We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

papertiger0 • 8 years ago

so this is what they've been doing with their spare time since realclimate went belly up.
How much do these trollups get paid to sell out the entire world?
Is it a flat rate, or do they get a penny per person screwed over?

David Steele • 8 years ago

RealClimate is doing just fine:
http://www.realclimate.org/...
It's you faith-based buffoons who are going "belly up"--one ignorant pseudo-libertarian at a time.

TravisJSays • 8 years ago

Well, they get paid in carbon credits, so if carbon trading goes belly up they are SOL.
Incentive!!

David Steele • 8 years ago

Yeah! Way to expound on a lie with another imaginary scenario. Sweet!

TravisJSays • 8 years ago

humor ... try it sometime.

David Steele • 8 years ago

I noticed, and I replied with one of my own but I guess it was too subtle.

SHowbiz • 8 years ago

You're dealing with Republicans. They don't do subtle, they do ak47s for rabbit hunting.

On the other hand, they also don't do facts/science, so kind of a lost cause. Ironically, when they die off, there will be that much less hot air mucking things up.

zombietimeshare • 8 years ago

Climate science, good one, start with a joke.
The chart could be better named, "Candidates who believe government is the answer to all problems."

David Steele • 8 years ago

The chart describes how ignorant ("willfully ignorant" was not considered) some presidential candidates are in relation to each other regarding climate science. No snide comments can change what it is.

Guest • 8 years ago
TravisJSays • 8 years ago

... that's upside down.

CLynch451 • 8 years ago

Sanders says the Earth will become uninhabitable, yet gets higher marks than Jeb, whom one scientist rated at 100%?

Um, yeah. Whatever.

searchingfortruth • 8 years ago

AP: “Below Clinton's 94 were O'Malley with 91; Sanders, 87; Bush, 64; Christie, 54; Ohio Gov. John Kasich, 47; Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, 38; Fiorina, 28; Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, 21; businessman Donald Trump, 15; retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, 13; and Cruz with 6.”

AP Fact Check and Seth Borenstein both get and an “F” for their knowledge and understanding of man made global warming. The scores that you are reporting are inversely proportional to IQ, intellectual honesty, and journalistic objectivity. They reflect the AP’s editorial bias.

Guest • 8 years ago
searchingfortruth • 8 years ago

owl, please tell us what kind of “science” are you talking about? Let us restrict our subject to “man made global warming” meaning that when you or I drive our cars or take too many showers, we are causing warming in Mali or Madagascar. Of course let us not forget the Republic of Tonga.

Science means testing experimentally our most cherished beliefs and not fudging data to win an argument and make a lots of money from grants. How many of the “scientists” that you mentioned actually designed such experiments on the effects of CO2 on our weather? I personally do not know of any. How many of them have done the measurements that they are publishing and fudging? I think the answer is none.

Tuci78 • 8 years ago
Science means testing experimentally our most cherished beliefs and not fudging data to win an argument and make a lots of money from grants. [...] How many of them have done the measurements that they are publishing and fudging?


Metrology failures - fatal flaws in techniques of measurement and instrumental analysis - have, in fact been some of the greatest weaknesses among the work of the "climate consensus" quacks since this preposterous bogosity first began coming to light almost forty years ago.

Something as simple (and obvious) as the infrared absorptivity of the paint being used to protect the legacy Stevenson screens ordained as standard housing for meteorological monitoring stations had not been considered by the "climatologists" until a California meteorologist, Anthony Watts, proposed a straightforward study of the effects of a relatively recent change from the old prescription - a specifically formulated whitewash - to white latex housepaint.

Turns out that the change increased IR - heat energy - absorption by just about precisely that extent specified as "global warming" over the period of time when latex paint replaced old-fashioned whitewash.

In the process, Watts and his associates discovered changes in the physical characteristics of the sites themselves, including all sorts of confounding factors (the asphalt paving of ground close at hand, the presence of air conditioners' vents exhausting directly onto the monitoring stations, and so forth) which induced an "urban heat island" type of artifact into the measurements recorded at hundreds of those stations.

