James M. Taylor hides the decline

Fox News reports on James M. Taylor’s presentation at Heartland’s Conference:

James M. Taylor, an environmental policy expert and a fellow at the Heartland Institute, said that global cooling is already happening. Based on figures provided by the Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, he noted that snow records from the last 10 years exceeded the records set in the 1960s and 1970s.

A sign of global cooling? This past “decade set a record for largest average global snow extent,” Taylor said.

I’ve redrawn the the figure from the Rutgers University Global Snow Lab with a trend line so that you can see how Taylor is hiding the decline in snow cover:

Update: Over at Only In It For The Gold, Taylor attempts to justify his claim by pointing to a Steve Goddard cherry pick at WUWT. Goddard showed statistics for winter only and failed to mention what was happening to snow cover in spring and summer. In winter snow cover has not fallen significantly, but that’s because increased temperatures, while melting snow, also cause more evaporation and hence more snow to fall.

But here’s the bit that Goddard didn’t mention and Taylor was apparently unaware of. Spring and summer snow cover has fallen significantly:

Taylor’s statement was wrong. Will he correct it?

Comments

#1 Jeremy C
May 24, 2010

Maple Leaf,

I think Dave boys’ post to you at @86 was a deliberate push back to your challenge to Shub @ 80, to try and put you off course. I guess these posts about sea ice must be making Dave boy etc feel v.uncomfortable and of course we haven’t heard back from Shub yet. Truth hurts and sometimes the only way you can ignore it existentially is by shaking your fist at it in impotence.
#2 Neven
May 24, 2010

Well, you people must have really triggered something in Steven Goddard, because he just went overboard with some graph cooking that deserves a Michelin star.
#3 TrueSceptic
May 24, 2010

102 Neven,

Oh, boy! He’s done a G@rm@, hasn’t he?

I guess when the AGW camp first plotted the TRUE mean global temperature, they found it flat. So they devised the method of in effect chopping the integer part of the mean global temperature and plotting the decimal parts called anomalies to exaggerate the perception of change in global temperature by 14 times (for a mean global temperature of 14 deg C, as the range of the anomaly plot is 1 deg C).

As I mentioned before, there is visual magnification in the anomaly graphs and they are scary. When I first saw it, I was uneasy about global warming. However, when I plotted, for myself, the true mean global temperatures I found them to be nearly flat and found them comforting.

Good to know that graphs can be scary or comforting.
#4 caerbannog
May 24, 2010

As I mentioned before, there is visual magnification in the anomaly graphs and they are scary. When I first saw it, I was uneasy about global warming. However, when I plotted, for myself, the true mean global temperatures I found them to be nearly flat and found them comforting.

I got really sick some time ago and was running a fever of almost 103 F.

So I plotted my temperature relative to absolute zero and saw that my fever wasn’t that bad after all. Saved a 100 dollar emergency room insurance co-payment that way!
#5 J Bowers
May 24, 2010

102 Neven,

He’s not getting away with it, though. Have a read of Wren’s posts.
#6 Steve Reuland
May 24, 2010

Well, at least they’re admitting that Arctic sea ice is retreating. But maybe it’s just because a tennis court or barbecue grill are located too close.
#7 MarkB
May 24, 2010

Steven Goddard writes:

“Every single GCM incorrectly forecast decreasing winter extent.”

Over the entire 21st century, that is correct. There’s greater variability at the decadal level (hint: the AO index plays a role). Over the 20th century, it’s incorrect. Leaving these facts out is entirely dishonest, and typical of Goddard and the denier movement.

http://www.eee.columbia.edu/research-projects/water_resources/climate-change-snow-cover/index.html

“Most models do not exhibit a 20th-century trend, and significant between-model variability is apparent, with most models underestimating the observed NA-SCE over the 20th century. This exemplifies the considerable uncertainties that still plague GCM simulations. Nevertheless, all nine models exhibit a clear and statistically significant decreasing trend in 21st century NA-SCE, although the magnitude of the trend varies between models. ”
#8 MarkB
May 24, 2010

Goddard quotes an article from 10 years ago. Here’s some more…

“Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.

