August 2014 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 BBD
    September 1, 2014

    Yup, Scientific Research Publishing is definitely on the radar: #206 in the list of predatory publishers:

    In both cases, we recommend that researchers, scientists, and academics avoid doing business with these publishers and journals. Scholars should avoid sending article submissions to them, serving on their editorial boards or reviewing papers for them, or advertising in them. Also, tenure and promotion committees should give extra scrutiny to articles published in these journals, for many of them include instances of author misconduct.

  2. #2 Lionel A
    September 1, 2014

    Circle the wagons
    Deny the pause. Deny the pause.

    No need to circle any wagons for there never has been a pause in the growing heat build up in Earth’s systems through side effects of human activity.

    The results from physics and fossil fuel accounting are inescapable. As has been explained to you time and time again.

    Greg Laden in comments at a blog post explains it well:

    Greg Laden
    March 1, 2014

    Climate sensitivity is not theoretical and derived from models. It is based on two major sources. One is physics. That’s a kind of science. An atmosphere with no feedbacks would have a sensitivity of 1.2 C, that’s easy to calculate. Then there are feedbacks, and unfortunately they are mostly positive. The positive feedbacks are entered into models or calculations to estimate sensitivity, but the paramaters are based in some cases on more physics, and in other cases on direct observations of temperature changes as other factors play out, either during the period of the instrumental record or in the paleorecrod. That’s data.

    If solar was a big factor the results would be different.

    It does not matter much what period of time you use, we are experiencing anomalously warm temperatures. The range of climate data used to calculate an anomaly value can be arbitrary. What is really happening, though, is that a lot of reports or depictions of data use a moving goal post, with the climatic baseline being moved more and more towards the present as time progresses forward. That is standard climatology but underestiamtes the true anomaly since industrialization.

    Also the results from climatic and ecosystems behaviour are coming in all the time.

    All Curry is trying to do is circle the square, she is playing a losing game as are you and McK1trick.

  3. #3 Lionel A
    September 1, 2014

    On Rupert Darwell, I get the picture and it isn’t good.

    BBD. Your ‘just one sample’ link at #97 doesn’t go where you think it should, unless I missed something. I get something about N-A. Mörner and B.G. Lind and Swedish cranks?

  4. #4 BBD
    September 1, 2014

    Lionel

    Read the whole thing – it’s interesting ;-)

  5. #5 BBD
    September 1, 2014

    Eg:

    Now, what is this really about? Why is SCIRP [aka Scientific Research Publishing] cranking out all of these fly-by-night fringe journals that anybody can read for free? The feeling across the web is that it’s most likely a scam utilising a new source of income: the “author pays” model built into bona fide Open Access publishing. A kinder way to put it would be that SCIRP is a pseudo-academic vanity press.

  6. #6 BBD
    September 1, 2014

    BTW Lionel, you know who N A Morner is, don’t you?

  7. #7 Lotharsson
    September 1, 2014

    A demographer named Mark Lonsdale at The Conversation make a very important point:

    Temperature trends have not been altered… and this ‘argument’ happens in demographics as well. The comparison that you are asking for is to compare the trend that is a result of careful analysis of the data with ‘apparent ‘trends from uncritically concatening records together.

    In other words, (in almost all cases) due to at least one change in measurement methods and situations over the history of a station, raw station records consist of multiple different sets of measurements. You can’t simply concatenate them and assert the results are valid any more than you can concatenate the readings from two different satellites together – because the changes in measurement methodology or situation (or per-instrument calibration) matter. Put the same idea another way: if slow (or sudden) changes in “urban heat index” factors are something that make the raw data from a station that otherwise experienced no methodology changes invalid, then how much more so is a change in measurement methodology, technology or another situational factor?

    That means there is no valid “raw trend” with which to compare in the first place.

    And that means that the BoM cannot fudge the “raw trend”.

    Marohasy has not only failed to test her claims in the peer reviewed literature – she has started out with an invalid comparison that renders her argument moot – and not just according to the scientists, but according to the criteria of the well known blog science team running Anthony Watts’ pet Surface Stations project, and the entire motivation for doing the BEST project. (Does Watts realise that Marohasy is implicitly dissing the Surface Stations project?)

    The relevant question – the one Marohasy should be asking if she thinks she has a better answer – is what is the best temperature record reconstruction methodology that combines all the different measurements? She has not shown that the one produced by the BoM is significantly suboptimal nor that her blog-published assertions about what she suspects the reconstruction at some stations should come out like are more valid.

  8. #8 turboblocke
    September 1, 2014

    Good old Reddy: he hasn’t been taken in by the fake BoM controversy as he accepts the instrument record.

    So Stu how does it feel to know that Ole Red’s smarter than you?

  9. #9 turboblocke
    September 1, 2014

    http://www.desmogblog.com/david-evans

    If it’s of any interest… “David Evans
    Credentials

    Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
    M.S. Electrical Engineering, Stanford University.
    M.S. Statistics, Stanford University.
    M.A. Applied Mathematics, University Of Sydney.
    B.E. Electrical Engineering, University Of Sydney, Sydney Australia, University Medal (1983).
    B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Physics, University Of Sydney.
    Source: [1]

    According to his bio, Evans claims to be a “Rocket Scientist,” and one article describes him as a “Top Rocket Scientist.” While Evans’s background does show that he has a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, there is no evidence that he was ever employed as a rocket scientist.

    When DeSmogBlog contacted Evans regarding his claim of being a rocket scientist, Evans replied that “In US academic and industry parlance, ‘rocket scientist’ means anyone who has completed a PhD in one of the hard sciences at one of the top US institutions.”

    Evans also claims to be “building a word processor for Windows.” DeSmogBlog contacted Microsoft and they have confirmed that he does not work for them…”

  10. #10 Rednose
    September 1, 2014

    Bbd #94

    You have only listed 4 reasons for the pause Bbd. You omitted to mention the remaining 34 excuses that have been put forward in an attempt to explain the pause.

  11. #11 Rednose
    September 1, 2014

    TB #5

    I am reluctant to get involved in this tiff between you colonials.

  12. #12 Rednose
    September 1, 2014

    Incidently how is the death spiral progressing.
    Arctic sea ice seems to have reached its low point 2 weeks early this year.

  13. #13 BBD
    September 1, 2014

    Rednoise

    You have only listed 4 reasons for the pause Bbd. You omitted to mention the remaining 34 excuses that have been put forward in an attempt to explain the pause.

    Then list the rest and we can discuss them. I summarised the most likely drivers.

    What you have done is avoid so much as acknowledging a single point of the five I made. That’s intellectual dishonesty.

  14. #14 BBD
    September 1, 2014

    And what about the joke journal? Nothing to say about that?

    Nor do you chide Duff and Olaus for their championing of Marohasy’s conspiracy nonsense about BoM. You really should, because as Lotharsson points out, you endorse the surface temperature data.

    Why the inconsistency? Set your fellow ‘sceptics’ straight.

    * * *

    Incidently how is the death spiral progressing.
    Arctic sea ice seems to have reached its low point 2 weeks early this year.

