down. But the pressure brought by Sanders, the scheduled skeptics, and the bold dissenters on GCGW was too much, and the hearing was held.
Yawn, Stevie the LIAR and BULLSHITTER is still here. Some people never learn.
Nerd,
You’re essentially Al Gore and exactly what you paint me as.
Only you’re worse as you attempt to silence science.
http://icecap.us/
And in California, Dan Logue, the 3rd District assemblyman seeks to suspend states global warming law AB32!
“In the last year alone, California lost 95,000 private sector jobs and our manufacturing base has been devastated. An independent economist stated AB32 is a threat to our remaining 1.5 million manufacturing jobs. AB32 will hurt our environment. AB32 is a job killer – businesses can�t comply and remain competitive, so they are leaving. This has resulted in less tax revenue for environmental mitigation, bringing a halt to many programs that keep our public safe from toxic waste and limit our ability to provide safe, clean, water. As of now, there are thousands of toxic sites in California and no money to mitigate. Given the current state of our economy, AB32 must be suspended before it suspends our funding for schools, law enforcement, parks, water storage, and any hope of economic recovery. At its most basic analysis -no private sector jobs, no economy, no tax revenues for the state for anything. We will be broke. But we will be politically correct and Hollywood will love us!”
http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=2616
Warni ng — legislators at work
Co2sceptic (Site Admin)
January 23rd 2009, 10:47 PM GMT
(h/t: http://tomnelson.blogspot.com)
CT legislator introduces bill to repeal climate bill due to ‘assumption that global warming is caused by human action’
REP. John PISCOPO, 76th DIST (R) Proposed H.B. No. 5697 REP. PISCOPO, 76th DIST. ‘AN ACT REPEALING GLOBAL WARMING LEGISLATION’, to repeal global warming legislation that was passed based on the assumption that global warming is caused by human action.”
Article continues below this advert:
Excerpt: Mark my words, in ten years, we’re all going to be worried about late spring frosts, and early fall frosts, and crops dying and we’re going to be in some huge climate cooling hysteria. That’s just the way it is with this globe. It warms and it cools. Th ere is nothing the little State of Connecticut, in rolling back its economy to 1990 standards, or over-regulating its manufacturing industry or anything like that, is going to do to stop this huge planet from having fluctuations in its climate.
Link to bill: http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/TOB/H/2009HB-05697-R00-HB.htm
Warning — legislators at work
YAWN, if Stevie says anything, it is WRONG.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/22/antarctic-warming-part-2-a-letter-from-a-meteorologist-on-the-ground-in-antarctica/#comments
Bruce Cobb (07:46:24) :
Can’t you people come up with anything besides ad hominem and straw man arguments, appeals to “authority”, consensus, and red herrings, none of which prove a thing except the complete lack of any real science, or indeed logic? For the umpteenth time, nobody here “denies” climate change. The very fact that you feel the need to use the ad hominem “denier” label proves the irrationality and lack of scientific basis for your arguments.
Try this.
http://commentlog.org/bid/4409/The-Case-for-Global-Warming-Skepticism
Science, not ideology. You might want to give it a try.
See no LIAR, hear no LIAR, read no LIAR.
This from the guy who accuses everyone who disagrees with him as being Al Gore supporters.
Here’s a thorough refutation of the AGW fraud.
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/
Excerpt:
So: not only is the research behind AGW not falsifiable science, and thus not entitled to deference regardless of the personal trustworthiness of its promoters, its promoters are – in fact – snakes. It never rains but it pours. In fact, if you read Climate Audit on a regular basis, you see examples of gross scientific misconduct that would be career-ending in any legitimate field, perhaps once or twice a month. Mann’s (repeated) statistical manipulation is especially egregious, but not at all unusual.
We also have (one) answer to the first question of the AGW credulists: how a scientific consensus can produce a fraudulent result. The answer is simple: the entire field is fraudulent. In a fraudulent pseudoscience, there is no incentive at all for uncovering error, because the only result of a successful dissent is to destroy your job and those of your peers.
We can see this effect in the experience of climate modeler Judith Curry, who to her great credit dealt with McIntyre the way a real scientist would: inviting him to give a talk. She wrote:
I am taking some heat for all this from my peers outside Georgia Tech. The climate blog police were very upset by my congratulations to Steve upon winning the best science blog award. A recent seminar speaker was appalled to be included in the same seminar series as steve and pat, and told me i was misleading my students. I got some support for what I am doing from a program manager at NSF who I spoke with recently, who appreciated my “missionary work” over at climate audit. Another NSF program manager is apparently not at all happy about this. Some people think that my participation over here in someway “legitimizes” CA; my participation over here is not all that relevant in the overall scheme of CA. I am fully aware that many of my peers think i am crazy for doing this.
Cargo-cult scientists have to circle the wagons like this. If they piss off the NSF program managers, their life expectancy as successful grantwinners is not impressive. Real scientists have no such need to be defensive, because their program managers actually want them to expose any errors in their field.