Sounds pretty prophetic:

“Heavy snow and icy roads are causing chaos across most of the UK”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8440601.stm

What’s funny about the clownish Goddard is that whenever he seems to focus on some short-term anomaly (red meat for the denier cult), the opposite often happens within a short period of time. He then moves on to the next bit of nonsense, such as claiming Venus heat isn’t due to the greenhouse effect.

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/05/very-dry-very-adiabatic-lapse-rate.html

Snow cover extent:

http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/08/noaa-rutgers-snow-lab-north-american-snow-cover-for-april-2010-was-the-smallest-on-record/

Arctic sea ice extent:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
#9 MapleLeaf
May 24, 2010

Jeremy @ 101,

Thanks. I figured as much, but it is nice to see that someone else recognized what they were trying to do.
#10 MapleLeaf
May 24, 2010

Neven @102,

I took a deep breath and followed your link. Oh boy, Goddard just does not know when to stop. Is he throwing himself under the bus here to protect Taylor and Easterbrook?

From his post at WUWT, Goddard is predicting the Arctic to be ice free by 2065. So Goddard is not only conceding that the Arctic will soon be ice free in September, he is also implicitly agreeing that the IPCC predictions for the timing of min. ice extent were too conservative.

Goddard also makes predictions for other months of the year which is pointless and irrelevant. Not sure which data he used to generate the trend lines, which he then incorrectly simply extrapolated outwards in time. If that is not bad enough he is assuming that the Arctic sea ice decline will respond linearly with time. The gist of his post seems to be that “no worries, it is not that bad, and besides, it is not something that we baby boomers have to worry about, we’ll just defer the consequences and costs to future generations”. Goddard, “‘Me, me, me…” [from the Matrix].

Anyhow, let it be widely noted that Goddard is predicting an ice free Arctic Ocean circa 2065, sooner than the ‘alarmist’ IPCC estimates.
#11 Dave Andrews
May 24, 2010

luminous beauty,

“You’re right. The effect of global politics on the IPCC does influence the science. It has made it more conservative.”

‘Your brightness’, it is a pity your name does not live up to the illumination you think it does.

So you are now accusing all those scientists who have participated in the IPCC process of conservatism are you?
#12 Dave Andrews
May 24, 2010

Jeremy C,

I’m not particularly bothered by the reports about Arctic ice extent because, guess what it changes all the time and in the early 1600s it was not as extensive as it was in the mid 1700s (LIA, for a clue).

More recently the first single handed east west crossing of the North West passage was made in 1977. This was at a time, of course, when the doomsayers were telling us to fear the coming ice age!
#13 dhogaza
May 24, 2010

From his post at WUWT, Goddard is predicting the Arctic to be ice free by 2065. So Goddard is not only conceding that the Arctic will soon be ice free in September, he is also implicitly agreeing that the IPCC predictions for the timing of min. ice extent were too conservative.

Note that Anthony Watts is listed as co-author, so now we have both of them on record as stating that IPCC predictions for when we might see ice-free summers in the arctic are, as you say, too conservative.

They’re so clueless that they don’t seem to understand what they’ve done, though it was pointed out in the comments there. They’re hung up on one quote that the arctic might be ice free “as soon as” 2013 (which Goddard misrepresents as being a claim that the arctic WILL BE free of ice that soon) and missing the fact that this is far from the consensus position taken by those evil alarmists the IPCC.

They’re eviler alarmists and aren’t even aware of it!
#14 MapleLeaf
May 24, 2010

Dave @113 “when the doomsayers were telling us to fear the coming ice age!”

How you do like to lie Andrews. Seriously, I think you need help b/c you have shown yourself to be a compulsive liar. Do you lie to your friends and family in this way, do you distort the truth/reality with them too?

You still have not answered my question, so I’ll assume that you are OK with deceit and lies of the contrarians.

Bye, bye.
#15 dhogaza
May 24, 2010

So you are now accusing all those scientists who have participated in the IPCC process of conservatism are you?