    Taking the extreme low values as your baseline to claim recovery is extreme cherry-picking. You are claiming that inter-annual variability is more important than the multi-decadal trend. Don’t be shocked if you aren’t taken seriously.

  15. #15 Stu 2
    September 2, 2014

    Lotharsson @ # 4
    It appears that Dr Marohasy has already pondered on that particular question and your accompanying assertions.
    Here:
    “The relevant question – the one Marohasy should be asking if she thinks she has a better answer – is what is the best temperature record reconstruction methodology that combines all the different measurements? She has not shown that the one produced by the BoM is significantly suboptimal nor that her blog-published assertions about what she suspects the reconstruction at some stations should come out like are more valid.”

    I’m not sure why you are choosing not to go and ask directly yourself rather than speculating here at Deltoid, but here is at least part of the answer to your speculation in her own words:
    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/09/so-much-conversation-so-little-evidence/

    Meanwhile, I’ve been reading a peer-reviewed paper by Blair Trewin, which details how the homogenisation technique employed by the Bureau is meant to work. The only problem is, the methodology as detailed in this paper published in the International Journal of Climatology (Volume 33, Pages 1510-1529) doesn’t actually seem to accord with the methodology as implemented by Dr Trewin at the Bureau of Meteorology. What I mean is, the peer-reviewed paper says one thing, but the output from the homogenisation technique shown in the ACORN-SAT reconstructions suggests something entirely different.

    Something that is worth noting in the paper, is comment from Dr Trewin that, “but negative adjustments are somewhat more numerous for minimum temperatures, which is likely to result in ACORN-SAT minimum temperatures showing a stronger warming trend than the raw data do.” What he is saying, in plain English, is that ACORN-SAT may exaggerate the warming trend somewhat as a consequence of artificially dropping down the minimum temperatures. In fact, as I explained with reference to the Rutherglen temperature trends, the Bureau progressively drops down the minimum values from 1973 back through to 1913. For the year 1913 the difference between the raw temperature and the ACORN-SAT temperature is a massive 1.8 degree C.

    The apologists Pitman and Alexander, in their conversation suggest that, “the warming trend across Australia looks bigger when you don’t homogenise the data than when you do”. But this is not what the peer-reviewed literature says. And yet the take home message from their article is believe only this same peer-reviewed literature.”

    I will add that I am not a big fan of the term “apologist”.
    The connotations attached to it have over ridden it’s original definition.
    What Marohasy does say here is that her question is about why and how BoM has applied this methodology.
    She has not claimed that the peer reviewed literature that covers homogenisation of temperature data is under question.

  16. #16 Stu 2
    September 2, 2014

    cCr Kampen @#93 previous page.
    again I have to sigh :-(
    Craig’s point was simply that countries who are historically based on Christian culture have generally proven to be more adaptive and progressive, which would also include an ability to accept the existence of other religions.
    I agree with you and Jeff that religion in general (most definitely including Christianity) has much to answer for but Criag’s basic observation is not in error.
    The emancipation of women is most definitely another way to check the progress of a society.
    Along with global leadership in legislating environmental protection laws it appears that largely those some countries are leaders in the area of emancipating women:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women's_suffrage
    & here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women%27s_rights_(other_than_voting)

  17. #17 Rednose
    September 2, 2014

    The 38, no 39 excuses for the pause are documented in peer reviewed journals. There seems to be a new one quite regularly.
    At least you now recognise the pause or hiatus exists, that is some progress.

    Who was it claimed the Arctic would be ice free in the Summer 2015.

  18. #18 Jeff Harvey
    September 2, 2014

    “Along with global leadership in legislating environmental protection laws”

    I demolished that argument in my last post. Unfortunately, Stu2 is too thick to understand it. I will not repeat myself.

  19. #19 turboblocke
    France
    September 2, 2014

    <iIn fact, as I explained with reference to the Rutherglen temperature trends, the Bureau progressively drops down the minimum values from 1973 back through to 1913. For the year 1913 the difference between the raw temperature and the ACORN-SAT temperature is a massive 1.8 degree C.
    Wow 1.8°C, but is it wrong? Looks like you’re trying an argument from incredulity. And is that really only one station that’s got you in such a tizz.

    Reddy, you’re wrong, I’m not a colonial.

  20. #20 cRR Kampen
    September 2, 2014

    #13, – “which would also include an ability to accept the existence of other religions.”

    That would be after the incredible christian European wars, the Jew-/Muslimgenocides of the Reconquista, the pogroms and Shoa and two world wars and a Vietnam war and, of course, the emptying out of the continent of Australia and the genocidal ‘missionary missions’ in Asia, Africa and South America?

    You are calling the British empire an empire of peace because people in London had it good. You are heavily deluded. You know nothing of China – where most stuff was invented centuries before Europeans claimed the inventions and you are, like so many, neglecting the situation that existed in the ‘dark middle ages’. Which ONLY existed in christian Europe.

  21. #21 Lionel A
    September 2, 2014

    Oh Rednoise, ye of limited horizons:

    Who was it claimed the Arctic would be ice free in the Summer 2015.

    I’ll help you out there maybe you have Prof Peter Wadhams.

    But then you are dying, can you predict to within a year when you will die?

    Whatever, just as there is no pause in the Earth warming up there is no recovery of Arctic sea ice, if there was then Arctic sea ice extent would be tracking above the 1981-2010 average and it isn’t as also seen here.

  22. #22 Lionel A
    September 2, 2014

    Rednoise, oh ye slippery one worthy of the House of Slytherin:

    The 38, no 39 excuses for the pause are documented in peer reviewed journals.

    In that case you should be able to PROVIDE a description of each one. If you do not, and you have been asked already, then this line of argument is null and void.

  23. #23 Lionel A
    September 2, 2014

    Rednoise one of your horizon limits addressed here, this one to do with exacerbated effects of ocean acidification due to Arctic sea ice melt

    Aragonite undersaturation in the Arctic Ocean: effects of ocean acidification and sea ice melt.”

    As above but in more approachable form.

    But do read more in ‘Ocean of Life’ by Callum Roberts where the above was cited in Chapter 7, Note 15.

  24. #24 Lotharsson
    September 2, 2014

    Evans replied that “In US academic and industry parlance, ‘rocket scientist’ means anyone who has completed a PhD in one of the hard sciences at one of the top US institutions.”

    Even if it did mean that – and I worked in high tech in the US and this certainly wasn’t the definition that I encountered, and I haven’t seen anyone else advance this as the definition either – electrical engineering is not a “hard science”. (One clue is in the name – “engineering” is not science.)

  25. #25 FrankD
    September 2, 2014

    Something that is worth noting in the paper, is comment from Dr Trewin that, “but negative adjustments are somewhat more numerous for minimum temperatures, which is likely to result in ACORN-SAT minimum temperatures showing a stronger warming trend than the raw data do.” What he is saying, in plain English, is that ACORN-SAT may exaggerate the warming trend somewhat as a consequence of artificially dropping down the minimum temperatures.

