You might have learnt in stats class how to use linear regression to estimate trends. Well I'm sorry but you going to have to forget it all and the boring statistics books are going to have to be rewritten because that stuff is obsolete due to revolutionary breakthrough by Roger Pielke Sr. If you use the boring-and-now-obsolete linear regression stuff on the University of Colorado at Boulder sea level data you discover that the trend is positive and highly statistically significant, even if you just consider the data since 2006.
But using his revolutionary new technique Roger Pielke Sr discovers that sea levels are not rising and in fact: "Sea level has actually flattened since 2006."
Look at the proof and marvel:
Pielke also claims:
Their has been no statistically significant warming of the upper ocean since 2003.
David Appell is mystified because this is contradicted by the latest research, but the answer is simple:
No increase there once you Pielkeize the graph.
Pielke's third and final claim is that Arctic ice is not shrinking because it's increased since 2008. If only we had been measuring ice before 2008! Oh, wait:
Oh heck, I can't resist proving that temperatures have not risen since 1975.
- Log in to post comments
nice post. but as always, there will be denialists defending the undefendable....
Hey, he's absolutely right. It also flattened between 1998 and 2000. If we add up all the times it went down and compare that to all the times it went up through the entire graph, it looks pretty equal to me. The entire graph shows a leveling trend.
See, science isn't hard, any idiot can do it.
It's the long overdue democratisation of science!
For too long we've had egg-heads in ivory towers muttering arcane spells over musty old books. Now we have the good commonsense of the 'volk' becoming involved, shining the light of practical know-how on issues that were once the private realm of the boffins.
Ans yes, just look for yourself- the last part of the graph is flat. Trust your eyes people, not the acolytes of the science-research-grant complex!
I wrote this over there (paraphrased), but probably will be trolled out:
Ocean levels have flattened out!... however, ignore everything before 2006. Upper Ocean temperatures haven't risen since 2003!... if you forget everything before 2003, that is. Anomalies have decreased in the last year!... just overlook all previous data.
Pielke's data is absolutely bullet-proof. Except against actual bullets. Just ignore that.
I wonder what Pielke thinks of these guys:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/science/30muse.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1…
Similar abuses of logic and statistics. Perhaps they can get Exxon-Mobil to fund their very own Sceptic's Museum. Somehow I think an animatronic display of Monckton's ranting wouldn't stack up as well as the stuff they've got.
Tim, your analysis is incisive but marginally off-target, the text and numbers are Pielkian, however the 'Flat' annotation was added by the proprietor of the Science Blog of the Year, Professor Anthony Watts. Curiously, I downloaded the data behind the graph, plotted the OLS trend for the 'flat' portion and discovered a trend of +1.5mm/year, what could this possibly mean?
Damn. For people like Watts and Bolt I like to think that there's a substantial element of pure ignorance here, it helps me sleep at night. But I know for a fact that Pielke Sr is smart enough to see the fallacies here...and I very much doubt he would accept such statements from his own students. This is a very unimpressive performance.
Michael,
Spot on. In fact, if you combine this new statistics with the new paradigm in physics advocated by [Marohasy](http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/05/the-work-of-ferenc-miskolczi-p…), and the vital work of Graeme Bird in combatting relativity and quantum theory, we could indeed be at the turning point where jewish climate "scientists" can finally be purged, jailed and executed, just like [Lubos Motl wants](http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/07/08/lubo-motl-…).
1. Yes, Blofessor Watts apparently added the graphic. I still think Pielke, Sr's being intentionally dishonest, however.
2. I say "Blofessor" and would ask that you not say "Professor", even in jest, because that will probably get picked up and spread amongs parts of the denialsphere. He's not a professor, in fact there's no evidence he even has a BS - his short bio at WUWT doesn't mention any degree at all (you can be sure that if he had an MS or PhD it would be there).
Blofessor Wassup is listed as a retired holder of the American Meteorological Society Television Seal. The TV Seal is no longer being issued by the AMS, since it did not require an academic degree.
