September 2013 Open Thread

The thread, there is more.

Comments

  1. #1 Luke
    September 13, 2013

    Which brings us back to go ! clowns

  2. #2 Craig Thomas
    September 13, 2013

    Luke’s considered opinion on science is informed by…

    …an interview in Der Spiegel.

    Go ! CLoWns!

  3. #3 Luke
    September 13, 2013

    And the paper too

    Is he wrong? No !

  4. #4 Lotharsson
    September 13, 2013

    What does Pell get, though?

    He gets to run the inquiry into child sexual abuse – or rather, to have it conveniently nobbled.

  5. #5 el gordo
    September 13, 2013

    ‘…he’s confident of his own opinion and majority party support on climate change policies.’

    John Howard is giving the annual speech at the GWPF in November and the elder statesman has been primed to blow the socks off the msm.

    This should galvanise the party behind Abbott on the question of AGW.

  6. #6 Lotharsson
    September 13, 2013

    And you’re not here for the discussion are you?

    Firstly, “not here for the hunting” doesn’t exactly equate to “not here for the discussion”. You might want to find the joke that it refers to. It has a hapless but strangely persistent hunters, angry bears, one of whom is remarkably perceptive, and some adult content. Once that is understood, it is clear that most of us are here for the hunting, but some clearly are not.

    And – seriously? You really need to try thinking rather than trying on this mindless primary school level reflection. Commenters here have different goals. Two parties to the same sub-conversation here can differ in that one can be “here for the discussion” – perhaps the one that points out science distortion via clearly unsupported claims, the one that points out zombie denialist memes and the motivations of many of those pushing them, the one that calls out illogic and incoherent argument where it’s obvious, the one that calls out bad faith discussion – and the other can claim to be motivated to participate here in their inimitable style by goals that clearly are much better met elsewhere.

    So, yes, I’m very much here for the discussion. And you give every appearance of being here for some other reason.

  7. #7 Craig Thomas
    September 13, 2013

    Let me get this straight, Luke – the greenhouse effect was predicted to eliminate all variability in measured temperatures, measured temperatures still show variability, therefore climate change is crap.

    Is that it? I just want to make sure I understand what passes for “thinking” in Luke-land.

  8. #8 Craig Thomas
    September 13, 2013

    Yes, El Gordo, a talkfest by a circle-jerk of anti-science kooks with no science research to back up their ideologies will definitely “blow the socks off the msm”.

  9. #9 Nick
    September 13, 2013

    #92,94…Luke finds comfort [well,he actually ‘rolls on the floor laughing’ in typical hysterical reaction] in uncertainty on GT, while ignoring ongoing changes across the biosphere…once again,unwittingly picking one indicator as sufficiently representative of the system’s state. Scientists do not have the luxury of picking cherries.

    Von Storch needs to assimilate Cohen et al 2012 and Kosaka & Xie 2013 into his musing on GT [which is a coarse indicator] Divergent seasonal trends are missed in a coarse indicator. Temperature as a whole may rise only slowly compared with projections,while the actual increased interseasonal variation makes the climate less favorable for agriculture and more costly for infrastructure. Let’s all ROFL with Luke!

  10. #10 el gordo
    September 13, 2013

    He’s bound to mention the hiatus and question the validity of the models, normal stuff.

  11. #11 Lotharsson
    September 13, 2013

    You have demonstrated nothing other than your own opinion.

    …in your opinion, which is asserted without any supporting argument or evidence.

    Interesting.

    But if that’s your standard – unsupported opinions, even when evidence and logic is used to rebut them – there’s no point in you even trying to justify criteria for accepting, rejecting or temporarily withholding judgement on scientific claims. Clearly unsupported opinion will do…even if that standard provides no way to reliably resolve mutually exclusive claims in favour of one or the other. (As demonstrated by your disagreement with what I earlier showed!)

    As pointed out earlier, academia is not the only place where highly intelligent and highly competent people are found.

    As pointed out earlier, this is a straw man that is not disputed – and remains so after your latest repetition.

    Neither is academia the only place where ground breaking research is conducted.

    Curiouser and curiouser. You keep trying to dispute a point that is not disputed. It’s almost like you hope the army of straw men will distract from your lack of an effective rebuttal.

    Numbers of published papers is but one and only one way to judge someone’s abilities and contributions.

    Yet another straw man, although a bit more subtle than the previous ones.

    a) Measuring “ability” is not the primary goal here. Measuring “successful contribution” is.

    b) Even though measuring “ability” is not the primary goal, measuring “lack of demonstrated ability” is very useful, because as previously explained (and dismissed) it allows you to filter out the vast majority of those who have no ability to focus on those who have shown they do.

    And measuring “lack of” ability or contribution is not a symmetric process with measuring “presence of” ability or contribution:

    c) The primary criteria for measuring “successful contribution” in science are the number and success of peer-reviewed papers, where success includes how well the ideas are accepted by other competent researchers in the field.