The process is conservative regarding the science, which says nothing of the individual scientists political beliefs.

But Dave Andrews suffers comprehension problems and from weak ethics (aw, shucks, he’s a lying fucktard, actually), so we’re used to this stuff, aren’t we, folks?
#16 ligne
May 24, 2010

> So I plotted my temperature relative to absolute zero and saw that my fever wasn’t that bad after all.

you were right to do that. using the celcius scale is dangerous. it was invented in sweden, a land famous for its socialist tendencies. and do you know what else they invented in sweden? that’s right, the _nobel prize_, as given to alhambra “fatty” gore and his comrades at the IP”CC”.

> Saved a 100 dollar emergency room insurance co-payment that way!

oh, so you’re one of those nazi communists, are you? why do you hate private healthcare so much?
#17 ligne
May 24, 2010

sorry, my post was of course quoting caerbannog. good american name that. invented by people who [really hated communism](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju3h7yk4Hcg) with every patriotic fibre of their bodies.
#18 Mike
May 24, 2010

This was at a time, of course, when the doomsayers were telling us to fear the coming ice age!

Dave, you are aware that the fallacy of “the scientists were all saying we were heading for an ice age” has been extensively covered previously, are you not?

I went through this the other day with someone who decided to offer the old “70s global cooling” chestnut, but at least he shutup about it after I gave him the AMS reference, to his credit. I think he was genuinely surprised at his unintentional ignorance.

I’m not so certain that yours is unintentional though.
#19 pough
May 24, 2010

So you are now accusing all those scientists who have participated in the IPCC process of conservatism are you?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

You know, Dave, I don’t often find your style of Poe-comedy effective, but you really got me this time. You bring to mind a quote from Chris Guest in the commentary on Best In Show: “[Dave] has the patent on characters who are comfortable in their stupidity.”
#20 TrueSceptic
May 24, 2010

109,

Dave Andrews, are you impervious to irony?
#21 TrueSceptic
May 24, 2010

113 Andrews,

Please just f@@k off. Your lies have lost even any entertainment value. All we have left is boring stupidity.
#22 Bernard J.
May 24, 2010

And so ligne invokes Godwin, all the while missing the point about graph scaling and the import of the variance of a trajectory over time.

The fellow doesn’t need to buy a clue; he needs to subscribe to a weekly home-delivery service.
#23 Bernard J.
May 24, 2010

I note that Goddard joins Jen Marohasy, Jo Codling/Nova, Girma Orrsengo, and many others in taking up the canard about the “scariness” disappearing if the “correct” scale is used for the ordinate.

May I be so bold as to propose that we formulate a law that describes this emerging phenomenon? Something like “the probability of a scientific illiterate irrevocably revealing their cluelessness (and their abject inability to comment on anything remotely associated with climate change) by claiming that the y-axis of any graph should be scaled from absolute zero, approaches 1 as all their other attempts to misrepresent the science is dismissed”.

But with less words and a better flow…
#24 FJM
May 24, 2010

@103 TrueSceptic,

Is he seriously just complaining that as the anomalies are plotted instead of absolute temperatures, he was “scared” (concern troll much?).

I’m sorry, but if these clowns can’t read a bleeding y-axis and put it into perspective themselves it’s yet another reason they have absolutely no place trying to discuss climate science.
#25 TrueSceptic
May 24, 2010

122 Bernard,

Please. Ligne is being ironic.

This is a real problem, though: we’re becoming so used to Poe candidates that we are…dunno…Poe’d out? Poe-insensitive?
#26 Lotharsson
May 24, 2010

> The fellow doesn’t need to buy a clue; he needs to subscribe to a weekly home-delivery service.

Damn – is there a term for thinking someone is a Poe, who actually isn’t?