What the Surface Stations Project found is deplorable. The report details, with lots of color photos of actual stations in the network, just how haphazard and inept our attempts to accurately measure the surface temperature record in the U.S. have been. For instance, there are guidelines for how close a measuring station can be to a parking lot or other “artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source.” The Surface Stations Project surveyed 70% of the stations in the U.S. This is what they found: “(W)e found that 89 percent of the stations — nearly 9 of every 10 — fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source. In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.” (Pg. 1) The report concludes, “the raw temperature data produced by the USHCN stations are not sufficiently accurate to use in scientific studies or as a basis for public policy decisions.” (Pg. 17)

Obtain the report, read it, dissect it, and refute it if you can, or accept it if you can’t. That’s the honest thing to do. I have long wondered why most of my fellow physicists haven’t been as skeptical of global warming alarmism as I have been. I think one reason, perhaps even more important than their politics affecting their judgment, is that they naturally assume other scientists are as careful in how they obtain data as physicists are. I’ve been a global warming skeptic for some time now, and it didn’t even occur to me that most of the time the thermometers would be “sited next to a lamp.” What’s really ironic is that, if someone claims to see a flying saucer, which hurts no one and costs nothing, debunkers come out in force. But let a former vice-president claim environmental apocalypse is upon us, and suddenly we’re appropriating billions and changing our lifestyles.

Cripes.


-- Jeffery D. Kooistra, "Lessons From the Lab" (Analog, November 2009)
Chris Winter • 8 years ago

So that's why all those mountain glaciers are melting, and why the north polar icecap is shrinking -- the wrong sort of paint on Stevenson Screens! Who knew?

Tuci78 • 8 years ago
So that's why all those mountain glaciers are melting, and why the north
polar icecap is shrinking -- the wrong sort of paint on Stevenson
Screens! Who knew?

Well, "those mountain glaciers are melting" because the Little Ice Age finished ending in about 1850, and the planet has been experiencing a slow, relatively steady "rebound" warming in the aftermath. Best (honest) assessment of various pre-thermometric temperature proxies show that present-day global average temperatures are far from approaching those attained during the Medieval Warm and earlier Roman Warm Climate Optima, which were remarkably more habitable for species H. sapiens than are conditions at present.

With this understood, the present solar cycle (the 24th since 1755) has shown a decided down-trend since it began in 2008, and the solar astrophysicists are uniformly assessing the oncoming Solar Cycle 25 as likely to produce a Dalton-like minimum, meaning it's going to get a boatload colder on planet earth long before our relationship with the sun moderates so as to resume that "rebound" warming.

Anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 increases notwithstanding. The "greenhouse" effect of that trace addition to an atmospheric trace gas will have an impact likely to be insufficient for reliable thermometry to ascertain. It's already long since been "drowned in the noise" produced by all the non-anthropogenic factors of far greater effect upon global average temperatures.

As Dr. Glassman had observed in one of the draws I made upon his essay, the anthropogenic global warming contention "...does not fit all the data. The consensus relies on models initialized after the start of the Industrial era, which then try to trace out a future climate. Science demands that a climate model reproduce the climate data first. These models don’t fit the first-, second-, or third-order events that characterize the history of Earth’s climate. They don’t reproduce the Ice Ages, the Glacial epochs, or even the rather recent Little Ice Age. The models don’t even have characteristics similar to these profound events, much less have the timing right. Since the start of the Industrial era, Earth has been warming in recovery from these three events. The consensus initializes its models to be in equilibrium, not warming."

Have you given any thought to how "all those mountain glaciers" were doing during the Roman Warm and Medieval Warm Climate Optima?

*chirping crickets*

The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.

-- Richard Horton, Med J Aust (2000)
Rubber Boas • 8 years ago

"Well, "those mountain glaciers are melting" because the Little
Ice Age finished ending in about 1850, and the planet has been
experiencing a slow, relatively steady "rebound" warming in the
aftermath"

So, basically, the Earth actually is warming and the data isn't faked, including the hockey sticks.

Tuci78 • 8 years ago
So, basically, the Earth actually is warming and the data isn't faked, including the hockey sticks.

How d'you conjure that the fact of the Little Ice Age's end (and the very slow recovery therefrom at a decade-by-decade rate unlikely to get us into the range of global average temperatures enjoyed during the Medieval Warm Climate Optimum until sometime in the 22nd Century) supports Mann et alia in their 1998 "hockey stick graph" paper?

One of the most egregious manifestations of suppressio veri, suggestio falsi in that 1998 "hockey stick graph" paper was the obliteration of the Medieval Warm and the Little Ice Age so as to get the straight "handle" of the hockey stick.

The truth is that there's been warming measured since about 1850. Not that exacting a measurement, not that well-distributed until satellite systems began to come online much more recently, but thermometry nonetheless, and there's been no correlation in that warming rate with the observed accelleration in the Keeling Curve (a measurement begun back in the 1950s).

But as regards Mann et alia 1998 and your obsession with "the hockey sticks," not only is the data utterly corrupted but the methods of analysis employed upon that tissue of lies was hopelessly screwed.

You seem rather much like the guy who's taking to wife a young woman who'd been a "frequent flyer" in the county VD clinic way back when I got stuck with that job fresh out of my residency.

I can keep telling you and telling you, but you're not going to listen until - perhaps not even until? - your genitalia start rotting off.

Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm — but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.

-- T.S. Eliot
Orange_of_Specious • 8 years ago

into the range of global average temperatures enjoyed during the Medieval Warm Climate Optimum

You were duped. We are warmer now than at any time in the past 100Kyr.

Best,

D

Tuci78 • 8 years ago
We are warmer now than at any time in the past 100Kyr.

Ah. So are they growing wine grapes on the hills of sunny Scotland now, the way the vintners were doing during the Medieval Warm Climate Optimum?

Hadn't heard.

Modern liberalism is best understood as a movement of would-be believers in search of true faith. For much of the 20th century it was faith in History, especially in its Marxist interpretation. Now it’s faith in the environment. Each is a comprehensive belief system, an instruction sheet on how to live, eat and reproduce, a story of how man fell and how he might be redeemed, a tale of impending crisis that’s also a moral crucible.

In short, a religion without God. I sometimes wonder whether the journalists now writing about the failure of the one-child policy
[in Communist China] ever note the similarities with today’s climate “crisis.” That the fears are largely the same. And the political prescriptions are almost identical. And the leaders of the movement are cut from the same cloth. And the confidence with which the alarmists prescribe radical cures, their intolerance for dissenting views, their insistence on “global solutions,” their disdain for democratic input or technological adaptations — that everything is just as it was when bell-bottoms were in vogue.

-- Bret Stephens, "The Tyranny of a Big Idea" The Wall Street Journal (2 November 2015)
Orange_of_Specious • 8 years ago

Another reply unable to refute my statement.

Best,

D

Tuci78 • 8 years ago
Another reply unable to refute my statement.

What? Your regurgitation of the hapless alarmist yammer that the present-day earth is far warmer than the planet had been during the Medieval Warm Climate Optimum, when there were commercial vinyards in Scotland?

Heck, if it's really so much warmer in our "We're All Gonna Die!" CO2-induced climate inferno, there are commercial opportunites in citrus orchards and olive groves and wineries all over the place north of Hadrian's Wall.

Surely, those flowerings have been reported in the news, haven't they?

No?

Hm.

Seriousness is stupidity sent to college.

-- P. J. O'Rourke
Orange_of_Specious • 8 years ago

Nope, you still have nothing but yapyapyapping.

But I'll take the points on offer:

o Greenland got its name because it was “Green” and life flourished in Medieval times, including grapes in England [10 points]

https://www.facebook*com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

Best,

D

Tuci78 • 8 years ago

Dano2 (see above) had stated that: "We are warmer now than at any time in the past 100Kyr" ...and now the flaming idiot concedes that:

Greenland got its name because it was “Green” and life flourished in Medieval times, including grapes in England [10 points]

So you've got a categorical assertion that present global average temperatures are higher now than at any time in the past 100,000 years and you're referring to a YouTube video in support of your admission that during the Medieval Warm Climate Optimum, they were raising grapes in England.

Commercially, too. The English were exporting wine to the European continent, meaning that their climate offered sustained warmth sufficient for winemaking to be a profitable industry.

And we're suppose to accept your earlier climate hysteric party line noise about how it's warmer today than it had been then?

I repeat: where are all those vineyards and citrus groves and olive oil presses that - according to your alarmist propaganda - ought to be all over the sun-kissed, warm and hospitable hills and glens of Caledonia (let alone Northumbria)?

I know that most men -- not only those considered clever, but even those who are very clever and capable of understanding most difficult scientific, mathematical, or philosophic, problems -- can seldom discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as obliges them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with much difficulty -- conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they have built their lives.

-- Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoi, What is Art? (1896)
Orange_of_Specious • 8 years ago

Comical hand-flap aside, you can't present evidence that the past 100K yr was warmer than today. All you have is ululating and yelling and garment-rending.

Best,

D

Tuci78 • 8 years ago
Comical hand-flap aside, you can't present evidence that the past 100K yr was warmer than today.

Migawd, are you really that stupid? The Medieval Warm Climate Optimum is one of the most thoroughly examined phenomena in climatology.

This Disqus system is "hostile" to URL links, but as Tony Brown had written on Dr. Curry's Web site (1 December 2011):

Hubert Lamb (born 1913) produced a number of books and papers during his long career as arguably the leading climate scientist of his era, of which the most influential was probably ‘The Early Medieval Warm Epoch and its Sequel’ published in 1965.

Within this work was a pre computer era graph based on CET
[the Central England Temperature record - the oldest instrumental record in the world] and other English records. It was probably derived from earlier work that was only published years later, as Figure 30 Chapter 5 of his 1982 book, ‘Climate History and the Modern World.’ The 1965 version was substantially re-interpreted by the IPCC for their 1990 assessment and used on page 202 Figure7c as the basis for a global record. Figure 2 below shows the (unattributed) version of the graph used by the IPCC.

