Blame and Shame in the Global Warming Debate

powerThere’s a lot of blaming and shaming going on right now in the global warming debate. And somehow, it has become standard practice to demonstrate loyalty to the climate cause by actively bemoaning “carbon pollution” or “the warmest year on record.” Essentially, the more one publicly laments “climate change,” or criticizes “climate deniers,” the more they prove their worthiness to the mission.

The presumption seems to be that as long as one actively embraces and promotes the theory of man-made global warming, they are absolved of guilt in the matter. They’ve shown themselves to be loyal, and can rest easy because they’re involved, they’re doing something.

There’s a great irony here, of course, since everyone in the Western/developed world shares responsibility for this perceived, man-made crisis. (Side note: There are very good reasons to doubt the overriding theory of anthropogenic global warming, and to believe that changes in solar activity bear heavily on the matter. But for now, we’ll leave aside questions of “cause,” and simply focus on the current, heated political discourse.)

Here’s the root issue. Whenever one texts on an iPhone, or shops in a store, or takes the subway to work, they’re benefiting from the advanced, high-energy world in which we now live. Yes, they could go completely off the grid, by walking (not driving) to the woods. And they could grow their own food, and trap the animal skins needed to replace their petroleum-based shoes and clothing…

The point is, it’s fine for Sens. Barbara Boxer and Sheldon Whitehouse to point an angry finger at fossil fuel advocates. But they are undoubtedly taking a car home at night, and switching on the lights in their homes, and opening the refrigerator to heat up some leftovers for a late dinner.

The safety and security of American society was built on this high-energy mix of power generation. It’s what keeps the lights on 24/7, delivers clean drinking water, treats sewage, drives elevators, and powers hospitals.

Sadly, the “renewable” energy championed by the climate community doesn’t ramp up to meet these needs, in part because of the unreliable, intermittent nature of wind and solar power. This appears less important to the climate community, however, than denigrating anyone who questions the validity of man-made warming or points to the limitations of wind and solar power.

There’s a wonderful irony here, of course, because the climate community absolutely needs the climate deniers it witch-hunts. Demonizing a “denier” offers the ultimate opportunity to prove one’s loyalty to the movement.

What’s at work now is almost the moral equivalent of “carbon credits.” By targeting dissent and hectoring global warming critics, climate advocates are not only able to justify their own, continued use of high-energy (i.e., fossil fuel-based) power, but also to elevate their stature within the climate movement. It’s the same mentality that allows one to cheer for the prosecution of ExxonMobil despite a lifetime of filling the tank at a gas station.

It seems more and more appropriate to deem the global warming movement a “religion,” particularly in its targeting and punishment of heretics. But where this will end is a troubling question. The McCarthy era may prove instructive, however. When the climate movement starts to attack its own, we may see some sort of pause, or a moment of clarity. For now, though, the real effort is for critics to keep speaking their mind, and to not remain silent in the face of coercion and intimidation.

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (118)

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Very well said . It is a sign of desperation when their failing agenda has devolved into name calling and witch hunting . It must be sad when they could only hide from the facts and pump the scare for only so long .
    Even with media happily selling their early propaganda they are out of steam . They have huffed puffed and over stated (the earth has a fever nonsense ) to the point people have tuned them out . Instead of recognizing the lack of balance in their perspective that caused the downfall they default to the same logic of witch hunters .

    The scary global warming industry relies on
    maintaining a massive lie worth $$ Trillions in grants to otherwise uncompetitive and unreliable energy sources as well as EPA grant funding suck ups , new taxes etc etc .
    It is not like they are about to say ….sorry guess climate Armageddon isn’t true or yeah a bit of warming is actually a good thing isn’t it ?
    They are going to fight to try and keep that gravy train going as long as they can especially with a preacher President pumping the tires . Is anyone going to want to take credit for just flushing $ Billions of taxpayers taxes given to failed greenie businessmen and political donors ? We can expect this expensive bun fight to keep going till some financial melt down or something real takes it’s place .