> …by claiming that the y-axis of any graph should be scaled from absolute zero…

Actually, if Goddard is quoted correctly [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/james_m_taylor_hides_the_decli.php#comment-2539059) he **doesn’t even get that right**. He implies his zero is an arbitrarily chosen “zero Celsius”, instead of either absolute zero – which probably would have got him laughed out of town in a second – or the blackbody temperature of the earth (the temperature it would be at without the greenhouse effect) – which probably would be opening himself up to questions about the science of the greenhouse effect.
#27 ligne
May 24, 2010

Bernard J: it’s ok, i wasn’t being serious i thought i was being sufficiently over the top, but having re-read goddard’s comments in this thread, i now see i’ll have to try harder if i want to top those pinnacles of arsedribble.

> claiming that the y-axis of any graph should be scaled from absolute zero

natch. also, all graphs should also scale the x-axis from the start of the universe, so as not to confuse everyone’s widdle eyes and minds with evil graphical lies.
#28 TrueSceptic
May 24, 2010

124 FJM,

You need to read the [G@rm@ thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php#comment-1861525)…if you’ve got time to kill as there are 2000+ comments.
#29 MapleLeaf
May 24, 2010

I hereby nominate Dave Andrews to have his own rubber room here at Deltoid. Dr. Lambert, what do you think?
#30 Stu
May 24, 2010

Ligne, I actually think your earlier post is not just a Poe, but forms a very pleasing Podwin.
#31 Bernard J.
May 24, 2010

Ligne.

Oopsies, my big big bad!

I should have listened to the bell in the back of my mind that was warning that I had miscategorised you. I’m in the middle of drying two wet children, but bath-time should not have addled my brains.

I apologise unreservedly!

[Insert humiliated emoticon here]
#32 Bernard J.
May 24, 2010

Stu.

I was indeed Podwinned!

I stand behind my comment though, that we should formulate a law to join Poe, Godwin, (Podwin?), and others that describe Interweb phenomena. This weirdness with ordinate scales is one that definitely deserves to be derided with a formal acknowledgment of its idiocy.

And ligne, I repeat my apology. I should have checked before I jumped the gun.
#33 Bernard J.
May 24, 2010

The fellow doesn’t need to buy a clue; he needs to subscribe to a weekly home-delivery service.

My remorse is complete: I wasted a perfectly good metaphor in the process of my having been Podwinned.

[Sigh...]
#34 Stu
May 24, 2010

TS @103,

At first I thought you were quoting Goddard and that the stupid-o-meter would explode if pointed within roughly 90 degrees of him, but then I realised you were quoting Girma. Yes, the similarities are very evident, but I didn’t get that it wasn’t Goddard at first! Looks like Lotharsson made that mistake too.

That fact notwithstanding, I can see it as very likely that Goddard (or another WTFer) would have a problem with anomalies over absolutes, can anyone link me up? I recall Watts’ dunderheaded histogram/baseline post, so given the level of stupidity it isn’t implausible that the temperature record has been given the same dodgy treatment as the sea ice record. In short, has WUWT ever done a Girma on the temperature record?

PS. Bernard, perhaps ‘doing a Girma’ (subsitute Marohasy, Nova etc at will) can fill the missing geek speak @123?
#35 Rattus Norvegicus
May 24, 2010

The scaling of temperature to absolute zero is a well established blog science technique.

Nothing wrong with that.
#36 Stu
May 24, 2010

Wait, did my comment go into moderation because I mentioned G1rm@? I thought TS was just being cute!

Anyway, to avoid confusion, TS your post @103 suggested that the quoted abject stupidity was from Goddard. I thought so at first, and evidently so did Lotharsson @126, but it’s from G1rm@ isn’t it? As my post currenly in moderation says, the resemblance is rather striking.
#37 Rattus Norvegicus
May 24, 2010

Damn! here is the correct link.
#38 Lotharsson
May 25, 2010

> Looks like Lotharsson made that mistake too.

Yep.

> This weirdness with ordinate scales is one that definitely deserves to be derided with a formal acknowledgment of its idiocy.

I think the fundamental pathology is the assumption that the **presentation** of data or conclusions is what makes it concerning, rather than the **likely outcomes themselves**. IIRC Brent used to run that line every now and then on the never-ending Empirical Evidence thread.