Thus we answer the initial Hoofnagel question: the source of coordinated error is not, at all, a conspiracy. It is simply the funding source. Nearly every scientist in a field can be working together to promote a falsehood because they all get their money from Joe Romm and company. And if the falsehood is exposed rather than promoted, there is no field left. It is no more surprising that all USG-funded scientists are unanimous in promoting AGW as a global emergency, than that all Philip Morris-funded scientists are unanimous in promoting tobacco as a vitamin.
Yawn, nothing to see here. more of the same old LIES.
James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic – Says Hansen ‘Embarrassed NASA’
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320
Stevie, you just have to keep adding to your LIES. Give it up. We will get the last word.
“Today yet another scientist has come forward with a press release saying that not only did their audit of IPCC forecasting procedures and found that they “violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting”, but that “The models were not intended as forecasting models and they have not been validated for that purpose.” This organization should know, they certify forecasters for many disciplines and in conjunction with John Hopkins University if Washington, DC, offer a Certificate of Forecasting Practice. The story below originally appeared in the blog of Australian Dr. Jennifer Marohasy. It is reprinted below, with with some pictures and links added for WUWT readers. – Anthony
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/28/forecasting-guru-announces-no-scientific-basis-for-forecasting-climate/#more-5370
…This (environmental legislation?) has resulted in less tax revenue for environmental mitigation, bringing a halt to many programs that keep our public safe from toxic waste and limit our ability to provide safe, clean, water. As of now, there are thousands of toxic sites in California and no money to mitigate…
In order to protect us from the pollution that is already present, we need money that can only be raised by generating additional pollution?
Steve H. quotes someone quoting a blog:
Who did this audit?
Where is the link to this audit, and the list of these 72 principles?
How many scientific principles of forecasting are there?
Information on the authors
We are experts in scientific forecasting methods. Dr. Armstrong has been working in the field for 48 years. He is a founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, Journal of Forecasting,
International Institute of Forecasters, and International Symposium on Forecasting, and the author of Long-range Forecasting (1978, 1985), the Principles of Forecasting Handbook, and over 70 papers on forecasting. Dr. Green has developed two important new forecasting methods and has
published seven articles on forecasting. His first article was accompanied by six commentaries and was awarded Best Paper of 2002-2003 by the International Journal of Forecasting. Dr Green
established publicpolicyforecasting.com to promote the use of scientific forecasting methods to help improve public policy decision making. Along with Dr. Armstrong, he is a director of
forecastingprinciples.com.
^^ The journal that one founded gave the other an award… Thats nice.
But the websites publicpolicyforcasting.com and forecastingprinciples.com are just no-script boxes for me. Ah well.
But this blog post that they refer to:
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2007/06/predictions_of_climate.html
I don’t think it supports their position, perhaps they didn’t really read it? Perhaps I just didn’t understand it.
“We will adapt to climate change. The question is whether it will be planned or not? How disruptive and how much loss of life will there be because we did not adequately plan for the climate changes that are already occurring?”
You’d think Steve H would be busy writing up all his devastating insights for publication in the climatology journals. Oh, wait.
Hugh, interesting. I take it then this is the list?
It lists 139 principles in 16 categories. So 72 presumably is roughly half of those sub-principles.
I note the intro to that piece has a caveat: “Why do you need 139 principles? You will not need all of them in any one situation. Nearly all of the principles are conditional on the characteristics of the situation.”
Presumably, all 72 of those “violated” principles were required in this situation…
I further note J. Scott Armstrong’s “Global Warming Challenge” was itself criticised some time ago.
John, thanks for that. I’ll have to have a browse through it.
I think the error they’re making is that “climate models are forecasts”. I’ve spent a bit of time reading over at realclimate. As I understand it, the models are just tools used to explore the relationship between global warmth and various forcings. And not meant to be predictive of specific climate change.
I wonder if it’s even possible to forecast any local climate with accuracy. I remember reading somewhere, a theory, that it might be that the simplest, accurate model of climate and weather, is the Earth’s climate and weather.
^^ But, I’m not a scientist, nor have I had any formal training in the field. I’m quite happy at being shown to be mistaken.
Ok so now the AGWers are saying the IPCC doesn’t forcast?
Let’s review. They don’t predict, they don’t project and now they don’t forecast. How special.
But then how is it the IPCC is warning of something have not predicted, projected or forecasted?
Of course this perpetual dance by realclimate and others is simply too much nonsense. As is disregarding all of the skeptic scienctists.
Recently Hansen’s former supervisor came out as a skeptic, now Dr. Theon a true forcasting expert. They did so for very good reasons. Scientific reason. Not simply some cold weather events or other observations. But the very science the IPCC had relied upon for their wrong conclusions, or “forecasts” of imminent and harmful man made warming.
There’s much more unfolding every day that makes certain the fatal flaws of AGW and the IPCC reports.
No one or two flaws but in total the certainty is irrefutable.