[Note: Disquis "moderates" a link into oblivion on this site, so locating Dr. Lamb's graphic plot as plagiarized by the IPCC online must be left as an exercise for the student.]

It's not that you actually want proofs that the Medieval Warm Climate Optimum demonstrated global average temperatures FAR higher than those prevailing since the great "We're All Gonna Die!" AGW fraud began to be foisted four decades ago, but in the works of men like Lamb and other honest climatologists, all of that - and it's both voluminous and assiduously error-checked - can be readily found.

You see, I come from a dimension, called reality, where words mean what they mean and words are used to convey information from one mind to another. The Loathers, as best I can tell, come from a different and horrible alien dimension where words mean precisely what they do not mean, and words are used as emotional indicators only, leaving the listener with the task of discovering what it is that the irrelevant stream of false-to-facts and logically-disconnected statements actually refer to.

I am exaggerating, but only a little. They are not from another dimension, but the Loathers are from a different moral framework. My moral code says dishonesty is wrong, both in thought and deed, and to be illogical is wrong, both formally and morally. Their moral code says reality is wrong, and that any statements conforming to reality are viciously cruel and unforgivable. They cannot actually come out and say what it is that provokes their tears and their ire, because to do so would be to refer to the thing that they cannot name. So they have to take some other thing, only tangentially related, and complain about that.


-- John C. Wright
Orange_of_Specious • 8 years ago

All the latest papers refute you.

Best,

D

Tuci78 • 8 years ago
All the latest papers refute you.

Oh? Not me, schmucklet. Refutes Hubert Lamb? Got citations?

All of the published literature in climatology - not the wholly political propaganda of the IPCC and their sputniki but the research and scholarship that makes climatology a scientific discipline and not merely a vehicle for fraud - blows YOUR pitiful soggy ass out of the water.

Dr. Phillip Barbay:"...now, not withstanding Mr. Mellon's input. The next question for us is where to build our factory?"

Thornton Melon:"How 'bout fantasyland?"

-- screenplay, Back to School (1986)
Orange_of_Specious • 8 years ago

Aren't you precious? There has been almost 20 years of paleoclimate work & it still continues with the PAGES 2K project.

www*ncdc*noaa*gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleodata.html

https://en*wikipedia*org/wiki/Temperature_record

Best,

D

Tuci78 • 8 years ago
www*ncdc*noaa*gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleodata.html

https://en*wikipedia*org/wiki/Temperature_record

Ah, Wiki-bloody-pedia (pace Mr. Monckton) and the same Obozonated federal government propaganda palace - NOAA - which is presently in criminal evasion of Congressional demands for the work products of their employees and contractors. Those are supposed to be blindly and without specification accepted as supports for your summary dismissal of work by Lamb and dozens of his colleagues regarding the extensively-documented Medieval Warm Climate Optimum?

(Not to mention the Little Ice Age, also "ironed" out of the egregious and hammeringly debunked "hockey stick graph" of Mann et alia.)

Reality is surely not your friend, is it, schmucklet?

A Data-Rich 1200-Year Temperature History of the Northern Hemisphere

Reference:
Ljungqvist, F.C., Krusic, P.J., Brattstrom, G. and Sundqvist, H.S. 2012. Northern Hemisphere temperature patterns in the last 12 centuries. Climate of the Past 8: 227-249.

Background: The authors write that "a number of Northern Hemispheric (NH) temperature reconstructions covering the last 1-2 millennia, using temperature-sensitive proxy data, have been made to place the observed 20th century warming into a long-term perspective." And they say that "these studies generally agree on the occurrence of warmer conditions ca. 800-1300 AD and colder conditions ca. 1300-1900 AD, followed by a strong warming trend in the 20th century," noting that "the earlier warm period is usually referred to as the Medieval Warm Period ... whereas the later colder period is usually referred to as the Little Ice Age)." In addition, and "related to this issue," as they continue, "is the question of whether or not the current warmth has exceeded the level and geographic extent of the warmth in the last millennium," i.e., that of the Medieval Warm Period.

What was done: As Ljungqvist et al. describe it, they developed "a new reconstruction of the spatio-temporal patterns of centennial temperature variability over the NH land areas for the last twelve centuries based on 120 proxy records," which were "retrieved from a wide range of archives including, but not limited to, ice-cores, pollen, marine sediments, lake sediments, tree-rings, speleothems and historical documentary data." And with respect to how big an improvement their data base makes compared to prior studies of this type, in terms of the amount and distribution of data employed, they present a list of antecedent analyses where the number of proxy records used ranged from only 3 to 46 (compared to their 120), and where the number of records with annual resolution ranged from only 3 to 30, whereas their study included 49 such annual-resolution records.