And the flip-side – and all too often the cynical exploit of the pathology – is that for the scientifically less literate, minimising the presented numbers/graph wiggles combined with appropriate spin can easily persuade people that the magnitude of concern should be tiny. (e.g. Consider the favourite deniosaurist lines that “CO2 is just a trace gas” and “it’s only 0.0378% of the atmosphere”.)
#39 Dappledwater
May 25, 2010

“Damn – is there a term for thinking someone is a Poe, who actually isn’t?” – Lotharsson.

Poe-laxed?

A person pretending to be one – faux poe?.
#40 Mike
May 25, 2010

@138

“it’s only 0.0378% of the atmosphere”

I while back on an unrelated forum I had to endure that argument from several badly misinformed people.

I suggested that they should each have no trouble ingesting the minimum lethal dose of ricin toxin, as the maths shows it is only a miniscule percentage of their bodyweight (way way less than 0.0378%) and therefore, by the argument that tiny proportions of something can’t affect large systems, they would remain in the best of health.

The argument, to my surprise, was somewhat successful in illustrating the silliness of their position and they moved onto other things. The site admin thought it was actually quite a clever point (though I just thought it was plain commonsense that you can’t make such grand sweeping statements concerning small percentages of active substances).
#41 TrueSceptic
May 25, 2010

132 Bernard,

Isn’t it just a facet of innumeracy? I don’t recall where, but someone recently said that innumeracy seemed to be a common factor in almost all denialist* claims, other than the wacko conspiracy stuff, of course.

In fact, I’d extend this to ASS sufferers in general.
#42 TrueSceptic
May 25, 2010

134 Stu,

I assumed that my reference to G@rm@ would have been enough, but it actually doesn’t matter if they can be easily mistaken for one another. That was my point, really.
#43 TrueSceptic
May 25, 2010

136 Stu,

I’ve been caught many times because I forgot that the blog filter traps posts containing a certain name, that person having been banned here, so I now say G@rm@. Fr@@d is another word to watch out for.
#44 TrueSceptic
May 25, 2010

140 Mike,

It might be futile with such people, but I’d also point out that ozone plays a huge part in protecting us from UV and ask them how much O3 is in the atmosphere.
#45 Stu
May 25, 2010

TS @ 144, I find that example particularly effective. Using an atmospheric gas generally works better than, say, a toxin, because the toxin can be dismissed as irrelevant to the atmosphere.

If you didn’t know, stratospheric ozone has peak concentrations of about 6-8ppm, see < http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/images/ozone_concentration_graph.gif>

#46 TrueSceptic
May 25, 2010

145 Stu,

And is commonly measured in parts per billion.
#47 Marco
May 25, 2010

@truesceptic:

To the scientifically illiterate ppb sounds like a bigger number…
#48 TrueSceptic
May 25, 2010

147 Marco,

Doh! Should’ve have thought of that.
#49 mauri pelto
May 25, 2010

This is not the year to talk about snow cover extent with 2010 having the most significant melt season in the last 44 years (note first graph). We went from the 3rd most snow cover extent in North America in Febraury to the least snow cover extent of the last 44 years in April.
#50 Jim Eager
May 25, 2010

TrueSceptic @144, and if O3 concentration is not enough, point out that CFCs, measured in pp trillion, all combined amount less than 1 ppbv, yet it’s the chlorine atoms in them that created the ozone hole.
#51 GWB's nemesis
May 25, 2010

Jim, true, but if you are a true denialist then you don’t believe that the ozone hole problems were caused by CFCs either. The fact that they are measured in ppb just reinforces that view.

You can’t win.
#52 TrueSceptic
May 25, 2010

150 Jim,

Yes, but the sort of people we’re talking about probably believe the ozone hole was/is a hoax and the CFC ban was part of the great environazi plot to destroy civilisation.