And it is being submitted for publication.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4991#comments
Submitted Article on Tropical Troposphere Trends
Wake up, and study.
Murdock: Even left now laughing at Global Warming
http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/40464
So-called “global warming” has shrunk from problem to punch line. And now, Leftists are laughing, too.
icecap.us for much more
It’s unavaoidable unless you deliberately shield yourself from the growing and more accurate science which debunks AGW.
“Ok so now the AGWers are saying the IPCC doesn’t forcast?”
Who or what are these AGWers? Where are they saying this? I’d be interested to take a look.
“But then how is it the IPCC is warning of something have not predicted, projected or forecasted?”
I think it’s because they have found significant correlations between levels of atmospheric greenhouse gasses and global heat.
“Of course this perpetual dance by realclimate and others is simply too much nonsense. As is disregarding all of the skeptic scienctists.”
I don’t know if I would agree. I have seen them discussing the positions of “skeptic scientists” (isn’t this one of those tautology thingies? I thought scientists were sceptical by nature, and or training), even going to great length to demonstrate the errors in those positions.
“Recently Hansen’s former supervisor came out as a skeptic”…
From what I gather this former NASA administrator was not Mr. Hansen’s former supervisor.
I have read their criticism, I’m not sure that I am qualified to debate the science that they raise, but, as I have posted above, I believe they erroneously assume that global climate models are forecasts. If, indeed, I am wrong, and the models are supposed to be predictive, then I apologise for my mistake, and will make a further attempt at understanding.
“Submitted Article on Tropical Troposphere Trends”
Do you have a link to the article? I would be interested in reading it. Have you read the article? Perhaps you could explain the gist of it?
“Murdock: Even left now laughing at Global Warming”
Well the link here is to cherry picked (is that the correct term?) data. I thought you said you weren’t going to do that…
“Not simply some cold weather events or other observations.”
Here, I can cherry pick, too. How does my local weather fit into your ideology?
* In 2008 the mean temperature was 0.54°C above average across South Australia, the 16th consecutive year that above average temperatures have occurred.
* 2008 began with a January heatwave event, with the first half of March seeing a prolonged heatwave event which led to many records, including Adelaide recording the longest run of days above 35°C for any Australian capital city, of 15 consecutive days.
* Rainfall was below average, with rainfall across the state about 75% of the average for the year.
* After low summer rainfall, the year progressed close to average through until spring when well below average rainfall affected crop yields in the agricultural areas.
* The below average rainfall for 2008 continues the long-term rainfall deficits which have been in place across the South Australian agricultural districts over the last 11 years.
That’s from my local Bureau of Meteorology.
Hugh, Stevie the LIAR has nothing of substance to offer. When challenged to produce peer reviewed primary scientific literature citations to support his ideas he failed to do so. That is because they aren’t there. All Stevie the LIAR has to offer is opinions, opinions that can easily be refuted, have been refuted, and are usually by non-scientists, or scientists in fields other than climatology. But it is all he has, so he keeps presenting the same failed evidence. If you want to learn something about AGW, I suggest looking in back issues of Scientific American or American Scientist. Both run articles that summarize the scientific thinking on various topics for a general audience, and they are written by scientists doing work in the field rather than crackpots like Stevie.
Hugh, there is one good way to tell a real scientist from a fake one. Ask him how his groundbreaking paper to Science or Nature is coming. A real scientist writes papers to peer reviewed primary scientific journals. Fake scientists make excuses.
Stevie, how is your paper coming?
Oh Nerdy,
I don’t know why you keep saying I have nothing of substance to offer.
I’ve delivered more substance than anyone on here with numerous sources of extensive scientific work and discussions.
Your obsession and repetition with demands for “peer reviewed primary scientific literature citations” is laughable and childish.
And I am not offering my own particular ideas or work. That’s why, what I have brought, is indeed substative. It’s all extensive scientific work, reports and discussions, readily available for anyone to study and contribute to. If you bothered doing so you too would discover the many contributors with qualified back grounds and the vast scrutinizing they compile. In many cases perfromed by former IPCC reviewers.
Yet you discount all of their work without reading it. In effect it is you who lies about their work and legitimacy.
I’ll have to conclude that your portrayal of everything I have brought here as simply my own baseless opinions is your corrupted effort to obsrtuct AGW dissent. You do a very poor job of doing so.
I don’t know what you think you’ve refuted anyway.
How would you know what is the “same failed evidence” when you avoid following the issue completely?
I’m sure you’d like people to look only at “back issues” of literature with the bad science which Thoen and Armstrong have both rejected.
And of course it’s “summaries” you prefer people look at. Just perfect for “general audiences”?
I suggest you stop misleading people and misrepresetning science.
Hugh,
I am not a scientist, have never faked being one and Nerd is imagining things.
The article and link I posted above is here again. It isn’t my work Nerd.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4991#comments
Submitted Article on Tropical Troposphere Trends
By Nerd’s standards Hansen is a fake scientist because he has no background in climate science. He is an astronomer.