    The attempts to silence and intimidate
    those who are not drinking their cool aid
    shows how quickly hard fought freedoms can be eroded though . The green shirt “climate protection police ” and rent seekers will try to use their self righteous arrogance to bully anyone that challenges their agenda .
    It is remarkable how the most polluted country in the world is their idol yet they don’t move there . Too bad but hypocrisy has it’s limits after all .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”Amber”]Very well said . It is a sign of desperation when their failing agenda has devolved into name calling and witch hunting . It must be sad when they could only hide from the facts and pump the scare for only so long .
    Even with media happily selling their early propaganda they are out of steam . They have huffed puffed and over stated (the earth has a fever nonsense ) to the point people have tuned them out . Instead of recognizing the lack of balance in their perspective that caused the downfall they default to the same logic of witch hunters .

    The scary global warming industry relies on
    maintaining a massive lie worth $$ Trillions in grants to otherwise uncompetitive and unreliable energy sources as well as EPA grant funding suck ups , new taxes etc etc .
    It is not like they are about to say ….sorry guess climate Armageddon isn’t true or yeah a bit of warming is actually a good thing isn’t it ?
    They are going to fight to try and keep that gravy train going as long as they can especially with a preacher President pumping the tires . Is anyone going to want to take credit for just flushing $ Billions of taxpayers taxes given to failed greenie businessmen and political donors ? We can expect this expensive bun fight to keep going till some financial melt down or something real takes it’s place .

    The attempts to silence and intimidate
    those who are not drinking their cool aid
    shows how quickly hard fought freedoms can be eroded though . The green shirt “climate protection police ” and rent seekers will try to use their self righteous arrogance to bully anyone that challenges their agenda .
    It is remarkable how the most polluted country in the world is their idol yet they don’t move there . Too bad but hypocrisy has it’s limits after all .[/quote]

    I’d love to dispute what you wrote, but since it included no verifiable facts, I’m not afforded that opportunity. The only opportunity I have is to point out that it is composed of baseless assertions sprinkled with opinions. Denialism is much more akin to religion, as it requires one to not only blindly accept Denialist tenets, but to do so in the face of overwhelming and demonstrable evidence to the contrary. If you or anyone else reading this may be interested in that aforementioned overwhelming evidence tot he contrary, I will glady provide it and I always cite my sources. 🙂

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @ roxinthehead

    And where are the great verifiable scientific proofs of your denial of reason ? You have the gall to talk of the blind-faith religion that the alarmist cause can’t do without ?

    Yeah. right !

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”JayPee”]@ roxinthehead

    And where are the great verifiable scientific proofs of your denial of reason ? You have the gall to talk of the blind-faith religion that the alarmist cause can’t do without ?

    Yeah. right ![/quote]

    Let’s start here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

    Here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995507/

    Here: http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/brt47-2.pdf

    Here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/02/27/surprise-co2-directly-linked-to-global-warming/#6c1d61fc1efb

    Here: http://www.terpconnect.umd.edu/~amengis2/sgc/climatemyth.html

    Here: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    Here: https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf

    Here: http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/ccsm4.0/

    And Here: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2011JCLI4083.1

    That should be enough to get you going in the right direction. If, for some reason, you are still not convinced, I will provide more sources. However, in the event that you are not convinced, you will be required to provide refutation and sources of your own demonstrating that you can use the climate data set and apply physical principles to construct a functional model which shows some other causal mechanism(s) while ruling out human causes.

    Thanks.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @rox

    You seem fond of the alarmist driven blog, would you or they care to proffer scientific proof of your presumed greenhouse effect.

    To date, there is still not an iota proof of the much unwarrantedly presumed GHE. A bona fide scientific experiment to test it could be very easily and cheaply set up. Yet there is still no proof of whatsoever.

    Maybe you’d like to search your much referred to cite site.

    I can guarantee you’ll be wasting your time.

    Do you think you’ve proven something with all the references ? I can guarantee you haven’t, for none of your like ever addresses the sine qua non fundamentality of the mythical GHE !