I think they do accept that ozone does exist, though, and that it blocks a lot of UV. There’s only so much the worst denier can deny.
#53 TrueSceptic
May 25, 2010

GWBN,

Snap!
#54 Hank Roberts
May 25, 2010

So are we paying our attention to the rodeo clowns, instead of the real stars of the show who may also have issues to be caught? Time to look a little harder at the other, superficially more convincing presentations in case these guys with their fake charts are just out there to serve as distractions.
#55 Mike
May 25, 2010

@144/145

Ozone’s certainly a good example too. I use the toxin one when they’ve decided they simply won’t listen to anything related to atmospheric physics.

It all illustrates how much fun it can be to formulate multiple practical examples of how the “teeny-tiny things can’t possibly affect large systems” sceptical argument remains one of the most inane and stupid concepts they’ve ever come up with.

And it’s a brutally tough competition for that honour, I concede.
#56 Neil
May 25, 2010

Oh no, don’t mention Ozone. That just makes them angrier, because the Montreal Protocol, you know, *worked*.
#57 Jim Eager
May 25, 2010

I hear you, TS and GWBN, but in my experience if the denier isn’t the one to have brought up CFCs and the ozone hole themselves then they tend not to catch on. It’s sort of like CO2 is the waiving red flag to a bull and they just can’t hold two concepts in their head at the same time.
#58 Jim Eager
May 25, 2010

Besides, always remember that it is not the troll that you are trying to educate — that’s a hopeless waste of time — but the lurkers. They may be far more receptive to the analogy, and put off by another example of the troll’s denial of physical reality.
#59 jakerman
May 25, 2010

>but the sort of people we’re talking about probably believe the ozone hole was/is a hoax

Yep, I’ve met those!

Information that conflicts with their preferred view is simply reason for widening the conspiracy.
#60 jakerman
May 25, 2010

Whoops, I just got caught in the trap [identified by Hank](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/james_m_taylor_hides_the_decli.php#comment-2542205).

And I note the [valuable point](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/james_m_taylor_hides_the_decli.php#comment-2542581) also made by Jim.
#61 JamesA
May 25, 2010

jakerman@159: It’s fair to point out that they also use one to bolster the other. In one case I saw, a denier was dealing with a particular piece by Sue Solomon (I forget which one). Their logic went like this: Because she’d previously done some high-profile work on ozone depletion, which was clearly all a big hoax (because we’re not all dead yet), anything else she says can be dismissed offhand as some other enviro-commie lie.

Not that they could point out anything that was factually incorrect about it, of course.
#62 jakerman
May 25, 2010

JamesA,

LB in an adjacent thread linked to [this relevant post](http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/05/16/google-galileo-five-reasons-we-know-your-are-not-a-scientific-genius/).

>they are trapped in what classic studies of neurosis call “suspicious thinking”. “The cognitive style of the denialist represents a warped sense of reality, which is why arguing with them gets you nowhere,” he says. “All people fit the world into their own sense of reality, but the suspicious person distorts reality with uncommon rigidity.”
#63 Lotharsson
May 25, 2010

> Because she’d previously done some high-profile work on ozone depletion, which was clearly all a big hoax (because we’re not all dead yet)…

Yep, the popular fallacy that problems that don’t occur (after intervention) would therefore never have occurred anyway.
#64 jakerman
May 25, 2010

Ask the Tasmanian, New Zealand, or Chilean Association’s of Dermatologist if there is an Ozone hole problem.

BTW, its still a struggle to keep the Ozone hole from expanding. USA has massive stockpile of Bromide based agricultural products and China was exempt from the CFC ban under the Montreal protocol for a period (which may not have expired). I’m not sure if either of these issues are resolved, and last I heard the trend in the Ozone hole was not yet clearly downward.
#65 Donald Oats
May 26, 2010

Plot the local weather forecast, ie daily forecasted temperature on the Kelvin scale, with axis running from 0K to 350K (that should cover all realistic daily temperature maxima), and ask one of these doltheads how useful the 7 day forecast is when presented on such a graph? They’ll need Granddad’s coke bottle glasses to see the little wiggles from night-time to day-time temperature and back again.
But really. If the doltheads can’t figure out why they are doltheads, how can we reasonably expect them to figure out the fallacy of the presentation?
#66 JamesA
May 26, 2010

> Yep, the popular fallacy that problems that don’t occur (after intervention) would therefore never have occurred anyway.