    In science, if you didn’t successfully publish it you haven’t contributed it. And if it wasn’t peer-reviewed, then it didn’t clear the quality bar so it’s almost certainly not “groundbreaking”, and most probably of little consequence. And if it subsequently had no influence on the other experts in the field it doesn’t count for much and if, like Bob Carter’s effort, it was roundly demolished, it counts for zero at best. (And when your successful peer-reviewed paper count is “one”, it’s unlikely you have much influence. Someone whose line of inquiry has influence rarely stops at one paper on that line – there’s almost always several lines of useful research proceeding off the first.)

    d) The simple COUNT of published papers (without also assessing influence/success) was NOT used to “judge [the level of] someone’s abilities and contributions”, but to judge the lack of them. As has been indicated more than once (and ignored or not understood by you), one has to factor in measures of influence and success to measure “contribution”. Just as there are useful shortcuts to demonstrate lack of ability, there are useful shortcuts to demonstrate LACK of contributions. When the count of successful peer-reviewed papers is zero there is nothing over which to measure influence or success so by definition there is zero influence and zero success.

    You appear to be vainly trying to justify “other measures of ability and contribution” as some way to push back in response to those who point out that certain claimants have zero measured influence and success, and others have almost none.

    This won’t wash, especially if you’re trying to sell those criteria to people who lack the expert judgement to reliably assess a claim themselves. The only people who could make a decent assessment of a scientific claim made outside of the peer-reviewed literature are those who are expert researchers in the specific field – and they, regardless of whether they work in acadaemia or outside of it – CHOOSE to use the peer-reviewed literature as both the initial quality filter and the distributed discussion forum through which contributions are published and measured because it helps maintain minimum quality standards.

    If you’re trying to put non peer-reviewed work on a par with peer-reviewed work, which most denialism cloaked in the aura of science does, then you’re trying to subvert the scientific process and subvert those minimum standards.

  12. #12 Stu 2
    September 13, 2013

    No Lotharsson. I was replying to your comment here:
    ————————————————————————-
    Er…what distinction do you draw between the two? You realise most research scientists are academics, because acadaemia is where most scientific research takes place?

    Carter is a scientist

    He has one – count them, ONE – climate science paper. It is widely considered to be one of the worst dozen or so climate science papers of all time.

    You and Carter are both providing another great illustration to Stu 2 of the difference between someone who has met the minimum bar for competence in climate science and someone who has not (and the someone who has not is insisting that those with demonstrated competence they are all wrong).
    —————————————————————————
    You are lecturing me while arguing that I have misinterpreted you.
    I repeat that academia is not the only place that good research is conducted and I would go further and submit to you it is possibly not even the major place.
    Think food processing, pharmacy, medicine, mining, agriculture, dermatology and a host of other areas that employ top quality people and conduct top quality research yet don’t require their people to publish in peer reviewed science journals.
    That does not mean that I have advanced this:
    —————————————————————
    If you’re trying to put non peer-reviewed work on a par with peer-reviewed work, which most denialism cloaked in the aura of science does, then you’re trying to subvert the scientific process and subvert those minimum standards.
    ——————————————————————————
    I have suggested no such thing and I am rapidly tiring of your boring lectures that are claiming otherwise.

  13. #13 Berendaneke
    September 13, 2013

    @2 Lotharsson :evil:

    Your over-simplicistic logic of the value of peer-reviewed publication process shows foremost your personal great distance from outside at something

    a: you don’t really understand

    b: you have never participated in this process

    c: you just copy paste what you have been told by your propaganda institution to do your disgusting partizan flaw logic to fight for the CO2 delusion.

    Instead of verballing about something which you don’t understand you should rather demonstrate that you are familar with elementary basics of your bad CAGW leper island faith:

    How many meteorological data measurement stations are covered by the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) database, the holy sanctuary of your climate scientology church.

    Answer it, clown :evil:

  14. #14 Lotharsson
    September 13, 2013

    I repeat that academia is not the only place that good research is conducted…

    A point I already said I did not dispute, and which remains a straw man.

    … and I would go further and submit to you it is possibly not even the major place. Think food processing, pharmacy, medicine, mining, agriculture, dermatology and a host of other areas that employ top quality people and conduct top quality research yet don’t require their people to publish in peer reviewed science journals.

    Ah, thanks. That is helpful!

    Please note that I had previously specifically indicated that I was talking about the open scientific process vs claims made outside of that process, which is NOT the same as acadaemia vs non-acadaemia no matter how many times the two are conflated.

    Please note further that I carefully distinguished the open scientific process from scientific research whose results are privately held in order to avoid conflating the two. I did fail to distinguish the open scientific process from non-scientific research which I presumed was not the topic. “Mining” and “food processing” are not typically considered branches of science, for example, even though there are scientific fields that can be applied to them.