Expect a Pielkian response from his template here soon i.e.
"Thank you for your response.
"I think you are confused with my work. I have 30+ years of published work and about 100 textbooks so I have many of these red herrings to throw at you:
[insert outdated and irrelevant Pielke work here]
and
[insert second outdated and irrelevant Pielke related work here.]
"I will also bold some inane comment and make reference to the fact that I was part of the IPCC review process but quit after no-one took me seriously.
"I will be willing to invite you to post a response in my weblog which will not be open to comments, mainly as my ego refuses to accept the reality that I am now irrelevant.
"Yours, RPSr.
With a technique like that I can prove Laura San Giacomo is flat!
Cute, but in context there's no inconsistency between Pielke's claims and those here at Deltoid. Pielke's statements were all in response to this RealClimate claim: "Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago"
The original claim seems to be not just that these metrics have a disturbing trend, but that the trend got worse since a few years ago. In that context, looking at whether the trend changed in just the past few years and what that trend might be is perfectly appropriate. If the trend changed for the better at some point in the last "few" years - a one- or two- or three- year trend, four at the most - answers the question. To read more than that into it is silly.
Always amusing to see a bunch of alarmists get carried away over short term figures. Boys and girls enjoy the inter-glacial while it lasts!
Reading comprehension FAIL! Lets shift the emphasis slightly:
"Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago"
Well, the Viscount of Oz said Anthony is a Doctor in a letter to Congress so it must be true.
Incidentally the concept of qualifications for services to Blog Science was pioneered by me on the peerless Denial Depot blog (we usually abbreviate Blog Science to just 'BS'. saves time).
It was there that Professor Watts earned his Profdom... "To get the ball rolling I nominate the following academic awards for immediate conferall:-
Blog Professor A. Watts. To be awarded the Blog Chair of Acute Photographic Instrumental Uncertainty.
Blog Professor S McIntyre for services to Applied Statistics.
Blog Doctor S. Goddard. Prunus emarginata adlego ...Not sure about Monckton, after all he already has a Gold Nobel Prize Pin "
We are currently conferring amongst ourselves over a little honourary something for Dr RP Snr to reward this outburst of quality BS.
> Always amusing to see a bunch of alarmists get carried away over short term figures. Boys and girls enjoy the inter-glacial while it lasts!
>
> Posted by: ilajd
Projection again.
It's Peilke, McIntyre, Ray and all the denialist fluffers out there who focus with raptor intensity to the short term.
Early on, it was all "There is not enough data to confirm DEFINITE warming". Then when there WAS enough data to confirm definite warming, they *then* moved to "It's been cooling all this century/since 1998/since 2001/2005/this afternoon" (delete as appropriate).
Ah great, a whole thread devoted to that graph.
I think there must be a genetic 'disorder' in many 'denialists' which makes them see an upward slope as a downward one.
Maybe we should be more sympathetic towards them and their disability should be recognised?
Alternatively it could be cultural, maybe they read graphs from right to left??
Is there any scientific research being conducted on the problem?
Paul -
On one hand, we could try to understand exactly what makes people so utterly unable to do basic maths..
Or we could just pass a law whereby anyone caught repeating the same blatant error repeatedly, and after full correction, can legally have the word 'Stupid' branded on their forehead. Only problem being that the WUWT crowd would wear it as a badge of pride..
So, more supporting evidence for the notion that he doesn't even hold a BS. His statistical and scientific illiteracy leave me unsurprised.
Glen Raphael:
No, what's being said is that the trend *is* worse than *was expected* a few years ago.
It's a true statement.
Two posters on Real Climate have shown up with the identical claim of misunderstanding on Pielke's part. Do me a favor and tell me which site is the source for this cut-'n-paste du jour argument in the denialsphere, would you?
Not to detract from your main point but I think your "flat" for the ocean heat data starts in 2002, before the big 2002-2003 jump. 2003 looks like >12*10^22 J to me.