    WTF? Can Stu2 even parse simple English? What Dr Trewin said is not even a little bit like what Stu2 claims, and Stu2 is nothing more or less than a fucking liar. Is that plain English enough?

  26. #26 Lotharsson
    September 2, 2014

    I’m not sure why you are choosing not to go and ask directly yourself rather than speculating here …

    Simple. You asserted claims here citing Marohasy as support, so the burden of proof is not on me. It’s on you (and by extension, her). In other words, do your own homework!

  27. #27 Lotharsson
    September 2, 2014

    It appears that Dr Marohasy has already pondered on that particular question and your accompanying assertions.

    Not so much, and very poorly. That post does NOT answer my question about the best reconstruction methodology, although she (for now) appears to be accepting the published methodology which renders my question moot. On my implied question of the need to show that the BoM’s methodology does not explain its own results, the article merely makes unsupported claims to that effect. You might buy such an unsupported claim, but it does not constitute an answer to my implied question.

    However, I’m happy to see her:

    a) Back-pedal quite a bit from allegations that the BoM is fraudulently fudging data (albeit whilst still trying to imply that some fudging or at least incompetence is occurring). This appears to also pull her back from relying on the false assumption that the raw trend is valid. A bit more back-pedalling and she might actually leave conspiracy theorising territory behind ;-)

    b) Finally start to consider the question of what the peer-reviewed methodology does – you know, what she should have done as much as three years ago on her way to writing her own peer reviewed paper, and certainly done it before going public with cries of “heads should roll”.

    c) Sidle up to at least the edge of trying to determine whether published paper(s) explain the results she objects to, even though she doesn’t seem to have got very far:

    What I mean is, the peer-reviewed paper says one thing, but the output from the homogenisation technique shown in the ACORN-SAT reconstructions suggests something entirely different.

    So what she’s saying is that she’s finally getting around to reading the papers she should have read in the first place, and (apparently) so far she doesn’t see how the methods there give the results the BoM produces. The “suggests” indicates that she doesn’t seem to have done the work to be confident of what the methodology should produce (or has done it, and it produces much the same results as the BoM report), otherwise you can be sure she would have reported her version of the results and made an even louder noise about it than when she was calling for heads to roll.

    Also, she might want to ponder whether there’s more than one peer reviewed paper that details different methods used by the BoM together. Wouldn’t want to go off half-cocked with another unwarranted assumption now like we did so many times before, would we?

    Sadly though, she STILL appears to be in the grip of incompetent and fallacious thinking with comments like this:

    Something that is worth noting in the paper, is comment from Dr Trewin that, “but negative adjustments are somewhat more numerous for minimum temperatures, which is likely to result in ACORN-SAT minimum temperatures showing a stronger warming trend than the raw data do.” What he is saying, in plain English, is that ACORN-SAT may exaggerate the warming trend somewhat as a consequence of artificially dropping down the minimum temperatures.

    No, that is not what he is saying!

    Here she is AGAIN reverting to the fallacious assumption that a raw trend is the valid trend! Reconstruction methodologies aims to determine the best possible reconstruction of the actual temperature over the record period. Sometimes that means starting from the raw data and applying procedures that result in a higher – or lower – warming trend for the reconstruction over the record period than the (still not valid!) trend calculated using the raw data. Asserting that the reconstruction results “exaggerate” a trend implies that the raw trend is the correct one, as does asserting that the adjustments are “artificial”. This is simply not true, and a competent scientist should be able to figure this out (especially with the amount of feedback she has had recently)!

    Also, note that as far as I can tell she is extremely one-eyed, not portraying any of the “lowered” trends as being “exaggerated” due to “artificial” adjustments. That alone should give you pause when you consider buying her claims without any due diligence.

  28. #28 Lotharsson
    September 2, 2014

    FrankD, your quote from Stu 2′s comment was made by Marohasy, but what she’s saying is even more spectacularly wrong than that:

    Something that is worth noting in the paper, is comment from Dr Trewin that, “but negative adjustments are somewhat more numerous for minimum temperatures, which is likely to result in ACORN-SAT minimum temperatures showing a stronger warming trend than the raw data do.”

    The apologists, Pitman and Alexander, in their conversation suggest that, “the warming trend across Australia looks bigger when you don’t homogenise the data than when you do”. But this is not what the peer-reviewed literature says.

    Now, since we all carefully checked what Pitman and Alexander actually said in the article Marohasy refers to, we need to ask ourselves whether she understands the difference between:

    a) the definition of “warming trend” when the term is not further qualified vs “warming trend” when it is qualified by “of minimum temperatures”
    b) a trend calculated for an individual station vs a trend calculated over (say) “Australia”
    c) a “warmer trend for a single station’s minimum temperature reconstruction” vs “trends in the frequency of hot days over Australia” (trends in the TX90p index as defined here: http://www.climdex.org/indices.html), which is what Pitman and Alexander referred to
    d) With reference to (c), minimum daily temperatures and maximum daily temperatures (and what time of day or night they are likely to be observed)

    If the answer is not an unqualified “yes”, consider whether conflating any of those might explain the “conclusions” that she draws towards the end of her post and whether that suggests that they won’t stand up to scrutiny either. If I were a betting person, I wouldn’t be putting my money on those claims just yet either. It seems highly likely that she’s almost completely incompetent in this area so far, and her conclusions will dramatically change if and when she gains competence.

    And it’s really not hard to see she is way out of her depth. However from a quick skim of the comments on her post no-one has pointed any of this out which is entirely consistent with the reputation they used to have for not exactly being the brightest bulbs in the array (Hi cohenite!) provided you fed them a “conclusion” they liked.

  29. #29 Lotharsson
    September 2, 2014

    BTW, I definitely should have mentioned spangled drongo ahead of cohenite ;-)

  30. #30 BBD
    September 2, 2014

    Rednoise

    At least you now recognise the pause or hiatus exists, that is some progress.

    There has been a slowdown in the rate of surface warming over the last decade. There has been no pause or hiatus in the accumulation of energy in the climate system as a whole (it is >90% ocean – try to remember this). See OHC 0-2000m for observational confirmation.

    A transient variability in the rate of surface warming tells us cannot be used to argue that AGW is a fraud or has paused or stopped or that climate sensitivity is low.

    Try to remember these things.

    I am getting very tired of pointing them out to you over and over and over again.

  31. #31 BBD
    September 2, 2014

    FrankD

    Stu2 is nothing more or less than a fucking liar. Is that plain English enough?

    My sentiments exactly. Glad to hear it said by someone else ;-)

  32. #32 Ian Forrester
    September 2, 2014

    Lotharsson said:

    However from a quick skim of the comments on her post no-one has pointed any of this out which is entirely consistent with the reputation they used to have for not exactly being the brightest bulbs in the array

    I think it is more correct to say that no-one has been allowed to point out errors in her post. And her followers and herself are both not the brightest bulbs but also are not the most honest of people.

  33. #34 Lotharsson
    September 2, 2014

    Lionel, you left out Monckton who used to love to cite Morner ;-)

  34. #36 Craig Thomas
    September 2, 2014

    Hang on – how can you mention Moerner and not provide a link to his most famous bit of work????\ \http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm
    (Figure.5.)

