"Science is facts; just as houses are made of stone, so is science made of facts. But a pile of stones is not a house, and a collection of facts is not necessarily science." -Jules Henri Poincaré
The higher you fall from, the faster you'll be moving when you hit the ground.
Image credit: Marianne Holland.
Seems like the most obvious thing in the world. You know this intuitively, of course, based on all your experience in the world. Drop an egg from too great a height and it breaks.
While you wouldn't be afraid to jump off of a diving board like the one above, jumping from a greater height might give you cause to worry.
Image credit: s2wghqu at glogster.
Because even though you've never done it, you presume that if you jump from too great a height, you may break when you reach the end of your jump.
So how do you know whether it's safe or not? How do you know whether you're too high to safely jump?
Believe it or not, this is what makes science, and what makes scientists out of us.
Image credit: Hulton Archive/Getty Images.
We're all taught some grand myth about the scientific method, like there's one fixed way to do science.
Stripping away all the pretensions, all that science really is is the way we make sense of this world.
If this thing happens, what's going to happen next? Well, you don't just sit around and talk about it, pontificating on what you think, you go out and investigate it. You make observations and measurements about the different things that happen when you test it out under different conditions.
Image credit: flickr user Steve Szyslak.
Perhaps you eventually learn that there are, in fact, some heights that you simply cannot safely jump from, and even, quantitatively what those heights are. And when you're satisfied with what you've found, you can synthesize all your findings together, and say something that sounds profoundly intelligent and informed, like:
The higher you fall from, the faster you'll be moving when you hit the ground.
And this grand statement, that pulls all your investigations, observations, measurements and experience together, describes not only the experiences you've already recorded, but extrapolates to a more general case, and allows you to make predictions about what's going to happen for things you have not yet experienced.
And when you've reached this point, you have the beginnings of what can finally be called a scientific theory. You can start to predict, if you set up a system in a certain way, what it's going to do next! If it does what your theory says, that's evidence confirming your theory. But every theory has its limits, or a point where it breaks down.
Image credit: Skydive Spaceland.
For this particular example, the theory breaks down when an object hits terminal velocity, when the drag force (from air resistance, in this case) cancels out the gravitational force that accelerated you downwards. At this point, it doesn't matter how much higher you fall from, you won't go any faster.
But, of course, science has done better. Rather than a qualitative statement like the one above, we can determine, based on an accurate description of all the forces involved (including gravity, air resistance, wind speed, etc.), exactly how fast and in what direction -- at any given time -- a falling object is moving. Quantitatively.
Figure credit: Timothy John Mallow's excellent article.
And each time we test this theory under novel conditions or circumstances, we either get a great confirmation that our best theory is good in a new way, or we find that there's more to the story than our theory can account for.
And for most of human history, science has progressed incredibly slowly.
Image credit: "Epistola de magnete," from Oxford, Bodleian Library.
Magnetism was first discovered in the 1200s (by Pierre de Maricourt), but it wasn't until the 1800s that its connection with electricity and electric charge was understood, and it wasn't until very recently that the quantum mechanics underlying magnetism were successfully described.
None of the subsequent discoveries made the earlier theories wrong, they simply discovered the limitations of those earlier ideas, and went beyond them.
Animation credit: wikimedia user Brian0918.
It isn't like biology started with the discovery of the fundamental source of our genetic code. Before the structure and function of DNA was known, scientists still knew plenty about genetics and inherited traits. If we bred certain living things together with certain traits, we were long able to predict what sorts of traits the population of offspring would have.
Image credit: S. Metzing-Blau.
And before genetics -- the mechanism by which living things inherit traits -- we were still able to determine that the traits of living creatures changed over time, including the major mechanism by which it happens.
Image credit: Benjamin Cummings / Pearson Education.
And even before Darwinian evolution took hold as the leading scientific theory, animal husbandry had been practiced by humans -- breeding animals and selecting for certain desirable traits -- for over 10,000 years!
Image credit: Zenodot Verlagsgesellschaft mbH and The Yorck Project.
Of course, science knows too much these days for any one person to truly be an expert in all of the details in all fields. That's why we have scientific experts, who do know the relevant details in their fields. If there's an alternative theory to evolution, it needs to not only explain the phenomena currently explained by evolution, it needs to accomodate genetics, DNA, and everything else that's been built upon evolution.
The same goes for the Universe.
Image credit: edited by me, retrieved from GrandUnificationTheory.com.
At one point in the past, the Big Bang was not even the leading theory of the beginning stages of our Universe. But as observations came in -- of the cosmic microwave background, of galaxy evolution, of the initial abundances of the elements -- the alternatives fell by the wayside, unable to keep up. Today, the Big Bang model predicts all sorts of phenomena -- gravitational lensing, large-scale cosmic structure, fluctuations in the microwave background, etc. -- found to solidly align with observables in a robust way that no alternative does.
Image credit: Earth from Space, NASA / ISS / STS-117.
Getting a scientific consensus on any issue is incredibly difficult, because the evidence needs to be stunningly overwhelming. If there are multiple reasonable explanations that fit the data even marginally well, you won't get it.
We're skeptical. We don't believe explanations because they sound plausible. We observe. We calculate. We predict. We prod our theories and twist them in novel ways; we probe to the edge of their range of validity and beyond. We demand replications of experiments, and quantitative accuracy for a theory's predictions.
But if all of the alternatives are grossly inferior -- like they are for evolution and the Big Bang -- you'll find that over 95% of scientific experts in that particular field will, in fact, agree. And when those facts pose a danger to public health and safety, it's more important than ever.
Because you may not die if you disbelieve the Big Bang; you'll simply be wrong, and miss out on a deep and profound understanding of your origins and existence. (Which you are free to do as you choose, of course.) But if you decide to taste-test mercury or lead, or smoke a carton of cigarettes a day, or breathe heavily polluted air or ingest microscopic quantities of polonium, the consequences are much more dire. And so it goes with the Earth as well.
Image credit: NASA GISS, retrieved from skepticalscience.com.
The case for global warming and global climate change has -- among those scientists who study it -- reached that level of consensus. I've encountered a great deal of skepticism over email and on this blog, and although I've been more than happy to write about the details I understand well, I myself am not a climate scientist, so I don't get to be part of the experts who weigh in on its validity. I have to trust the experts, and the consensus they do reach.
And basically, there are four simple components of the consensus:
- The Earth is getting warmer, and the warming is accelerating.
- This warming is primarily due to human emission of greenhouse gases.
- If the emission of greenhouse gases continues unabated, this will continue to force the Earth's average temperature to rise. As a consequence, the icecaps will melt, the sea level will rise, and the climate across many regions of the world will change dramatically.
- And finally, these happenings -- and the ensuing natural disasters that arise from them (flooding, drought, etc.) -- are bad things that we can and should do something about in order to avoid them.
Photo credit: Stig Nygaard.
The consensus is incredibly solid on the first three of these points is extremely solid (at the above 95% level I brought up earlier), and although I haven't heard anyone (notable) contest the fourth point, it is possible that there are those who contend otherwise.
The second and third points are very difficult to contest scientifically as well, because humans have measurably emitted more than a trillion of tonnes of greenhouse gases, which demonstrably cause an increase in temperature in the same fashion that wrapping yourself in blankets causes an increase in your temperature. The physics is so simple and straightforward that -- short of the problem of quantitatively modeling the magnitude of the temperature increase associated with increases in greenhouse gases -- there is no wiggle-room to dispute it and still be scientifically sound.
So those who call themselves climate change skeptics have instead focused on the first point: trying to refute that the Earth's temperature is rising, and that it's rising at an increasing rate. Recently, Richard Mueller, noted climate skeptic, led a project to measure and scrutinize all the previous measurements of global average temperature, and to test just how confident we should be in declarations from NOAA, NASA's GISS, and other sources that the Earth's global temperature has been rising. The results?
Image credit: Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, as is the image and video below.
This merged database of temperature data contains 1.6 billion records, all of which are accessible at www.BerkeleyEarth.org. You can also access the full text of their four papers submitted for peer review, and check out their Summary results. As you can see, they confirm with great precision the results of the previous studies, showing a rise over the past 60 years of an average of 1 degree Celsius, with the rise accelerating over the past 30 years.
From the summary report itself, Mueller himself had this to say:
Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the U.S. and the U.K. This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change skeptics did not seriously affect their conclusions.
Many others have reported on this study, and you should check them out if you have a chance. (Keep an eye out for moving goalposts.) You can also see, in incredible video detail, just how the temperature has changed over time across all monitored regions the Earth.
Although there have been many times where scientists are later found to be mistaken, science is the best -- and perhaps the only -- legitimate way to make physical sense of the world and Universe around us. So do something about it; it's your world, too!
- Log in to post comments
More like this
All of you are going to have to provide your own hook to get hauled offstage around here. I'd do it ASAP, for the sake of Ethan's website and your own sanity.
(Is that #500?! Yaay--)
Evidently I made it too simple for you.
The University of Virginia is a public institution supported by the taxpayers. In that respect, it is like the Department of Motor Vehicles...a state institution maintained, in part, by the state.
Public funds disbursed through the university for research are subject to the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act. If, for example, a researcher attempting to prove Creationsim is true commits fraud in furthering his research and obtains state funds or uses state resources [the university is a state resource] then he may be pursued for recovery under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act.
The attorney general is the highest state law enforcement officer and may investigate and pursue possible fraud under the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act. That is what the attorney general is doing in Virginia and that is why he is seeking emails and documents generated by Michael Mann related to his research. The AG is not seeking Mann's purely personal emails--at least not at this point.
It should be apparent to you that an investigation of this nature is not an FOIA action. That would be a different legal action. In Virginia an action can also be pursued under the Open Records Act which the ATI has done with some, but not complete, success.
Nor is it a qui tam action which is usually brought by a private party on behalf of the government.
In the AG's investigation, a state grant in the amount $214,700 made, in part, on previous research that has been called into question is the focus of the inquiry.
It may come to nothing; there may nothing amiss; but both the University of Virginia and Mann are resisting the state's subpoena in court.
If the state [taxpayers] pay for it, they should have access to it.
I should add that University of Virginia and Mann are both arguing that the documents are protected by academic freedom.
That argument may gain some traction, but the fact remains that none of their material is actually privileged [protected from discovery as are attorney-client communications, therapist-patient communications, and the like], so they may ultimately have to be disclosed in an investigation for possible fraud.
The enormous amount of money and zealotry connected with environmental issues may have tempted some researchers over the line. For example, Charles Monnett of polar bear fame, has been investigated for scientific fraud. Recently, too, a couple of researchers with the U.S. Department of Fish & Wildlife service were soundly rebuked by a federal judge who found that their research was unworthy of public trust. Before their misconduct was discovered, billions of gallons of water were diverted to preserve the delta smelt and entire orchards withered and died. Nobody who was injured by their misconduct has gotten around to bringing a legal action against the researchers [maybe under the Federal Tort Claims Act since they were federal employees], but I would not rule it out. Scientific fraud or misconduct that causes substantial economic damage is a relatively new field in the law and it may take a little while before litigators begin to focus directly on the researchers themselves. At that point, crying 'academic freedom' will probably do them more harm than good. Academic freedom is not evidentiary privilege and it is not a shield against a tort action.
If one knows his research is not true, and if he knows that his conclusions will cause economic harm to others when those conclusions are accepted and acted upon, why should he get any more protection than any other con man?
Just a heads up to those of you who think your workplace emails are private. WOW can believe whatever he wants.
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy [no legal right to privacy] on workplace computers and that is particularly true if you are working for a government agency.
Bear in mind that emails saved by an employer's system may pulled and examined and used against you if some unrelated issue arises with respect to your continued employment.
Also, if you are fudging on scientific research your emails may cause you problems at some point. See Climategate.
Be careful.
http://public.findlaw.com/internet/email-privacy.html
If you do research, you don't want this to happen to you:
Quoth the judge:
âThe court finds that Dr. Norrisâs testimony, as it has been presented in this courtroom and now in her subsequent declarations, she may be a very reasonable person and she may be a good scientist, she may be honest, but she has not been honest with this court. I find her incredible as a witness. I find her testimony to be that of a zealot. Iâm not overstating the case, Iâm not being histrionic, Iâm not being dramatic. Iâve never seen anything like it. And Iâve seen a few witnesses testify.â
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/21/more-interior-scientists-are-…
And even if you're not fudging on scientific research your emails may cause you problems at some point. See Climategate.
Ah, yes. So lets have a look at all YOUR emails, Rachel.
I'm sure we can find something to cause you problems.
And I find that in every single case, each one who DEMANDS the climate scientists emails because emails aren't private LOATHE Wikileaks leaking US government or industry information.
Double standards on steroids!
From findlaw:
"This agreement normally deprives an employee of any reasonable expectation of privacy, and means that your emails are fair game for an employer to search through."
You're not his employer.
The AG isn't his employer.
His employer is the University.
"The University of Virginia is a public institution supported by the taxpayers"
And apparently "you aren't the employer of the university employees" was far too complex a thought.
Corporations are supported by the taxpayers. You're supported by the taxpayers.
Can us taxpayers get all your emails?
Apparently, WOW cannot tell the difference between a corporation like Shell and the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles.
Submitting a false claim for payment to Shell may be simple fraud, but submitting a false claim to the Virginia DMV or any other agency of the state also brings one into the reach of the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act and at risk for being investigated by the attorney general. That is what the AG is trying to investigate in Mann's situation. If he finds it likely that Mann's application for a grant was based, in whole or in part, on less than honest information, the AG may proceed to actual civil litigation to recover damages under VFATA. Once that litigation is commenced [if ever] standard discovery rules come into play.
As for personal email privacy once litigation has begun, forget it. Even your personal diary is potentially discoverable [subject to release].
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) states:
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense â including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.
State discovery procedures generally mirror the federal rule. If it is potentially relevant and not priviledged it is discoverable.
My hope is that more 'scientists' whose dedication to a cause exceeds their dedication to the truth start to learn the hard way how discovery rules may probe their records.
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense â including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.
No, I can tell the difference all right.
It seems you can't understand what "employer" means.
"Submitting a false claim for payment to Shell may ... blah blah blah..."
But it still doesn't mean you get to demand their emails.
Now, how will going through every single email of the Shell employee show that fraud has been committed?
It won't.
"That is what the AG is trying to investigate in Mann's situation."
Nope. He's not asking for evidence, he's fishing.
This is illegal. You DO know what "Barratry" is, don't you?
"If he finds it likely that Mann's application for a grant was based, in whole or in part, on less than honest information"
Except he won't find it in the emails.
And he's still not the employer.
"As for personal email privacy once litigation has begun, forget it."
As for demanding a fishing expedition, forget it. You're not allowed to rummage through effects just to see if there's anything to find.
"Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense"
Except no defense is claimed because no accusation has been made to defend against.
You have no clue about what the FOIA covers, do you.
WOW does not understand. No surprise there.
I already explained that the AG's investigation and request for emails is not being done under FOIA. He does not need to use FOIA since he is a law enforcement officer [highest in the state]conducting an investigation.
As for FOIA, it may go further than you think. Latest news is that Judicial Watch [a private organization] used FOIA to obtain damning emails written by attorneys working for the National Labor Relations Board [NLRB] a government agency in respect to their dealings with Boeing. They were mocking the company and joking about destroying thousands of jobs. I bet that they never thought those emails would get loose. Expect at least a couple of those lawyers to be 'spending more time with the family' soon.
I am thinking of filing an FOIA request with the lunatic asylum you probably are in. Wouldn't help, though, because information passed between a psychiatrist and his patient actually is privileged. What's your diagnosis? Bipolar?
Rachelle @490
You do get the product, unless you have an idiosyncratic idea of what 'the product' might be.
BTW, can you identify a single thing that any denier (what you would call a sceptic) has ever done with anything revealed by a FOI request concerning climate? The evidence from the missing output is that they are intended only to interfer with productive work.
Richard,
Do you remember when the U.S. health service proclaimed it had discovered the AIDS virus?
From your point of view, the information they released was all the 'product' the taxpayers who were paying them was entitled to receive.
As it it turned out, French researchers had actually made the discovery and the U.S. scientists attempted to gain the credit.