    I had also presumed that – given the (IIRC) context that led to this discussion was a comment by Jeff relating to the capabilities of those making allegedly scientific claims about climate change and its impacts that you disagreed with – that we are talking not only about science, but more specifically about climate science and other branches of science that study the impacts of climate science.

    Since you’re talking about something else, feel free to interpret my comments in the light of the context that I was operating in which doesn’t address most of what you were talking about. Similarly, I suspect that interpreting your comments in the light of the context you were operating means that they don’t support your disagreement with what Jeff said.

  15. #15 Lotharsson
    September 13, 2013

    …you have never participated in this process…

    Sorry, Freddy, but just like all your other unsupported assertions (ever noticed how practically everything you claim is unsupported?) this one fails too. I have indeed participated in the open peer reviewed publication process. My participation was in the academic field of Engineering rather than Science, but the elements of the process germane to this discussion are the same.

  16. #16 Lotharsson
    September 13, 2013

    And isn’t it beautifully ironic that Freddy is arguing that because (he thinks) that I haven’t participated in peer reviewed publication, that I don’t have any expertise in it and accordingly my comments on it should be dismissed.

    It’s almost like he’s channelling the argument made by Jeff and me that those who haven’t demonstrated their expertise should be ignored.

    Excellent clown-trolling! ;-)

  17. #17 Bernard J.
    September 13, 2013

    I repeat that academia is not the only place that good research is conducted and I would go further and submit to you it is possibly not even the major place.

    I see that Lotharsson’s already touched on the subject, but still… if you so submit then where is your analysis or other evidence? You know, that breaks research down into categories such university, government, public institute, private institute, industry, private consultation, amateur and other categories, and that factors in discipline, type of knowledge being pursued, DIISRTE’s HERDC areas such as field of research (yes, it’s different to ‘discipline’) and socio-economic objectives, and not to forget the metric for the quality of the research output.

    And if Carter is a good scientist then on what list of publications is this idea supported?

  18. #18 rhwombat
    September 13, 2013

    You know Stu2, you could just go away and not try to weasel your way around Lotharsson’s patient and exemplary dissection of your bullshit. Not that you will, ’cause you are just as much a troll as Fatso, Spam, fLuke and the spectacularly psychotic (and thioridazine-familiar – well picked Lionel) Freddiot. The only good thing is that it is blindingly obvious who is the reasonable person here – and it isn’t you.

    Your contention that Medicine (and “Dermatology”), Pharmacology and Agricultural science are not entirely dependent on peer reviewed publishing demonstrates the facile sophistry (and stone cold uninformed delusional bullshit) of the species of human parasite known as lawyers. In fact, I suspect you may be Cox (CoxSox?), or some similar Koch-sucker.

  19. #19 Stu 2
    September 13, 2013

    Lotharsson
    Mining and food processing also employs top quality scientists who have experience, are highly educated and who conduct research and high quality testing in a number of scientific disciplines and who perfectly understand the scientific process. In food processing in particular, our well being and health depends on it.
    I repeat again, there are plenty of highly experienced and highly talented, highly educated and highly respected scientists who do not work in academia or as government employees and who are therefore not required to publish in peer reviewed science journals. They are just as capable of discussing issues related to physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, atmosphere, statistics etc as scientists who are employed in academia or by government.
    You inference or suspicion here is totally unfounded:
    ———————————————————————-
    If you’re trying to put non peer-reviewed work on a par with peer-reviewed work, which most denialism cloaked in the aura of science does, then you’re trying to subvert the scientific process and subvert those minimum standards.
    ————
    and so is this one:
    ——————————-
    Similarly, I suspect that interpreting your comments in the light of the context you were operating means that they don’t support your disagreement with what Jeff said.
    ————————————————
    And I repeat I am rapidly tiring of your boring lectures that are merely advancing your own personal suspicions and inferences.

  20. #20 Stu 2
    September 13, 2013

    Bernard,
    That comment came with a “possibly” caveat.
    I have never seen a study on how many scientists are employed by which sectors.
    However, because science and scientific research is very important in our modern world and because there are a myriad of industries that need to use modern scientific techniques I do indeed submit that there would be at least as many, if not “possibly” more highly qualified, talented and articulate scientists employed, working in their own businesses or conducting their own research outside of academia.
    But please know that doesn’t mean I think less of those who do work in academia or in government.
    That was Lotharsson’s presumption, not mine.

  21. #21 Bernard J.
    September 13, 2013

    …there are plenty of highly experienced and highly talented, highly educated and highly respected scientists who do not work in academia or as government employees and who are therefore not required to publish in peer reviewed science journals. They are just as capable of discussing issues related to physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, atmosphere, statistics etc as scientists who are employed in academia or by government.

    If their qualifications and experience are appropriately relevant, certainly.

    And if they are not appropriately qualified and experienced, then they have very little or even no justification for unevidenced denial of the expert science.

    Where do you think that Carter fits in the spectrum?