  35. #38 Craig Thomas
    September 2, 2014

    STU2 said,
    “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_park
    ” the United States established the first such one, Yellowstone National Park, in 1872. ”
    And Australia had the second:
    http://lynnwalsh.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/australias-first-national-park-and-the-worlds-second/

    It is my belief that Yellowstone was not established as a National Park, and that Australia’s Royal National Park was in fact the first.

    The reason the Royal National Park came into being was less about the environment, and more about Sydney Protestants (continuing the tradition of centuries) inventing a way to deprive rural Catholics of their living being made running cattle on leases in the area.

  36. #39 Stu 2
    September 3, 2014

    Lotharsson.
    My best suggestion to have your well thought out questions answered is to post them at the Marohasy blog.
    I guess then we will see whether she is capable of answering them or not.
    Craig.
    I have no doubt that other political/religious/parochial factors were involved in creating those national parks.
    That doesn’t alter the fact that countries like America and Australia were leaders in legislating to protect areas like national parks and continue to invest in doing so.
    The point was originally that modern societies that are historically linked to Christian culture do seem to have been a little more progressive and adaptable in these areas.
    But Jeff Harvey is also correct that it is a long way from perfect and Christian based cultures do indeed also have much to answer for.

  37. #40 Craig Thomas
    September 3, 2014

    That’s a bit like saying that because a system of governance founded on Democracy like ours is leaves much to be desired, then all other systems of governance shouldn’t be criticised for being far worse.

    Sadly, relativism infects modern everyday thinking to a far greater extent than modern everyday thinkers are willing to admit.

  38. #41 Stu 2
    September 3, 2014

    No argument from me on that Craig.
    On this issue I have agreed from the start.
    Democracy most definitely has its pitfalls but it’s ahead of many other systems of governance.
    Further, societies which are historically linked to Christain culture do seem to be able to embrace democratic philosophy & democratic governance with less religious based conflict or less religious based backlash.

  39. #42 Stu 2
    September 3, 2014

    BTW. . .I am NOT religious.
    :-)

  40. #43 Lotharsson
    September 3, 2014

    My best suggestion to have your well thought out questions answered is to post them at the Marohasy blog.

    Stu 2, it’s not my problem as I have nothing riding on getting them answered.

    You and Graham Lloyd et al and some other usual suspects have pushed her claims, citing her as a plausibly competent source. My questions and observations point out that the claims have not yet been substantiated and that Marohasy herself is an unreliable (and arguably incompetent) source when it suits her (which was well established years ago).

    It does not matter to me if my questions are not answered, because I have not based any of my position on the reliability of her claims or on her competence. It matters to you because you did – unless you are now disclaiming her claims.

    If you or Marohasy want to convince others that her claims have merit, then you or Marohasy have homework to do that should have been done long ago. I’m not doing it for you.

  41. #44 FrankD
    September 3, 2014

    Lotharsson @ #25, thanks for the correction – the lack of blockquote or even inverted commas misled me to think that was Stu2′s own words. So, while this is actually Marohasy lying through her teeth, Stu2 is merely sufficiently okay with her doing so to quote it uncritically. Illuminating – as if any more light needed to be shone on Stu2 bogosity.

    and @ #26 – spangled drongo at least had the virtue of being (inadvertantly) amusing from time to time. Cohenite is worse than merely being unfailingly wrong, he is unfaillingly dull at the same time.

  42. #45 Rednose
    Provence
    September 3, 2014

    #36
    Proving you cannot count BBD yet again. The slow down in warming exists from 2001, 1998, 1997 or earlier depending which set of measurements are taken.
    The last decade on its own can show cooling, rather than a slow down in warming.

    You have never recognised the errors involved in the estimates for changes in OHC over the last 50 years. These estimated changes in OHC could be in any direction because of the large errors involved.

  43. #46 Rednose
    September 3, 2014

    Lenoil #20

    So how does this 2009 paper reflect the large increases in sea ice, both in Antarctic over decades and more recently in the Arctic

  44. #47 Rednose
    September 3, 2014

    #36 BBD

    Tung and others now claim at least half the warming of last 25 years of the 20th century was due to natural causes, as natural causes now seem to be nullifying any warming since the turn of the century. This must favour lower estimates for TCS compared to those you trot out.

  45. #48 Lionel A
    September 3, 2014

    Rednoise

    So how does this 2009 paper reflect the large increases in sea ice…

    It Wasn’t intended to you dozy, or mendacious – you chose, twerp.

    Now why do you think sea ice is extending around Antarctica?

    Now refer to comment at #18 and follow the links.

    You may like to ask yourself why some of the plastic bath toys that were washed of a ship in the Pacific in a storm managed to work their way around to the North Atlantic, given that a North West passage only recently became a fact.

    BTW ‘a slow down in warming’ (of air temperatures only) does not equate to a pause or cooling. Once again you are either being as mendacious as a politician or as dim as a Toc-H lamp (whether red or blue).

  46. #49 Lionel A
    September 3, 2014

    #36 BBD

    ???

    Your numbering is orf you twerp Redoh.

    On warming pauses and OHC here is a primer for you, you clearly fail to grasp important concepts.

    Did global warming stop in 1998, 1995, 2002, 2007, 2010?

    All based on the sound science as cited in numerous IPCC reports.

  47. #50 BBD
    September 3, 2014

    Rednoise

    Tung and others now claim at least half the warming of last 25 years of the 20th century was due to natural causes

    Tung & Zhou (2013) is flawed. They try to use a detrended AMO as a proxy for natural quasi-periodic variability but it’s rather more likely to be simply a proxy for actual global average temperature. If you regress the AMO against GAT you are regressing it against a proxy of itself. The results aren’t of any scientific interest. And it’s always the same. Every claim that “at least half” recent warming is natural turns out to be cobblers.

    The slow down in warming exists from 2001, 1998, 1997 or earlier depending which set of measurements are taken.
    The last decade on its own can show cooling, rather than a slow down in warming.

    Cherry-picking the start points for uninformatively short time periods is fakery with graphs, Rednoise. It’s also scientifically uninteresting. And as I keep saying, if you stop hyperfocusing on uninformatively short, cherry-picked bits of the surface temperature and fucking well include OHC then we see energy accumulating rapidly in the climate system as a whole.

    Next time you do this, your comment will get strikethrough rather than a response.

  48. #51 BBD
    September 3, 2014

    as natural causes now seem to be nullifying any warming since the turn of the century.

    No, there’s no “nullifying” going on at all. More energy is going into the oceans, but it’s still accumulating just as expected.

    You must try to understand that the troposphere is only a small part of the climate system, which is mostly ocean. Until you do, climate liars will continue to confuse you by misrepresenting the pause-that-isn’t as something that actually matters – which it simply doesn’t.