As also seen when people claim the non-existence of swine flu, acid rain and the millennium bug. Of course, it’s the anti-vacc crowd that really take that particular logical fallacy to the next level.
#67 Marion Delgado
May 27, 2010

In protest, I just burnt all my copies of Sweet Baby Jane.
#68 Marion Delgado
May 27, 2010

Wait, I meant sweet baby james. Okay, I don’t have any James Taylor albums and it’s the wrong James Taylor, but the thought counts.
#69 Jeremy C
May 29, 2010

This is OT but has anyone seen accounts of the Oxford union debate about AGW vs economic growt held on May the 20th. Monckton was central and Monckton and his pals won on a hand count. It seems that a bunch of no hopers was put up against them.

Perhaps Tim should’ve been there along with Barry Brooke.

But my beef is, when, when will we ever learn that these guys will bully a debate for propaganda purposes and that we have to be shrewd and as cunning as them to turn back their bullying.
#70 jakerman
May 29, 2010

Jeremy, we (including Tim) had a look at it [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/brent_thread.php#comment-2543619).
#71 ted
May 29, 2010

http://climaterealists.com/attachments/database/Responsetohidestheincline.pdf you should read this
#72 Jeremy C
May 29, 2010

Thanks Jakerman
#73 Marco
May 29, 2010

Ted, you are on the wrong thread. Besides that you should read this:
http://hot-topic.co.nz/cooling-gate-easterbrook-defends-the-indefensible/
followed by:
http://hot-topic.co.nz/cooling-gate-the-100-years-of-warming-easterbrook-wants-you-to-ignore/

Don Easterbrook, professor in willfull ignorance, deliberate faulty trend lines, and full of cr@p.
#74 jakerman
May 29, 2010

Ted, read [this thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/don_easterbrook_hides_the_incl.php#comment-2551531).

We’ve read Easterbrook’s letter and found it grossly wanting.
Are you aware that Easterbrook’s charts don’t show the 20th centuries global warming?
#75 preearth
May 30, 2010

For your information:

Off-topic but very interesting;

Did Earth coalesce from 2 medium sized planets?

Heavn and PreEarth were planets, a binary system orbiting the Sun. This happy arrangement continued for countless years, until, some unfortunate circumstance caused Heavn to collide with PreEarth, forming the Earth.

We investigate the evidence that the Earth is the child of such a collision. We show that the planets Heavn and PreEarth were of similar size and mass. We show that many of the Earth’s topographical features, such as mountain chains and ocean basins, were created during the collision. We show that certain hard to explain features of the Earth, such as its magnetic field, can now be more easily understood. And, in establishing all this, we uncover a new theory on the origin of the Moon.

Much of PreEarth’s crust survived the impact and is today the continental crust of the Earth. Although broken and contorted, giant pieces of the ancient crust acted as ships floating on a newly molten interior, insulating, and protecting, life from the fires below. Heavn itself, together with its crust, if it had one, disappeared into the interior of the PreEarth, never to be seen again. If we put the broken pieces of PreEarth’s crust back together, we obtain the following map….

From: http://preearth.net/

WORTH A LOOK.
#76 sod
May 30, 2010

take a look over at WuWt, where another attempt to HIDE THE DECLINE went completely wrong:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/30/you-cursed-brat-look-what-youve-done-im-melting-melting/

Willis Eschenbach tried to “model” the arctic ice sheet as a cone, coming to the conclusion:

This means that the volume lost is V = 1/3 * (11900000 km^2 * 273 cm – 11789000 km2 * 268 cm) / (100000 cm/km)= 297 cubic km

This is much smaller than their estimate, which was 851 cubic km. And as a result, their estimate of global ice loss, 746 km^3, is reduced by 851 – 297 = 554 km^3, to give a final estimate of global ice loss of 192 cubic kilometres.

his error, as spotted by commentator “mb” is a simple one: he uses the average thickness as the heights of the cone. but such a cone, has a completely different average thickness.

the term “conehead” jumps to mind, but please se for yourselves…

if you are heading into the pit already, you might also go full circle, and take a look at the defence of Cuccinelli, that Anthony allowed to be posted:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/30/ken-cuccinelli-versus-810-academics/
#77 Mike
May 31, 2010

@176.