  22. #22 Berendaneke
    September 13, 2013

    Lotharsson clown :evil:

    you unsuccessfully tried to escape my question to you whether you know how many temperature measurement stations are covered by the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) database, which is used to calculate the global temperatures.

    Try an answer, coward :evil:

  23. #23 Nick
    September 13, 2013

    #13, as previously noted,devil sausage…if you have a point to make, give us your number, and then make your point: shit,or get off the pot,eh?.

  24. #24 Berendaneke
    September 13, 2013

    Bernard clown :evil:

    unsubstantiated blah blah blah and constant appeal to authority

    And if they are not appropriately qualified and experienced, then they have very little or even no justification for unevidenced denial of the expert science.

    This is utter bullshit: Scientists should never want to be considered (as you clown :evil: do) as apostles of their truth which has to be accepted. No, no, and no again. General acceptance of the results of an investigation has nothing to do with authority, you fuckwit and real science denialist, but only with reproducibility of the observations using the described, technically flawless, methodology.

    You cannot be a scientist when you excrement such utter rubbish. Shame on you, :evil: :evil: :evil:

  25. #25 Berendaneke
    September 13, 2013

    @14 Who the fuck has asked you clown :evil:, or are you an ugly sock of the addressed Lotharsson clown :evil:

    I have asked Lotharsson and not you, clown :evil:, hence shut up and fuck off

  26. #26 Lotharsson
    September 13, 2013

    I repeat again, there are plenty of highly experienced and highly talented, highly educated and highly respected scientists who do not work in academia or as government employees and who are therefore not required to publish in peer reviewed science journals.

    I repeat again that I do not dispute this, and I haven’t seen anyone else doing so either. Please feel free to not repeat the aspects that everyone here seems to agree upon!

    They are just as capable of discussing issues related to physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, atmosphere, statistics etc as scientists who are employed in academia or by government.

    Really? How do you know?

    I am pointing out that one who isn’t personally competent must often attempt to determine their competence – and far more importantly determine the robustness of their claims. If your comment is meant to apply to that situation (rather than claims made to other people whose competence in the field is adequately demonstrated) then you are asserting that which needs to be demonstrated which is a well known fallacy.

    Furthermore, the assertion of a claimant’s competence is insufficient to assess the robustness of their claims, as should be obvious to anyone after a moment’s thought. It is far more important to have a robust process for assessing the claims themselves.

    So if (say) you were a government minister untrained in science and there was an important question within your portfolio about a specific scientific discipline, how would you tell which claims to accept, given that you yourself are not competent to personally assess the scientific quality of any claimant’s research output? What if you were a government minister with training in one scientific field, but the question was from a different scientific field? This dilemma extends to which scientific claims and also to which claims of scientific competence to believe, but by far the most important one is which scientific claims to accept.

    Fortunately, the whole scientific process is set up to test claims regardless of who is making them and regardless of their competence or lack of it so it seems like a very good idea to use it, and one would have to have very good reasons to avoid using it. This is so widely agreed upon in science that it is considered fallacious to make scientific claims by appealing to one’s own authority or assert that your non-published claims should be taken seriously. That means that perhaps the only good reason to not use the scientific process for questions that matter is when the scientific process hasn’t addressed the question you have, and you need to make a decision anyway.

    In that light, would it be responsible execution of your ministerial power to seriously consider scientific claims that had not survived peer review (both before and after publication) and so had not been tested in the way that the scientific process is set up to do? Under what circumstances would it be/not be responsible? Would you answer change if those claims also suggest that claims that had survived peer review were wrong? Would it change if most experts in the field found the claims implausible or unlikely?

    Would your answer change if the answer appealed to the authority/capability of a single claimant? Would it change if the single claimant had no evident publication record in the scientific field, or had an extensive publication record? Why or why not? Would it change if the single claimant stood by the claim, but many experts in the field thought it unlikely? What if there were two apparently equally capable claimants making opposing non-peer reviewed claims – how would you decide which one to place the greater weight on?

  27. #27 Lotharsson
    September 13, 2013

    …you unsuccessfully tried to escape my question…

    No, I declined to answer because:

    a) I am not arguing from my own authority, so I don’t need to demonstrate it.

    b) Just like Luke, you haven’t made an argument showing what import this have. Have a go at it and see if you get a response. But bear in mind that BBD has already shown a lot of evidence pointing out that you can eliminate the results of the entire GHCN record and still have a very strong case for concern about AGW – and has asked you to make an argument, and your response was, well, I think you summed it up quite well:

    Try an answer, coward

    (It’s always projection…)

    BTW:

    General acceptance of the results of an investigation has nothing to do with authority…

    Thank you for making my argument for me, even as you pretended you were opposing what I said. Your clown-trolling is improving – have you been taking lessons from Karen/Mack/SunSpot?

  28. #28 Berendaneke
    September 13, 2013

    @17 Lotharsson clown :evil:

    YOU COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE BETTER HOW NOTHING YOU UNDERSTAND ABOUT SCIENCE.