If someone, public agency or private company, pays for extensive research on any matter they are entitled to much more than a bare conclusion. They should get methods, techniques, byproducts, serendiptious discoveries, and so forth. One is paying for a research package, not a conclusion. Indeed, when as an undergraduate I worked in a corporate research lab, everything I produced belonged to the company. I knew it and so did everyone else who worked there. They paid for me, they paid for my space, they paid for my equipment--what I produced was theirs. If I didn't like it, I needed to go somewhere else.
In any event, there is no point on speculating on what should be. The Virginia AG will get what he is entitled to receive in pursuit of his investigation as allowed by law. Whether you think he should get it or not makes little difference. It isn't your decision. Nor is it mine. It is the judge's decision. It is no longer important what the faculty lounge thinks.
If that information leads the AG to conclude that he has a civil case for fraud, then he will likely commence an action against Mann. Once a formal action is on then discovery proceedings commence. At that point, Mann may also be compelled to reveal many of his private emails if it appears that he has been using them as a back channel for information that would ordinarily be subject to FOIA requests.
The pattern of dodging FOIA requests, and the revealed emails calling for the deletion of old emails may not mean much to those in the science community, but it is fresh spoor for litigators on the hunt.
Personally, I am coming to the conclusion that reckless researchers whose reports cause economic damage should be found liable. The two who were rebuked by the federal judge in the delta smelt case, for example, should face some penalties for the damages they caused and that, in the exercise of due care, they should have known would be caused by letting their zealotry cloud their reports.
I still haven't heard anything from Rachelle about what was actually hidden and why. Her smear campaign must be keeping her awfully busy.
Well, it looks like this thread won't die, and there's too much that needs to be said that has transpired in the aftermath of this post.
New post coming soon on this topic; feel free to head on over when it goes live.
Rachelle @ 514:
And if it does not, as the five previous independent investigations have concluded, then they will try again another way. Rinse, lather, repeat.
Why might reasoning people conclude this? Well, explain how a small-scale, failed, money-losing-for-the-subject land deal in Arkansas led to a presidential impeachment over testimony about a sexual relationship with an intern in the White House years later.
You think you are clever, sweetie, just asking questions and all that. But the fact is you are just a dim witted shill for very rich bullies who have no interest in facts, no interest in truth, no interest in reality. All they have is an interest in metaphorical heads on pikes to impress on people the message of "Don't Fuck With The Rich."
Rachelle: does your abandoning of the claims about high medieval temperatures, increasing polar bear populations, widely inaccurate forecasts, etc mean that you accept that you were mistaken, or will they pop up again to a different audience who are less well-informed?
How about showing us something, anything that denialists have done with the data released under FOIA?
PS: My grammar is usually better than that :-(
Here is something useful on FOIA requests I came across by accident. I am not going to do research for you.
It appears Hansen failed to disclose this income and it was revealed by an FOIA request.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/foia-reveals-nasas-h…
Also amusing by an attorney who does FOIA requests and has been branded a 'climate criminal'.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/11/confessions-foia-c…
Rachelle, you are a dishonorable smear merchant, and the record of your own exposed lies in just this one thread permanently destroys your credibility.
If you are at all less of a sociopath in real life than your Internet persona displays, now is the time to prove that by apologizing and then shutting up.
Rachelle, you are a dishonorable smear merchant, and the record of your own exposed lies in just this one thread permanently destroys your credibility.
If you are at all less of a sociopath in real life than your Internet persona displays, now is the time to prove that by apologizing and then shutting up.
TTT said:
"Rachelle, you are a dishonorable smear merchant, and the record of your own exposed lies in just this one thread permanently destroys your credibility."
Did I say something you didn't like?
TTT, WOW, and assorted others,
One thing that is striking about this thread is not only the complete intolerance for any view but one's own, but also the highly emotional, almost rabid, intolerance of different views.
Name calling seems scarcely to suffice for you, and I can almost imagine your pitching on the floor and chewing the edge of your carpets as The Leader was said to have done. But then, there has been a thoroughly fascist component to 'warming' extremists for rather a long while.
I don't, of course, put someone who simply makes a strong argument for warming in that thuggish group. That's the way science is supposed to work. But the verbal violence and threats are what they are--plain old fascism.
I know it when I see it.
Worth noting:
"For those choosing to live off the taxpayer, FOIA requests are a condition of employment. Even academics sign up for them when accepting their job. At the University of Virginia, that is literally true, where faculty sign the âUse of Electronic Communications and Social Media: Certificate of Receipt.â
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/11/confessions-foia-c…
Rachelle @ 525:
...and the pearl clutching comes out. Turns on a dime from hard-hitting skeptic to Aunt Pittypat.
Right out of the playbook.
Followed, of course, by:
Right off the next page of the playbook. Next there should be accusations of socialism/communism/wealthy envy, followed once again by quote-mining, cherry-picking of data and misrepresentation of the actual words of serious researchers.
Rinse, lather, repeat.
Sweetie, the reason you can recognize fascism is because you see it in the mirror every morning. You think you are doing your masters a favor; too late will you realize you were, in the words of another power hungry sort, just another "useful idiot".
The most striking thing about this thread is how closely it parallels the anti-science campaign against climate science. It begins with assertions that not only do not have evidence but are actually contradicted by extensive evidence, e.g. the assertion that the Medieval Warm Period was globally warmer than today, then after all the erroneous assertions are pointed out it finishes up with the smear campaign against the scientists whose evidence is so absolutely loathed. This is standard procedure for science denialism.
And yet there is this:
"The Medieval Warming period had temperatures that approached 1°C higher than current temperatures, in spite of lower CO2 levels."
I don't have to assert that the MWP is warmer or cooler than the present. My position is that the science is not settled and the 'consensus' is not at large as everyone assumes.
http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/06/2010-antarctica-peerreviewed-researc…
Also, this is interesting:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5922/1714.short
Chris O'Neill @ 528:
QFT.
After years in the creationism wars, it's become as easy to follow as a McGuffey Reader. I'm becoming convinced that the only real hope we have is that this behavior is highly weighted towards the Fox News demographic and those folks are aging out. That won't put a stop to True Believers⢠like Rachelle but without a large gullible group of supporters, she and her ilk will be more akin to the LaRoucheites than a serious impediment to reality acceptance.
Rachelle @525
You are in no position to complain about others.
As you no doubt read the paper you referred to in #529, I am sure you could tell us whether they determined global temperatures or merely for the polar plateau of eastern Antarctica. Also, you will be able to clarify whether by 'present day' they meant 1950, which I believe is the convention for paleoclimatological studies, or 2012.
Thank you in advance.
As I was saying:
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/wb/300698
Rachelle:
You might not have to but that didn't stop you of course:
So why did you do it? And please, spare us the disinformation citations. I'm talking about today and the whole world not 60 or more years ago and not a small sample of it.
And no-one is denying the world has been warmer in the distant past, even just 125,000 years ago. So please spare us the strawman arguments as well.
Simmons,
You folks remind me of nothing so much as the soi disant holy man who calculated the precise moment of the end of the world and led his flock under gound to safety, only to emerge blinking in the sunlight a few days later wondering why everything was still standing. "I must have made a mistake in my calculations." I would say so.
An alternative comparison would be to the believers that crop circles are made by aliens and promptly say upon learning that a couple of guys admitted to making them "That doesn't explain all of them!" Yeah, kind of it does.
My thesis is skepticism. Yours is iron-bound faith. I can change my opinion because skepticism is flexible by its nature and open to different opinions. You are trapped in yours forever and your rigid faith is beginning to make you seem as silly as the crop circle believers and the nutty holy man poring over his calculations to try to get the end date right after all.
The field of climate change is far too complex for the science to be settled.
Odd that people on a so-called science blog can't grasp that.
Odder still that you adopt the language of the Inquisition for anyone who dares to question 'received truth'.
@ 534 You better change your opinion to include the increasing likelihood of Global Warming, then. Or risk seeing those who "adopt the language of the Inquisition" vindicated and justified to go do their work of repression on a plane of far wider scope.
There are rational approaches toward deal with this difficult issue. But being Skeptical in the face of the growing disaster isn't one of them.
Answers are needed, fast. I am skeptical of the good faith of many of those who proclaim Global Warming, not their facts. The problem is that most of them will provide no answers beyond -- when you corner them about it -- more suppression of the world's economies and the premature launch of Green Technologies that cannot sustain themselves in the face of fossil fuels.
This opens the door to a scenario promoted by Leftists like my brother, who thinks that, because of greed and inability to face facts, we'll have to "ride out" Global Warming and emerge on the other side with a depleted world capable of sustaining much less population, mostly living in conditions of squalor and barbarism.
If nothing else, the rancorous defeatism of the Left shows that someone else needs to have skin in the game. If that someone else isn't going to come from the ranks of former Deniers and late-turning Skeptics, who is it going to come from -- the military? Wall Street?
It is very, very late for you to continue resisting undeniably dangerous events and conditions. The fact that continuing to do so also signs a political death warrant for "the side" you represents only makes it that much worse.
Rachelle:
Skeptics don't make false assertions such as:
You're a fake.
Rachelle @534
Give a link or apologise.
The rest of that comment was a non-responsive, emotion filled rant.
NJ @ 530:
Rachelle @ 534:
From a letter to the Talk Origins feedback for July 1999:
QED
Chris said:
"Rachelle:
My thesis is skepticism
Skeptics don't make false assertions such as:
we still--in this cycle--have not gotten as warm as were were in Roman times or in the Medieval warm period.
You're a fake."
Yes, that is what I believe, but I am open to the possibility that the MWP was not quite as warm as the present.
That makes no difference to my central point and the original idea behind this article--whether or not the science is settled. It is only 'settled' if, for example, you can prove beyond an scientific doubt that the MWP was not as warm as the present. On the other hand, my position only requires that the question [and many others like it] not yet be settled. My dog in this dispute is uncertainty, not that the MWP [or other issues] prove anthropogenic global warming exists or does not exist. My point is that it is uncertain and that the science is not settled. If the weight of the evidence points to the WMP being not as warm as the present, I am comfortable with that though I think, for the moment, that that is not true.
True to get this--the point is that the science is not settled. If I point to anyone who thinks the MWP was warmer and you point to someone thinks it was not, it only demonstrates what I have been saying--Not Settled.
Jack Dawe said:
"Answers are needed, fast. I am skeptical of the good faith of many of those who proclaim Global Warming, not their facts. The problem is that most of them will provide no answers beyond -- when you corner them about it -- more suppression of the world's economies and the premature launch of Green Technologies that cannot sustain themselves in the face of fossil fuels."
That is a very good point Mr. Dawe. The problem that you have not addressed is that it is out of our hands. China and India have little interest in controlling those things that might contribute to global warming. They say they do, but their actions suggest otherwise. What are we going to do, bomb them? Actually, many, many years ago I did a paper on this very issue. It seemed like science fiction and a bit out of it at the time, but I speculated on the possible reaction--including military action--if emerging (or struggling) economies continued to use filthy technologies that put the entire planet at peril. Among other things, I considered economic pressure and, ultimately, military intervention. That was a long, long time ago and the thought of any intervention of that sort was considered absurd. Yet, recently, I have seen that some have been calling for a UN military force to compel compliance on environmental issues. We aren't there yet, but it is no longer a bizarre idea. What I did not anticipate was that countries like India and China would become too powerful to be bullied by the West.
One thing that is becoming clear is that wealthier economies are better equipped to address these problems without massive loss of life than are developing countries. Destroying an economy because of a precautionary principle may prove to be suicidal for more reasons than one.
In any event, your raise thought-provoking issues. Thanks.
NJ @ 530 says:
"From a letter to the Talk Origins feedback for July 1999:"
What letter is that? Why quote it? It only further demonstrates my point--religious and dogmatic approaches to science are useless. So, does the author of that letter believe in anthropogenic warming? I don't see your point at all on this one.
Richard Simmons said"
"Give a link or apologise."
Don't be a child. Do you want me to wipe your tears and nose too?
Rachelle @539:
No it doesn't. It merely demonstrates that you are not the only ignoramus on the internet.
You accused me of adopting the language of the Inquisition, based on no evidence whatsoever. Your failure to provide a link demonstrates that you know full well that you are unable to justify the claim and your failure to apologise or to correct the errors of fact you have made demonstrates the lack of ethics I have come to expect from denialists. In short: you have shown yourself to be a dishonest piece of rubbish.
@ 540 There is one thing to consider, if the crisis continues and especially if it worsens, and that is the institution of temporary engineering measures to lower the solar input on the planet, and provide time for "alternate technologies" to come online and become more cost effective. This approach might vary from researching some way to increase the Earth's high-altitude atmospheric albedo, to the distribution of an aerosol shield in space to absorb some of the sunlight.
Long term, the only available answer to AGW is to cut back on carbon emissions through the mass application of alternate fuel systems and technologies. In this regard, leaning on China and India is less important than the West and esp. the US leading the way in doing what is right. We should demonstrate our commitment by example, not by threat.
Jack Dawe said:
"We should demonstrate our commitment by example, not by threat."
China isn't interested in our 'example' they think we (including Europe as was made clear when the Euros asked China to refill their rice bowl) lazy, inefficient slobs. If we destroy our economy with green policies they won't follow; they will just think we are stupid, lazy, inefficient slobs.
Rachelle @ 541:
Go to TalkOrigins.org. Click on the Feedback link. Next, click on the link for July 1999. Scroll down. Voila!
Answered by your next sentence:
Which was terribly ironic, as demonstrated below.
Irrelevant, since I was illustrating the marked similarity between your statement and that of the YEC author. As I quoted at the very beginning of comment #538, science denial whether evolution-focused or climate-focused, behaves the same way. Hence the use of the abbreviation QED at the end of the comment, something you may wish to Google so as to better understand conversations between educated adults.
No kidding. I have samples of quartz arenite in my office with more of a grasp of the points going on here.
@ 545 -I know a number of people -- some missions-connected, some business -- who have had dealings with the Chinese, and have described them as having a phobia about being thought crude, uncivilized, or in a lower moral position. I think if the West puts its best foot forward in this situation, the Chinese would follow -- they're already undercutting us in solar tech (subsidized by their govt, of course).
As for the Indians, they're more global-oriented than the Chinese to begin with, and would therefore be more suseptible to subtle, behind-the-scenes pressure.
We're the hold-up in breaking the AGW logjam, not the East. If we don't move toward dealing with it, no one will.
Mr Dawe,
What actually seems to be happening is that when we pile on regulations to the point they become unbearable, industries--and the pollution they generate--move to China or other points East or South. Jobs and pollution are simply moved and the net effect on the planet remains unchanged, or is increased. 'Leading by example' has been rotting the economies of Europe and America. The others aren't following so much as taking.
NJ asks at 541:
"So, does the author of that letter believe in anthropogenic warming?"
Don't know. Don't care.
@ 548 I'm not suggesting piling on more regulations. I'm suggesting enforcing the ones that are already on the book, and doing whatever it takes to make low CO2 emissions profitable. The business world can take it from there.
If it's successful, the East will follow. South and Central America's another, grimmer story altogether, but fortunately a sideshow to global developments.
Rachelle @549
Nuff said!
Rachelle:
No, skeptics do not just believe things either contrary to evidence or without evidence. And they don't state their beliefs without letting people know that it is their belief. Since you do these things you are not a skeptic.
Is that your belief too?
There is no such thing as 100% certainty in science. Why do bring up this strawman?
No you have not ever pointed to anyone with evidence that the MWP was globally warmer. There are absolutely no papers with evidence showing the GLOBAL AVERAGE was warmer. You have only ever pointed to papers showing warmer REGIONS. What do I have to do to get that point through to you?
O;Nell says:
"No you have not ever pointed to anyone with evidence that the MWP was globally warmer. There are absolutely no papers with evidence showing the GLOBAL AVERAGE was warmer. You have only ever pointed to papers showing warmer REGIONS. What do I have to do to get that point through to you?"
Actually, I linked above to an article in Science that concluded that the MWP was probably global.
It seems not to have occurred to you that since it is difficult to take global measures even today with modern equipment, it might be harder to reach a firm conclusion about the Medieval period. Necessarily, one relies on historical accounts and proxies. None of those could be global. And none could be very precise.