Not to detract from your main point but I think your "flat" for the ocean heat data starts in 2002 instead of Pielke's 2003, which puts it just before a big jump in OHC. 2003 looks like >12*10^22 J to me.
The Pielke diet: Just proclaim your weight gain as flat!
Watching denialist weblogs is like visiting the circus, lots of clowns running around in circles ernestly triping over themselves and each other. It entertaining for a bit, but does your head in if you watch too much of it.
>Watching denialist weblogs is like visiting the circus, lots of clowns running around in circles ernestly triping over themselves and each other. It entertaining for a bit, but does your head in if you watch too much of it.
Maybe i should try a bit of lurking. Would i learn anything?
> Maybe i should try a bit of lurking. Would i learn anything?
Only if you are the type of person who considers a lobotomy a great learning experience.
I think we need to run a contest to see who garners the most votes as Pielke contrarian of the year--Sr. or Jr.?
Pielke's response is posted. (No comments allowed, of course.)
A little trivia about Anthony Watts' blog: the word "deniers" is not allowed. Yes, I know because it got snipped from one of my comments.
I guess it's really not just a river in Africa anymore.
P-Dog,
That's because the word 'denier' is nothing but a groundless nasty ad hominem attack, whereas insinuating that all the world's premier scientific institutions are engaged in a massive hoax is nothing but common sense.
[RC](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/more-bubkes/langs…) has a reply to the Pielke reply.
i still can NOT believe, that a person who wrote this phrase could still be taken serious by anyone:
NOT TRUE; see the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly from the University of Illinois Cyrosphere Today website. Since 2008, the anomalies have actually decreased.
since 2008???
as Daniel said in a RC comment:
Whack-a-groundhog: 1) Non-serious sample period. 2) Another ludicrous sample period. 3) An absolutely preposterous sample period.
RealClimate have something to say:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/more-bubkes/
>The âflattening of sea level since 2006â that Pielke refers to is beside the point and deceptive for several reasons (note too that Anthony Watts has extended this even further to declare that sea level from 2006 to present is actually âflatâ!)...
But hasn't Rahmstorf just 'fiddled' his statistics, mush in the way Mann always does?
19 Andrew,
Perhaps this is only known in the UK but there's a film (The Age of Stupid)[http://www.ageofstupid.net/]. **Stupid** is right for these people.
We then have the problem with words changing meaning. "Bad" is good, right, and "sick" is really good?
34 Dave Andrews,
So, you accuse a scientist of fraud? How about you produce the evidence? You know what failure to do so makes you, don't you?
Note that cites of denialist blogs does *not* count as evidence.
Very weak sauce from Pielke Sr. Some bluster, no real response to the criticism. I'm embarrassed for him.
Hey TrueSceptic, you got the parentheses and brackets round the wrong way in your link to [The Age of Stupid](http://www.ageofstupid.net/).
But I fixed it!
Maybe the ground they live on is slightly tilted. Hence, graphs showing a slope like that appear 'flat'.
Maybe the ground they live on is slightly tilted.
Most likely their brains; a hitherto undocumented form of dyslexia.
P.S. Just so we keep the score straight, that link to RPSr. was his response to the RC response to his response to RC. (Not that it had any additional content to it, as previously noted.)
P-dog: "That's because the word 'denier' is nothing but a groundless nasty ad hominem attack, whereas insinuating that all the world's premier scientific institutions are engaged in a massive hoax is nothing but common sense."
It's a descriptive word for the group of people who will go to any embarrassingly silly extreme to deny the overwhelming weight of science evidence pointing to global warming. The equivalent on your side is 'alarmist'. I understand the meaning of that, don't agree, but don't wet my pants over it.
Another key characteristic of denialists by the way is that they don't understand the meaning of 'ad hominem'. If someone behaves stupidly and you call them stupid, that isn't ad hominem. If for example they cheat on their wife and you use this as an argument that their scientific practise is incompetent, then you're committing ad hominem. Get it? No probably not. Along with many so things things this has been explained again and again. But it's just a case of in one ear and out the other with denialists.