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”JayPee”]@rox

    You seem fond of the alarmist driven blog, would you or they care to proffer scientific proof of your presumed greenhouse effect.

    To date, there is still not an iota proof of the much unwarrantedly presumed GHE. A bona fide scientific experiment to test it could be very easily and cheaply set up. Yet there is still no proof of whatsoever.

    Maybe you’d like to search your much referred to cite site.

    I can guarantee you’ll be wasting your time.

    Do you think you’ve proven something with all the references ? I can guarantee you haven’t, for none of your like ever addresses the sine qua non fundamentality of the mythical GHE ![/quote]

    @JayPee

    Ah, the old fallacious trope of, “If I don’t like your sources, I don’t have to deal with your facts.” That’s always the first line of defense in the Denialist toolkit. I see you mention nothing of the other 8 sources which I provided above.

    Now, you’ve been presented with evidence. You can accept the evidence, on its own merit, or, you have one other option. You can provide us with a citation (like required so we can all look at the same source you’re using), for a model which takes the current data set, applies physical principles, and which demonstrates the cause(s) other than human activity which would be responsible for the observational data (i.e., a model which coincides with reality, but demonstrates what other mechanisms must be at work to explain our observations if humans are not the cause.)

    Once again, I invite you to dig through the other 8 resources, since you have a personal prejudice against the first one, and get back to me on a link to that model which demonstrates your interpretation of the data.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”JayPee”]@rox

    You seem fond of the alarmist driven blog, would you or they care to proffer scientific proof of your presumed greenhouse effect.

    To date, there is still not an iota proof of the much unwarrantedly presumed GHE. A bona fide scientific experiment to test it could be very easily and cheaply set up. Yet there is still no proof of whatsoever.

    Maybe you’d like to search your much referred to cite site.

    I can guarantee you’ll be wasting your time.

    Do you think you’ve proven something with all the references ? I can guarantee you haven’t, for none of your like ever addresses the sine qua non fundamentality of the mythical GHE ![/quote]

    @JayPee

    Ah, the old fallacious trope of, “If I don’t like your sources, I don’t have to deal with your facts.” That’s always the first line of defense in the Denialist toolkit. I see you mention nothing of the other 8 sources which I provided above.

    Now, you’ve been presented with evidence. You can accept the evidence, on its own merit, or, you have one other option. You can provide us with a citation (like required so we can all look at the same source you’re using), for a model which takes the current data set, applies physical principles, and which demonstrates the cause(s) other than human activity which would be responsible for the observational data (i.e., a model which coincides with reality, but demonstrates what other mechanisms must be at work to explain our observations if humans are not the cause.)

    Once again, I invite you to dig through the other 8 resources, since you have a personal prejudice against the first one, and get back to me on a link to that model which demonstrates your interpretation of the data.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]Overwhelming evidence to the contrary?[/quote]

    And you quote un-sCeptical un-sCience? A blog run by a proven identity thief and publisher of fake consensus “papers”? 😀

    What you point to is called underwhelming anecdotal evidence.

    The real test of a hypothesis like CAGW comes when it’s predictive skill is tested.

    Please provide even a single Co2 based model that passes this test.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/even-with-the-best-models-warmest-decades-most-co2-models-are-proven-failures/

    And while your at it. Please provide even a single Peer Reviewed Paper that rules out natural variability as cause for observed climate.

    [quote]If the science really is that settled, then this challenge should be easy:

    Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record.

    Studies that have suggested that an increase in the total output of the sun cannot be blamed, do not count…the sun is an external driver. I’m talking about natural, internal variability.

    The fact is that the ‘null hypothesis’ of global warming has never been rejected: That natural climate variability can explain everything we see in the climate system.
    [/quote]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”][quote .