The evidence available points to a Medieval Warm Period. I don't know if it was global [but the author of the Science article--who believes in current global warming--thinks that it was] and I don't know whether it was warmer than today or not, but some argue that it was. Indeed, it is precisely the continuing uncertainty surrounding issues such as this that leads me to say that the science is not settled. Odd that you don't see that. Your position is faith based. And your ire is what one typically gets from fanatics when they encounter 'heretics'. Odd that you don't see that either. Calm down. Disagreement is not heresy.
Rachelle:
That paper did not say the MWP global average was warmer than today. One can always argue that the MWP was global in the sense that it increased the global average and increased temperature over large areas but that does not alter the fact that there are absolutely no papers with evidence showing the GLOBAL AVERAGE was warmer than today.
I repeat, no scientist argues with evidence that the MWP global average was warmer than today. Not Broecker, not anyone.
What a hypocrite you are. You have not provided one single scientific citation that the MWP global average was higher than today. Position without evidence is faith based.
I see that you're moving the goalposts again. I'm not interested in chasing your goalposts considering how devoid of logic you are when it comes to scientific debate about whether the evidence shows the global average temperature during the MWP was as high as today or not. You lost that point and I don't feel like being a masochist on anything else.
By the way, Broecker didn't provide evidence for a global MWP. He just said borehole evidence was consistent with a global MWP, and
and
Of course, true to form, anti-scientists like Rachelle like to use proof by inaccurate citation wherever possible.
O'Neill said:
"By the way, Broecker didn't provide evidence for a global MWP. He just said borehole evidence was consistent with a global MWP, and..."
True. There are two points at issue there. (1) Was the MWP global and (2) Was it warmer than the present. Sources are readily available who offer evidence for both propositions. That does not mean they are proven correct. It does mean that cogent, if not conclusive, arguments can be made that 1 and 2 are true.
One measure of the problem here is that if the evidence ultimately makes it certain beyond any rational doubt that the MWP was not global and/or not warmer than the present, my response is only, "Oh, so that is how it is. Good that we know now." I have no emotional investment in the outcome.
On the other hand, if the evidence ultimately proves with equal clarity that 1 and 2 are true, you and many other posters on this thread will be shattered because your entire belief system will be threatened.
The problem is that you are caught up in Cromwell's Rule. No matter what evidence or arguments are presented, you will always reach the same conclusion because for some deep emotional reason, you need to. Just like the crop circle people. At least y'all (English really needs a decent plural 2nd person) [including crop circlers] are consistent in your ability to repel doubt...and ultimately maybe truth.
Rachelle:
(1)Wrong and (2) Wrong. I pointed out that your citation for the former did not not offer that evidence and you haven't even attempted to supply a citation for the latter.
So why can't you tell the truth?
Your hypocrisy is staggering. There is evidence that global MWP temperature was lower than today, yet you still reach the conclusion that:
O'Neill asks:
"So why can't you tell the truth?"
You are beginning to sound stupid even for an epigone of Gore.
I can't tell the truth because my whole point is that the truth on the global warming issue is not settled.
Only dogmatic fools in the grip of an irrational faith know 'the truth'--or so they believe.
Maybe this Matt Ridley article in the WSJ will help you, but I sincerely doubt it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702045542045770238930883287…
Rachelle:
You're embarrassed that you falsely claimed there was evidence for your propositions and I called you out so true to form, out comes the name-calling.
So your belief that:
is justification to you for lying that there is evidence available for that belief. It's clear what your approach is. You believe something and then you lie that there is evidence for that belief. This behavior can be described by the statement:
O'Neill,
Certainly I have read that the MWP is warmer than the present and have held that impression. On the other hand, some above have called that into question and I recognize that there may be evidence to the contrary.
My saying so does not make me an admitted liar. It just means I am comfortable incorporating evidence that does not fit with my previous impressions.
The fact that the science on the MWP is not settled merely supports my contention--Not Settled.
In the meantime, looking to paleoclimate, now there is this from the Geophysical Research Letters revealing evidence that several times Greenland was much warmer 4,000 years ago than at the present. Was that because of too many cars??? Link below.
You have seen a Cross in the heavens and nothing will alter your opinion (Faith). You are a zealot. A crop circler. A head to the caves because the earth is ending tomorrow person.
I prefer to believe the issue is not settled because present techniques for measuring paleoclimate are new, imprecise and incomplete and because the 'models' don't seem to model much of anything but the 'researchers' desires...or in your case, Dogma.
What are you going to do if the Earth fails to warm in the next few years, walk through the streets whipping your back and crying, 'I have sinned.'
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf
O'Neill,
Just for your reference, here is Phil Jones, CRU, kind of the Pope of climate change responding to a question on BBC:
When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over", what exactly do they mean - and what don't they mean?
It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.
In other words, as I was saying, it isn't settled.
Rachelle:
Whoopee doo.
Back to the strawman arguments, I see.
So comfortable, in fact, that you continue to believe, contrary to all evidence that:
Yes I know all about your evidence that the science on the MWP is not settled:
i.e. you lie that there are sources for your claimed evidence and then you call me names for pointing out your lies.
You're a goldmine of fallacies, aren't you? Do you also think that because CO2 has been higher in the past that humans cannot be responsible for the 100 ppm increase in the past 200 years?
Faith I've seen around here that certainly didn't come from me is:
I wonder who that came from. Certainly wasn't me.
And on cue the name-calling comes out:
No you prefer to believe (contrary to evidence) that:
Of course these new, imprecise and incomplete techniques somehow mean that:
And on cue, the hypocritical name-call:
I agree, we're only 95% certain that climate sensitivity is greater than 2 deg C/CO2 doubling. Try telling me to get on a plane with only a 95% chance of crashing. It's not settled that it will crash. Fat lot of good not being settled will do.
"Certainly I have read that the MWP is warmer than the present"
Well, here you can read that the MWP is cooler than the present.
"In other words, as I was saying, it isn't settled."
Gravity isn't settled. Gonna jump off a bridge? Or is it settled enough to decide that you won't do that?
Go on. Jump. It's just a conspiracy by the airline industry.
Jump.
"It seems not to have occurred to you that since it is difficult to take global measures even today with modern equipment"
This doesn't stop you proclaiming that the record over 1000 years ago proves a global MWP warmer than today.
O'Neill asks:
"You're a goldmine of fallacies, aren't you? Do you also think that because CO2 has been higher in the past that humans cannot be responsible for the 100 ppm increase in the past 200 years?"
I imagine that humans are largely responsible for the sharp increase in CO2 in the last century or so.
What remains to be seen is whether it proves to be as potent in changing global temperature as was suggested. If you are following it, you know that even the people who claimed that CO2 would cause a sharp rise in temperature are baffled and a bit embarrassed that the predicted rise has not occurred. In any event, the article I linked above spoke to warmer temperatures in Greenland in the past 4,000 years than are seen at the present. No cars back then, so that suggests that there are other powerful forces at work on the climate.
Anyhow, the report on Greenland temperatures I cited wasn't a 'goldmine of fallacies' but a serious scientific report. Since you are in the grip of the Cromwell Rule, you ignore or dismiss anything that doesn't fit with your received faith.
As for the MWP, it makes no difference whether it was a degree or two warmer or cooler than the present. The fact that the MWP exists poses a problem for those who want to insist on anthropogenic warming. That, of course, is why some of the climategate folks erased the bump from some of their earlier presentations.
Careful, O'Neill, you are beginning to sound as unhinged as WOW and that isn't good.
@Rachelle:
"the report on Greenland temperatures"
Greenland isn't the world. Greenland sits in an oceanic milieu that is subject to extreme shifts due to shifts in oceanic current. Reports of rapid shifts in Greenland temperature shave precisely bupkis to do with global average temperatures.
"The fact that the MWP exists poses a problem for those who want to insist on anthropogenic warming. That, of course, is why some of the climategate folks erased the bump from some of their earlier presentations.'
The MWP was regional, and accompanied by declines in temps elsewhere in the world. That 'bump' was in a cartoon from a very early IPCC report - it was based on what we thought was true, but with poor data, which is why it was shown in cartoon form and not as a graph of actual data. The 'bump' was 'erased' because we got global data, and that global data was used to calculate global mean temperatures, and there was no 'bump' in global mean temperatures.
We've known all this for close to a decade now. What's keeping you from joining the reality of the present day?
Rachelle:
No one ever claims otherwise. Your point is a strawman. The point is we are making our own forces that keep growing year in, year out. The natural forces ebb and flow randomly but unlike the human generated forces, have little long term trend.
What is this "sharp rise" and how certain are you that it differs significantly from what actually happened?
Cue the name calls and ad hominem. You're good at those, aren't you:
There go those goalposts moving again.
And what problem would that be?
To quote a former English economist:
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
But as we all know, you don't care about real evidence. You just lie that the evidence you want exists.
Well, at least I'm not as unhinged as someone such as yourself who lies that there is evidence to support your beliefs.
Re: Hiding WMP:
"I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/10/i_am_a_scientist.php
AND
Climatologists Baffled by Warming Time Out
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html#ref=rss
Rachelle:
One of your problems is that you cannot do the science so you have to rely on authority without having the wherewithall to assess the authority. If you actually do the calculations you will find that the 'pause' they are bothered about is only to be expected. In other words, they did not think before speaking.
I'm not sure why I'm writing this; you won't find out how to do the calculations and you won't understand what they mean so I expect you'll either ignore this comment or give one of your usual ignorant, snotty replies.
SNOTTY REPLY:
Simmons says:
"If you actually do the calculations you will find that the 'pause' they are bothered about is only to be expected."
Try not to be such a moron Simmons. There were many predictions like this from warming experts:
2000
"According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said."
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing…
They have found what snow is in the last 3 winters.
http://snowheads.com/ski-forum/viewtopic.php?t=59725
Clearly they were not 'expecting' the pause in warming. Where are you doing your 'calculations' in a deep cave where the rest of the Gore epigones are hiding in fear?
Better go back and re-do your calculations. That last post really, really has me wondering if you are the dancing Richard Simmons. No, couldn't be...he is actually pretty smart.
Interesting. A lawyer explains why he is trying to get Michael Mann's emails, etc.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/14/why-i-want-mike-manns-emails/#mor…
Rachelle:
So this is supposed to mean that the MWP poses a problem for those who accept climate science? How, pray tell, does it do that?
And how, pray tell, does climatologists not knowing the cause of short-term variations mean that there has been a significant difference from the long term forecast?
By the way, during the decade of that so-called "warming time out" 1999-2008, the global temperature trend rose 0.2 deg C. Remind me again, how much was the IPCC-predicted "sharp rise" supposed to be over that period?
I'll let you get back to making up lies to support your beliefs now.
"Climatologists Baffled by Warming Time Out"
Uh, the trend still contains the expected warming rate of 0.17C per decade. How can there be a pause when it isn't proven?
Or is it that denialist claims don't need proving, only science claims?
Rachel, you stupid little girl, you've been caught making up quotes and dates before (Al Gore in Germany).
NOBODY with an oz of common sense will believe your proclamations without proof.
Interesting comment by a climate scientist. Science is not settled.
http://drtimball.com/2011/whether-it-is-warming-or-climate-change-it-ca…
Rachelle:
Tim Ball is more of a fraud than a climate scientist.
I'm still waiting for you to get on a plane with a 95% chance of crashing. After all it's "not settled" that it's going to crash.
I'll let you get back to making up lies to support your beliefs now.
Rachelle: Every time you resort to insults instead of addressing the points I've made, it just made you look more stupid, not me. Do the statistical calculations.
I see you picked up on that item by Tim Ball. I tried to go back to the original (the trail gets rather faint) but it seems that what the figure shows is not emissions, but the uncertainty in the data on emissions - in general, for third-world countries there is more uncertainty in the data. Do you have a link to the original paper that shows I am wrong?
Do not trust Tim Ball. Amongst other things, he has claimed to be the first Canadian PhD in climatology (not true) and "for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg". He got his BSc in 1970 and retired in 1996, so from this we can conclude that he was a professor for 6 years before he got his first degree! He is not a climate scientist, but has a sparse publication record as a geographer who studied weather records made by fur trappers around Hudson Bay in the 18th and 19th centuries.
Well, at least it is clear how the 'science is settled' for all of you and how it is that 110% [or is it 1,000%] of the scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming [you say].
Anybody who has a different opinion is declared a heretic and unqualified to utter a word.
Seems like I have heard of that method of getting a universal consensus before.
Rachelle @ 578:
Nothing like a creationist, nope, nuh-uh, no way...
Rachelle:
What does this have to do with people, such as yourself, who tell lies?
So do you believe Tim Ball is being honest when his own writings reveal that he was a professor 6 years before he got his first degree?
"at least it is clear how the 'science is settled' for all of you and how it is that 110% [or is it 1,000%] of the scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming [you say]."
Nope. Pop along and for once in your wilful ignorant life read the post the thread is about.
The science is settled for AGW being real and a problem is based on the evidence. Evidence that has convinced 97% of working climatologists and 100% of the worlds science institutes in it.
However, you have no evidence, therefore you ignore it.
You have dogma, and you're sticking to it. And since you only use dogma, you MUST believe that everyone else does too, else you'd have to face up to your own bigotry and ignorance. And for people like you self-reflection is an anathema.
Naturally, since he does not share your opinion [see link], he must be discounted as qualified in order to preserve the 1000% consensus. Still, he says that he is "emeritus professor at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service." A director of the weather satellite service might know something about weather.
But, truly, the only qualification that counts with those of you tangled in Cromwell's rule is that one fit with your delusion of a 'consensus'. The 'consensus' is unraveling and you will never be able to reweave it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/17/why-best-will-not-settle-the-clim…
Rachelle:
All you have is name-calls. I know you're a liar.
Does this mean you have abandonded using the doubtful link from Ball as evidence or do you still believe Tim Ball is being honest when his own writings reveal that he was a professor 6 years before he got his first degree?
From the link in 583 (F. Singer): "the atmosphere, unlike the land surface, has shown no warming during the crucial period (1978-1997), either over land or over ocean, according to satellites and independent data from weather balloons."
From Wigley et al. (U.S. Climate Change Science Program) "For observations since the late 1950s, the start of the study period for this Report, the most recent versions of all available data sets show that both the surface and troposphere have warmed, while the stratosphere has cooled".
However, Wigley et al. show the data used to form their conclusions, Singer does not. Why do you think he does not give a link to the data?
Here is a current comment of a failed Congressional hearing that was going to put an end to skepticism about global warming. Once again, Anthony Watts makes a good presentation. Not surprising his site has been elected best science blog and is often cited in other publications.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/17/the-empty-chamber/#more-51362
Sorry, little girl, did you think that that last post there had something useful to add to the discussion?
But I guess when your whole life depends on calling your denial and lies "skepticism", you'll want to ensure that the ability to lie and enforce your own personal fantasy world on everyone else is couched as "an attack on skepticism".
Listen, little girl, you have already given two things you think "could" be the cause of the warming trend. BOTH have been proven wrong. You haven't even acknowledge them, let alone shown any sign of reconsidering your position in the light of your now discovered misapprehensions (which would be SKEPTICISM at work: be skeptical of what you think you know, be open to be proven wrong).
Rachelle:
Rachelle's claim is for the benefit of those interested in the opinion of a liar.
You mean like James Hansen?
No.
Anthony Watts has lied several times.
James Hansen hasn't.
Oh, so it was just plain old incompetence that his 1988 prediction differed from reality by 75%.
Yeah, that's it!
No, it's a lie that his 1988 prediction differed from reality by 75%.
He gave three scenarios, our actual emissions followed one.
And that liar Watts (and the other denialist liars who parroted the same lie) used one of the other emission scenarios, one that didn't match our actual emissions.
Oddly enough, if you choose the wrong *human* emission, you get a different climate change than if you use the ones humans actually did.
Rather an own goal, there. You just proved AGW.
Also, what do you mean by 75% difference? The only claim I can find on that says:
"Since Scenario B is the most realistic compared to actual greenhouse gas emissions, I conclude Hansen has overestimated temperatures by 75% ."
But if global temperatures are 15C, then 75% different means either 3.75C or 26.25C.
Neither claims are made by Hansen's 1988 prediction.