    This must favour lower estimates for TCS compared to those you trot out

    It’s TCR. And it “must” do no such thing. TCR is formally defined as the surface temperature response to the doubling of the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 ie, 560ppm. This is likely to happen towards the end of the century, so the current, slowdown in GAT increase driven by transient variability in ocean heat uptake will have no effect whatsoever on TCR.

  49. #52 BBD
    September 3, 2014

    Oh, and:

    You have never recognised the errors involved in the estimates for changes in OHC over the last 50 years.

    Do you mean “uncertainty” rather than errors? I’m not aware of these ‘errors’. Perhaps they don’t exist except in the minds of contrarians.

    OHC 0 – 2000m layer with error bars

    Since about 1970, uncertainty is less than the decadal increase, so the warming trend is clearly established.

  50. #53 Craig Thomas
    September 3, 2014

    Another revolting and defensive editorial in The Australian yesterday, moaning about being taken to task by Media Watch for presenting unbalanced and ideologically-driven coverage.

    Wouldn’t it be simply to just resort to some actual journalistic ethics?

  51. #54 Craig Thomas
    September 3, 2014

    The AUstralian:
    “We stand by every word of our coverage.”

    Err…except for all the bits that were wrong and that you’ve had to apologise for, eh?

  52. #55 Craig Thomas
    September 3, 2014

    The Australian, of course, is fighting a rearguard action to defend its right to publish climate-related misinformation, as explained by Media Watch:

    “And the council’s also investigating complaints about a recent column in The Australian by the Prime Minister’s business adviser Maurice Newman.

    WE’RE ILL-PREPARED IF THE ICEMAN COMETH

    — The Australian, 14th August, 2014

    Newman, a well-known climate sceptic but no scientist, was suggesting the globe may not be warming at all.

    And he’s been savaged by the experts for getting his facts wrong.

    Which means he could fall foul of the Press Council, whose new principles say opinion columns may breach standards if they rely on:

    … significantly inaccurate factual material or omission of key facts.

    — Australian Press Council, Statements of Principles

    IF the Press Council were to rule against Newman, the battle would get even fiercer.

    Because even though News Corp signed up to that new principle, The Australian believes its columnists should be free to write whatever they like.

  53. #56 Stu 2
    September 4, 2014

    Lotharsson @ # 25 & 40
    Thanks for yet another good laugh!
    :-)

    If I were a betting person, I wouldn’t be putting my money on those claims just yet either. It seems highly likely that she’s almost completely incompetent in this area so far, and her conclusions will dramatically change if and when she gains competence.

    It does not matter to me if my questions are not answered, because I have not based any of my position on the reliability of her claims or on her competence. It matters to you because you did – unless you are now disclaiming her claims.

    If you or Marohasy want to convince others that her claims have merit, then you or Marohasy have homework to do that should have been done long ago. I’m not doing it for you.

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but it’s quite clear:
    1) that Dr Marohasy has already done her homework and is in the process of doing more
    2) That Graham Lloyd has also done his homework and is continuing to add more information as late as yesterday. (If he was way off the mark in terms of the actual questions that are being asked and the evidence he has been supplied, these reports would have been stopped)
    3) That Dr Marohasy Is completely unaware that you have set her a homework task.

    To quote you, “If I were a betting person” I would bet that Dr Marohasy has no clue about your opinion of her competency or the research she is conducting and that if the only place you’re prepared to offer an opinion is in what Shane described ‘the echo chamber’ then I would put money on:
    you are spending a lot of your time just wasting your time.

    Further Lotharsson.
    You are not being asked by me or anyone else to do some homework. I only suggested you could post your well thought out questions at Dr Marohasy’s blog.
    The only effort required on your part would be to copy/paste what you have already done here.
    Alternatively you could perhaps email Dr Marohasy with your copy/paste?
    If that’s looks like a difficult homework task, then I can email her if you like because her email address is publicly available.
    But of course if I did it, then I would have to do that apparently difficult homework task and copy/paste the answer from my return email back here for you.
    It truly would be far less complicated if you just did it yourself.

  54. #57 Lotharsson
    September 4, 2014

    Sorry to burst your bubble, but it’s quite clear:

    Don’t be so thick. There’s no bubble to burst, and your unsupported assertions aren’t capable of bursting any bubbles even if there were.

    that Dr Marohasy has already done her homework and is in the process of doing more

    ROFLMAO! No wonder you have problems being believed when you make statements that are so clearly counter-factual – and in this case, that rebut themselves. If she had done her homework on this issue, there would be no more homework to do. The fact that she’s “doing more” means it wasn’t done in the first place.

    Or maybe you just rely on distorting the commonly understood meaning? Perhaps not reading the key paper that describes some of the algorithms that you have been alleging have been fraudulently misapplied or not applied at all counts as “having done your homework but now doing more” in your world rather than as a failure to have done the required homework in the first place? Perhaps severely misrepresenting what a published paper says counts as “doing your homework”? Perhaps mistaking night time minimum temperatures for day time maximum temperatures counts as “doing your homework”? Perhaps those questions you yourself dubbed “well thought out” did not actually indicate that homework had not been done properly after all?

    If Marohasy has “done her homework”, then her teacher can only give her an F for being massively incomplete. But please, do keep up your bluster claiming that she did the proper research and actually knows what she is talking about. It is very revealing that you continue to assert so, given the evidence that we have.

    That Dr Marohasy Is completely unaware that you have set her a homework task.

    I did not set Marohasy any homework tasks. I merely pointed out that she hadn’t done her homework let alone carefully substantiated her claims, and that at a minimum the homework is a prerequisite to any serious scrutiny. The observation that her claims do not merit that scrutiny thus far is not “setting her homework”. The choice of whether she wants to make a serious case or not is entirely up to her, and as a published research scientist she must already be aware that homework is a prerequisite so she doesn’t need to be reminded of that by me or anyone else. That makes it all the more revealing that (based on her past history) she mostly prefers blog-published innuendo and insinuation than serious scientific arguments.

  55. #58 Jeff Harvey
    September 4, 2014

    Stu2, the laugh is really on you and clots like you.

    The scientific community by and large will not pay any attention to a blog run by a third rate scientist. You consistently refer to Marohasy as ‘Dr. Marohasy’ when IMHO her bonafides stink (11 publications, 80 citations in almost 20 years – now that is well below mediocre).

    You appear to believe that the scientific world is suddenly going to sit up and take notice of a shills blog? And by a complete unknown? With data not anyway close to being published in any kind of reputable journal? How stupid are you? From this evidence, profoundly.

  56. #59 Jeff Harvey
    September 4, 2014

    Here’s the howler from Stu2 re: Marohasy:

    “…and as a published research scientist”

    This had me on the floor. Yes, Marohasy has amassed a total of 11 papers in 18 years with a whopping accumulation of 80 citations; 4 (yes, count em’, 4!) this year.

    Stu2 does what all of the climate change deniers and other anti-environmentlaists do: blow the qualifications of veritable nobodies out of all proportion. The reason they do this is because there are very few statured scientists in the denier ranks. Most are third raters with virtually invisible credentials. Marohasy is no exception.