I’m afraid I can’t look. I lose just a little increment of my grip on reality each time I read the amazing re-defining of the known world of physics and mathematics on WUWT. If that continues, I’ll soon have no reality left, and the men in white coats will come to take me away.
#78 sod
May 31, 2010

you should take a look.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/30/you-cursed-brat-look-what-youve-done-im-melting-melting/

the stuff posted by Willis is always wrong, but this time it is so easy to spot his error. and he is in complete denial.

just classic.
#79 Marc
May 31, 2010

Did anyone look at the http://preearth.net/ site.

What do you think of it?

The animations are certainly thought provoking.
#80 Vince Whirlwind
June 1, 2010

< http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/30/you-cursed-brat-look-what-youve-done-im-melting-melting/>
…is a hoot.

I especially like where somebody has taken the trouble to draw Willis’ cone representing the ice pack, to scale:

“As you can see, “pointy” is hardly accurate. You can’t even see the “point” until we increase the vertical scale by a factor of 10,000.”

#81 David
June 2, 2010

If anyone is interested, the guy, Kevin Mansfield, who wrote the article at http://preearth.net/ is a New Zealander.

He is a graduate of the University of Auckland with a PhD from the University of New South Wales in mathematics.
#82 Stu
June 2, 2010

Brent’s thread is getting much too much attention.

Fun with preearth: < http://www.everything-science.com/sci/Forum/Itemid,82/topic,7796.msg62970>

#83 Lotharsson
June 3, 2010

> Fun with preearth

I didn’t look at the preearth links when they were posted here – fairly sure I’ve heard some wacky theory like that before – but the “fun with preearth” link is good value
#84 preearth
June 3, 2010

Oh, that’s really cool.

http://www.everything-science.com makes outrageous statements then prevents one from answering them.

Really childish of http://www.NOT-everything-science.com

One of the geophysicists mentioned in the thread has got back to me (3 to go) and points out one definite mistake (about NASA’s GPS stuff) and instances where he would like to see a few changes.

None of you science amateurs on any of these forums spotted this mistake.

You did spot a load of non-mistakes though (which you hoped were mistakes).

Try having a look at http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/104316-Did-Earth-coalesce-from-2-medium-sized-planets

Can still post there at present,…
#85 Lotharsson
June 3, 2010

Not sure why preearth is posting on this off-topic thread…

…but the Crank Index is ticking over nicely, courtesy (amongst other things) of [false claims of censorship which are threatened to "make a nice story"](http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/104316-Did-Earth-coalesce-from-2-medium-sized-planets?s=5be2d41bbf92858751db388008d92825&p=1738417#post1738417) (after it has been explained that [new posters are manually moderated for a while](http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/104316-Did-Earth-coalesce-from-2-medium-sized-planets?s=5be2d41bbf92858751db388008d92825&p=1738289#post1738289)), and more…

` `
#86 Dr Schweinsgruber
June 8, 2010

The Friends of Science hide the decline, too
#87 villabolo
June 12, 2010

I don’t know if somebody has already covered this in a previous comment. If so, my apologies.

What’s the point of talking about extra snow when extra snow is not an indicator of colder temperatures? It could be 0 degrees F. without a cloud in the sky or 28 degrees with large amounts of snow. It is humidity that determines the amount, if any, of snow.

Which brings us to Global Warming. It was predicted that increased temperatures in the oceans. Warmer seas evaporate more, leading to more humidity that turns into more clouds.
This in turn leads to more intense rains such as the ones we’ve been having (Minneapolis, Fargo and Tennessee). Or more snow depending on the circumstances.