What was learned:The final grand conglomerate result of Ljungqvist et al.'s work is depicted in the figure below. [which Disquis will not permit in this thread]

Figure 1. Mean whole-year centennial temperature proxy anomalies (standard deviations from the AD 1000-1899 mean) vs. year AD. Shaded area represents ± 2 standard errors. Adapted from Ljungqvist et al. (2012).

As can be seen from this figure, and with respect to the climatological community's burning question of "whether or not the current warmth has exceeded the level and geographic extent of the warmth in the last millennium," the four Swedish scientists report that "during the 9th to 11th centuries there was widespread NH warmth comparable in both geographic extent and level to that of the 20th century," hopefully setting this question to rest once and for all. They do note, however, that their results indicate that "the rate of warming from the 19th to the 20th century is clearly the largest between any two consecutive centuries in the past 1200 years." But such should not be surprising, in light of the fact that the Little Ice Age is universally recognized as having been the coldest multi-century period of the current interglacial (Barclay et al., 2009; Briner et al., 2009; Menounos et al., 2009), as well as its most extensively glaciated period (Calkin et al., 2001; Clague et al., 2004; Joerin et al., 2006). And, therefore, recovery from such an extremely cold condition, once begun, would be expected to be quite dramatic.


What it means: As we have often remarked after reviewing the results of literally hundreds of paleo-temperature reconstructions stretching back over a millennium or more, there is nothing unusual, unnatural or unprecedented about earth's current level of warmth when compared to that of the Medieval Warm Period, when there was way less CO2 in the air than there is currently (~280 ppm then vs. ~395 ppm now). And this fact suggests that there is no compelling reason to necessarily attribute any of the post-Little Ice Age warming to this miniscule trace gas of the atmosphere.

References:

Barclay, D.J., Wiles, G.C. and Calkin, P.E. 2009. Holocene glacier fluctuations in Alaska. Quaternary Science Reviews 28: 2034-2048.

Briner, J.P., Davis, P.T. and Miller, G.H. 2009. Latest Pleistocene
and Holocene glaciation of Baffin Island, Arctic Canada: key patterns
and chronologies. Quaternary Science Reviews 28: 2075-2087.

Calkin, P.E., Wiles, G.C. and Barclay, D.J. 2001. Holocene coastal glaciation of Alaska. Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 449-461.

Clague, J.J., Wohlfarth, B., Ayotte, J., Eriksson, M., Hutchinson,
I., Mathewes, R.W., Walker, I.R. and Walker, L. 2004. Late Holocene
environmental change at treeline in the northern Coast Mountains,
British Columbia, Canada. Quaternary Science Reviews 23: 2413-2431.

Joerin, U.E., Stocker, T.F. and Schluchter, C. 2006. Multicentury
glacier fluctuations in the Swiss Alps during the Holocene. The Holocene 16: 697-704.

Menounos, B., Osborn, G., Clague, J.J. and Luckman, B.H. 2009.
Latest Pleistocene and Holocene glacier fluctuations in western Canada. Quaternary Science Reviews 28: 2049-2074.

Reviewed 11 July 2012
Orange_of_Specious • 8 years ago

Thanks CO2Sci shill. We know what you have - cherry-picking.

All the global datasets refute you. Run along now, little one. I've seen your type for going on 2 decades now. You don't have the capacity to make that hokum work on me.

Best,

D

Tuci78 • 8 years ago
All the global datasets refute you.

Oh? Including the CET (Cental England Temperature) record?

Y'know, a moment of truth and a cold drink of water would kill you dead right where you squat, wouldn't it, doofus?

The Hockey Stick is obviously wrong. Everybody knows it is obviously wrong. Climategate 2011 shows that even many of its most outspoken public defenders know it is obviously wrong. And yet it goes on being published and defended year after year.

Do I expect you to publicly denounce the Hockey Stick as obvious drivel? Well yes, that’s what you should do. It is the job of scientists of integrity to expose pathological science… It is a litmus test of whether climate scientists are prepared to stand up against the bullying defenders of pathology in their midst.


-- Jonathan Jones, Professor, Oxford University
Orange_of_Specious • 8 years ago

I like how you call me a doofus yet refer to the CET as a global record.

And Climategate! Drink!

Aren't you a smartie?

Smarter disinformers please.

Best,

D

Tuci78 • 8 years ago
...yet refer to the CET as a global record.

The CET is the oldest instrumental temperature record in existence. To the extent that ANY"global record" has been "adjusted" to deviate from the CET, it's suspect.

And all three of the "global record" surface temperature databases co-opted and corrupted by "the consensus" over the past several decades so deviate.