    Read my reply to clown Bernard :evil: #15 and learn, learn, learn despite your brain of concrete

  29. #29 Berendaneke
    September 13, 2013

    @18 authoritarian

    “a) I am not arguing from my own authority, so I don’t need to demonstrate it.”

    You like authority, authority, authority?

    Without authority life is nothing to you?

  30. #30 el gordo
    September 13, 2013

    Getting back to the science, SLR attached to 60 year PDO cycle.

    http://www.co2science.org/articles/V16/N10/EDIT.php

  31. #31 Lotharsson
    September 13, 2013

    You like authority, authority, authority?

    Berendaneke, unfortunately your English comprehension isn’t good enough for this discussion. I’m saying I’m NOT arguing from my own authority, which has nothing to do with your interpretation of what I said.

    I’m certainly not advocating authoritarianism (which is an entirely different concept from arguing from authority in science).

  32. #32 Nick
    September 13, 2013

    #21,no ,the hired-hand Idsos hand-waving.

  33. #33 Berendaneke
    September 13, 2013

    Lotharsson, unfortunately your English comprehension isn’t good enough to understand the nuances I wanted to convey to you. That’s unfortunately the general problem with you CAGW leper islanders: your level of intelligence is so disgustingly low :evil:

    You behave as if you were a genious, but you are only stupid and far far away from science (peer-review in engineering as sole experience, what a joke)

  34. #34 Lotharsson
    September 13, 2013

    No, Berendaneke, even though your English frequently degenerates, I’m pretty sure I understood what you were trying to convey, nuances and all.

    You simply aren’t stitching together any kind of coherent argument, and you are flat out refusing to address the points other people make about your assertions, including requests for substantiation of your positions.

  35. #35 el gordo
    September 13, 2013
  36. #36 Berendaneke
    September 13, 2013

    Lotharsson clown :evil:

    In reply to my question (#13) on the number of stations in the GHCN database you replied (#18):

    “I am not arguing from my own authority, so I don’t need to demonstrate it”

    This is utter rubbish and an outrageous lie. If you were decent, honest and intelligent you MUST have phrased your sentence like:

    “I am always arguing [regarding CAGW matters] not from my own authority, so I always need to demonstrate it”

    Do you dispose of enough English language comprehension to understand what I tried to explain to you in easily understandable logic, clown :evil:?

    You don’t even detect how quickly and stubbornly you violate what you blether as some pseudo-impeccable logic. You are a true idiot :evil: and CAGW leper islander.

  37. #37 el gordo
    September 13, 2013

    The graph is hard to understand on its own, so here is the link.

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/09/those-stubborn-facts-as-atmospheric-co2-levels-increase-impact-on-global-temperatures-shrinks.html

    Here we see an opportunity to finally settle scores. Who knew that the CO2 impact on temperatures cut off at some point? Is this Gaia working in mysterious ways?

  38. #38 Karen
    September 13, 2013
  39. #39 Karen
    September 13, 2013

    The Maslowski Countdown
    Ice Free Arctic 2013September 22nd, 2013
    10 days to go.

  40. #40 Karen
    September 13, 2013
  41. #41 el gordo
    September 13, 2013
  42. #42 Karen
    September 13, 2013

    Howdy doody el :)

  43. #43 Karen
    September 13, 2013

    Wasn’t cow flatulence supposed to cause runaway global warming ?

  44. #44 Nick
    September 13, 2013

    Very sneaky graph,Gordy! ‘Interesting’ scaling choices,and and ‘interesting’ time period /ratio CO2 temp….you wouldn’t think they were trying for a visual effect would you? And they obviously think that CO2 is the only climate forcing in operation…why would they think that,eh? ;)

  45. #45 Karen
    September 13, 2013

    Or was that only if someone lit the farts ?

  46. #46 Karen
    September 13, 2013

    Rare solar cycle has cold implications for UK climate

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Rare-solar-cycle-has-cold-implications-for-UK-climate

    lol……….. the planet is cooling actually :)

  47. #47 Karen
    September 13, 2013

    I suppose we will get to see if global temps mimic the CET

  48. #48 Nick
    September 13, 2013

    #37 still wrong Kaz, glacial mass balance falling,sea level rising.

  49. #49 Karen
    September 13, 2013

    #39 Nick……………. lol

    pull the other one luvie :)

  50. #50 Stu 2
    September 13, 2013

    Bernard J @#12
    I usually don’t bother with this site in the evenings but hey! it’s a stormy cold Friday night in my part of NSW and all my family are busy.
    That was a fair question of yours.
    My answer is very simply that I wasn’t defending Bob Carter in particular I was questioning the way Lotharsson summarily dismissed him and did not even attempt to engage in what Bob Carter may or may not have said. To dismiss people simply on the grounds of their publications or even their perceived political affiliations is rather poor form IMHO.
    But anyway, I did a little bit of researching and this is what I have discovered:
    ————————————————————————
    Bob Carter is the author of more than 100 peer-reviewed research papers in professional scientific journals. The great majority of these concern interpretations of ancient environments, including paleo-climatic studies. Link to full of list of publications here… http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_4.htm
    —————————————————————————
    So I guess Lotharsson was perhaps misinformed re that ONE peer reviewed publication?

