February 2014 Open thread

More thread

Comments

  1. #1 Jeff Harvey
    March 3, 2014

    “single dated paper”

    Ya gotta laugh at Rednose and his appalling attempt at vindication. Like other deniers with no scientific pedigree whatsoever (Jonas comes to mind) one has to wonder why they don’t take their remarkable self-professed expertise to the broader academic sphere, such as conferences, workshops, and top scientific journals. Instead, they pound their chests like silverbacks on blogs, claiming illusory intellectual victories which, if thrown into the lions den of academia, would be quickly chewed up and spat out.

    I challenged Jonas many times to take his self-righteous wisdom to the climate science community and every request was met with the same teflon like avoidance. I make the same request to Rednose. See how well your arguments stand up to real scientific scrutiny. But of course, you glean your worldviews from other denier blogs like the GWPF and on blogs you will stay with your willful ignorance.

  2. #2 Rednose
    March 3, 2014

    The evidence available to the climate science community seems to move on at pace. Unfortunately JH none seems to penetrate your thick armour plate which resembles that of the dinosaurs.

  3. #3 Lionel A
    March 3, 2014

    And a broken link to SkS blog is not a recognised published rebuttal.

    Works for me, must be a problem at your end but then that is par for the course with you.

    Now that SkS article uses scientific peer reviewed to correct for Tung and Zou, note this quote:

    “The removal of the AMO in the determination of the anthropogenic warming trend is justified if one accepts our previous argument that this multidecadal variability is mostly natural.” [Tung and Zhou 2013]

    No. Removing the AMO to determine anthropogenic warming would only be justified if detrending the AMO from 1856-2011 actually removed the trend due to anthropogenic warming. But that’s unphysical: basic physics show that the anthropogenic warming rate should be higher after 1950. As a result, their approach overestimates anthropogenic warming before 1950, and underestimates it after 1950.

    .

    Clearer now?

  4. #4 Wow
    March 3, 2014

    “#37 wow

    Well an answer to either will do. ”

    BBD already answered one. You pretend it never happened.

    Tell you what, when you acknowledge an answer and understand it, then you can ask for another answer. As it is, it appears answering your petulant queries has no effect whatsoever.

  5. #5 BBD
    March 3, 2014

    Yes of course, F&R did not compensate for….”
    Which is the problem of relying entirely on a single dated paper to defend your argument.

    And a broken link to SkS blog is not a recognised published rebuttal.

    - The problem is that you haven’t backed up your lie about F&R11 being “discredited. The *facts* are straightforward: the methodology in F&R *is* robust and *nobody* has demonstrated otherwise. Their results remove much of the noise of natural variability and reveal the forced trend. What they did not do – because they did not attempt it – is to isolate and remove the cooling influence of wind-driven ocean circulation in the equatorial Pacific. If they had, the forced trends they describe would have been greater.

    So F&R11 stands as an excellent example of why you are full of shit. A following example of your pathetic dishonesty follows on in your lie about the SkS link being broken. It isn’t. You are full of shit.

    The SkS article demonstrates unequivocally that there is a serious methodological flaw in T&Z – it’s junk, basically. So unsurprisingly we find it being waved around by scientifically illiterate deniers like you.

    What you never seem to realise is that your endless fragmentary citation of papers you obviously haven’t read, let alone understood (eg Masters13, above, which actually supports what I have been saying) makes you look like an idiot – and a mendacious idiot at that.

    Enjoy your dram. I hope it was “exclusive” enough to make you happy.

1 8 9 10