Garbage in, garbage grind, garbage "science."

Wikipedia! Shove your head back up your ass!

Not only do NASA and NOAA make up fake data for much of the planet, but they massively tamper with their existing data....

By tampering with the station baseline, they created the large anomalies. Then they double down their fraud by smearing their bogus anomalies across 1200 km of missing data. This is needed to create their required fraudulent record temperature claims ahead of Paris.


-- Tony Heller, "Record Crushing Fraud From NOAA And NASA Ahead Of Paris" 19 November 2015
Orange_of_Specious • 8 years ago

You can't clown your way out of not having any evidence to back your claims but comedy and Climategate.

Best,

D

Tuci78 • 8 years ago

And you can keep treating the contents of FOIA2009-dot-zip as if they never hit the 'Net before the Copenhagen Tranzifest collapsed and your cult froze and died in the snow?

Climategate! Drink the Kool-Aid!

It’s a pretty stark analysis, and not without merit. There are plenty of climate change scientists who are equally forthright on the possibilities of change, or no change, and of more hot, or less hot, or of rain, or no rain, or of Britain turning into the Sahara by next weekend, or instead becoming a freezing cold Frostyworld ruled by a strange, glistening ice-queen – crucially, it all depends on the time of day you ask them, and whether or not they had asparagus the day before.

So who are we to believe? For a final word, I turned to the greatest climate change scientist of all, Dr David Viner, one-time senior research scientist at the climatic research unit of the University of East Anglia, who predicted in 2000 that, within a few years, winter snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event”.

However, he was trapped under a glacier in Stockport, so was unable to comment at the time the Telegraph went to press.


— Sean Thomas “When it comes to climate change, we have to trust our scientists, because they know lots of big scary words” (19 June 2013)
Orange_of_Specious • 8 years ago

Nope, you still have nothing but yapyapyapping.

But I'll take the points on offer:

o Greenland got its name because it was “Green” and life flourished in Medieval times, including grapes in England [10 points]

https://www.facebook.com/Cl...

Best,
D

Rubber Boas • 8 years ago

You can tell that you're dealing with someone who is way over themselves when they feel some compulsive need to throw as much Latin into their messages as they possibly can, to the point that it becomes completely self-defeating and undermines the entire point of using it in the first place. Your message reads like someone who is trying way, way, way too hard to appear intelligent.

This is all that needs to be known about the "hockey stick". Its credibility was attacked, and the attack has largely failed. The minutia and fine nuances of the graph itself can be up in the air, but the point that was being made from it is not. Global temperatures are rising. To what extent humans are involved with this is a matter of debate, but to argue that the temperature rise isn't happening at all takes an astounding level of stupidity or denial, both of which describe Ted Cruz pretty well.

Tuci78 • 8 years ago
You can tell that you're dealing with someone who is way over themselves when they feel some compulsive need to throw as much Latin into their messages as they possibly can....

And that bothers you, Zippy? Wow. The expression "suppressio veri, suggestio falsi" is a usage common in law (and therefore familiar to those of us who live and work in shyster-plagued circumstances). You never had a course in Medical Jurisprudence? Well, no, of course not....

Do you also object to Linnean taxonomy? There's lotsa Latin in that, too, y'know. How about the Italian language? There used to be this philologist - I forget the guy's name - who wrote Petrarchan sonnets in Italian that were also in Latin, just to play with the fact that so much of the Latin vulgate is "alive" in the language of Dante today. Boy, you would've hated going to Mass back before the Second Vatican Council, wouldn'tcha?

You're not only an ignoramus, but you're arrogant in your militant ignorance. Delusions of adequacy, much?

Whether you and your fellow stupes keep blathering about how the "credibility" of Mann et alia in their 1998 "hockey stick graph" paper is sustained among your cult (and all them leftard politicians eager to pillage the productive sector of the various national economies in Western civilization) matters not at all when it comes to that blithering idiocy's correlation with factual reality.

Objective reality doesn't need to have "attacked" that frabjous nonsense, "minutia and fine nuances" and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. The universe just sits there and fails to do what you (and Mann and all the rest of you stinking puckers) say it should be doing.

Which means that the conjecture you keep trying to push is a botch job on the face of it.

It's interesting that one of you yammering idiots on the "climate catastrophe" side might even inadvertently admit that "To what extent that humans are involved in this [allegedly anthropogenic adverse climate change] is a matter of debate" when your bloated commissars have kept booming about how "the science is settled!" and "there's no more time for debate!"

Does this mean that you - among the ranks of idiots in your cult - might be admitting the bankruptcy of the demonization of carbon dioxide released by the combustion of petrochemical fuels as in any way having been capable of inducing even significantly mensurable changes in global average surface temperatures?