Who or what are these AGWers?
Nerd, and many other here and over at real climate, and the usual IPCC loyalists.
The IPCC is warning of future climate changes caused by man. They do so as a result of modeling and “forecasting”, future casting or any label.
The so called significant correlations between levels of atmospheric greenhouse gasses and global heat has not been proven at all. That’s the central point.
But AGWers can’t even acknowledge the basis for AGW, the Mann hockey stick, is a complete garbage.
Scientists should be skeptical by nature, and or training), even going to great length to demonstrate the errors in those positions.
The IPCC does not want skeptic scientists scrutinizing and challenging anything.
“Recently Hansen’s former supervisor came out as a skeptic”…
Yes he was Hansen’s former supervisor and he reviewed his work.
Yes the IPCC forecasts. This is yet another dance like the previous dance was when skeptic were criticized for using “predicts” for what the IPCC has done with predicting sea rise etc. So the change was to projects. Now they don’t like forecast?
They are foretelling future climate and future effects of climate and they are using what have been shown to be faulty methods.
This makes their projections, predictions, forecasts, future casting, foretelling or whatever they prefer it be called a bunch of nonsense.
Pure and simple. Any layperson following the scrutinizing by skeptics can easily grasp this.
Only those avoiding the work cling to the IPCC reports that are summaries by the politically corrupted.
Of course the models are supposed to be predictive. Predictive of 3 to 12 tempt rise and sea level rise and and whole plethora of predicted effects from Human caused Global warming.
This is why skepticism is important. Just as you mentioned above.
Nerd on the other hand is attempting silence, disrupt, obstruct and denigrate all dissenting science, period.
The “Murdock: Even left now laughing at Global Warming” link is an article. That doesn’t make it cherry picked.
I have no ideology and am familiar with your South Australia weather because it has been discussed at length along with other weather.
With Australians included.
You should join the discussions. Some times they get more data deep than needed to get the gist but most of it is very intriguing.
Click and scroll around on these and you’ll find very reasonable people discussing the data and science which has been getting better every month.
icecap.us
wattsupwiththat.com
climateaudit.org
Despite the Nerd’s accusations Armstrong’s rejection of IPCC’s “forecasting” methods is impressive.
Nice visiting, Hugh.
^^ A quick prayer to the formatting faerie, about to lose my HTML “cherry”.
Yes, I have visited that link, the article isn’t there, only the abstract. Have you read the article? Perhaps you could explain how it refutes the following criticism.
Well, perhaps I’m mistaken about models not being forecasts. Could you please provide me with a couple of links to relevant information that demonstrates that the global climate models are indeed predictions? And that the IPCC report was a result of these predictions.
I’m afraid I don’t find this credible. Again, can you please provide me with links to document your claims? Has there been some quiet revolution in our understanding of the physics? Isn’t this “hockey stick” merely a graph of temperatures over time? Do you have a corrected graph? And can you verify that AGW is based solely on that graph?
Okay, my previous position on this was based on a response to a question posted at realclimate, which started “He was not my boss’s former boss.” I have amended my position, after reading a subsequent response that goes into more detail.
Perhaps you can expand on that? You might want to head over to realclimate and discuss it with Gavin Schmidt.
Please forgive me, I have to rush off and do some things. I’ll come back and continue this conversation in a couple of hours. Be well.
Nerd: “When challenged to produce peer reviewed primary scientific literature citations to support his ideas he failed to do so. That is because they aren’t there. […]”
Steve H.: “Nerd on the other hand is attempting silence, disrupt, obstruct and denigrate all dissenting science, period.”
BTW, here in South Australia, we’re working on developing and implementing policies to adjust to and cope with climate change. The issue is not in dispute.
^^ Whew, I needed that, a quick thank you to my little yeasty friends that make this liquid amber possible. Not that I’m a big fan of Drought, but when Murray mud isn’t available, it’s good enough.
Now where were we…
I didn’t claim that the IPCC doesn’t make projections. To me, the article you cited in #463, was claiming that the climate models were themselves forecasts. Whereas, I had thought they were more in the way of being tools, that enable exploration of the effects of variations in different forcing mechanisms.
As I now re-read the AR4 synthesis report, I find this…
With the stated understanding that…
And also…
What do you think? I feel a little more confident that I’m on the right track. Although, I’m not sure that I understood the exact criticisms of Doctors Armstrong and Green.
^^ I shake my fist at the formattin’ faerie, Oi!
Doctors Armstrong and Green state…
But the cited document (Trenberth 2007) reads, in part…
Which seems to negate the point that they (Armstrong and Green) are trying to make.
To me, Kevin Trenberth isn’t arguing that the IPCC has it wrong, rather, he’s lamenting the fact that the models aren’t yet sufficiently sophisticated as to be able to generate climate predictions.
Sigh. I’m not up to this HTML stuff, I apologise.
And
You misunderstand me. I was commenting on the fact that the article linked to contained “cherry picked” information.