  51. #51 el gordo
    September 13, 2013

    ‘And they obviously think that CO2 is the only climate forcing in operation…why would they think that,eh?’

    Dunno…. our star has been very quiet over the past four days, increasing low cloud cover courtesy of a cosmic ray bombardment from exploding stars.

    http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_HMIIF.jpg

  52. #52 Nick
    September 13, 2013

    #40…of course, Kaz, it’s all in your head.

  53. #53 Karen
    September 13, 2013

    “but hey! it’s a stormy cold Friday night in my part”

    barnturd would call that a first hand observation of climate change, wave his spastic little arms around and scream HOT makes COLD… lol

  54. #54 Luke
    September 13, 2013

    Lotharsson et al – may I ask what do you think the value proposition is for the continuation of this blog. Just asking.

  55. #55 Karen
    September 13, 2013

    #42 el gordo

    apparently my socks were made there :)

  56. #56 Nick
    September 13, 2013

    #41 one deliberately flawed co-authored paper on an aspect of climate dynamics,on the back of which he made untenable claims…the rest is stratigraphy. Bob is a shill as a matter of job description. However,I don’t think you’re disposed towards skepticism of Bob and his actions, so carry on…

  57. #57 Nick
    September 13, 2013

    #42, ‘Dunno’…that’d be right.

  58. #58 Lionel A
    September 13, 2013

    Lionel from leper island: how embarrassing for you that you :evil: don’t even know how to spell Rajendra’s name.

    Dolt! Rajendra is only one name which could apply to many persons, many of same being involved with railways.

    On its own it is meaningless. For example, Rajendra Prasad applies to more than one person. Now if you were to shout ‘Rajendra’ in a crowded room in India you are likely to be killed in the rush.

    But then exactitude and precision is never a strong suit with such as you.

  59. #59 Lotharsson
    September 13, 2013

    I guess Lotharsson was perhaps misinformed re that ONE peer reviewed publication?

    Nope. Once again you misinterpret me by leaving out key parts of what I said. It’s becoming quite a pattern, and the bits you leave out generally seem to be (coincidentally I’m sure) the ones that are key to pointing out where your position is deficient.

    Please go back and read what I said about his publication record, and report on the difference between what you claim I said and what I actually said. When you do that you’ll see why the difference matters, and why citing Bob Carter’s full publication record could only be relevant if one accepted your lengthy and flawed attempt to (apparently) argue from demonstrated expertise in one branch of science to some kind of authority or at least plausibility in another.

    I was questioning the way Lotharsson summarily dismissed him and did not even attempt to engage in what Bob Carter may or may not have said.

    (As an aside, you may not be aware that I and many others have “engaged with what Bob Carter has said” several times in the past. He has repeatedly been shown to be wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong – and despite that fact he continues to make the same wrong claims. That fact is well known to anyone who’s been paying attention to his activities. But that isn’t strictly relevant, because…)

    …it is instructive that you base your position around the example of Bob Carter. Disregarding previous evidence of his deep wrongness, my dismissal of Bob Carter on the grounds that he hasn’t demonstrated any expertise in climate science – in fact, he has arguably demonstrated negative expertise based on his almost uniquely bad climate science publication record – is ALSO valid.

    Since you continue to assert that it is not but can’t seem to explain why you disagree with my position, how about trying to answer my questions at #17 in such a way as to demonstrate how Bob Carter’s non climate science publication helps a non-scientist figure out whether Bob Carter’s climate science claims have merit or not. Or failing that concede that his non-climate science publication record is not relevant to that question, and move on to trying to specify the appropriate inference for a non scientist to draw about Bob Carter’s climate science claims given his appallingly deficient climate science publication record.

    You’ve been ducking and weaving for days now and claiming (to paraphrase) that you aren’t engaging in special pleading for people who don’t have any demonstrated expertise in a particular field, but this example yet again shows that you are.

  60. #60 Lotharsson
    September 13, 2013

    10 days to go.

    Plus 6 years.

    But then basic arithmetic is quite a challenge for you, isn’t it?

  61. #61 adelady
    September 13, 2013

    over the past four days

    What on earth has four days to do with climate?

    (Unless of course we’re talking about the first four days of a massive tropical volcano eruption which might affect climate for years.)

  62. #62 BBD
    September 13, 2013

    Luke #94 previous page

    And the paper too

    That would be “the paper” that did not pass peer review and was rejected?

    That paper?