By the way, let's see how Solar Cyle 24 is playing out and what comes of Cycle 25. If you sincerely believe that "Global temperatures are rising," I suggest that you act upon that article of faith.

I'm going with the un-Cook'd facts.

...reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.

-- Richard Feynman
ibwilliamsi • 8 years ago

You like that cut and paste, don't you?

Rubber Boas • 8 years ago

That is easily the most impressive stretch of absolutely nothing that I have ever seen written or have ever written myself. I basically stretched "pythons eat cats" into a 15 page report once, but that's nothing compared to your ability to say very little over the course of as many words as possible. I applaud you sir.

Allow me to cut away all of the bullshit and summarize your entire post into one sentence; "your hockey sticks are wrong, I'm right". The end. Your entire 460 word pile of horseshit got condensed down to 7.

As for the matter of global temperatures rising. You yourself have already said as much.

"Well, "those mountain glaciers are melting" because the Little
Ice Age finished ending in about 1850, and the planet has been
experiencing a slow, relatively steady "rebound" warming in the
aftermath"

Try and split hairs as much as you want, global temperatures are rising and even you yourself have already admitted that before irrationally trying to deny it in your latest post.

Here's how I know you're an intellectually dishonest fool. You have made an incorrect assumption about what my position actually is with absolutely no related evidence. You assumed that I believe that man-made global warming is a confirmed truth even though I don't.

You also pull the classical retard-neocon move of supporting two mutually exclusive positions at the same time. In one moment they declare that climate change is real and humans have nothing to do with it, and then the next they declare that it isn't changing at all. The only thing those two have in common is that it gives an excuse to use the word "libtard".

The basic conclusion here is that you know absolutely nothing of value about the physical sciences and you try [and fail] to conceal this behind vocabulary that is completely inappropriate for the context of this argument and makes you sound like a petty Junior-year high school student who just finished studying for their SAT.

No, I do not object to the use of Latin in appropriate context. I use Linnean taxonomy in situations where it is actually called for, I do NOT just randomly throw it out during the middle of a conversation to make myself look like a smug asshole. When I'm talking about my pet sand boa, I call it a sand boa, or I call a Sumatran short tail python a "Sumatran shortie" or "black blood". I don't blurt out "Gongylophis colubrinus" or "Python curtus" or "Charina bottae" randomly. Why? Because doing so does not give off the impression of being intelligent, it gives off the impression of someone desperately trying to sound more intelligent than they actually are, exactly like you. A fool who's trying too hard to conceal his foolishness from everyone around you. Trying so hard that it ends up being counterproductive actually draws attention to it

Tuci78 • 8 years ago
When I'm talking about my pet sand boa, I call it a sand boa....

Ah. So snake handling is becoming a feature of your cult?

Not surprising. Religious fanatics tend remarkably to, er, "cut and paste" practices from other manifestations of psychotic mass hysteria.

I begin to credit the relatively recent "infectious meme" concept, which seems to be supported by the particular prevalence of such seductive stupidities among botched and gullible yups like you, Zippy.

Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires intelligence, vigilance, dedication and courage. But if we don't practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us -- and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who comes along.

-- Carl Sagan
Guest • 8 years ago
Tuci78 • 8 years ago
Explain why the corrections applied to the USHCN to take into account all these non-climatic factors result in values extremely close to the gold-standard USCRN?

There's no need for me to do so. The "corrections" themselves intrinsically cannot be made more reliable than the known limits of instrumental accuracy, and particularly when the "climate catastrophe" charlatans are insisting on the "drop-dead" value of alleged temperature changes uniformly LESS than are overwhelmed by the error bars, then the findings cannot be received as being of statistical significance to any extent approaching practical or theoretical reliability.

These are principles that any undergraduate matriculant in the "hard" sciences must learn before he can qualify for the award of a baccalaureate degree. Even my medical students (may God save us!) understand this much, though I've had to pound their heads against the whiteboards while reminding them of it when they're considering laboratory analyses or the reports of clinical trials.

But neither you nor any of your fellow "We're All Gonna Die!" climate catastrophe cultists infesting this thread were ever science majors, were ya?

When you work in experimental physics, you have it drilled into you that without proper calibration, at the end of the experiment you will have, as my professor one time screamed at me, no data. (I’ll get to that story in a minute.)

When I was working with Dr. Van Zytveld to measure the thermopower of liquid rare earth elements, recalibration of our instruments had to be done all the time. One reason for this was that the thermocouples we used to measure temperatures were essentially consumed after each experimental run. Even if not visibly damaged, after one use where they were called upon to measure temperatures above a thousand degrees C for many hours, they were unlikely to survive a second run, let alone remain accurate. Also, we frequently rebuilt the ovens we used to achieve those high temperatures. After each experimental run, I would have to experiment with my rebuilt rig and make sure it would track along the same curve as the previous runs had. That is, I had to calibrate it with the previous work.