Psst, Craig! Misattribution and lack of sarcasm recognition.
Craig @ 41, I think P-dog was criticising Watts' blog for not allowing the use of the word 'deniers'.
equivalent on your side is 'alarmist'.
So I think he's on your side not theirs!
I think.
Sorry, but WTF are you talking about?
[24 hours later](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/07/pielke_srs_new_statistical_tec…) and Dave Andrews has still not produced substantiated evidence to back his wild claim accusing two scientist of fraud.
>Perhaps this is only known in the UK but there's a film (The Age of Stupid)[http://www.ageofstupid.net/]. Stupid is right for these people.
I'm on Franny's email list.
The Global premiere is on Sept 21/22, they are aiming to beat the Star Wars premiere for the biggest simultaneous film event. However Australia and New Zealand will be 18th or 19th Sept. Hoyts cinemas have signed up to show it.
38 Gaz,
I know! Checking with Preview is something I only fail to do when I really need it. ;)
No edit function here. :(
True sceptic,
You say blogs are not evidence, perhaps you ought to mention that to all the posters who constantly reference Real Climate both here and elsewhere.
Seriously, though, it is only blogs like Climate Audit that have actually taken a serious look at the statistical methods used by Mann, and now Rahmstorf. Climate scientists have basically just accepted what the former said and based their own papers on it. Remember Jolliffe said that Mann's approach was difficult to justify.
Seriously, though, it is only blogs like Climate Audit that have actually taken a serious look at the statistical methods used by Mann, and now Rahmstorf. Climate scientists have basically just accepted what the former said and based their own papers on it. Remember Jolliffe said that Mann's approach was difficult to justify.
look, plenty of statistical methods are rather complicated, have drawbacks and might causer problems.
but:
Since 2008, the anomalies have actually decreased.
there simply is ZERO reason, to start a one year trend on climate. that is pure insanity.
Hey Dave Andrews, have you ever visited another statistician other than Climate Audit?
Well, there's a DaveA who posts there regularly who is indistinguishable from Dave Andrews here. Same vacuum-headed nonsense.
"Tim, your analysis is incisive but marginally off-target, the text and numbers are Pielkian, however the 'Flat' annotation was added by the proprietor of the Science Blog of the Year, Professor Anthony Watts. Curiously, I downloaded the data behind the graph, plotted the OLS trend for the 'flat' portion and discovered a trend of +1.5mm/year, what could this possibly mean?"
Watts is Pielke's and McIntyre's useful idiot. Things that they would find to embarrasing to openly state, he does for them. They do the "Dog Whistle", Watt's comes running.
Seriously, though, it is only blogs like Climate Audit that have actually taken a serious look at the statistical methods used by Mann, and now Rahmstorf. Climate scientists have basically just accepted what the former said and based their own papers on it. Remember Jolliffe said that Mann's approach was difficult to justify.
Believe it or not, science itself is always taking a long hard look at the accepted science and trying to find holes in it. This is an ongoing process, and it has proved itself to work over time. The case against AGW, however, has been pathetic. The papers by Beck and Miskolczi have been so bad no scientist would bother wasting his time to criticise them.
McIntyre has taken the cowards way out. He openly supports the junk by hosting it on his website, by patronising Watts who will take any 'evidence', no matter how bad, but not openly supporting it himself. He just confines himself to nasty slurs and innuendo, under the guise of 'auditing' the science. The scientific method is self auditing. If you think a paper is rubbish, you publish your own paper that proves you to be right, and the personal attacks are left out of the process.
48 Dave Andrews,
Yes, RC is a blog but it is a blog written by scientists, you know, the ones who actually do peer reviewed science. Articles there are based on real science.
(And RC would not need to exist if it wasn't for all the lying tripe produced by those you uncritically admire.)