  57. #60 cRR Kampen
    September 4, 2014

    “Further, societies which are historically linked to Christain culture do seem to be able to embrace democratic philosophy & democratic governance with less religious based conflict or less religious based backlash.”

    A look at Africa should take you out of that dream.
    Democracy has been wrestled off christian culture, it is absolutely no part of it.

  58. #61 Jeff Harvey
    September 4, 2014

    This excellent article from Medialens (UK) puts pretty well to bed any notions of Christian virtues in western foreign policy:

    http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2014/773-damascene-conversions.html

    Its really high time Craig stopped pontificating about the alleged merits of Chritianity versus the alleged evils of Islam and realized who the real industrial-scale killers are…

  59. #62 Lionel A
    September 4, 2014

    Craig and #50

    This invective from The Australian is priceless:

    off the dial

    boneheaded

    ponderous

    On a crash course with reality

    Drunk on power

    — The Australian, 14th August, 2014

    Now what is that saying about projection?

    Oh! Boy!

  60. #63 Lionel A
    September 4, 2014

    Too 2Stupid to quote correctly then do so. I skip your posts as soon as I realise the problems of unpicking who said what. Yes I can do it but why should I have too. The onus is on you to help your reader – one of the golden rules of writing.

  61. #64 Lionel A
    September 4, 2014

    2Stupid not noticed my too-to problem yet.

    Whatever, welcome news just up at Eli’s:

    The Kind of Press Release Eli Likes on resumption of CO2 monitoring and analysis from the Keeling curve this is where there has been a real hiatus folks.

    Do note the last para:

    The Keeling Curve could eventually serve as a bellwether revealing the progress of efforts to diminish fossil fuel use. Save for seasonal variations, the measurement has not trended downward at any point in its history.

    And there will be no halt in temperature rise as long as the last phrase is true. So no cooling, no ice age cometh, physics dictates otherwise.

  62. #65 cRR Kampen
    September 4, 2014
  63. #66 Bernard J.
    September 4, 2014

    The Scandinavian Troll Collective will no doubt be able to come up with much research that shows that there isn’t actually any work that demonstrates that humans are 99.999% certain to have caused contemporary global warming:

    http://theconversation.com/99-999-certainty-humans-are-driving-global-warming-new-study-29911

    Or not.

  64. #67 Jeff Harvey
    September 4, 2014

    Thanks cRR for the Tom Dispatch link. I often read Tom Engelhardts great posts. In this one he once again demolishes the myth of western benevolence.

  65. #68 cRR Kampen
    September 4, 2014

    You’re welcom, Jeff. A note of caution then:

    “[..] as Kundnani’s book explains, western governments, particularly the US and the UK, detest any discussion of foreign policy when discussing the causes of terrorism. Such discussion is not merely shut down in official circles but is criminalised in wider society.”

    From http://www.thenational.ae/opinion/comment/a-fantasy-foreign-policy-will-not-defeat-the-isil-nightmare#full .

  66. #69 Stu 2
    September 4, 2014

    Jeff Harvey @ # 56.
    Dr is the correct title for someone with a PhD isn’t it?
    I also don’t think it’s correct that someone with a PhD is solely judged by the number of publications and citations they have to their name.
    As opposed to PhDs who work primarily in academia and academic research (like you apparently?) many with PhDs are employed in fields where publications are not a major part of their job description. That includes people who work in government and bureaucracies such as those who are employed by BoM.
    I note that there are further Australian sites that are being questioned in the media today.
    IMHO, it looks like BoM may simply not have complied with the correct process that is outlined in the peer reviewed literature when they homogenised the data.
    If that’s all it is, I don’t think it should be particularly difficult to correct.

  67. #70 Lotharsson
    September 4, 2014

    I also don’t think it’s correct that someone with a PhD is solely judged by the number of publications and citations they have to their name.

    It is a primary measure when you’re talking about a research scientist. It’s obviously not a primary measure if you’re talking about a PR shill for an industry front group.

    I note that there are further Australian sites that are being questioned in the media today.

    With the same level of due scientific diligence as the previous “questions”, I presume? As in, practically none, and what was done was done so badly that rank amateurs can detect severe flaws in it?

    If that’s the case, as has been copiously explained to you, then the questions can and should be ignored as they are either the result of incompetence or designed to deceive the rubes…

  68. #71 Stu 2
    September 5, 2014

    Well yes Lotharsson.
    Due diligence, especially in terms of compliance and process, is indeed what is being questioned.
    :-)

  69. #72 Lotharsson
    September 5, 2014

    Ah, so the new questions are an exercise in pointed irony? Or is unconscious psychological projection sufficient to explain it?

  70. #73 Craig Thomas
    September 5, 2014

    cRR Kampen
    :
    “Democracy has been wrestled off christian culture, it is absolutely no part of it.”

    Yes, but you make it sound like a simple thing. The struggle that eventually gave rise to secular governments in Western Europe was a very lengthy and complex process.

    And it’s not a process that has any parallel in the Islamic world.

  71. #74 Jeff Harvey
    September 5, 2014

    Stu2,

    Its suprising then that you refer to Marohasy always as ‘Dr’ and me – an infinitely more qualified scientist – as ‘Jeff’. I actually prefer that you do use my first name in lieu of my formal title, but I am a Professor after all. What I find from climate change deniers is that they always are polite when it comes to scientists (no matter how lousy their credentials are) that they agree with (and there aren’t that many of them) but with eminently more qualifed scientists whose argumenhts they dislike like Michael Mann and James Hansen the insults fly without hesitation. I have yet to see any denier on here refer to Mann as ‘Professor’ – his actual title – and one can see how I am referred to by the likes of the Swedish idiot collective and GSW. Professor I ain’t.

  72. #75 Jeff Harvey
    September 5, 2014

    Craig writes:

    “And it’s (democracy) not a process that has any parallel in the Islamic world”.

    Maybe it is because western nations haev long suppressed it in order to plunder or to control their resources. This goes back hundreds of years, when the elites of Britain realized that there was not enough wealth in the home country to support their lifestyles and they decided to send armadas abroad for the sole reason of resource theft. Along with this came the realization that helping to raise the standards of living of the natives in faraway lands conflicted with their own selfish interests so they did (and still do) everything to suppress the rise of true democracy and especially indigenous nationalism.

    I find it truly bizarre that anyone in the west has the audacity to lecture others on democracy (which we do not truly have anyway – the US for instance is a plutocracy pure and simple), freedom and human rights. The fact is that our nations have liters of blood on our hands – and we continue to puruse reckless selfish policies in pursuit of brazenly economic agendas that beneift the privileged few.

  73. #76 Jeff Harvey
    September 5, 2014

    One final point for Stu2:

    He writes: “As opposed to PhDs who work primarily in academia and academic research (like you apparently?) many with PhDs are employed in fields where publications are not a major part of their job description. That includes people who work in government and bureaucracies such as those who are employed by BoM”

    Yes, you are correct. And this also explains why some scientists are bought-and-paid-for by think tanks and PR firms etc. to promote the interests of their paymasters (meaning corporations). I am sure that you will find a number of scientists – including those whose arguments you post up here – with this in their job description. These people are IMHO dishonest liars, but heck, deniers will look under any rocks to find find allegedly qualified voices to support their views.