You're lying about the 75% too, aren't you.
In other words, throw enough shit at the wall and something's bound to stick!
Hansen predicted a 4.5 degree increase; the real increase was less than a quarter of that (1.1).
No. You need to get your talking points straight.
> In other words, throw enough shit at the wall and something's bound to stick!
Those would be "other words", true.
They'd also be false.
If you throw the RIGHT emissions profile at a model of the climate, if that model of the climate is right, you get a prediction that is correct.
If you ignore the RIGHT emissions profile result and instead use the WRONG one, then you'll get a prediction different from one that happened. Doing so doesn't prove a model wrong.
In fact, it helps prove it right.
"Hansen predicted a 4.5 degree increase; the real increase was less than a quarter of that (1.1)."
Really? a 4.5C increase.
Did you read that in his paper? Or did you read that someone said that was in his paper?
The reason why I ask is that even under Scenario A, Hansen's prediction was for a 1.6C rise by 2019. By 2011 1.2C was predicted.
Where did you read that he'd predicted 4.5C rise for 2011?
Or were you lying again.
Anyone who believes AGW might possibly be incorrect will be able to check their prediction by looking at the actual paper.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
You'll see the three scenario predictions in figure 3 on page 7 of the pdf.
Sorry, it was .45, with a real rise of .11. This in no way detracts from the fact that he was wildly off the mark (or that you alarmists are off your meds).
Nope, it wasn't that either.
Go to the PDF and you'll see that the delta for 2010 was
Scenario A: +1.2C
Scenario B: +1.0C
Scenario C: +0.6C
And what did BEST get?
+1.1C.
You're wildly off the mark.
More than a 75% error, you have changed your tune to an order-of-magnitude error. And still wound up wrong.
Or were you lying again.
Nope!
Where?
Nope!
Translation from Wow-speak:
Everyone who disagrees with me in any way, shape or form is a liar! I know this because I am right, and when you're right, you're right! Therefore, I am right and everyone else is a liar! QED!!!
THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED: Nothing can travel faster than light.
But: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-502223_162-57327392/2nd-test-affirms-faster…
I imagine it will ultimately sort out that nothing really does travel faster than light, but then there are these experiments. The point is, even in something as 'settled' as this there are occasional upsets.
How much more likely that the science is actually not settled in something as poorly understood as climate? It seems very far from settled, for example, when the two principal researchers on the recent BEST report are at each others' throats. So is one just an incompetent no longer entitled to an opinion while the other is a great scientist? If so, why is the great scientist partnered with the goof? Actually, they are both probably pretty good. It is just that climate change science is not settled. Maybe that thing about faster than light is not as sure as we supposed either.
Again proving Rachel doesn't know what climate science is.
Listen, dear, the speed of 100GeV neutrinos doesn't have anything to do with climate.
Okay?
" More than a 75% error, you have changed your tune to an order-of-magnitude error.
Where?"
Gosh, that's a sub-MTV generation memory you have there.
+++
597
Sorry, it was .45, with a real rise of .11. This in no way detracts from the fact that he was wildly off the mark (or that you alarmists are off your meds).
Posted by: AGWSkeptic | November 18, 2011 11:00 AM
+++
594
Hansen predicted a 4.5 degree increase; the real increase was less than a quarter of that (1.1).
Posted by: AGWSkeptic | November 18, 2011 10:41 AM
+++
Oh deary me.
Yes, I was going off memory and trying to do other things whilst responding to your Hansen-cheerleading. The point is I did correct it (unlike you lot with your AGW dogma). Because of that I'm a liar.
I guess by that "logic", when Hansen revises his predictions, he's lying too!
See how that works?
Probably not, since you are well and truly indoctrinated by the climate change propagandists.
"Yes, I was going off memory and "
And got it an order of magnitude wrong.
Like I said.
"The point is I did correct it"
No, it wasn't 0.45C either. The PDF page seven figure 3 shows Hansen Scenario B with a delta-T of +1.0C.
Not 0.45C. Not 4.5C.
And not 75% wrong from the actual measure from BEST of +1.1C.
You are also wrong in the actual temperature change now by an order of magnitude.
You are claiming +0.11C warmer.
In actual fact, its +1.1C warmer.
So you're an order of magnitude wrong now on that.
Rachelle @586 : "Not surprising his [Watts] site has been elected best science blog"
Ever hear of 'to pharyngulate' (second definition, Urban Dictionary)? How do you think it applies here?
Have you abandoned using the doubtful link from Ball as evidence or do you still believe Tim Ball is being honest when his own writings reveal that he was a professor 6 years before he got his first degree?
AGWSkeptic (hah!): Why do you persist in using a scenario that Hansen himself thought was unrealistic at the time, while ignoring the one he thought was much more likely?
"when the two principal researchers on the recent BEST report are at each others' throats."
Eh? What you on about, girl? Judith is adamant she's just asking questions. She's adamant she's not disagreeing with the BEST result.
Of course, when deniers disagree on something, this is ignored because the ONLY thesis they share is far more important: NO MATTER WHAT, it ISN'T humans doing it.
Doesn't matter if one insists it's cooling, another insists that it's GCRs (which would still be increasing), and another insists it never rose at all.
They don't point out that they're at each others' throats, because it isn't their theory they're fighting FOR. They're fighting AGAINST AGW and the science.
That's why he promoted the hell out of it, because it was "unrealistic"!
Isn't revisionist history wonderful?!!!
"I guess by that "logic", when Hansen revises his predictions, he's lying too!"
No, that would be him being incorrect.
However, since your position is a lie (that his prediction was 75% off), that means you're lying.
"That's why he promoted the hell out of it, because it was "unrealistic"!"
Ah, so you'll have evidence of his promotion of Scenario A, yes?
No. You won't.
Why?
Because you're lying again.
He gave three scenarios.
YOU promoted the one even HE thought was unlikely.
And it looks like his prediction was pretty much on the money.
You DID read that PDF, yes?
1.0-1.2C rising temperature trend globally predicted by 2010 in 1988.
1.1C rising temperature trend globally from BEST in 2010.
I guess being accurate is being wrong, is it?
Translation: Because you're lying, you're lying. This is because you're wrong, and when you're wrong, you're wrong, and also lying. Nanny nanny boo boo.
Oh, and it doesn't apply to Hansen, because he's right (which I know because he's right, and when you're right, you're right)!!!one11!!!
"That's why he promoted the hell out of it, because it was "unrealistic"!"
Citation, please, to Hansen specifically promoting scenario A.
I'm sure you will find Hansen saying that the A scenario is unrealistic in the link Wow gave earlier - I can't read it because my software is currently crashing when downloading some pdfs, including that one, but I have read it in the past and reliable sources indicate that is the case.
Shorter Wow:
Evidence doesn't exist when people are lying. Therefore, you are a liar and there is no evidence!!!one!!!11!!
"Translation: Because you're lying, you're lying."
Yes.
This is correct.
I know it seems obvious to others, but you do have a lot of problem working out what a "lie" is.
"This is because you're wrong"
No, it's not sufficient to be just WRONG. A lie is a subset of "wrong". You have to say what you know is a lie.
Since this claim has been shown false many years ago, you would know it is a lie. Since you have been given the pdf and continue to say the same wrong thing, you know it is wrong and therefore it's a lie.
"Oh, and it doesn't apply to Hansen, because he's right "
Well, Hansen was right.
Prediction +1.0C under his "most likely scenario" Scenario C by 2010.
BEST measure of temperature change: +1.1C.
You see, these numbers are close compared to the error. Therefore, as far as reality is concerned, he's right.
As in "not wrong".
"Evidence doesn't exist when people are lying."
What?
If someone says "Hansen said Scenario A was most likely in his paper in 1988", then when his paper is shown to say Scenario C was most likely, it is a lie.
The ONLY way this could not be a lie is if the one claiming Scenario A was promoted as correct by Hansen hadn't read the paper, despite saying that they knew the contents.
Which changes the lie to a different one.
Not even wrong.
Or are you now saying that you had no evidence to say that Hansen promoted Scenario A as the most likely future emission scenario?
"Not even wrong."
Yes. You're not just wrong, you're lying.
Here's the paper, from the source:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf
The predictions for the THREE scenarios are on Page 7, Figure 3.
Of course, you only have John Christy's pack of lies to congress where he only shows ONE scenario. But since Christy denies AGW like you, he must be right when he claims that graph HE made up is the one from Hansen's paper.
Ever thought of being John Christy skeptic?
John who? Sorry, never heard of him.
So where did you get the idea that Scenario A was promoted by Hansen?
Watts?
Montford?
Or did you make the lies up all by yourself?
From James Hansen's promotion of it! Duh!
Just googled Christy. He seems to be a lot more reasonable than the hysterically shrieking liars Hansen, Gore and Mann. I'll have to look more into his work. Thanks for the tip, Wow!
AGWSkeptic:
"Shorter Wow:
Evidence doesn't exist when people are lying. Therefore, you are a liar and there is no evidence!!!one!!!11!! "
You have about captured the tone of WOW's crazy comments. I have long since given up reading them, much less bothering to respond. He would flunk a Turing Test. Richard Simmons [who tries to convince us he isn't the weight-loss dancer in sparkly shorts] isn't far behind. I have begun to wonder if they are being held in the same institution.
A brief look at Hansen's potential ethics problems. And you trust this guy??? Follow the money seems to be the key to many of the AGW types.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/a-brief-summary-of-james-e-hansens-nasa-ethics-…
Anything substantive, Rachelle? Anything?
Stu asks:
"Anything substantive, Rachelle? Anything?"
We will see if there is enough to sue for recovery if the AG gets his hands on Hansen's documents at the University of Virginia.
In the meantime, if he had the same issues but were a skeptic rather than a warmist you folks would have tarred and feathered him a long time ago while WOW and Simmons [maybe the glittery exercise guru] jumped up and down chanting 'Liar! Liar!'.
I call myself an AGWSkeptic:
Rachelle's lies are here for all the world to see on this very thread.
All you've got is a bare-face assertion.
Rachelle:
Those radio and other electromagnetic engineers had better stop assuming what they do for the speed of light. Because of this, climate scientists had better stop assuming climate sensitivity is probably greater than 2 deg C.
Should be:
"So is one just an incompetent no longer entitled to her own facts?"
No, Curry is not entitled to her own facts.
But considering what a liar you are Rachelle, you probably think that, like yourself, Curry is entitled to her own facts.
O'neill, like many others, chooses to alter what I said to create a false argument.
In referring to Dr. Curry I said:
"So is one just an incompetent no longer entitled to an opinion.."
Which O'Neill altered to "So is one just an incompetent entitled to her own FACTS?"
There is a big difference between facts and opinion or interpretation an O'Neill probably knows that. Hence he chose to falsify my statement. This reflects much of the style of the warmists and it is one of the reasons why they are found dishonest and not credible.
One thing that is clearly visible above is that those clutching to warmist belief automatically assume that anyone with a different opinion is a liar.
'LIAR! LIAR! LIAR!' You shout.
I am far more charitable with those who disagree with me. I don't assume that they have the low character of liar. I just assume you are stupid.
You have demonstrated that often enough.
This stuff would be cheap, dumb and asinine from a 12-year-old. What the hell is the matter with you, Rachelle? Do you truly think this is witty, or are you THAT angry?
Rachelle:
No, YOU made the false argument to begin with. No-one said she is not entitled to an opinion. Why do you keep implying that someone did? Curry is entitled to her own opinion but not her own facts as she appears to believe. This pretense that scientists are not getting their entitlement to their own opinion reflects much of the style of those in denial of the science and it is one of the reasons why they are found dishonest and not credible.
One thing that is clearly visible above is that those clutching to denying science automatically assume that they are being told they are lying simply for having a different opinion.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
They are being told they are lying because they told a lie. For example, Rachelle said:
She said that after I pointed out that her citation did not support the first proposition and there were no sources that offered evidence for her second proposition. Saying something is true after it is pointed out that it's not is lying.
This is not a question of assuming character. Rachelle is just telling lies.
AGWSkeptic: I assume you are unable to provide a link to Hansen promoting his Scenario A. Why am I not surprised?
Rachelle @625:
Here you go again, attributing things to people that were not said. What an nasty, angry little world you must live in!
What I have done is to ask to to justify your claims, something you have spectacularly failed to do. I notice you are still avoiding saying whether or not you trust Tim Ball. Let's tackle this is a different way. In his post that you linked to, the claim was made that CO2 production is higher in tropical Africa and Asia than in Europe. As a self-styled sceptic, did this seem to be a reasonable claim? What steps did you take to verify that you were not being misled?
If you feel that I am stupid, as you so frequently say, why do you find it so difficult to answer any of my questions? After all, I am not asking anything difficult, in many cases merely for you to provide the source of your information.
BTW regarding Hansen's so-called 'ethics' problem - do you understand the difference between research grants and personal income?
Stu said:
" Simmons [maybe the glittery exercise guru]
Richard Simmons [who tries to convince us he isn't the weight-loss dancer in sparkly shorts]
This stuff would be cheap, dumb and asinine from a 12-year-old. What the hell is the matter with you, Rachelle? Do you truly think this is witty, or are you THAT angry?"
Not angry, more amused. Simmons opened himself to it by making the initial, joking comparison. I suspect he has made that juvenile joke many times [too many times for his acquaintances, most like]..bet he doesn't so much anymore after this. I don't care about his or your sensitivities. I am puzzled about your intellectual rigidity. I don't truly think you are stupid. On the contrary, you are probably pretty bright in a way that leads you to be sure of things about which you cannot be certain. Either you have money in the warmist game [which I doubt] or you are very young. When life has liquidated a few of your certainties you will be slower to say anything is 'settled'. It almost never is.
Racehelle:
Another ignoramus who thinks "settled" means certainty.
No, Rachelle, I am not young nor do I have money in the "warmist game". And calling it that tells us everything about your irrational attitude. Either you are dense as a post or Al Gore kicked your cat.
Wow, what a fun game Rachelle. I'm sure Rachelle is great fun at parties. Nothing like a condescending jerk with a pathetic sense of humor.
Stu,
This is beginning to look substantive for Hansen:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/18/dr-james-hansens-growing-financia…
Rachelle: Do you realize that you've avoided answering any of my questions (and probably everyone else's too)? Instead of obsessing over the spelling of my name and calling everyone who questions you 'stupid', try to address one of the many points that have been made. For example, do you still trust Tim Ball to provide reliable information?
Essentially every point you've brought up here has been contradicted or questioned and you've been unable to back up a single one with evidence. The only retraction I recall in all of that time has been about the name of the submarine that surfaced through the ice at the Pole. Put the brain cells to work, work hard and perhaps you'll eventually realize that you have a long, long way to go before you can afford to be condescending to anyone.
For those whose only interest in science (apart from telling lies about the evidence) is smearing scientists.
Ducky, I gather you still have not found out the difference between research funding and personal income.
BTW: This is the same ignorant argument creationists make when they accuse Darwin of all kinds of things. Even if Hansen were to eat spit-roasted puppies for dinner, steal the Crown Jewels and assassinate the President, it would make not one jot nor tittle of difference to the science.
Simmons says:
"you still have not found out the difference between research funding and personal income."
Evidently you didn't actually read the article.
When you have reportable income, there is a difference between reporting it and not reporting it.
When you have reportable data, there is a difference between reporting it and not reporting.
And, of course, nobody has ever heard of a scientist fudging his reports to get funding.
What, exactly, do you think the Attorney General is looking for?
By the way some of the money mentioned in the article is for speeches, not research funding. Speeches for activism, not science. I wonder if this is why he is fighting to keep records out of the hands of the Attorney General?
Time will tell...
Here is one for you:
"The discovery that the Dutch researcher Diederik A. Stapel made up the data for dozens of research papers has shaken up the field of social psychology, fueling a discussion not just about outright fraud, but also about subtler ways of misusing research data. Such misuse can happen even unintentionally, as researchers try to make a splash with their peersâand a splash, maybe, with the news media, too."
http://chronicle.com/article/As-Dutch-Research-Scandal/129746/
In this case the research is in 'social psychology' but the dangers and temptations have led scientists astray...and there is an awful lot of money in 'climate change'.
Yes, Greenpeace's budget dwarfs that of Exxon. How silly of us not to see that.