When doing experimental physics, the test rig used to make measurements is a separate experiment in its own right. If you haven’t experimented with your test rig enough to know exactly how it works, you will never be satisfied that the measurements you make with it are valid, or at least you shouldn’t be.

For my junior year laboratory requirement, I measured the speed of light in gases. The methodology for this experiment was quite clever. I had to fill a small cylindrical chamber with various gases, then pass a laser beam through it, the chamber being in one arm of an interferometer. When the split laser beam was recombined, it formed an interference pattern. As the gas was slowly pumped out of the chamber, I could see fringe shifts in the interference pattern, and the number of shifts allowed me to calculate the speed of light in the gas.

The experiment was an interesting mix of high tech with low. The interferometer has been around since the 1800s, the laser since the 1960s, and to count the fringe shifts I used a very modern (for the 1980s) trace storage oscilloscope attached to a light sensor. To measure the pressure, I used a U-tube mercury manometer, which goes back to the Middle Ages.

The way you read a manometer is to measure the difference in height of the mercury column between the right and left sides. What I did was to measure the height on one side from the unpressurized position and then double it. I thought I was saving time. Unfortunately, this method would only be valid if the right and left sides were volumetrically uniform, and they were not.

I was a bit slow in accepting that all my labor might be worthless, at which point Professor Van Baak screamed at me, “You have NO data!” (Fortunately, there was a simple, albeit tedious, way to recover my data and so save my experiment.)

As embarrassing as it was at the time, now, 25 years later I’m glad I made that mistake and learned that lesson. It greatly sensitized me to the need to examine all the assumptions that go into a measurement, and helped me notice when others were less than punctilious about it.


-- Jeffery D. Kooistra, "Lessons From the Lab" (Analog, November 2009)
Guest • 8 years ago
Tuci78 • 8 years ago
The USCRN is as ideal as can be made for studying climate. The corrections made to the USHCN to remove non-climatic influences results in analyses extremely close to the USCRN.

And when both data sets are correlatively "cooked" by parties heavily invested in "keeping up the skeer" on climate alarmism?

Close correlation between one counterfeit Federal Reserve Note and another counterfeit Federal Reserve Note proves nothing about the reliability of either as valuta, does it?

If the observations of methodological flaws - and recurring mendacity - on the part of the IPCC whores as observed and stipulated by Mr. Watts and other climate realists are incorrect, why don't you explicitly and in excruciating detail try to contest them on his Web site? Or that of Dr. Curry? Or on any of the still-increasing number of venues on the Web where scrupulous scientific method is being applied to the examination of this subject?

By all means, get thee hence. I'll make popcorn, sit back, and watch you get turned into a thin smear of ill-smelling grease.

Your constant flop-sweaty regurgitation of Cook'd yammerings here are getting ever more desperate, aren't they?

The college idealists who fill the ranks of the environmental movement seem willing to do absolutely anything to save the biosphere, except take science courses and learn something about it.

-- P.J. O'Rourke
Guest • 8 years ago
Tuci78 • 8 years ago
You simply do not impress....

On you, putzie? Who but a demolitions expert would try to make any sort of impression on a cement-head of your demonstrated obduracy?

Gotta love it when a dolt who doesn't know the meaning of argumentum ad hominem admonishes the guy who's been demonstrating lucid and tightly reasoned logical argument about being "more mature."

How "Social Justice Warrior." Put down your well-worn copy of Rules for Radicals and consider the benefits of intellectual integrity for a change.

"Manmade Global Warming" is a collection of ideas that have been thoroughly discredited by real science for years. Yet you would never know it by observing the behavior of politicians, media personalities, and certain corrupt academics and scientists. There is not now, nor was there ever any scientifically respectable evidence for global warming. Like Lysenkoism, it is a complete and total fabrication, a hoax.

Yet it continues to have a strictly political life because, just as Lysenkoism served Stalinism by backing up Marx's flawed notions — Global Warming serves today's collectivists by offering them an excuse to seize control, not merely of the means of production, but of each moment, every aspect of the lives of every individual under their thumbs.

To be absolutely certain the opportunity isn't missed, dissenters — meteorologists and others willing to dismiss Global Warming as the crock it happens to be — have found themselves intimidated, denied funding and tenure, even fired. Here and there you'll even see demands that "climate change deniers" be prosecuted, imprisoned, or executed. Somewhere, the ghosts of Stalin and Lysenko are having a huge laugh together.


-- L. Neil Smith (30 August 2009)