You, yourself said…
Which, to me, demonstrated that you disparaged the usage of “cherry picked” information. Hence, when you linked to a post containing the same, I found it ironic, and wondered what you would make of my own “cherry picking”. ^^ I was rather hoping for some qualitative analysis, because I felt that my “picks” were more indicative of climate than those in your link.
Excellent. Perhaps you can help me in my attempts to compare our weather with locations in the States. I have no end of difficulty trying to explain it to my US friends. Adelaide is our capital, what US state capital would you describe as having the most similar weather / climate?
^^ And, oh how tricksy it is to discuss the difference between rainfall means and modals at my mates place up north. How would you go about describing the weather at places like Ernabella, Oodnadatta or Marla? You see what I’m saying?
Stevie, nothing is stopping you from publishing your alleged data. Science requires publishing for the data to be recognized. Write the paper and submit it. Are you too chickenshit to do so? Otherwise, you are nothing but a liar and bullshitter. Don’t be surprised if your paper is rejected because it is not scientific. If the evidence you have shown to date is any indication, you don’t have science on your side.
Nerd,
I see you use the same approach to open discussion and debate on other threads.
You just tell people they’re bullshitting liars and to go away.
Impressive.
Hugh,
Why get all caught up in the name “forecasting” or predicting or any other label? This is ridiculous. The IPCC is simply dancing in circles.
They claim human global warming will increase but they don’t call that predicting or forecasting?
Why do they do that? Because they can’t handled the scrutiny by forecasting and modeling experts who can demonstrate the IPCC is not following proper scientific procedure. Just as Armstrong detailed.
The IPCC uses modeling to make their claims of imminent human caused global climate warming. I have read where they don’t like the word prediction used. Apparently they don’t like forecast either. So What?
Trenbreth can call it anything the IPCC wants. Estimates? Projections? Fine.
So enough of the semantics over the modeling and the word forecasting.
This link,,, which was only an example for Nerd of submitted skeptics work.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4991#comments
Submitted Article on Tropical Troposphere Trends
This is the Armstrong/Forecasting link
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/28/forecasting-guru-announces-no-scientific-basis-for-forecasting-climate/
A thourough discussion on forecasting is there in the comments.
If you want to see why the Mann “hockey stick” theory is garbage google it.
You’ll find the skeptics work on it is extensive and thoroughly credible. With all of the data and graphs you’ll ever need.
On Theon,, let’s be real. He had regular and direct knowledge of Hansen’s work and methods. He reviewed his work according to Theon.
Thoen obviously knows what he is talking about regarding Hansen’s work.
And he has strong criticism of it.
There is a 518 comment discussion of him here.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/
John Morales
“BTW, here in South Australia, we’re working on developing and implementing policies to adjust to and cope with climate change. The issue is not in dispute.”
No there is no dispute that climate changes. However there is much dispute, including in Australia, about AGW and nothing in your link has anything demonstrating AGW.
The Armstrong article claims that the climate models should not be used for forecasting.
“The models were not intended as forecasting models and they have not been validated for that purpose.”
I’m pretty sure the expert critic doesn’t care much if the word forecast is used by the IPCC.
He’s obvioulsy making the point that the IPCC models are not valid for any projections.
The IPCC modeling is the basic for ALL of their projections and warnings of future AGW and it’s effects.
or “likelihood ranges are used to express the assessed probability of occurrence”
I’m familiar with Trenberth.
Don’t yo find it a bit funny that he would say this?
“In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been.”
OK so they are projections of “likelihood ranges of assessed probability of occurrence”.
Trenberth lost his credibility when he held media events and lied about AGW and hurricanes, resulting in an IPCC hurricane expert resigning in protest. READ THIS
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html
So forgive me but I view Trenberth as political hack.
RE: “Murdock: Even left now laughing at Global Warming” link/article.
It was just a story, not meant to suggest it was evidence of no AGW and I understand weather is not climate and warming examples abound.
I wasn’t using THAT story as an example of the scientific reasoning.
I don’t know what locations in the States compare with yours but IMO you would certainly enjoy the many comparisons made, and discussed periodically on wattsupwiththat.com and climateaudit.org
#481Nerd,
What is it that drives you? You keep telling me to publish my data???
What alleged data? Try reading Nerd. You’ll discover the data, the publications the debates and ongoing and growing analysis.
Apparently you have a problem with my reading and passing on what I come across?
Well that’s pretty much too bad for you fella.
And I better either publish my own work or shut up?
Why do you hate people?
Nerd,
I see you use the same approach to open discussion and debate on other threads.
You just tell people they’re bullshitting liars and to go away.
Impressive.
Hugh,
Why get all caught up in the name “forecasting” or predicting or any other label? This is ridiculous. The IPCC is simply dancing in circles.
They claim human global warming will increase but they don’t call that predicting or forecasting?
Why do they do that? Because they can’t handled the scrutiny by forecasting and modeling experts who can demonstrate the IPCC is not following proper scientific procedure. Just as Armstrong detailed.