Rachelle: Yes, indeed, it does seem that Hansen has been a naughty boy. However, as I said in a previous comment, that makes no difference to the science.
You give an example of scientific fraud. I could give some others: Cyril Burt, Piltdown Man, Andrew Wakefield and a minor case I found myself as a student, but did not know what to do with (faculty I asked for advice ignored me). Notice that in each case these fraudulent results were (or became in the case of the first two) exceptions to the general body of evidence. With climate change, the exceptional claims are those of, for example, Singer and Ball. Do you still believe that Tim Ball is a trustworthy source of information?
Simons says:
"Yes, indeed, it does seem that Hansen has been a naughty boy. However, as I said in a previous comment, that makes no difference to the science."
The problem is that when a great deal of money, and zealotry, is involved, the science has to be completely and fully open and subject to scrutiny. Do you think Hansen would keep getting his lucrative speaking gigs if he suddenly wobbled on his opinion?
Have a look at this:
http://www.npr.org/2011/08/17/139714742/fresh-allegations-leveled-again…
I originally thought that if there were problems with the methods of the polar bear scientist it was just a matter of unintentional bias in favor of a particular conclusion. Now it looks as if money may be involved in this as well.
Comparing the budget of Greenpeace with that of Exxon is silly. The real money is coming from governments...in the billions and trillions...and from some corporations investing heavily in 'green' technology. Do you imagine everything was on the up and up in the Solyndra matter and its kin? Do you think that with several billion or trillion dollars on the table people are going to let a few facts get in the way? Basically, crony capitalism, what has more accurately been called National Socialism, is driving some of the frenzy.
The UN also stands to profit in money and power if global warming is proven as well. Already it is seeking more contributions to fight global warming and developing countries are damaging their booty in exchange for as yet unproven damages from global warming.
Anthropogenic global warming may be happening, though many of the arguments supporting that thesis have been polluted with shiploads of cash and political corruption. We need to return to basic science, and that cannot take place if those whose careers are invested in the conclusion declare that the judgment has been reached and no witnesses to the contrary need step forward. In fact, the trial isn't over.
As for Tim Ball, I am not invested in his credentials. I merely cited him. He should be subject to the same hard scrutiny and criticism as the rest. Nobody should be immune. Still, as you said with Hansen, his personal flaws may not invalidate his points.
R. Simons, I posted a response to your last comment but it is held up for moderator review.
Here is a bit more on the problem:
"It recently came out that James Hansen, one of the two or three most prominent global warming alarmists on whose work the IPCC reports rest, âforgotâ to report $1.6 million in outside income, as required by his government contracts. Is that significant? Well, yes: A handful of scientists, including Hansen, have gotten wealthy on climate alarmism. They have an enormous financial interest in the faux science they have done so much to perpetrate. It is more likely that the Pope would renounce Christianity than that Hansen, Michael Mann, etc., would change their minds about global warming, regardless of the evidence. (I say that because the Pope has far more intellectual integrity than the climate alarmists.)"
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/11/james-hansen-and-the-corr…
politically motivated zealots lie about the scientific evidence.
> global warming alarmists on whose work the IPCC reports rest, âforgotâ to report $1.6 million in outside income
Oh dear. IF that were true, wouldn't it appear in rather more papers than a blogroll?
IF that were true, wouldn't it be persued by the senators beholden to big industry?
Seems you're rather gullible, little girl.
PS IF that were true, in what way would the science be incorrect?
> The problem is that when a great deal of money, and zealotry, is involved
Did you check how much money the CEO of Texaco got last year?
> > So where did you get the idea that Scenario A was promoted by Hansen?
> From James Hansen's promotion of it! Duh!
Really? Where's your proof?
Or was that yet another lie from you?
Oh! Well! If Powerline said so, it must be true then! No way they are at all financially and ideologically motivated! When I think sane, objective reporting, I think Powerline!
Why would he even mention it if he didn't want to promote it?
So true! Never mind the black helicopters sweetheart, your tin foil hat will keep you safe.
"Why would he even mention it if he didn't want to promote it?"
Why would he mention that Scenario C was most likely and that Scenario A was the most unlikely, if he was promoting Scenario A?
PS I note that you're still unable to provide your evidence of James' promotion of Scenario A other than be doubling down on the dumb. This isn't skeptical on iota.
Translation:
"Everyone who disagrees with me is a tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorist. Oh, and pay no attention to my Big OilTM conspiracy theories. They don't count!"
Project much, Stu?
Translation:
AGWIdiot has zero evidence on his side, but CANNOT and WILL NOT let AGW be real.
Hardly skeptical.
Shorter WOW:
"I'm rubber, you're glue!"
With a side order of, "I know you are, but what am I?"
LOL
Translation:
Still got nothing.
And WOW shows up to prove me right!
Prediction: He/she/it will do it again.
LOL
Well there was a waste of an egg.
Climategate II just breaking:
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/11/22/breaking-climategate-two/
Maybe this helps explain why Hansen is fighting to keep records under wraps.
The AGW crowd appears to have been less than fully honest.
A bit more information on Climategate II:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/
AGW Advocates=Liars
Climategate II Samples:
Thorne:
I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.
And:
Wigley:
Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]
One more:
Wils:
[2007] What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? Theyâll kill us probably [...]
"ClimateGate II" = Cherry-picked quotes from the same batch of email used for "ClimateGate I" and for which multiple independent investigations have demonstrated no evidence of actual wrongdoing.
Rachelle @ 662:
At this point, someone has to ask: You spent a lot of time on short buses in school, didn't you, Rachelle?
NJ,
What does 'NJ' stand for? Nut Job?
When the emails of the AGW 'scientists' reflect that even they are getting embarrassed with their exaggerations, then something is very wrong. They are certainly very far from the spirit of the double blind study.
Notice, too, that one of them is concerned that a political spin is being applied to their research. At least one seems honest enough to be ashamed...not honest enough to go public with his worries, though. Unless, he is the leaker of the damning emails.
Seeing that Climategate ended up amounting to vastly less than what it was sold as, I'm sure we can expect the same from Climategate 2.
Imagine a shameless proven liar like Rachelle complaining about liars. What a hypocrite.
Chris,
Here is a discussion on the MWP
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/29/the-medieval-warm-period-a-global…
Clearly there is evidence that the MWP was warmer than the present [and evidence to the contrary] and you could find it if you were not so obsessed with denouncing others as liars.
For my own part, I suspect that since everyone has to rely on proxies to judge the MWP it will be a long while before certainty is achieved...if ever. Whether [and I think I said this earlier] the MWP is a degree warmer or cooler than the present is not as important as the fact that it existed at all and was near to the present temperature range. What the AGW people did--for awhile--was try to eliminate altogether...that is dishonest, as are you in some respects.
Rachelle @ 665:
Provide the entire email thread in question so that all readers can see for themselves what was said and in what context.
Otherwise, given your slavish devotion to the wealthy people who abuse you and amply documented lack of honesty, everyone here can just consider you as seriously as Mitt Romney.
NJ, see for yourself...the entire whistle blower dump is here:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ROCGBR37
Rachelle:
So now we know what:
means. "Sources" means WTFUWT. Sorry, but a blog run by a pathological liar is not scientific evidence.
I like this quote from WTFUWT:
âOK, my skeptic instincts are on high alert. So far, there is no smoking gun in the emails. There are only some uncomfortable exchanges, expressions of doubt, etc., etc. How do we know that this isnât Mann or another member of the team putting these emails out to try to sway public opinion. . The idea would be to put out a bunch of legitimate emails that put people in a mildly bad light (so as to establish their genuineness), but donât contain any really damning stuff. There will be a big flurry of press coverage and blogger buzz, but in the end, its all about nothing. The public will then conclude that its all been overblown and that the skeptics are wrong about the degree of dishonesty within the team. Public interest (and the concomitant public pressure) in the UVA emails would subside. This would be a fairly sophisticated strategy (sort of a âfalse flagâ operation), but Iâm worried because these emails are not nearly as damning as Climategate I. It all looks very suspicious to me.â
Fabulous stuff. Hilarious. Paranoia never takes a holiday.
"The idea would be to put out a bunch of legitimate emails that put people in a mildly bad light (so as to establish their genuineness), but donât contain any really damning stuff."
So, just like the first set of stolen emails, right?
O'Neill said:
"Sorry, but a blog run by a pathological liar is not scientific evidence."
He included citations to others. He did not represent their work as his.
I think that for you anyone who has an opinion that differs from yours must be 'pathological' in some way or other. It is evident who is pathological. I don't think I will bother with any of your other posts. Like WOW, you are not worth reading...tantrums I can get anywhere.
As evidenced by you AGW alarmists and your non-stop doomsday end-of-civilization fantasies and tinfoil hat Big OilTM conspiracy theories.
So if James Hansen starts a blog, it won't contain any evidence? Good to know!
Similarly, there's no scientific evidence on Pharyngula. Again, no surprise, given that Myers the Liar (and Fake Atheist) subscribes to the same religious beliefs you do; i.e., those involving global warming.
"As evidenced by you AGW alarmists"
That's YOU, that is.
Nothing on here but scare stories from "AGWSkeptic". Who, after all, is it complaining that it's all a scam to take money from the first world? Oh, that's right: deniers.
> So if James Hansen starts a blog, it won't contain any evidence?
Is your only trick to continue to pretend James Hansen is a liar? You've already been shown that James 1988 prediction has been on the money 2011. And you've never managed anything other than repeat of your debunked claim.
You are, as is Rachel, a mental midget.
"He included citations to others. He did not represent their work as his."
However, BEST was cited before it came up with the results by Tony "tiny town" Watts as being solid science, how Muller was a great and honest scientist and how he agreed that their methods were good enough for him to accept the results of it, even if it disagreed with him.
Then, when the results disagreed with him, BEST was nobbled, Watts now claims that Muller was never a skeptic and always "one of the team".
Tony is a liar.
Now he cites someone else's work, how do you know he's not lying again?
Answer: you don't. But you have FAITH in denial.
Shorter WOW:
So WOW, when do you start kindergarten again? Next year or the year after?
Shorter AGWIdiot:
Nothing new to say.
And, of course, WOW has to show up and prove me right by engaging in more "IKYABWAI", oblivious to its own irony. Priceless!
But don't be sad, WOW! In a few more years you'll be able to go back to whinging about global cooling and the next ice age, just like you lot were doing back in the 70s.
Translation:
Still nothing upstairs.
When are you going to show your "proof" of James Hansen's "lies"?
Oh, PS, that's a #10 zombie:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
But who would expect a *self styled* skeptic to be skeptical of claims, huh?
Ah yes, "skeptical" science.com, AGW alarmist propaganda blog extraordinaire! What was that about blogs run by liars?
What's next? You Tube clips from An Inconvenient Lie Truth?
AHWIdiot: Still empty.
"What was that about blogs run by liars?"
It was about how Tony Watts is a pathological liar and runs a blog, therefore making that blog an unsafe place to get any facts from.
"What's next? You Tube clips from An Inconvenient Truth?"
Gosh. So you know better than the Judge who agreed with AIT's content, and call it a lie.
This seems to be your "bag".
Just claim it's a lie and talk bollocks.
Ah, so you've seen his medical records then? Or are you just making it up as you go along?
I would say so.
Like making a medical diagnosis of someone you've never met (even if you do have medical training, which I doubt).
Project much, WOW?
"Ah, so you've seen his medical records then?"
No, I've seen his lies. Pathology is obvious.
"I would say so."
Yes. Dunning-Kruger.
However, a judge who listened to the case for and against the accuracy of AIT concluded that it was correct.
"Project much, WOW?"
No. No need, since the errors and lies are so widespread, so obvious and so unflinchingly doubled-down, a pathological liar is the only sane diagnosis.
Yes, it is, especially to those such as yourself suffering from acute DKS. Because you're right. And when you're right, you're right. Therefore, you, WOW, are right and Watts is a liar! QED!!!11ONE!!!
Really? Then I suggest you seek out treatment immediately!
Now WOW is under the impression science is done in the courts. Maybe you could point us to some peer-reviewed science done by Scalia or Thomas, WOW! You were saying about Dunning Kruger???
Prediction: WOW will prove me right YET AGAIN by posting another fact-free projection-laden tantrum referring to everyone who disagrees with it as a pathological liar!
Yes, it is, especially to those such as yourself suffering from acute DKS. Because you're right. And when you're right, you're right. Therefore, you, WOW, are right and Watts is a liar! QED!!!11ONE!!!
Really? Then I suggest you seek out treatment immediately!
Now WOW is under the impression science is done in the courts. Maybe you could point us to some peer-reviewed science done by Scalia or Thomas, WOW! You were saying about Dunning Kruger???
Prediction: WOW will prove me right YET AGAIN by posting another fact-free projection-laden tantrum referring to everyone who disagrees with it as a pathological liar!
"Because you're right."
Thank you. Yes. I am right.
"Now WOW is under the impression science is done in the courts."
Rather a step up from your venue of choice: the blogroll.
But no, the courts are where evidence on a case is judged. This is why we have judges. And, since they have to judge cases like robbery, murder, fraud and so on, they are trained to judge evidence and do not have to actually be robbers, murderers or fraudsters.
But you still wave around the point that you have nothing about James Hansen lying. Except what you've been told to say.
"Prediction: WOW will prove me right YET AGAIN by posting another fact-free projection-laden tantrum "
Rather ironic since your posts have been all fact free tantrums.
Tell me, when you were shown the pdf link to Hansen's paper, was that fact-free projection? After all, like everything else it proved your insanity wrong.
And my prediction comes true.
Projection at its finest!
Indeed, they shouldn't be, since they would then be tempted to fix cases in favour of the criminals. By this logic, then, reporters, who are trained to report on evidence, are better qualified to "judge" whether certain science is right than are scientists themselves.
Quite an own goal, there, WOW!
Oh, and if you hate blogs so much, why are you posting on one? Are you a pathological liar?
And back to the "I'm rubber, you're glue," we go!
Your posts have been all fact free tantrums. I see you cannot refute this.
"Projection at its finest!"
Go read up what that word means. You're using it wrong.
"By this logic"
Problem: you didn't use logic.
Since judges are taught how to judge the merits of the case, they are better suited than journalists and O-level-grade-educated weathermen to judge the case brought against AIT.
But you don't want to know that, do you.
You want a convenient lie.
Shorter WOW:
"You can't prove me wrong. Therefore I am right!!!!1111one111!!"
So, since you can't prove Hansen isn't a liar, he must be one!
The own goals just keep right on comin' for WOW!
"You can't prove me wrong."
More you haven't proven anything at all. Just asserted.
What, for example, is the lie in An Inconvenient Truth?
If that was the case, I could just watch Al Gore's "documentary" now, couldn't I?
"couldn't I?"
Could you?
You haven't actually said what lie was in AIT.
And your one attempt to show a lie by James Hansen was proven false.
You're batting average is nil. Care to whiff past the ball again?
Global warming spawned Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
Polar bears are drowning because they have to swim farther to find ice.
Increases in temperature are the result of increases in carbon dioxide.
The snow on Mount Kilimanjaro is melting because of global warming.
Lake Chad is disappearing because of global warming.
People are being forced to evacuate low-lying Pacific atolls, islands of coral that surround lagoons, because of encroaching ocean waters.
Coral reefs are bleaching and putting fish in jeopardy.
Global warming could stop the "ocean conveyor," triggering another ice age in Western Europe.
And that's not even the half of it!
"Global warming spawned Hurricane Katrina in 2005."
Where did it say that?
"Polar bears are drowning because they have to swim farther to find ice."
Yes, they are.
"Increases in temperature are the result of increases in carbon dioxide."
Yup, that's true too. Even RPSr agrees.
"The snow on Mount Kilimanjaro is melting because of global warming."
Yes, snow melts when the temperature rises.
"Lake Chad is disappearing because of global warming."
Yes, you see a warmer climate means more evaporation of water. Lakes are made of water.
"People are being forced to evacuate low-lying Pacific atolls"
Yup, they are. New Zealand is having talks about relocating lots of them.
"Coral reefs are bleaching and putting fish in jeopardy."