  74. #77 Stu 2
    September 5, 2014

    Sorry Jeff.
    I use the same name that the commenter uses.
    Everyone else here calls you Jeff Harvey.
    I meant no disrespect.
    I call BBD & Lotharsson & everyone else by the name at their comments.
    If you want to be called Dr Harvey then perhaps you could
    change your name for your comments?

  75. #78 BBD
    September 5, 2014

    …and once again, the astonishingly intellectually dishonest Stu2 completely evades the point, in this case Jeff’s #71 and #73.

    This behaviour is why you are held in universal contempt here.

  76. #79 Daniel
    September 5, 2014

    Perhaps it is possible for you to regain your intellectual integrity. Ponder the words below.

    “My fellow scientists, let’s huddle up for a minute. What are we doing? What the hell are we doing? I’m mostly speaking to climate scientists, so the “we” is presumptuous – I ask for a couple of minutes of your charity. Is this really what we want? Do we want to coarsen science this much? Do we want to establish a scientific culture where scientists must take polar positions on some issue in the field? Do we want to tout a “consensus” that ignores all those who don’t take a polar position? Do we want to import the fallacy of demanding that people prove a negative, a fallacy that we often point out on issues like evolution, creationism, religion, and so forth? Modern scientific culture has long lionized the sober, cautious scientist, and has had an aversion to polar positions, simplistic truths, and loyalty oaths. Do we mean to change that culture? Have we tired of it? Are we anti-Popper now? No one is required to be Popperian, but if we’re replacing the old man, it should be an improvement, not a step back to the Inquisition. Do we want dumb people who have no idea what they’re doing speaking for us? Are we fraud-friendly now, if it serves our talking points? When did we start having talking points?

    In any case, what the hell are we doing? What exactly do we want science to be and represent? Do we want “science” to mean mockery and malice toward those who doubt a fresh and poorly documented consensus? Do we want to be featured in future textbooks, and not in a good way? When did we discover that rationality requires sworn belief in fresh theories and models that the presumed rational knower cannot himself validate? When did we discover that rationality requires belief in the rumor of a consensus of researchers in a young and dynamic field whose estimates are under constant revision, and whose predictions center on the distant future? (A rumor, operationally, since laypeople aren’t expected to engage directly with the journal articles about the consensus.) Who discovered that rationality entails these commitments, or even argued thusly? Give me some cites, please. When did we discover that people who doubt, or only mildly embrace, the rumor of a consensus of researchers in a young and dynamic field whose estimates are under constant revision, and whose predictions center on distant future developments, are “deniers”? When did science become a church? When did we abandon epistemology? Again, what are we doing?]

    I think some of you who’ve defended this study got on the wrong train. I don’t think you meant to end up here. I think it was an accident. You thought you were getting on the Science Train. You thought these people — Cook, Nuccitelli, Lewandowsky — were the science crowd, and that the opposition was anti-science, “deniers” and so forth. I hope it’s clear at this point that this was not the Science Train. This is a different train. These people care much less about science than they do about politics. They’re willing to do absolutely stunning, unbelievable things to score political points. What they did still stuns me, that they did this on purpose, that it was published, that we live in a world where people can publish these sorts of obvious scams in normally scientific journals. If you got on this train, you’re now at a place where you have to defend political activists rating scientific abstracts regarding the issue on which their activism is focused, able to generate the results they want. You have to defend people counting psychology studies and surveys of the general public as scientific evidence of endorsement of AGW. You have to defend false statements about the methods used in the study. Their falsity won’t be a matter of opinion — they were clear and simple claims, and they were false. You have to defend the use of raters who wanted to count a bad psychology study of white males as evidence of scientific endorsement of AGW. You have to defend vile behavior, dishonesty, and stunning hatred and malice as a standard way to deal with dissent.”

  77. #80 Stu 2
    September 5, 2014

    BBD.
    Dr Harvey offered an opinion. He is perfectly entitled to do that in an open forum such as this one.
    You are also entitled to offer your opinion.
    My opinion of your last comment @ # 75 is that you are being unnecessarily belligerent and employing hyperbole for no apparent benefit to any further discussion.

  78. #81 Lionel A
    September 6, 2014

    My opinion of your last comment @ # 75 is that you are being unnecessarily belligerent…

    ToStew, by being unnecessarily and persistently evasive in your obvious ignorance your opinion counts for nothing.

    By persistently refusing to address that ignorance you are being stupid, hence the riff on your moniker. This another reason for your opinion counting for nothing.

    Just so as you know

  79. #82 Lionel A
    September 6, 2014

    A reality check for those crowing about Antarctic sea ice gain.

  80. #83 BBD
    September 6, 2014

    Stu2

    …and once again, the astonishingly intellectually dishonest Stu2 completely evades the point, in this case my #75.

    This behaviour is why you are held in universal contempt here.

  81. #84 Stu 2
    September 6, 2014

    BBD.
    That has certainly done nothing to alter my opinion.
    I am starting to feel sorry for you.
    There is nothing to evade.
    I have no interest in swapping personal insults & you may notice that I refrain from calling people names or attempting to be an amateur psychoanalyst.
    In part, Dr Harvey agreed with my point about publications and PhDs. He then offered his personal opinion.
    This is just a blog site stuck in perpetual open threads and atm still stuck in August.
    I used to like visiting this site & it’s disappointing that it has lost it’s mojo.
    Your ‘universal contempt’ comment just makes me laugh.
    Now perhaps in September when it finally arrives for Deltoid, maybe a real discussion about nuclear energy or politics/religion or the due diligence of our public institutions like BoM etc might actually occur?

  82. #85 BBD
    September 6, 2014

    Stu 2

    That has certainly done nothing to alter my opinion.

    …and once again, the astonishingly intellectually dishonest Stu2 completely evades the point, in this case my #79.

    This behaviour is why you are held in universal contempt here.

  83. #86 BBD
    September 6, 2014

    This could, and has, gone on for what seems like forever. So perhaps we should calibrate the discussion so it can progress.

    I’m not entirely clear what your position is, so please pick from the following starting points:

    - AGW isn’t happening

    - AGW is real, but won’t amount to much

    - AGW is real and will have considerable impacts but we can adapt to them as we go

    - AGW is real and will have considerable impacts that will increasingly overwhelm our capacity to adapt as we go

  84. #87 Stu 2
    September 6, 2014

    BBD.
    :-)
    That has certainly (ONCE AGAIN) done nothing to alter my opinion.
    I am starting to feel (EVER MORE) sorry for you.
    There is nothing to evade.
    I have no interest in swapping personal insults & you may notice that I refrain from calling people names or attempting to be an amateur psychoanalyst.
    In part, Dr Harvey agreed with my point about publications and PhDs. He then offered his personal opinion.
    This is just a blog site stuck in perpetual open threads and atm still stuck in August.
    I used to like visiting this site & it’s disappointing that it has lost it’s mojo.
    Your ‘universal contempt’ comment just makes me laugh.
    Now perhaps in September when it finally arrives for Deltoid, maybe a real discussion about nuclear energy or politics/religion or the due diligence of our public institutions like BoM etc might actually occur?
    :-)

  85. #88 Stu 2
    September 6, 2014

    OK,
    Sorry.
    Crossed posts.
    Goodonya BBD for recognising some recalibration might be a good idea :-)

  86. #89 BBD
    September 6, 2014

    Stu2

    Goodonya BBD for recognising some recalibration might be a good idea

    I’m hoping that you realise that this response – which doesn’t respond to #82 – is exactly the problem raised above #75 #79 #81.