The IPCC uses modeling to make their claims of imminent human caused global climate warming. I have read where they don’t like the word prediction used. Apparently they don’t like forecast either. So What?
Trenbreth can call it anything the IPCC wants. Estimates? Projections? Fine.
So enough of the semantics over the modeling and the word forecasting.
This link,,, which was only an example for Nerd of submitted skeptics work.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4991#comments
Submitted Article on Tropical Troposphere Trends
This is the Armstrong/Forecasting link
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/28/forecasting-guru-announces-no-scientific-basis-for-forecasting-climate/
A thourough discussion on forecasting is there in the comments.
If you want to see why the Mann “hockey stick” theory is garbage google it.
You’ll find the skeptics work on it is extensive and thoroughly credible. With all of the data and graphs you’ll ever need.
On Theon,, let’s be real. He had regular and direct knowledge of Hansen’s work and methods. He reviewed his work according to Theon.
Thoen obviously knows what he is talking about regarding Hansen’s work.
And he has strong criticism of it.
There is a 518 comment discussion of him here.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/
John Morales
“BTW, here in South Australia, we’re working on developing and implementing policies to adjust to and cope with climate change. The issue is not in dispute.”
No there is no dispute that climate changes. However there is much dispute, including in Australia, about AGW and nothing in your link has anything demonstrating AGW.
The Armstrong article claims that the climate models should not be used for forecasting.
“The models were not intended as forecasting models and they have not been validated for that purpose.”
I’m pretty sure the expert critic doesn’t care much if the word forecast is used by the IPCC.
He’s obvioulsy making the point that the IPCC models are not valid for any projections.
The IPCC modeling is the basic for ALL of their projections and warnings of future AGW and it’s effects.
or “likelihood ranges are used to express the assessed probability of occurrence”
I’m familiar with Trenberth.
Don’t yo find it a bit funny that he would say this?
“In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been.”
OK so they are projections of “likelihood ranges of assessed probability of occurrence”.
Trenberth lost his credibility when he held media events and lied about AGW and hurricanes, resulting in an IPCC hurricane expert resigning in protest. READ THIS
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html
So forgive me but I view Trenberth as political hack.
RE: “Murdock: Even left now laughing at Global Warming” link/article.
It was just a story, not meant to suggest it was evidence of no AGW and I understand weather is not climate and warming examples abound.
I wasn’t using THAT story as an example of the scientific reasoning.
I don’t know what locations in the States compare with yours but IMO you would certainly enjoy the many comparisons made, and discussed periodically on wattsupwiththat.com and climateaudit.org
Nerd,
What is it that drives you? You keep telling me to publish my data???
What alleged data? Try reading Nerd. You’ll discover the data, the publications the debates and ongoing and growing analysis.
Apparently you have a problem with my reading and passing on what I come across?
Well that’s pretty much too bad for you fella.
And I better either publish my own work or shut up?
Why do you hate people?
Hugh,
I think you’ll like this for sure.
CO2, Temperatures, and Ice Ages
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/
Stevie, if you are a scientist, how is your scientific paper to be published in the peer reviewed primary scientific literature coming? Really, either publish or perish. Right now you and your ideas are perishing due to lack of recognition. Publish that paper. Google Science and Nature to find out how to submit your paper. You will receive fame and glory if you do so. Failure to publish means you are a failure.
Nerd, I think you need a scientific hug.
Your imagination has hijkacked your sanity causing you to become obsessed with making petty and false accusations.
You’ve even promoted me to “scientist”.
I need to publish my data???
Try reading Nerd. You’ll discover the data, the publications the debates and extensive and growing analysis.
And this all spreads by people who read and share it.
You have a problem with this.
Unfortunatley for YOU, the wide open and free exchange of ideas cannot be stiffled by people like you.
So, no Nerd, it’s not “publish or perish” as you decree.
As much as you’d like to see some jack booted thugs silence dissent it aint happening.
For the free minded here is another good and fresh read.
http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGY0MGFiZTM3ZWM1ODVmNWI0MWE3ZmI3YzdhNmE4NjE=
Steve H.:
Sigh. You’re no less a proselytiser, or any more convincing, than any creobot. They use the same techniques you do, and for the same reasons as you – they think they know better than the scientific experts, and that they’re more perspicacious than others.
Heh.
John,
Oh brother where for art thou?
You’re not paying attention.
It is scientific experts who are rejecting the IPCC and AGW science.
It is hardly “me” which is supposed to be “convincing” anyone of this. It the work of the expert skeptics and the broad analytical conversations that are occurring.
What’s a “creobot” anyway?
“proselytizer? Is that supposed to add some negative religious connotation?
You’re being silly.
What techniques?
It is you who is clinging to some mysterious faith in the chosen AGW science while choosing to avoid exposing yourself to the broad discussions by the blasphemous dissenters. That leaves you in an conveniently un-informed comfort zone but ill equipped to acquire any growth in understanding.