Yup, Add CO2 to H2O and you get carbonic acid. This bleaches coral reefs (colour due to the living organisms inside) and fish don't like staying out in the open when there are sharks around.
"Global warming could stop the "ocean conveyor,"
Yes, this is correct. Without that, the UK is at the same latitude as Moskow or New York, both of which have much harder and colder winters.
"And that's not even the half of it!"
Seeing as how most of them are correct, and one looks made up, what's the odds of anything correct turning up from you?
A transcript from AIT re: Katrina
+++
Now I'm going to show you, recently released, the actual ocean temperature. Of course when the oceans get warmer, that causes stronger storms. We have seen in the last couple of years, a lot of big hurricanes. Hurricanes Jean, Francis and Ivan were among them. In the same year we had that string of big hurricanes; we also set an all time record for tornadoes in the United States. Japan again didn't get as much attention in our news media, but they set an all time record for typhoons. The previous record was seven. Here are all ten of the ones they had in 2004.
The science textbooks that have to be re-written because they say it is impossible to have a hurricane in the South Atlantic. It was the same year that the first one that ever hit Brazil. The summer of 2005 is one for the books. The first one was Emily that socked into Yucatan. Then Hurricane Dennis came along and it did a lot of damage, including to the oil industry. This is the largest oil platform in the world after Dennis went through. This one was driven into the bridge at Mobile.
And then of course came Katrina. It is worth remembering that when it hit Florida it was a Category 1, but it killed a lot of people and caused billions of dollars worth of damage. And then, what happened? Before it hit New Orleans, it went over warmer water. As the water temperature increases, the wind velocity increases and the moisture content increases. And you'll see Hurricane Katrina form over Florida. And then as it comes into the Gulf over warm water it becomes stronger and stronger and stronger. Look at that Hurricane's eye. And of course the consequences were so horrendous; there are no words to describe it.
How in god's name could that happen here? There had been warnings that hurricanes would get stronger. There were warnings that this hurricane, days before it hit, would breach the levies and cause the kind of damage that it ultimately did cause. And one question that we, as a people, need to decide is how we react when we hear warnings from the leading scientists in the world.
+++
Hmm. Nope, doesn't say GW caused Katrina. Just that warmer water in the Gulf (warmer because of AGW) made it worse.
The only study citing the drowning of polar bears (four of them) blamed the deaths on a storm, not ice that is melting due to manmade global warming. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, furthermore, found that the current bear population is 20,000-25,000, up from 5,000-10,000 in the 1950s and 1960s.
Reality sucks, doesn't it WOW?
The melting on Kilimanjaro has been under way for more than a century -- long before SUVs and jumbo jets -- and appears to be the result of other causes.
Lake Chad is losing water, and humans are contributing to the losses. But the humans in the lake's immediate vicinity (via population and overgrazing) and regional climate variability, rather than mankind as a whole using fossil fuels, are to blame.
There has been no significant warming since 1995 according to alarmist icon Phil Jones, yet CO2 levels have been rising since before then.
From yourself:
"Polar bears are drowning because they have to swim farther to find ice."
Now ice melts when it gets warmer.
We have less ice.
Therefore polar bears have further to swim.
Even a simpleton would get it, but the logic is just beyond your reach, isn't it.
Polar bears are found in the Arctic circle and surrounding land masses. There are 19 recognised subpopulations, and estimates place their numbers at about 20,000 to 25,000. Polar bears are classed as vulnerable by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and listed as a threatened species under the US Endangered Species Act.
To see what's happening to the polar bear numbers:
http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/index.html
Reality sucks for the denialist. It ALWAYS has a liberal bias!
It isn't getting warmer. Just ask Phil Jones.
FTFY
FTFY
So why don't you get it then? Have you not yet reached the level of "simpleton"?
And you can't explain the cited increase in the bear population. Wonder why.
"There has been no significant warming since 1995"
Really? 0.12C warming over a decade is not significant? Where did you learn that?
And you're lying again, idiot.
We have less ice.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ic…
So sad, you're found lying again.
Aaaawwww.
"So why don't you get it then?"
I get it: you're lying.
Again.
However, since there are an infinite number of lies possible, the chance I'd know what lie you're going to make next is impossible.
None of which has anything to do with AGW.
Those who deny the reality that temperature changes are nothing more than random fluctuation, yes.
Especially when it is fabricated to have said bias in the first place!
"None of which has anything to do with AGW."
It DOES have a lot to do with polar bears.
Or are you now claiming polar bears are another name for "Anthropogenic Global Warming"?
"deny the reality that temperature changes are nothing more than random fluctuation"
Really?
You've tested this, have you?
Where is your evidence?
Oh, hang on, you're lying again, aren't you.
From Phil Jones. He's on your side of the debate, remember? Or have you lot ex-communicated him for heresy?
Take it up with Jones. Although it is good to see that you can admit one of your own is lying.
Indeed, I could quote just about anything from the IPCC and I would be lying.
"From Phil Jones."
Nope.
Phil Jones did not say there has been no significant warming since 1995.
(plus, if this were said in 1995, this would be true, but pointless)
"Take it up with Jones."
No, I'm taking up with you YOUR lying.
Jones did not say no significant warming since 1995.
"Indeed, I could quote just about anything from the IPCC and I would be lying."
Yes, you would be lying. However, just about anything the IPCC actually SAID wouldn't be.
You, however, would lie about what they said.
I guess AGWIdiot believes that Boeing is a big government conspiracy since the editor of a Daynton paper said that man will never fly...
http://manwillneverfly.com/
Or from the man himself:
Two years earlier in 1901, the prospect of success had not seemed so sure. After Wilbur and Orville's glider experiments at Kitty Hawk, they returned thoroughly discouraged. Their glider didn't fly as their calculations on wing lift had predicted. A frustrated Wilbur proclaimed, "Man won't be flying for a thousand years."
Irrelevant strawman. And you still haven't explained how the polar bear numbers are up so much with all of this alleged warming. Another lie on your part?
CLIMATEGATE II SCOUNDRELS:
Phil Jones: "âBasic problem is that all models are wrong,â ânot got enough middle and low level clouds.â
Clive Crook: "âThe closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.â
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11/23/climategate_2_first_look/page2…
No wonder the Virginia AG is investigating where the State's grant money went and what was obtained for it.
"Sorry, but a blog run by a pathological liar is not scientific evidence."
Rachelle:
So why don't you repeat just one of those citations here? Judging by the one citation you have already given, Broecker, which did not provide the evidence you claimed it did, and going by the fact that people normally put forward the best evidence for their claims, it is safe to assume that your "sources" do not contain the evidence for a global MWP or globally warmer MWP. It is trivially easy for you to prove me wrong but you have consistently failed to do that.
Promises, promises.
Rachelle @ 669:
Modified to reflect reality.
You are the one making the claims. You are the one who has to make the case by doing the work. So put down your Justin Bieber fan club letter and get cracking.
Load shifting is yet another way in which climate deniers take pages from the evolution deniers playbook.
I've got the paranoid quote. AGW so called "Skeptic" just has an assertion.
Incidentally, Antony Watts at wattsupwiththat is not any type of liar, much less a pathological liar. In fact the Climategate II emails just released have confirmed the validity of many of his suspicions about AGW scientists.
Independent confirmation of Watts out of the mouths of the AGW crowd themselves. Can't beat that.
It appears that the term 'pathological liar' is a much better fit on the AGW folks...particularly, I suspect, those who keep jumping up and down screaming 'liar, liar' at everyone else.
Well, now we know.
Don't take Watts' word for it. Go read the emails yourself.
Great that there is an honest whistleblower somewhere in CRU.
Rachelle @ 719:
And Kent Hovind is an honest scientist and educator...
And Steven J. Gould said The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology which is independent confirmation that Gould was 'hiding the decline' of evolution!
Weapons-grade projection there, dearie, particularly since you've already been caught on this thread with your trousers aflame at #632.
You cling to belief it was a whistleblower like it was a floatation device. Because you have to. The cognitive dissonance of realizing that the oligarchs have been lying to you is more than your weak little psyche can handle.
Interesting that you should choose Steven J. Gould for a comparison to AGW scientists caught in Climategate I & II.
Perfect, in fact.
Gould himself fudged numbers on his Mismeasure of Man study. He ridiculed George Morton, the scientist who years before had measured skull volume of several racial groups and discovered differences. Gould redid the experiment and found no differences in volume of significance. Recently, the skulls were measured again, much more accurately than before and it turns out that the original investigator was correct and it was Gould who let his wishes for the outcome guide the results of his study. Gould was the fraud who let politics impair his science. Good example, NJ, just the thing the AGW people [at least some of them] appear to be doing.
"the Morton case provides an example of how the scientific method can shield results from cultural biases." Gould was the liar.
A report on the followup of Morton's study is here:
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001…
Rachelle:
What! Are you serious? Watts is a goldmine of lies.
Oh yes, so honest in fact that he let us all know his name because he has no concern about having committed a criminal act. Yeah sure, Rachelle. Tell us another one.
By the way, you still haven't done the trivially easy task of supplying just one scientific citation with evidence that the MWP was global (after your Broecker failure) or that the MWP was globally warmer than today. It can't be that hard, surely. You wouldn't want us to think that you're making it up, would you?
> Incidentally, Antony Watts at wattsupwiththat is not any type of liar
He's every type of liar.
He says that the UHI effect ruins the temperature data and starts surfacestations to prove it and says he'll show preliminary results.
When he's got most of the data, he reneges on that.
NOAA do the work for him and show that the UHI effect is probably overcorrecting and the trend higher.
Despite wailing like a baby about how people are hiding their data, Watts then goes ballistic about "his data" being used by NOAA before he's ready.
Merely one of many examples of his lying ways.
"Phil Jones: "âBasic problem is that all models are wrong,â ânot got enough middle and low level clouds.â"
Aye.
And?
Or don't you know the saying: All models are wrong, some models are useful.
You see, if the models were right, then the trend reported would be 3.2C per doubling +/- 0.0C.
But they aren't, are they.
Now, given you've been wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME you opened your gob, I guess you'll shut up, aye, 'cos even one inaccuracy invalidates 100% of all other evidence.
"Irrelevant strawman."
Is that how you deal with "devastatingly accurate analogy"?
"And you still haven't explained how the polar bear numbers are up so much"
Well, since polar bear numbers are declining, why would I have to explain why they are going up???
Well, because, as I pointed out, they aren't declining. They're going up. Try again.
Yes, it is.
The useful ones are those not tainted by liar Hansen or the IPCC.
"because, as I pointed out, they aren't declining"
You are, however wrong.
http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/index.html
Or is your job polar bear counter?
""Is that how you deal with "devastatingly accurate analogy"
Yes, it is."
Well, at least you're openly a troll.
"The useful ones are those not tainted by liar Hansen"
Hmm. You've been trying for several weeks to get any evidence of Hansen lying.
And you've failed.
But you don't let something like truth or honesty get in the way of your insanity.
Rachelle:
What! Are you serious? Watts is a goldmine of lies.
Rachelle:
Oh yes, so honest in fact that he let us all know his name because he has no concern about having committed a criminal act. Yeah sure, Rachelle. Tell us another one.
By the way, you still haven't done the trivially easy task of supplying just one scientific citation with evidence that the MWP was global (after your Broecker failure) or that the MWP was globally warmer than today. It can't be that hard, surely. You wouldn't want us to think that you're making it up, would you?
Rachelle:
Watts has told so many lies I can't get just a few of them through the spam filter in one go. Here is just one of them to begin with.
GOOD GRIEF:
In one of the released emails Phil Jones admits he is incompetent doing a temperature trend on Excel. Apparently, nobody around him knows how to do it either.
And you trust the people in this scientific politburo why?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/24/crus-dr-phil-jones-world-renowned…
I had a look at O'Nell's example of lies told by A. Watts in #731.
Surely you are kidding. That is little more than a nit-picking rant by someone who appears not altogether stable. Is it your blog? I doubt Watts would waste much time with whoever it is. It is just another clown who wants to drown out conversation by jumping up and down and scream, "Liar, Liar, Liar" while plugging his ears. That was my first and last look at that site. Find something better.
Rachelle still haven't done the trivially easy task of supplying just one scientific citation with evidence that the MWP was global (after her Broecker failure) or that the MWP was globally warmer than today. She obviously wants us to think that she's making it up.
Was the MWP global?
Obviously you missed this:
Was the Medieval Warm Period Global?
Wallace S. Broecker
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/291/5508/1497.short
He thinks it was global.
I think I have been fairly clear in saying that proxies for temperature in that time are necessarily unreliable. It may have been global as Broecker thinks or it may not have been. More and better data is needed.
My principal point--in line with the subject of this post--is that the science is not settled. If respectable scientists argue both sides of the global-MWP issue, that suits my contention--not settled.
Arguing from the evidence that it was not global is legitimate science. Arguing from the evidence that is was global is legitimate science. What is not legitimate is to conspire to erase the evidence to achieve a 'settled' consensus, and that is what the emails show the AGW gang have been doing.
You are working far too hard to rant that I am a liar. It is very hard to say that an agnostic lies when she says: I don't know the answer because the issue is not settled.
It will always be settled with you, though, just as issues were always settled with the Inquisition. Interestingly one of the recently released emails had one of the AGW crew worrying that they were beginning to look 'religious' in their approach to AGW. They are...and so are you.
Rachelle @ 721:
Totally unsurprising that you miss the point of Gould being quote-mined to bring in an irrelevant and unrelated topic in an attempt to drag a red herring across the path of the discussion.
@ 734:
It isn't hard at all, since you are doing most of the work for us. You have over and over demonstrated how apt is the analogy between evolution deniers and climate change deniers. You state:
after having been hammered for 700 posts or so, but drop you into a new thread and there is little doubt that you will start at the very beginning again, Duane Gish-like.
If you dislike being called dishonest, stop being dishonest.
Nut Job said:
"Totally unsurprising that you miss the point of Gould being quote-mined to bring in an irrelevant and unrelated topic in an attempt to drag a red herring across the path of the discussion."
"Quote mined"? The only Gould quote was yours.
"Red herring?" If so, he is your red herring.
You apparently admire him, and the AGW 'science' gang, so it is only too appropriate to point out that your idols apparently share a common quality: They let their politics and their revenue stream distort their science. Frauds.
Now that the latest batch of emails has come out, it is even more evident than before that the 'science' is far from settled.
I like this--particularly the part where he asks:
"You know what you get when you mix science and politics? Politics, period."
http://www.lesjones.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-bigger-harder-uncut-em…
FORBES article is good:
"Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political âcauseâ rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-…
Ever hear of the little boy who cried 'wolf'? That's what these jackasses have been doing. If some honest scientists actually demonstrate AGW in the future [and I don't rule it out] who will believe them after this lying fiasco?
"Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails:"
1) The hacker sat on it two years
2) The hacker pushed out much more earlier, what's the chance they managed to find something this time (where they failed last time)
3) Those who have no clue about science but hate it anyway (like you, little girl), will love it, no matter what it says.
Tell me, little girl, do you ever have a thought of your own, or do you only ever take instruction from those who say what you like to hear?
"You know what you get when you mix science and politics? Politics, period."
Yup.
He was complaining about people like you, rachel. You've done nothing but promote the politics of the libertarian creedo.
"You apparently admire him, and the AGW 'science' gang"
And again you lie.
No 'scare quotes' around that science needed.
AGW is the consequent natural result of our production of excess greenhouse gasses.
And what's wrong with admiring someone who does science?
"point out that your idols apparently share a common quality:"
We adhere to honest science. Unlike you and your denier pals.
Ever checked out the revenue stream of the Saudi Arabian oilfields? And they are not the only oilfields.
No, because you don't want the truth. You can't handle the truth.
So you hide from it behind lies and bluster.
A rather more accurate view of those emails:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/24/leaked-climate-scienc…
Rachelle:
I've seen this so-called evidence at CO2"science" in the past and I've always been intrigued by how they use "proof by contradictory citation". For example, they cite "Ammonium concentration in ice cores: A new proxy for regional temperature reconstruction?" as part of the evidence that the MWP was global. Problem is, it shows the Eastern Bolivian Andes are actually warmer now than during the MWP. This is supposed to be evidence that the MWP was global.
As I said, proof by contradictory citation.