    You can fix this.

  87. #90 BBD
    September 7, 2014

    On the off-chance that BK is still here, take note…

    :-)

  88. #91 Stu 2
    September 7, 2014

    BBD.
    Considering it is now September 7th, I think this particular thread is in it’s death throes.
    My comment @ 84 was simply a recognition that we had crossed posts and your attempt to try and read something else into it is just simply your attempt to try and read something else into it.
    When Deltoid catches up with the rest of the world and reaches September then maybe your multiple choice questionnaire could be a starting point?
    I may even put some thought into creating some multiple choice questions too?
    I think I do need to point out however that there really isn’t anyone to mark them as right or wrong or to give people a score or a percentile ranking.
    :-)

  89. #92 Lotharsson
    September 7, 2014

    I think I do need to point out however that there really isn’t anyone to mark them as right or wrong…

    I think I do need to point out that this misidentifies the situation.

    For the core questions, the evidence separates right from wrong (or in actual scientific terms, more strongly supported from more weakly supported from strongly refuted). Plenty of people can point out the extent to which answers accord with evidence, and do.

    Other people deny the level of support the evidence has for various claims, typically through employing a standard set of well-known tactics. This is not due to there being “no-one to mark them right or wrong”, it’s due to people rejecting what the evidence indicates.

  90. #93 Craig Thomas
    September 7, 2014

    Jeff Harvey
    September 5, 2014
    Craig writes:
    “And it’s (democracy) not a process that has any parallel in the Islamic world”.

    “Maybe it is because western nations haev long suppressed it in order to plunder or to control their resources. ”

    Ridiculous.
    George W. Bush: “Whadda we gonna suppress this week? Let’s suppress Islamic fundamentalism, wadda you say?
    Col-on Powell: “Nope. We’re gonna suppress Democracy. Islamic fundamentalism is good for business, keeps oil prices low. You know we’ve always had a plan, Georgie.”

    Anyway, you’ve misunderstood me – (although I go back to my previous point – however imperfect our “Democracy” may be, it kicks the living crap out of other systems on offer).

    It’s the *process* of arriving at our “Democracy” that has no parallel in the Islamic world.

    Islam is completely at odds with the idea of secular governance. Which is hardly surprising, considering it had its roots in the life of an illiterate arabian bandit whose grasp of politics didn’t extend much beyond, “kill them all, rape their women, and steal their belongings”

  91. #94 Stu 2
    September 7, 2014

    Lotharsson.
    ” For the core questions, the evidence separates right from wrong ”
    I sincerely wish that were true.
    Unfortunately, along with BBD’s questioning style, you appear to be trying to introduce an argument from a personal psychological, ideological or political perspective that you also appear to think legitimises you calling others who question that perspective names like ‘deniers’ or ‘anti environmentalists’ ‘anti science’ or ‘shills’ or in the pay of ‘big oil’ or ‘intellectually dishonest’ or ‘scientifically incompetent’ etc etc etc.
    I’m not sure why I have bothered to write this comment as I have probably set you off into yet another boring, I said, I meant, you said, you meant , so that implies something else that I said you meant , which means I said, you said, I said Lotharsson diatribe.
    Maybe I’ll see you in September when it finally arrives at Deltoid.
    :-)

  92. #95 Lotharsson
    September 7, 2014

    I sincerely wish that were true.

    Your wish has already been granted, but here you are rejecting it!

    Thank you for that most lovely illustration of my point, said illustration continuing:

    …you appear to be trying to introduce an argument from a personal psychological, ideological or political perspective that you also appear to think legitimises you calling others who question that perspective names like ‘deniers’ or ‘anti environmentalists’ ‘anti science’ or ‘shills’ or in the pay of ‘big oil’ or ‘intellectually dishonest’ or ‘scientifically incompetent’ etc etc etc.

    Nope. If I was going to argue that, I would have, aw shucks, actually said something about those things. I would have, you know, cited the factors you mentioned that I did not cite and attempted to draw the conclusions that you reject even though I did not draw them.

    Instead, I merely mentioned there were well known tactics that are drawn from when rejecting evidence, and you helpfully used one or two of them in your reply. Thanks again.

  93. #96 Stu 2
    September 7, 2014

    Lotharsson.
    All I can say re you’re comment @#91 is:
    1) I did wonder why I bothered &
    2) I rest my case.
    :-)

  94. #97 Lotharsson
    September 7, 2014

    I am more than in agreement with you resting your case.

    Your case is restable as soon as you tell someone they said something they didn’t say, so it requires no great insight to predict that they will dispute your characterisation. It requires little greater insight to foretell that you will exploit that dispute as you usually do, e.g. to avoid discussion of the dubiousness of your claims.

    Perhaps instead of smugly resting your case in future, you might consider not causing the case to be relevant in the first place?

  95. #98 BBD
    September 7, 2014

    Notice that the dishonest little shit refuses to answer *any* questions put to him – now including #82.

    Fuck off, Stu2.

  96. #99 BBD
    September 7, 2014

    Apologies to Lotharsson and anyone else unfortunate enough to have been subjected to Stu2′s latest marathon of dissembling, evasion and passive-aggressive whining. My patience is exhausted.

  97. #100 Stu 2
    September 7, 2014

    Craig Thomas @ # 89
    This is probably a relevant piece.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-05/burdon-can-democracies-respond-to-the-climate-crisis/5723152

    This one is relevant to your discussion with Dr Harvey:
    ——————————————————————————
    “While not advocating for centralised government, Professor Ross Garnaut argued last week that recent shifts in the Chinese economy away from a coal-dominated growth model “improves the chances of the international community meeting the two-degrees climate target”.
    —————————————————————————–
    Followed closely by this one:
    ——————————————————————————
    “If anyone will weather this storm it seems likely that it will be the Chinese.”
    In the book, Oreskes and co-author Erik Conway imagine a future world in which the predictions of the International Panel on Climate Change have come to pass. With respect to China, the authors predict:
    China’s ability to weather disastrous climate change vindicated the necessity of centralised government … inspiring similar structures in other, reformulated nations.”
    ——————————————————————————
    However, as this thread must be in it’s death throes , I may have to repost this when Deltoid makes it to September.

    For BBD and Lotharsson, it is this manner of conflation between ‘the science’ and politics that I seriously question.
    If we look at the actual figures, the assertions about China’s emissions are highly questionable let alone the clear advocacy of a ‘centralised government’ over a democratic system.