Any half with can stroll through the front page discussions and articles at icecap.us, wattsupwiththat.com and climateaudit.org and grasp that there is much wrong with the AGW climate crusade.
And that it is indeed very much like what you falsely attempt to cast the skeptics as.
A lot of experts and very bright people are engaged in the growing AGW scrutiny and debate.
Here’s a hundred folks doing so.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/#comments
Why not pop in there and call them all creobots?
Steve H.: Creobot is shorthand for a creationist who robotically repeats the same stuff over and over.
Proselytiser is someone, such as you, who turns up in a forum, such as this, and whose intent is to change others’ beliefs to their own.
The techniques are to repeat your claims over and over, and to link to opinion pieces to support their contentions, and to point out to the small minority of scientific dissenters to claim vindication.
Yes, so you repeat ad-nauseam. You pimping their blogs makes no difference to me, since I don’t respect your opinions, nor to I care to visit sites you recommend.
Skeptics of the scientific consensus. Very credible.
I told you above (I think it was this thread, I’m not about to check) that, without educating myself further, I have no means of evaluating the primary evidence or literature. That’s why I trust the overwhelming bulk of climate scientists and pretty much all the institutions, rather than the odd dissenter.
I’m aware of the history of science, and know damn well that, should the evidence be clear, science as a whole will (and has) changed their views. (cf. continental drift once the theory of plate tectonics was developed).
Because that’s what bots like you do – go to some forum or blog and push your one single issue over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over ad nauseam. It’s not what I do.
John,
You’re missing the point.
But at least you admit that you refuse to easily educate yourself, by pretending you “have no means”.
Of course, you don’t need to personally evaluate the primary evidence or literature. Many people with expertise already have and are doing much more.
That’s the point.
You’re living in la la land if you think your excuses work.
You have the means just like everyone else around the globe.
Another major point you deliberately avoid is the intelligent people with expertise from both sides who are analyzing and discussing the issue.
Apparenlthy you are too good to bother even viewing their conversations.
No you throw even your peers under the bus right along with the creobots?
BTW that’s special that you have your own little made up word.
More of you delusion or dishonesty is demonstrated by your false claim that the broad and growing case against AGW is the same stuff over and over. How would you know, you don’t even read it? You’re not up to speed, uninformed on the topic and display no interest in improving.
Your misportrayals of this issue and debate also show a complete lack of curiosity and perception.
Yes any half wit can easily stroll through the articles and conversations and grasp this issue far better than someone who does not.
Your excuses for not doing so are ludicrous.
“You don’t because you “don’ have the means”??? Because you don’t like being pimped a site? Because you “don’t respect [my] opinions”?
What hogwash.
If you do understand the history of science then you should know how invalid it is to let “consensus” determine science.
Consensus is not instrument of science has a history of being wrong.
That said, in the case of the AGW/IPCC consensus even that claim is full of holes with IPCC participants themselves rejecting the idea.
Your refusing to read what is being discussed is evidence you are not interested in AGW. So be it. But your bullshit about how confident you are in the establishment’s global warming alarm is just sheep like.
By now anyone who is the slightest bit curious and engaged should have already explored the possibility the AGW was crap.
Waiting around for science “as a whole” to change their views is whole lot of ridiculous.
Especially when you make the whole anything you want it to be.
Why do you waste your time condemning someone for sharing interesting news and conversations while claiming you don’t want to waste your time checking it out?
Now get over there and check out how your peers are exchanging thoughts.
Then report back here how they are not all robots and the AGW debate is intriguing.
Steve H.: Nice rant. And, clearly, you’re nothing like, say, a godbot come here to proselytise – o no! :)
Lemme try?
One of us is, yeah.
My excuse is I’m not a halfwit.
No, I’m talking about you and your posts. YOU.
_The_ _same_ _stuff_.
Look, my position is simple: I’ve already investigated the issue to my own satisfaction.
I’m plugged in to the net.
If and when the case changes, I’ll do my own investigation.
See, I’m one of those “free-thinkers” who don’t need to be told what to read, which blogs to go to, or what to think.
I can do all that for myself, and I bet so can pretty much every other poor soul still following this thread. You’ve more than made your case, such as it is, yet you persist.
Just what do you hope to achieve here? Enlighten some poor soul, some possible vacillator who can be saved?
<headshake>
Well I suspect correct nomenclature might be more than trivial to scientists.
Is it? What dance are they doing? I find Morris dancing to be a little silly, personally, but “whatever floats your boat” as they say. Do you feel that just the IPCC, or all scientists, or indeed all humans, should be censured because you find their recreation ridiculous? Or is it that you are an avid supporter of square dancing? Line dancing?
They examined the implications of multiple emission and mitigation scenarios (see AR4 section 3.1). Perhaps you can expand on your criticism of that?
Back to the Armstrong & Green paper, again. Yet you haven’t discussed the question I raised in #470, #472, #475, #477 and #478.