    There seems to have been a slight increase in the rate of ocean heat uptake post-2000, apparently driven by a strengthening of atmospheric circulation and consequent spin-up of the subtropical gyres. The effect peaked mid-decade and has been winding down slowly. Rapid surface warming will resume in due course, as it must, in accordance with the laws of physics. S is at least 2C and most likely ~3C for 2xCO2, so absolutely nothing has changed. HvS is a contrarian, and that is valuable and necessary. You are simply a polemicist and a denier, which is neither.

  63. #63 Lionel A
    September 13, 2013

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/09/08/september-2013-open-thread/comment-page-6/#comment-167043

    On page 6 at #87 el goldilocks, goes on about Plimer considering that Plimer has the right credentials.

    Well yes to be with team Abbot he does, after all this qualifies him: Plimer exposed as a fraud and Plimer busted by Media Watch.

    Of course that is why he is involved with the GWPF for Plimer preaches the message they want to hear and care nothing for facts. That tells us much about the GWPF and their clique too.

    And you can cast the net wider on Plimer too but simply by entering Plimer into this blog’s search field you will come up with much more, oh so much more.

    el goldilocks, you are like an Aunt Sally, a sitting duck because of your ignorance about science and also about the denial machine and its history.

    Of course the issue are complex, so maybe we should not entirely blame you if your brain is not equipped to handle complex information, this was an aspect raised on the August thread.

  64. #64 Karen
    September 13, 2013

    “Rapid surface warming will resume in due course, as it must, in accordance with the laws of physics.”

    twoooly wooolie :)

  65. #65 BBD
    September 13, 2013

    Luke

    You have grossly misrepresented HvS.

    Here, in his own words:

    To understand the present mismatch, we suggest four different explanations; none is pointing to a falsification of the concept that CO2 and other greenhouse gases exert a strong and likely dominant influence on the climate (statistics of weather). None represents a falsification of climate models. But all point to the need for further analysis and improvement of our tools – which are scenario simulations with climate models û for describing possible future developments.

    You are a polemicist. And a liar.

  66. #66 BBD
    September 13, 2013

    #55 Karen

    So you deny the laws of physics. Good luck with that.

  67. #68 Karen
    September 13, 2013

    So you have run away bbd?

    Are not models built on fizzics ?

  68. #69 el gordo
    September 13, 2013

    ‘What on earth has four days to do with climate?’

    It supposed to be solar max.

  69. #70 Karen
    September 13, 2013

    bbd has gone to ask his 6 yr old how climate models work,……. lol

  70. #71 Lionel A
    September 13, 2013

    Poor luke thinks that there has been a crisis meeting amongst the ranks of the IPCC.

    Well he would wouldn’t he by believing the blether from the likes of David Rose and Hayley Dixon in the UK Mail and Telegraph respectively.

    Sou, at HotWhopper, has done an excellent disembowelling of the Rose-Dixon line (Ha! Cue Johnny Cash) and now SkS has provided more context for countering this silly, and mendacious given how many times Rose has been corrected, line.

  71. #72 Karen
    September 13, 2013

    bbd, so the kid don’t know either?

  72. #73 Lionel A
    September 13, 2013

    bbd has gone to ask his 6 yr old how climate models work,……. lol

    And he will get a more satisfactory answer from thence than if he asked you.

    Now, if you stopped lolling around and started studying some science then you would become embarrassed about how pathetically ignorant you are. Maybe its the fear of self exposure that is preventing you.

  73. #74 Karen
    September 13, 2013

    nup………. Lionel couldn’t slain why the fizziks don’t
    work in models either………….lol

  74. #75 Nick
    September 13, 2013

    Why do you think they’ve constrained the comparison to 20 degs either side of the equator,Kaz? And where do understand Tropical mid troposphere to be in relation to the surface layer? And please tell me the mass balance trends of the tropical icefields of Africa, irian Jaya and S. America….

  75. #76 Karen
    September 13, 2013

    nup………. Nickie couldn’t splain why the fizziks don’t
    work in models either………….lol

  76. #77 Lotharsson
    September 13, 2013

    None represents a falsification of climate models. But all point to the need for further analysis and improvement of our tools…

    And if Luke had started out here by suggesting what he thought the import of his “issues list” was for climate science overall, or for models in particular instead of dogwhistling like mad and refusing to clarify what he thought the impact of his issues were, I would have said pretty much the same thing. And I doubt I would have been the only one.

  77. #79 Nick
    September 13, 2013

    #67, Kaz can’t explain anything at all…again.

  78. #80 Karen
    September 13, 2013

    splain why nickie

  79. #81 Karen
    September 13, 2013

    “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide 2 degrees by 2010.”

    10 x lol

  80. #82 Karen
    September 13, 2013

    “And in 1972, the Christian Science Monitor reported: “Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.” That also proved wrong.”

    hahahahahaha……..Bernt Balchen……hahahahaha

    wotta warmer name hahahaha :)

  81. #83 BBD
    September 13, 2013

    Karen has joined the ranks of those *conned* by Christy’s graph.