Rachelle:
Oh my God. You really are brain dead, aren't you?
I linked to the full paper in #555 and gave quotes from it:
And now, you have the hide to claim that I obviously missed it!
Talk about Groundhog Day.
As I was saying: Not settled!
"The climate may be less sensitive to carbon dioxide than we thought â and temperature rises this century could be smaller than expected. That's the surprise result of a new analysis of the last ice age"
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21212-co2-may-not-warm-the-planet…
O'Neill,
Re your #744.
I think I see what your problem is. You are so accustomed to faith-like based declarations sounding in absolute certainty that you are incapable of following the reasoning of a careful scientist.
Of course Broecker does not declare with certainty that the MWP was global or that it was necessarily warmer than the present [though he does cite researchers who came to that conclusion]. Instead, he says as I have done that by using proxies it is unlikely that we will get the level of certainty that we can get with present technology.
What might have had high probative value would have been evidence that was inconsistent with a global MWP. In other words, it might be within our reach to prove that it was NOT global even if we cannot prove that it was. What came out of it was that his findings were consistent with a global MWP. You look for evidence that it was not global and if your accumulating results are, instead, consistent with global MWP the case is stronger [but not absolutely proven] that it was global. At this level of the science, the argument for global MWP is inconclusive, in part because the proxies available have inadequate sensitivity.
You really ought to spend more time on his article. He makes reasonable speculations on the data available, discloses the weaknesses in the measures of that data, and cautiously advances his propositions, all of which are consistent with what he has learned. If the AGW politician-scientists had acted the same way, I would have no complaint about them and certainly would have greater confidence in their conclusions. Instead, they look like con men.
You are looking for a priest garbed as a scientist who will reveal absolute truth to you. You have no interest in actual science.
As I said, the science is 'not settled' and it cannot be until proxies and other mechanisms for collecting and analyzing data are improved.
WOW said:
"You've done nothing but promote the politics of the libertarian creedo."
I don't think I have said anything about a 'libertarian creedo', whatever that is, one way or the other, but that comment reveals much about WOW.
WOW is basically a Fascist in love with authoritarianism. I doubt he cares about AGW one way or the other as science. He embraces it as a tool to further his political agenda. There seems to be quite a lot of that in the AGW cult.
Rachelle @645: "We need to return to basic science,"
Excellent idea, and something you won't find on denialist sites.
It has been known since 1859 that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.CO2 levels are rising and the additional CO2 is from human activity (known since the 1950s).In the absence of negative feedback mechanisms, Earth's temperature could be expected to rise (predicted by Arrhenius in 1896).There are no known negative feedback mechanisms of anything like the required magnitude, nor any evidence that such exists.Therefore, an increase in Earth's temperature is to be expected (predicted since the late 1950s).
Where, exactly, do you take issue with the predictions from chemistry and physics, and what is your evidence? As far as I am aware, people like Watts and Ball avoid this (except for a brief flirt with the postulated iris effect) yet it should be central to their claims.
Once you have corrected (or more likely, ignored) 150 years of science that predicts climate change, you also need to consider the evidence that climate change is actually taking place. This comes from temperature measurements, borehole temperatures, changing distributions of plants, animals and diseases, melting of glaciers, ice sheets, Arctic ice and permafrost, earlier dates of snow melt and river ice break-up, the disparity between incoming and outgoing radiation as measured by satellites, changes in flowering time, changes in plant hardiness zones, sea level rise, increase in record high temperature events and no doubt other sources.
All of these are consistent with global climate change, in particular with global warming. If you refuse to accept these, you can't just nibble at the edges to find exceptional cases, you must thoroughly refute all of the disparate sources of evidence. Remember, most of these are based on dozens of independent studies, often conducted by people who have no particular interest in climate change.
Getting excited over a few carefully chosen, out-of-context snippets of e-mails is basically gossip suited to National Enquirer or News of the World and has little to do with science.
Simons:
Re your comment on CO2. Apparently you missed this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111124150827.htm
As for the 'carefully chosen, out of context' emails, go download them and put them into context for me.
What is the context for deleting embarrassing emails? What is the context for fretting that getting rid of the MWP in Greenland is going to be difficult? What is the context to referring to AGW as 'the cause'? What is the context for pressuring professional publications to get rid of authors and editors who don't tow the line for 'the cause'?
Rarely does an unethical or criminal conspiracy reveal itself in every detail, but there is enough here to warrant much closer examination of everything these people have done and what they claim to have done. I hope the Virginia Attorney General downloads this bunch. He is still working on the case. Odd, isn't it, that a civil servant, government employee, like Hansen sports a Rolex watch and, apparently neglects to report about one million dollars of income that the CFR requires him to report?
You are struggling very hard to delude yourself.
Getting more disgusting by the minute.
"Climategate scientists DID collude with government officials to hide research that didn't fit their apocalyptic global warming"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2066240/Second-leak-clim…
Rachelle @748: "Re your comment on CO2. Apparently you missed this:
[link]
No I didn't. Apparently you have misunderstood it. This one paper suggests that a temperature rise of 6C per doubling of CO2 is unlikely. IPCC's best estimate is still between 2 and 4C.
I see you show no inclination to go back to basic science, despite your claim earlier on. I don't blame you - you have adequately demonstrated that you have not the slightest grasp of the science behind concerns about climate change. Almost everything you have posted as a claimed refutation of some aspect of the science has been demonstrated to be wrong, so all you are left with is to wallow in accusations of bad behaviour.
Regardless of the veracity or otherwise (almost entirely otherwise, from what I have seen) of these claims of nefarious behaviour, the physics and chemistry will be unchanged and data from temperature measurements, borehole temperatures, changing distributions of plants, animals and diseases, melting of glaciers, ice sheets, Arctic ice and permafrost, earlier dates of snow melt and river ice break-up, the disparity between incoming and outgoing radiation as measured by satellites, changes in flowering time, changes in plant hardiness zones, sea level rise, increase in record high temperature events and no doubt other sources will continue to demonstrate climate change.
PS Racelle: Regarding the link you gave, the author has said "âWhile our statistical analysis calculates that high climate sensitivities have very low probabilities, you can see from the caveats in our paper, and my remarks in this interview, that we have not actually claimed to have disproven high climate sensitivitiesâ¦.Our study comes with a number of important caveats, which highlight simplifying assumptions and possible inconsistencies. These have to be tested further.â
Really quite, quite different from what you imply.
Simons says [752] re my comment:
"quite different from what you imply."
You think so? My ultimate position is that there is a great deal of uncertainty in this field and the science is not settled.
Remember, this thread began with the comment that the science is 'settled'. It isn't.
If I don't think the science is settled, why would I be surprised that people arguing the other side of the AGW issue express caveats and uncertainties? I would expect that to be true and would have less faith in them if they claimed to be more certain of their conclusions.
That there is 'climate change' I have no doubt. That it is caused largely by human activity is dubious. As for AGW, the science is still not settled. For certain it is not settled enough to spend trillions on nonsense while damaging the economies upon which billions of people depend.
I think that like WOW, you may be in love with the authoritarianism that AGW seems to mandate and that you would [and probably do] support almost anything in 'science' that lends credence to totalitarian government.
Politics of the ugliest sort guide your conclusions.
Rachelle @ 736:
Dear God in Heaven, you are a stupid, stupid piece of shit.
In comment 720, I pointed out that Gould had been quote-mined by creationists to make it seem as if he had believed something about the fossil record that he in fact did not. This was offered as a direct analogy to the quote-mining of the hacked CRU e-mails by climate change denialists such as yourself.
Your inability to grasp this highly obvious point is strongly suggestive of brain damage on your part.
You then brought up an entirely irrelevant story about Gould, which I referred to as a red-herring. I shall quote from an easily accessible source, since I now consider it unlikely you could find it yourself:
An exact description, not that you will be able to grasp it.
Rachelle @ 721:
And just like a creationist, who would claim that we worship Darwin, you decide that those who we reference are objects of admiration or worship, again completely failing to get the point of the original reference, which was to illustrate the exceptional similarities between evolution deniers and climate change deniers.
In fact, your repeated charges of fraud only reinforce this, as I can once again draw an analogy between creationist attempts to label Haeckel or Kettlewell as frauds to discredit evolution.
Let me now make a meta-point, and another creationist analogy. This thread has passed 750 comments, and all it has done is display the utter failure of the non-autonomous sections of your nervous system. You have been outed as dishonest, unable to follow a line of argument, and basically no more than a conduit for the Potemkin village arguments supplied to you.
Although this thread at Pharyngula:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/11/william_lane_craig_and_the_p…
is shorter than the one here, there are numerous others of the same flavor there that someone of intellectual curiosity (not you, of course) could find. In the one I linked to, the poster txpiper is occupying the same position you are, offering weak, dishonest and incoherent arguments for creationism, and getting publicly obliterated for it, tag-team fashion.
There are more of us than there are of you. Your public humiliation at our hands will continue until you decide to leave. Your choice.
So where is the error in the work of Revelle and Suess (and many subsequent researchers)?
You write 'trillions' rather than 'billions' or even 'millions' because it sounds like a big number to you. You will be unable to justify it. Why 'nonsense'? Repeating a claim does not make it true. Have you any evidence whatsoever that the economy of countries that have invested in reducing energy use is suffering? Do you think that climate change will not cause massive disruption to the economies of many countries? How could you make so many unsupportable claims in one sentence?
What complete and utter balderdash, based purely on your own prejudices!
Meanwhle, you avoid the science and continue your bleating.
NJ tells me:
"Dear God in Heaven, you are a stupid, stupid piece of shit."
NJ, Have you ever read "How to Win Friends and Influence People"?
You also remind me that:
"Red herring is an idiomatic expression referring to the rhetorical or literary tactic of diverting attention away from an item of significance."
This comes from your complaint of my use of Gould to make a point. In fact, I was diverting from your point of INsignificance to the same point I have been making since the beginning.
Let me make it clearer:
Point 1: The science of AGW is not settled.
Point 2: The most enthusiastic proponents of AGW have profited from 'the cause' and appear [by their emails] to have been considerably less than honest in their reports. Some of their own emails admit as much. Why is this relevant? Because it suggests that the 'settled' part of the science may be dishonest and not truly 'settled' at all.
Point 3. You advanced Stephen Gould as an exemplar of a good scientist who has been quote-mined by activists to support an untrue proposition. I got that. I could not resist reminding you that Gould was caught tainting his science with politics in the same way the AGW folks are doing. Science+Politics = Politics. AGW folks have done it and so has your icon. That isn't called dragging a red herring through the argument; it is called 'rubbing it in' which, no doubt, is why your response is so rabid.
I WARNED YOU somewhere above that the now-revealed tactics of the AGW gang would have consequences...the 'cried wolf' problem.
By pushing public hysteria on tissue then science, and getting caught, these idiots have made it much more difficult for genuine, politically-disinterested scientists to be heard if AGW is ever truly demonstrated.
Now even the UK's green guru wonders if AGW is true:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2066720/David-Camerons-green-gu…
Told ya this would happen...expect more of it.
Curiosity led me back to Ethan's original post about science being facts, and 'settled' and all that.
He begins with this 'settled' statement of scientific fact:
"The higher you fall from, the faster you'll be moving when you hit the ground."
So if you are falling from a great distance in a vacuum toward a black hole at what point do you exceed the speed of light?
Ethan can explain this much better than I, of course, but it is a reminder that some simple statements of settled science often have variants requiring a great deal more. AGW people are relying far too much on the simplest, most apocalyptic expressions to make their case.
Simmons wonders if there is any evidence of costs related AGW.
Just a quick snippet:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8917737…
"the EUâs âemissions trading schemeâ has wasted $287 billion (£186billion) over six years â paid by all of us, to achieve nothing in terms of reducing âcarbon emissionsâ.
"within nine years we could all be paying nearly £300 a year to subsidise solar panels and those same useless windmills."
"Letâs start, however, with a form of insanity which has so far made few headlines â a Government policy which, in the next few years, will inflate the cost of a new home in Britain by as much as 66 per cent."
That is only the beginning. Remember that Obama said that energy prices would 'skyrocket' when he implemented his green schemes.
Third World countries--always holding out the rice bowl for another serving--have begun demanding astronomical sums for 'reparations' because of AGW. The Maldives, for example, wants us to build new islands for them.
When energy costs go up, everything costs more...and, yes, it will add up to trillions lost.
Simmons:
Adaptation to climate change could cost developing countries 75-90 billion dollars ANNUALLY---as I said, trillions.
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/science/news/article_1504155.php/Clim…
Who do you think they are going to to get that money? Sucker.
It's an excuse for another shakedown.
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/science/news/article_1504155.php/Clim…
Rachelle: I see you now agree that adapting to climate change will be expensive. That is the claim that scientists have been making for decades. What I understood you to be saying by "not settled enough to spend trillions on nonsense" was that you thought it was unwise to invest to try to reduce climate change. I am sorry for the misunderstanding.
Now you just need to elucidate your understanding of the basic science. Where is the error in the work of Revelle and Suess (and many subsequent researchers)?
Rachelle:
Standard denialist meme: Climate sensitivity is not certain. Therefore we should keep business as usual.
At least this is consistent. She wants certainty and then accuses me of believing there is certainty. She thinks I have the certainty that she requires.
As I said, Rachelle is brain dead.
Re: Revelle and Suess
I thought you noticed the recent news that CO2 concentrations and temperature increases do not correlate nearly as well as expected. Apparently you didn't.
Revelle and Suess don't have to be wrong, and I don't have to point to errors in their work [if any] to sustain my position.
I have said that in a complex system like global climate it is not possible at this stage to say the science is settled. I would expect research like that of Revelle and Suess and others together with the more recent studies showing that carbon dioxide concentration does not relate to temperature increases as expected.
That's the way it is when the science isn't settled. I have no intention of pretending to settle an issue that I have already said probably cannot be settled at this stage of investigation. Funny that you don't get that. Good for Revelle and Suess; I have no brief with them.
I do think it makes it much harder for legitimate researchers when the type of thing we see in the Climategate emails comes out. Even I would not have guessed that Phil Jones couldn't use Excel properly nor, according to him, could anyone around him. Yet you put your faith--and at this point it is Faith--in him.
Simmons,
I came across this quote by Revelle that should amuse you; it does me:
People's attitude toward the rise of CO2, he wrote in 1966, "should probably contain more curiosity than apprehension."
As I said, I have no brief with Revelle...probably you do, though.
Rachelle:
Why can't 'it' be settled? What exactly is 'it' that you are saying is, or is not, settled? Are you claiming that it is not settled that CO2 is a greenhouse gas? Or perhaps that it is not settled that levels are rising? Maybe you are waffling about the increase being anthropogenic in origin? Are you trying to be evasive about the increase in CO2 inevitably leading to an increase in the energy content of the lower atmosphere and surface layers?
You need to be more specific. 97% of climate scientists agree that increased atmospheric CO2 is causing, and will cause further, climate change, in particular increasing average temperatures. You, who obviously has minimal science education, disagree (Excel is not exactly the be all and end all of statistical analysis, you know. In fact, I have not met a scientist who uses it for analysing their data). What is the justification for your disagreement? Repeatedly parrotting 'it is not settled' is looking increasingly pathetic.
Once you've done that, you need to find ways of discounting all the multifarious lines of evidence that show Earth is warming, or to come up with an alternative explanation.
Seriously? You are quoting a 40-year-old opinion as a reliable guide to the attitude we should take now? Incredible!
O'Neill said:
"Standard denialist meme: Climate sensitivity is not certain. Therefore we should keep business as usual."
If by 'business as usual' you mean what I mean, providing food and homes for people at prices they can afford, providing energy for people at prices they can afford, providing work for people who are able to work, then yes, I think we should keep up 'business as usual' before we start tearing civilization down on the basis of a still unsettled hypothesis.
I know, you are ready to tear it all down. I can only assume you are a pampered product of relative affluence and really have no idea of the consequences you are proposing. Yet, you think I am brain dead?
Start tearing away O'Neill, but do us all a favor and start tearing away at your own life. Get rid of your car if you have one. Get rid of your electrical appliances. Start your own garden. Discard your air conditioning. Stop buying stuff produced by energy. And, for goodness' sake, get rid of your computer first. You are a fanatic.