So, where's that evidence?
Funnily enough, I've read a huge number of peer reviewed papers in atmospheric science, and never seen them reference a blog. Maybe this is how the vast global warming conspiracy is able to propagate... no one allows blogs as a credible reference in literature. Just show's that they're silencing dissent... and also that Al Gore is fat.
If Dave Andrews wants to see how science does it, here is one example, and here is another. Note that 'auditin' is not the way it is done.
crash,
"If you think a paper is rubbish, you publish your own paper that proves you to be right",
Show me an example of where that has happened in climate science in the last however many years. Or is it in the assertions by posters on RC and Open Mind, for example, that it is time to 'move on' from MBH98/99.
Does the scientific process not accept any responsibility for the errors it produces and the consequent knock on effect in the wider world?
Despite the fact that Mann's hockey stick was shown to be defective the IPCC still included a version of it in AR4. Where is your 'pure' scientific method in that?
TrueSceptic,
Well Gavin is obviously so busy writing scientific papers that GISS can't afford more than 0.25 WTE over a year to quality control its temperature
TrueSceptic,
Well Gavin is obviously so busy writing scientific papers that GISS can't afford more than 0.25 WTE over a year to quality control its temperature estimates.
Mind you, perhaps he's just running a blog.
Dave Andrews @57 writes:
Newtonian physics were shown to be defective, but are close enough to approximate many interactions. [Mann et al](http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/english/wg1figts-5.htm) didnât get everything right in 1999, but their errors did not drastically affect the results. AR4 shows Mann et al along side a [comprehensive range]( http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-6-10.jpg) of temperature reconstructions.
Dave Andrews:
Perhaps they wanted to show how significant or otherwise the 0.1 deg C or less bias in Mann's hockey stick was compared with the TEN OTHER MORE UP-TO-DATE RECONSTRUCTIONS ALSO SHOWN. What sort of obsessive-compulsive disorder does it take to focus on only one of eleven sources of information used by the IPCC? Perhaps the IPCC has no interest in people suffering from psychological disorders.
> "If you think a paper is rubbish, you publish your own paper that proves you to be right",
>
> Show me an example of where that has happened in climate science in the last however many years.
>
> Posted by: Dave Andrews
Or in other words, "No, I'm too scared!!!".
You won't, because all you've got, DA, is your irrational belief system that companies MUST NOT be interfered with and therefore AGW is wrong.
Mark -
Slight error in Newtonian Physics? OMG!! That means that if I drop an apple, it must (by denialist logic) be just as likely to fly up into the air as hit the ground..
Actually, Andrew, by denialist creed, it WILL fly up into the air and WILL NOT hit the ground.
Remember: DA/Roy think that since there are some unknowns AGW WILL NOT HAPPEN.
How they know that about the unknown is, itself, unknowable (which doesn't in this case either mean that DA/Roy are wrong).
Shorter Dave Andrews:
McIntyre and McKitrick's paper correcting Mann et al. was actually published... but this only proves that the scientific community crushes dissent like the Inquisition!
>Shorter Dave Andrews:
>Posted by: bi -- IJI
You forgot: any papers that correct McIntyre and McKitrick even if they are published are not proof that they got it wrong. That only works for McIntyre and McKitrick.
Pielke was responding to the claim that climate metrics are "progressing faster than was expected a few years ago."
Pielke showed this statement to be false. He said nothing about long-term stabilization, cooling, or implications. It was just a simple answer to a simple, incorrect statement.
> Pielke was responding to the claim that climate metrics are "progressing faster than was expected a few years ago."
>
> Posted by: wo-c
Except that wasn't the statement.
Changes now recorded have tracked the top end of the projections. Hence, have gone faster than expected, the expected rate to have been in the middle.