    Let’s have fun with Karen!

    What are those dots and squares at the bottom, Karen?

  82. #84 Karen
    September 13, 2013

    “Why were the predictions off? The study authors list many possible reasons, from solar irradiation and incorrect assumptions about the number of volcanic eruptions to bad estimates about how CO2 effects cloud patterns.”

    They to restore their credibility, all they have to do is to tell the truth.

    Climate Scientist: ……..errr………dunno

  83. #85 Karen
    September 13, 2013

    fuck orf bbd, why don’t the fizzzziks work ?

  84. #86 BBD
    September 13, 2013

    Answer the question, Karen. What did Christy do to the “observational” data represented as dots and squares on the graph?

  85. #87 Karen
    September 13, 2013

    fuck orf bbd, why don’t the fizzzziks work ?

  86. #88 Nick
    September 13, 2013

    #71. You claimed the ‘planet is cooling’. Show your proof. Convert your assertion into something plausible by citing real world observations,eh? Should be easy…

    What are observations of tropical glaciers [which of course fits entirely into ‘your’ graph’s 20S-20N TMT zone] showing us? They’re shrinking, Quelccaya has not been this small for over six thousand years, Irian Jayas glaciers will be gone by 2030,having been seen to retreat since the early 20thC, ditto Ruwenzori and Kilamanjaro. Why do you think those widespread icefields at 4500-7000m are all dwindling? Because the planet is ‘cooling’? Why is sea level rising if the ocean/atmosphere is net cooling over the last cherry-pick of your choice?

    Your graph shows a discrepancy between projections and a set of TMT obs. TMT is warming but not as fast as that suite of models projects. Is the ‘physics’ of the models ‘wrong’…or incomplete? Are the models shown TMT 20S-20N constrained,or only the obs?

    As I said,you cannot explain anything at all,can you?

  87. #89 Stu 2
    September 13, 2013

    No Lotharsson,
    I was answering Bernard’s question.
    It was a fair question and I answered it.
    I am not interested in defending Bob Carter in particular, in fact, until I looked him up early this evening I didn’t know much about Bob Carter at all.
    Ironically, I uncovered that he has authored or co authored over 100 hundred peer reviewed articles in scientific publications from 1967 to the present day. Which didn’t really do much to bolster the point I was making but did make your original comment look a bit odd.
    My objection to your summation of your opinion of who is and who isn’t qualified to comment on scientific issues whether they are specifically related to climate or not remains the same objection.
    And Lotharsson. What is it that you claim I misinterpreted?
    This is what you wrote:
    ————————————————————————–
    Er…what distinction do you draw between the two? You realise most research scientists are academics, because acadaemia is where most scientific research takes place?

    Carter is a scientist

    He has one – count them, ONE – climate science paper. It is widely considered to be one of the worst dozen or so climate science papers of all time.

    You and Carter are both providing another great illustration to Stu 2 of the difference between someone who has met the minimum bar for competence in climate science and someone who has not (and the someone who has not is insisting that those with demonstrated competence they are all wrong).
    —————————————————————————-
    You are really becoming entirely tedious Lotharsson. I was mostly interested in asking what had happened to this once interesting blog.
    At least Nick and Jeff Harvey have offered what is probably the most likely answer to that question.
    Endless open threads with no input from the blog owner.
    I am now partly intrigued by Luke’s question to you @#45.

  88. #90 Karen
    September 13, 2013

    #79 Nick
    “#71. You claimed the ‘planet is cooling’. ”

    no I didn’t

  89. #91 BBD
    September 13, 2013

    Karen

    Answer the question please, then we will continue with our discussion of Christy’s graph.

    What did Christy do with the “observational” data represented as dots and squares?

    What did he do to it, Karen?

    Come on, answer the simple, straightforward question.

  90. #92 Karen
    September 13, 2013

    fuck orf bbd, I asked first.

    why don’t the fizzzziks work ?

  91. #93 Nick
    September 13, 2013

    #81 Yes, you did Kaz at #37… you claimed “the planet is cooling actually” with a nice smiley.

    Memory problem?

  92. #96 BBD
    September 13, 2013

    Karen

    The model physics does work. The real problem here is the graph that you presented. We can only deal with your misconceptions by addressing the very serious issues with the graph. Please answer the question. What did Christy do to the “observational” data?

  93. #97 chek
    September 13, 2013

    SpamKan understands nothing whatsoever Nick.
    But they’re like, totally sure that’s enough.

  94. #98 BBD
    September 13, 2013

    Exactly the same problem because exactly the same TRICK has been used in all graphs!

    Answer the question, Karen. What did Christy do to the “observational” data in all three graphs?

  95. #99 BBD
    September 13, 2013

    Can somebody help the pathetic fuckwit “Karen” out here please?

  96. #100 Karen
    September 13, 2013

    YAAaaaaawwwwnnn

    going to bed now

1 5 6 7 8 9 28

Current ye@r *