Perhaps you could expand on Dr Armstrong’s particular qualifications and area of expertise? Are there any recent events in that field that might influence his recent criticism of the IPCC’s methodology?
I’m afraid not. Please provide me with climate science specific definitions of the terms; model, prediction, forecast and projection.
I’m afraid I’ll have to impose upon you to provide the details, I tried to find this discussion, but I got bored with all the talk about fictional detectives and the whining about politics.
You made the claim, but I’m supposed to verify it for you? Before I go to the trouble, you will need to demonstrate to me that you have a valid point. Please read the following and provide your detailed criticism.
Myth versus Fact
Dummies guide
One wonders then about the 20 year delay in stating his criticism. Wouldn’t it have been more effective to have made these criticisms in 1988 or even prior to Hansen “coming out with his claims”. However I don’t feel that I have an adequate understanding of the NASA hierarchy to genuinely comment. As I suggested before, perhaps you might like to take this up with Gavin Schmidt.
Stevie, the liar and bullshitter. Every peer reviewed primary scientific journal citation gets a ten. Every non-peer reviewed scientific literature paper gets a three. Every general science paper in journals like Scientific American or American Scientist gets a seven. Every internet citation to a non-scientist is a zero. Every internet citation to a real scientist is a one. Every lie, such as saying carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas, is a negative ten. Start adding up the value of your citations versus mine. I gave you one ten, a recent paper from Nature. Every citation of yours tends toward the negative numbers due to the lying, like the carbon dioxide not being a greenhouse gas. Ever heard of Venus? It’s hot enough to melt lead on the surface of the planet. All due to a runaway greenhouse gas effect caused by the primary constituent in the atmosphere, namely carbon dioxide.
Who says what? Doesn’t matter to science. Petition, same thing. A less than zero count. So you have nothing, and keep proving that you do have not integrity by repeating your LIES. So why should we believe you with your track record?
John
Did you get that south easterly last night? Nice change, we actually got below 25 here. I managed to get a nice block of sleep ^^.
Steve
That’s very messy, and I think he’s missing a couple of important points. I think that the reason that you are confused about climate change is that you frequent the wrong blogs. Why not head on over to realclimate and read some of the articles. You should probably Start Here
Hugh M#470,
The modelers say they are “projecting” the climate based on scenerios. They don’t call them forecasts or predictions, because they don’t know what future forcings will be. For instance, they don’t know what solar and volcanic activity will be in the future. But that doesn’t mean that some or most of the standards of validation of forecasting skill aren’t relevant.
Africangenesis
But you know otherwise? Please, then, enlighten me as to what modelers do.
However, if your only criticism is that the models themselves aren’t scientific forecasts. And the modelers claim that the models aren’t supposed to be forecasts. I fail to see what point you are trying to make.
Hugh @494, yeah, nice to get a cool breeze through the windows overnight, means I don’t have to put the A/C until late morning. Only 39C tomorrow too :)
Hugh,
I have visited RealClimate and others like it many times.
That’s the difference between you, or Nerd et al and I.
I haven’t avoided the other half.
But that’s why you remain confident in AGW.
And the half that is growing is the one refuting AGW.
John said,
“And the modelers claim that the models aren’t supposed to be forecasts. I fail to see what point you are trying to make.”
What is the purpose of the modelers objection to the words forecast or prediction other than avoiding being wrong?
One can call it anyting.
I fail to see how you can possibly buy that BS that the modelers are not telling us what the future will likely be?
Of course they are. And they do so with a broad decription of how things will be.
Yet they attempt to deflect crtisism of their methods by claiming they do not forecast or predict and somehow that makes sense?
Not hardly.
Even their projection of a 3 to 23 foot sea rise is a friggin predicting forecast of sorts.
But again this is just semantics.
And the extensive study by skeptics show many significant fatal flaws in the IPCC/AGW case the entire Human CO2= calamity is simply a crap in=crap out forecast.
Stevie, I see you prefer lesser evidence to real peer reviewed evidence. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Proven fact. Saying otherwise isn’t scientific. At this site, we go by real science and the scientific method, which you studiously avoid. So you just come across as a crank with nothing but made up evidence. If you want that appearance to change, start citing the peer reviewed primary scientific literature. Otherwise, time to pack up your posts and go home.
Wow quite the accomplishment their Nerd.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
No it’s a trace greenhouse gas at just a bit over 0.03% of Earth’s atmosphere.
The amount humans produce is only 4- 6 percent of that.
The minute increase by humans has never been shown, or proven to be effecting out climate.
You have never seen and cannot provide any peer reviewed study that does.
0
Your religion of AGW is just that, period.
As time progresses all your alarmists will provide is more and more spin and forecasts which they don’t like to call forecasts.
It’s not me avoiding real sceince.
But your learning curve has flat lined so all you are left with is your blather and demands for silence.
Why isn’t it enough that you to ignore the refuting of AGW?
You want to silence dissent as well.
I’d say you have some problems.
Here try a visual on man’s CO2
Careful though, your scientific hair might catch fire.