Mark:
stefan wrote, "Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago â such as rising sea levels, the increase of heat stored in the ocean and the shrinking Arctic sea ice" in the initial post, [here](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/a-warning-from-co…)
Pielke quoted this segment, and replied to each point in his intial response, [here](http://climatesci.org/2009/06/30/real-climates-misinformation/)
Mark,
Well, it's obviously up to you to *prove* that that **never** happens. ;)
TrueSceptic:
Nope. Pielke never argued that this temporary stabilization has any implications. In fact, he says it may just be a short-term deviation. This may occur from time to time, superimposed on a longer trend. This, however, does not excuse inaccurate statements.
wo-c,
The complete quote is:
Rahmsdorf was talking about robust long term projections, not statistically insignificant short term variability. A distinction whose failure to comprehend seems to be a modus operandi of Dr. Pielke.
luminous beauty:
"Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster..."
Read that statement a few times.
Progressing implies the present, not the future.
Rahmstorf goes on to talk about projections increasing, however this is unrelated to the previous statement.
In your dreams.
Rahmsdorf clarifies his position:
What one infers from some ambiguity in a statement is not necessarily what the author implies.
In this case, the author has made it absolutely clear he made no such implication.
wo-c is an idiot. (a reasonable inference)
#76
And the "warmer" casts the first stone at the "denier", again. The public despises arrognace, hence why AGW is so low in polls.
Its funny as smart as you all think you are, you do not understand human nature. If we have climate catastrosphe due to AGW, it will be the fault of yours equally, because of your arrognace.
Shorter Living Right in CA:
The people calling for action are to blame for inaction because inactivists are (supposedly) higher in polls.
> The public despises arrognace, hence why AGW is so low in polls.
> Posted by: Living_Right_in_CA
Which polls?
Heartland Institute ones?
WUWT ones?
luminous beauty -
#75: That was not a clarification. That comment merely said that the report compares observations with models, and does not deal with short-term trends. In the first post, Rahmstorf discusses in the past "few years" (i.e. short term trends). This must mean that Rahmstof's original comment had nothing to do with the report, which I would agree with. However, this still leaves Rahmstorf with a false statement.
#76: There is no ambiguity.
The difference between "will progress" and "is progressing" is clear.
To a climate scientist, there is no such thing as a "short term trend". To claim that Rahmstorf was talking about statistically insignificant intervals is stupid. No one who understands that "short term trend" is an oxymoron when discussing climate misunderstood Rahmstorf's statement. Except for RP, Sr. and he did so intentionally, I'm sure.
In other words, wo-c claims that lying-by-quote-mine is a virtue, not a sin.
What other forms of lying does wo-c believe are virtuous?
#78 No that is not the point I was trying to make.
Americans are turned off by arrogant, condescending, snotty attitudes. It does not matter if your 100% accurate if that is your attitude you will never have the public in this country on your side.
So wo-c comes in here and tries to have a discussion on the opposite side of topic. Wo-c never implied insult or directly insulted anyone, yet in no time has earned the names of "idiot" and a "liar".
And no one here sees a problem with this?
dhogaza #81:
So Rahmstorf couldn't have meant that observations in the past few years were relevant because that would be too stupid.
So when said he said "Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than we expected a few years ago...," he meant what?
Rahmstorf is explicitly discussing the report. It is the subject of the post.
The phrase 'a few years ago' refers directly to expectations, nothing to do with short term trends. The difference between present and past expectations is clear.
Additional evidence confirming the hypothesis that wo-c is an idiot, with which I would agree.
Rahmstorf is explicitly discussing the report. It is the subject of the post.
The phrase 'a few years ago' refers directly to expectations, nothing to do with short term trends. The difference between present and past expectations is clear.
Additional evidence confirming the hypothesis that wo-c is an idiot, with which I would agree.
Cry me a river.
If wo-c makes idiotic nonsense, I'm calling it idiotic nonsense.
With all due respect, you and all the concern trolls you represent can go take a flying fuck at a rolling donut.
luminous beauty.
He's saying that observations are outpacing projections that were made a few years ago. No?
#88 Nice, thanks for proving my point.