"Standard denialist meme: Climate sensitivity is not certain. Therefore we should keep business as usual."
Rachelle:
So now you're no longer asserting that we need certainty before we should act and instead are making the strawman argument that if action costs food and housing supply then we can't do it. This, of course, is a standard denialist strawman. There is no law of economics or anything else that says controlling CO2 emissions must reduce food supply or housing supply.
This standard denialist strawman comes straight after instantly forgetting the standard denialist meme above since it's part of a Gish Gallop. So you're not challenging the standard denialist meme (Climate sensitivity is not certain, therefore we should keep business as usual) anymore are you Rachelle?
Typical selfish denialist attitude. She thinks only the people who accept the science should make any effort to stop trashing the atmosphere while she and her ilk can continue trashing it as if nothing is happening. And to support her selfish position, she wages a dishonest disinformation campaign that includes the standard denialist meme above:
Climate sensitivity is not certain. Therefore we should keep business as usual.
"if action costs food and housing supply then we can't do it."
Worse, this stupid girl is saying if it is *possible* that action costs food and housing problems, then we can't do it.
Rather the opposite of her reasoning that AGW is no problem: there's a chance that it won't be a problem, so it isn't.
""You've done nothing but promote the politics of the libertarian creedo."
I don't think I have said anything about a 'libertarian creedo'"
Never said you did. You're promoting the politics of the libertarian creedo and that is what I said.
"WOW is basically a Fascist in love with authoritarianism. "
This is more attributable to you, you silly little girl, and all libertarians. Fascism is the support of the private industry by the state. Note that almost every single "little government" proponent still wants corporations protected by government force.
Re: McNeill #767. So, like Al Gore, you want to preach austerity for the rest of us but are unwilling to lead by example. As I suspected, pampered rich kid with a feather up his rear. Have you ever had an actual job? Responsibility? Or are you just another perpetual student?
Re: W at #769 who says "Fascism is the support of the private industry by the state"
Actually, fascism is a term Italian unions used when Mussolini [a big union man] was beginning his climb to authoritarian power. [It derives, of course, from the bound or united rods carried by lictors in ancient Rome]. At its core, it is a leftist dogma. Much the same can be said of the Nazi party, a term derived from NSDAP or National Socialist German Workers Party...basically another diseased variant of the Left and not so very different from Stalinism. In US terms it is not that far removed from the crony capitalism pushed by the present administration.
If the 'left/right' thing confuses you [and clearly it does] you will find it easier to set aside that worn-out concept and instead look at the core values involved. In that fascism, Nazism, crony capitalism, and Marxism share a quest for authoritarian, centralized power, they are only different shades of the same thing. And generally they have caused nothing but misery for humanity. Yes, WOW, for all practical purposes you are a fascist and I think that is more important to you than AGW.
Here is how your cult is faring these days:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702039356045770661837613155…
> like Al Gore, you want to preach austerity for the rest of us but are unwilling to lead by example
But you also complain about hippies or the envy of the rich.
Seems like you're ensuring you can ignore everything everyone is saying by changing your parameters for acceptance...
I take it you have no problem with the feather-ass of the CEOs. Just people who you disagree with who happen also to be privileged.
"Actually, fascism is a term Italian unions used"
It. fascio "group, association," lit. "bundle".
It was a latin word. Used by anyone.
"At its core, it is a leftist dogma."
WRONG.
Then again, you're brought up by rightwingnuts to believe that anything you don't like is leftist. You're just damaged goods, kid. Damaged goods.
But you already know that many of your pronouncements have been 100% false.
Yet you STILL insist that it's the AGW system that is wrong, never you.
Pathetic.
I hope you're young so you can see the devastation you're a party to.
Rachelle: You keep claiming that 'the science is not settled' (without specifying which aspect of the science you feel is not settled). Exactly what would it take for you to be convinced that AGW is real, is serious and is happening now? Remember, no matter how crazy an idea is, you can always find someone to support it, so 100% agreement is, in practice, unobtainable. If 90% of the practitioners in an area were in agreement, would you consider it to be settled? How about 95%? Just what would it take?
For me, I thought AGW was more likely to occur than not, based on the science, by the mid 1960s and all the evidence since then has strengthened my opinion. You, on the other hand, are clearly unable to assess the evidence and must rely on authority but your track record here for getting things wrong shows that you are unable to even assess the trustworthiness of the secondary sources you depend on.
Your inability to understand the science is also the reason why, despite being asked questions about the science, you consistently fall back on smears and innuendo. You have shown considerable persistence here - you now need to go away and apply that persistence to actually learning something about the topic so that you no longer come across as a small-minded ignoramus.
"For me, I thought AGW was more likely to occur than not, based on the science, by the mid 1960s"
The only real discount for the existence of AGW before then was that the calculations done by Arrhenius at the end of the 19th Century would fall foul of the saturated gas argument and that a more careful and lengthy mathematical solution of the equation would show that CO2 would not explain the warming of the past (and hence not explain the warming of the future: AGW).
This held up tentatively until the 1930's because the maths done by hand had to be crude to be solvable by humans.
Callendar used a computer to do the maths fast enough to find the answer to the question "would CO2 warming cap at some concentration", and the answer was "no".
He got a lower sensitivity than Arrhenius' simple calculation, but still solidly within the current models and paleoclimate data (and, indeed, the current warming trend).
So the 1930's was probably the end of the "is it likely", since there had been enough rough calculation to swing the balance of probabilities to the side that leads naturally to AGW. By 1960, there was overwhelming evidence that AGW was real and a real problem.
Hence the preponderance of papers in the 1970's talking about AGW, with a few papers tentatively supporting a cooling trend if the industry didn't clean up (which they did).
HIDE
THE
DECLINE
Yes. You do that a lot, don't you.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Arctic-sea-ice-hockey-stick-melt-unprec…
and making up a decline, too
http://www.skepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-1.html
Aaaaand Wow just can't resist the ol' IKYABWAI and IRYG!!!
Not to mention bowing down before the gods of the AGW propaganda blog "skeptical""science".com.
Priceless!
When anybody advances a proposition, it is up to him to prove it, not for me to disprove it.
The Climategate emails clearly show that even in their confidential communications the AGW clique suspected they were full of nonsense and were overselling their claims.
Once their doubts and deceptions are exposed, it is clear that the science isn't 'settled' even among themselves. The only thing truly settled in AGW is the politics...the same old leftist tyranny that never fails to destroy lives.
In the meantime, the pampered well-to-do proponents of AGW really ought to try living by example.
Instead, you follow Al Gore who has a carbon butt print the size of Lichtenstein.
Vegetarians proclaim their belief, but they also live them by not eating meat. The Amish live their beliefs. If you began to live as if you truly worried about AGW perhaps you could be taken seriously. Live as the Amish do--simply. As it is, you are hypocritical frauds.
> When anybody advances a proposition, it is up to him to prove it
It has been proved.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.gif
> the AGW propaganda blog "skeptical""science".com.
Prove it's AGW propoganda.
Just because you don't want to believe it, doesn't make it propaganda.
PS Rachel, prove that you will die if you jump in front of a speeding train.
> The Climategate emails clearly show that even in their confidential communications the AGW clique suspected they were full of nonsense
Prove it.
> the same old leftist tyranny that never fails to destroy lives.
Prove it.
> Instead, you follow Al Gore who has a carbon butt print the size of Lichtenstein.
Prove it.
Rachelle and AGWSkeptic: Let me know when you are ready to drop the smears and innuendo and ready to start discussing science.
Wow blathered:
All fixed!
Richard Sim(m)ons blathered:
All fixed!
Sorry, Richie, I don't think I can wait that long!
> All fixed!
If only. It'd stop you pissing in the gene pool for a start.
You can make the claim that "just because I want to believe it doesn't make it infallible". But two problems:
1) I didn't say it was infallible
2) You haven't shown anything wrong on SkS
But it still appears you have nothing to offer beyond that of a petulant four year old demanding candy.
You quoted it as an authority. That means you believe everything it has to say, just like Christians do with the bible.
It's not my responsibility to show anything wrong, since they are the ones making the claims.
That's Fail * 2 for Wow!
Project much?
AGWSkeptic @783
Grow up, kiddie!
It gets worse by the minute. AGW liars.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/30/hide-the-decline-worse-than-we-th…
Ah, nope, again your empty blonde head has ignored any evidence whatsoever, just listened to gossip.
"You quoted it as an authority."
I quoted it as a source of information.
Or do you not do sources of information to inform you?
"That means you believe everything it has to say"
Nope. Just that the link I gave you was correct.
Of course, you disbelieve everything they say, just like Islamists about the Christian bible.
> It's not my responsibility to show anything wrong
Yes it is. They've proven their case. You have to show it is wrong.
For anyone considering WUWT to be anything other than a pack of liars, the actual PDF is available here:
http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/eos03.pdf
And data after 1960 for some treering reconstructions were removed.
However, the other proxies match temperature readings after that point and the briffa reconstruction matches the readings before that point.
Since this problem with some tree ring constructions was widely known in the paleoclimate research community, this was known by the authors of this paper.
Talk about a storm in a teacup, the rage is entirely manufactured here.
Sounds about right:
Editorial: Global warming alarmism cooling
"Another frantic effort to redistribute wealth from developed nations to developing nations is under way, this time in Durban, South Africa. The excuse is the same old, tiresome claim that socialism writ large is necessary to save the planet from global warming."
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/nations-329358-global-warming.html
Wow - I think the WUWT fan club does not realise that, if the Medieval Warm Period was indeed warmer than we think, then, AIUI, climate sensitivity is being underestimated and we are in even bigger trouble than we anticipate.
What they also don't realise is that people working in the field of climate studies know about the problem with a small set of temperature proxies.
They're just desperate to concoct a problem.
Has a single one of them asked the authors whether they knew about the tree ring divergence that was discussed widely for years earlier?
No.
It's much easier to pretend that because they are clueless about everything, that everyone else must be.
So as proof of there being a communist conspiracy, rachel turns to... An opinion piece...
Why would anyone be surprised?
Still believe that George Lucas faked the moon landings, kid?
Simmons said:
"Wow - I think the WUWT fan club does not realise that, if the Medieval Warm Period was indeed warmer than we think, then, AIUI, climate sensitivity is being underestimated and we are in even bigger trouble than we anticipate."
Actually, I think that is part of the problem. Only proxies could be used for earlier times. When the proxies were laid against actual measurements when they were available, they were signalling lower temperatures than were being measured. That meant that there was a good chance temperatures based on proxies were lower than the actual temperatures at the time, thus, the slope of the rise in modern temperatures was overstated. That was part of what the AGW gang wanted to hide.
Richard Sim(m)ons blathered:
Projection at its finest!
To AGWSkeptic,
I think Simmons is a high school student and WOW is an inmate.
"When the proxies were laid against actual measurements when they were available, they were signalling lower temperatures than were being measured"
WRONG.
1) We had thermometers since about 1800. Northen Bristlecone pine data was fine until some years after 1960. That's over 160 years signalling equal to that measured.
2) Boreholes: still tracked.
3) Ice cores still tracked.
4) Southern tree ring data still tracked.
5) Non-bristlecone pines in the north still tracked.
You know absolutely nothing except that you MUST be right.
Typical frenzied libertard.
WOW said: You know absolutely nothing except that you MUST be right.
Yes, I must be.
Yup, you're nuts all right.
You certainly don't know what the temperature reconstructions are made from.
Doesn't stop you believing you're right, though, does it.
Typical airhead.
Wow said: Typical frenzied libertard.
Rachelle said: Yes, I must be.
Whole cloth?
No.
Wow said (for the hundred millionth time):
Nope, never said that.
You did, though.
Probably because you wanted to hide your admission that you don't know jack.
You didn't have to. Everything you have said so far has been a tu quoque fallacy.
Like that, for example!
Or that.
"You didn't have to."
So it seems. Not like you have needed evidence so far, is it, before claiming something.
What if your baseline is not 1880?
Where was 1880 used to provide a baseline? Do you actually know what is meant by a baseline? It is merely a reference temperature used for comparison. It could be 0C, 425F or 0K or anything else, but it is usually handy to use something close to the start of the data (I understand GISS uses the station average, 1951-1980). It's a convenience, nothing more, and has no effect on the conclusions to be drawn.
The satellite data use a baseline that starts from the 1970's. Many denier blogs use this to "prove" that the temperature anomaly graphs from NOAA are incorrect, neglecting to set for the different baselines.
Within the same graph, the baseline is irrelevant.
Between graphs, you need to solve for a common baseline period.
If there is such a great understanding to produce such a consensus. Why then have the predictions been so statistically wrong? I also find it irritating that both sides use one (you used hottest 12 months) or two year to "prove their theory". One of my science professors (a proponent of anthropogenic climate change) stated that climate is by definition of significant period of time at least twenty years, not this one or two years.
Yes, the avg. global temperature has been rising. But the global temperature has always fluctuated ignorant people on both sides think "proving that or disproving it" wins. It is not a question of is there change but what is causing the change that is relevant to the discussion.
Anthony Watts:
Pathological liar:
Watts would have known he wasn't going to accept BEST's results, therefore he was lying when he said he would. He would have known his lie would have become disclosed, therefore he is a pathological liar.
First of all, the hate on both sides of this arguement is astonishing. Warmists deny that there are any flaws or questions to AGW. Unfortunately every good theory has a number of dangling oddities that require further investigation. There is nothing wrong with pointing those out. We still havn't gotten to the bottem of many big complicated theories like evolution and quantum mechanics. Why is AGW any different?
The Septics take the same silly view - any tiny flaw in the data is immediate grounds for dismisal of the whole theory. Flush it away because there is a 0.3 degree discrency in the database. Sheesh.
The problem is that both sides see themsleves as SAVIORS OF THE WORLD (tm). Warmists - from the terrible consequences of gobal wamring. Deniers - from the terrible economic consequences of stopping the use of fossil fuels. Any rude comment, any distortion of data, hey its all okay. I'm doing it to save the world!
Every AGW supporter must acknowledge the potential cost of dealing with AGW, and that the countries that really matter in this debate (everyone outside the U.S. and Europe) will never agree to pay that cost. Your argument isan't with "deniers" in America, it is with billions of poor Indians and Chinese that don't want to stay poor. You are NEVER going to win that arguement, the one between poverty today, and sea level change in 100 years.
So...what to do? For warmists, here is a short list of your realistic choices:
1) Rich countries invade all the poor countries. Kill as many people as you can. After your bloody victory, declare a worldwide dictatorship and a ban on hydrocarbon usage. Keep much of the world poor in perpituity.
2) Migrate the human race off-world. Where? Beats me.
3) Engineer a plague that kills most of the human race you want to save. More or less the same as the previous 2 solutions - less people.
4) Geoengineer the world to cool it.
5) Rapid deployment and expansion of nuclear power worldwide. Not ideal. Problem laden. But there it is.
6) Just deal with it and hope for the best. Maybe it won't be as bad as we think....maybe we'll figure something better out down the road.
Deniers (I think) see the truth of the stark choices that face us. They recognize that everything else is just wishfull thinking. And that includes all the green solutions (solar, tidal, wind, etc.) that mathmatically cannot possible solve the problem.
So. There is is warmists. Let's say you win the argument tommorrow. AGW is a real and immenent threat to human survival. What are you prepared to do about it? This is not a "ban aeresol cans" moment. It won't be solved with curly light bulbs or international treaties. What do you want to do?
"Warmists deny that there are any flaws or questions to AGW"
+++++++
WRONG!!!!
+++++++
"For warmists, here is a short list of your realistic choices:"
1) Stop using stone-age thinking of "burn stuff for heat and light" and get with the 20th century at least.
"Why then have the predictions been so statistically wrong"
They've been proved statistically pretty damn good, even 30-year-old models:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-proj…
I guess you need to rethink your dogma.
"Yes, the avg. global temperature has been rising. But the global temperature has always fluctuated"
Rising is not fluctuating.
"Posted by: Notafreakingscientist"
Too right.
i heard or read somewhere that 46%% of our citizens, mostly products of our public schools, believe the world is between 6,000 and 10,000 years old.
i hope after the rapture we can say thank god they're gone so the remaining rational non believers can get to work on our real problems.