Nice site Tim, filled with science and reason...
No. He's saying new projections using additional observations and improved physics are supplanting older projections. It's all in the report.
> Nice site Tim, filled with science and reason...
> Posted by: Living_Right_in_CA
You have nothing to fear but what you bring into these pages...
Mark,
Why don't you keep your cod philosophysing about people you know nothing about to yourself?
It would certainly improve your boorish rating.
Normally I love the taste of word salad, but I'm all out of thousand island. Does anyone have the faintest idea what #94 is supposed to mean? It looks like someone trained a Markov generator with transcripts of snooty British cocktail parties.
Living_Right_in_CA Makes a point that has nothing to do with science, but everything to do with inaction vs action.
For people who are bamboozled by the facts, a fraction may be suade by the non-facts aspects. E.g politeness.
Thus it is an effective trolling technique to throw nonsense into an issue to create confusion, which 1) creates a sense of doubt for those who donât understand the argument; and 2) frustrates those who see the nonsense sophistry. Someone who has seen such nonsense so often may give in to the urge to call the perpetrator an idiot.
Thus a fraction of the lurkers confused by the points of contention may be instead convinced by the competition of politeness.
What was meant by this? Ask [the authors.](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/more-bubkes/)
Wo-c writes:
Did he? Or did he assert it to be false using a graph with the word âflatâ? And by ignoring the significant paper by Domingues et al., Nature 2008 reconciling temperature changes for several decades (and showing the increasing the rate of warming). And by making the statement that âsince 2008, the [sea ice] anomalies have actually decreased.â?
Since 2008? Is that serious or sophistry?
Yeah right Tim. What about the IPPC 4th assessment fudges.
Selectively including and excluding data. Its a disgrace.
Can you back you claims Billy Bob? Or are making baseless assertions?
> Can you back you claims Billy Bob? Or are making baseless assertions?
> Posted by: MAB
The second one, though it's a long word and he won't understand what it means...
> It would certainly improve your boorish rating.
> Posted by: Dave Andrews
There's a whole SHIPYARD of wood in your eye there, DA.
> Thus a fraction of the lurkers confused by the points of contention may be instead convinced by the competition of politeness.
And if you treat their insane rambling diatribe, many will be convinced there is still some real debate going on.
And how come that isn't a problem with denialists going "It's just a way for the scientists to get grant money" which is
a) rude
b) not an argument that it is wrong
c) wrong
I don't remember anyone saying "well, if you're going to claim that some people are committing fraud with no evidence, I guess I'll abandon the skeptic side and side with the scientists you so rudely slandered".
It is a problem, but not one I can influence, except expose in the most articulate way that I can.
71 wo-c,
I was replying to post 64 and forgot to include the number. I always *try* to do that, to avoid misunderstandings. I failed. ;)
> It is a problem, but not one I can influence, except expose in the most articulate way that I can.
> Posted by: MAB
I've never seen it happen, so I don't see there IS a problem.
Answer questions and if those answers seem to disappear into a black hole, stop being nice.
Nice to begin with, since they ARE asking.
Buf it they're wasting your time, they aren't being nice themselves.
And if you've already turned all cheeks available, you throw the moneylenders out, to misuse a parable...
:)
Obviously Pielke Sr has joined The Flat Earth Society!
Okay, I know this thread is a year old, but since Tim just linked to it I'm going to comment anyway.
The funny thing is, with a year of additional data, we have a more direct test of Pielke's claim wrt sea level.
His claim of course was based on the favorite denialist technique of cherry-picking an outlying data point (in this case, from early 2006), pretending as if it's the baseline, and declaring that since the outlier hasn't yet been exceeded, the trend is flat (or even down). You just have to ignore any and all statistics, smoothing, or long-term trends.
Well, even ignoring those things, it turns out that in early 2010, that data point was exceeded and a new record was set. But I guess in Pielke's world, this just sets a new baseline from which sea level has been dropping ever since...