    Now, you’ve been presented with evidence. You can accept the evidence, on its own merit, or, you have one other option. You can provide us with a citation (like required so we can all look at the same source you’re using), for a model which takes the current data set, applies physical principles, and which demonstrates the cause(s) other than human activity which would be responsible for the observational data (i.e., a model which coincides with reality, but demonstrates what other mechanisms must be at work to explain our observations if humans are not the cause.)
    [/quote]

    Should read (link required) rather than (like required.) My apologies.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote]
    Please provide even a single Co2 based model that passes this test.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/06/even-with-the-best-models-warmest-decades-most-co2-models-are-proven-failures/
    [/quote]

    You are referring to the article above, which bases its information on the following: http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_cmip5.cgi?id=someone@somewhere

    As you can see, they use a cherry-picked set of models to skew their presentation of the data. You people really don’t check information before you quote it.

    [quote]
    And while your at it. Please provide even a single Peer Reviewed Paper that rules out natural variability as cause for observed climate.

    If the science really is that settled, then this challenge should be easy:

    Show me one peer-reviewed paper that has ruled out natural, internal climate cycles as the cause of most of the recent warming in the thermometer record.[/quote]

    “Scaling fluctuation analysis and statistical hypothesis testing of anthropogenic warming”, S. Lovejoy, Climate Change, published online April 6, 2014.

    http://link.springer.com/search?query=10.1007%2Fs00382-014-2128-2

    Full paper available at: http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf

    Also, that was easy. Oh, and there are more, just in case you don’t like that one either. 🙂

    Reply

  • Avatar

    A.D. Everard

    |

    What an excellent article. Thank you for posting this.

    I expect the alarmists will go quiet as the coming cold kicks in, then they will conveniently forget they ever believed in warming. The next cry will be that we are cooling the Earth and many will jump on that bandwagon, desperate to blame mankind for something – Anything. Hopefully by then many more will have woken up.

    As for those today who so denigrate “deniers”, I’ve felt for awhile that we should insist they practice what they preach and actually try living the lifestyle they are so eager to foist on their children or grandchildren.

    Hypocrites, the lot of them.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”A.D. Everard”]
    As for those today who so denigrate “deniers”, I’ve felt for awhile that we should insist they practice what they preach and actually try living the lifestyle they are so eager to foist on their children or grandchildren.

    Hypocrites, the lot of them.[/quote]

    So, the true motivation for Denialism comes out: admitting we’re responsible would mean taking responsibility, and admitting you’re wrong and changing your lifestyle are just too scary to accept. A brilliant argument to illustrate the higher order distal cause behind Denialism. Thank you

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @ roxinthehead

    You can lie all you want and
    cite crap all you want.

    But without proof of a Greenhouse Effect,
    Your ravings are meaningless.

    No Proof = No Proof

    Deny Scientific Thought all you want
    Deny Reason all you want,

    You expose what you are.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]Also, that was easy. Oh, and there are more, just in case you don’t like that one either. :)[/quote] More utterly refuted pieces of crap like it?
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/11/lovejoys-99-confidence-vs-measurement-uncertainty/

    Strangely I cannot seem to find any graphs showing the predictive skill of this method.

    They do talk a lot about “empirically estimating”. Which is complete nonsense. If your using empirical observations why do you need to “estimate” them? LOL…

    And in no way does it refute natural variability. To do so it would first have to list all climate forcing’s, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

    They seem to agree with AR4’s Radiative values? The Same AR4 that admitted they little to no understanding of climate forcing’s?
    [quote]Models and simulations are critical to the IPCC’s case for man-made warming but in its Third Assessment
    Report (TAR) the IPCC admitted that the level of scientific understanding (LSU) of 7 of 11 climate factors
    was “very low” and that for another the LSU was “low” (see figure). A similar table was absent from the
    Fourth Assessment Report – would it be an admission that science had advanced very little? – but a table of
    various radiative forcing’s did appear and again many factors were poorly understood.[/quote]

    Must be why they need to “estimate” empirical observations? 😀

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @amirlach
    Judging by our posting time stamps, I am to gather that you read, absorbed, and contemplated refutation of a 39 page technical paper in only 34 minutes? I think not. Troll elsewhere.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]As you can see, they use a cherry-picked set of models to skew their presentation of the data. You people really don’t check information before you quote it.[/quote] Cherry Picked? Picking ALL of the models is now Cherry Picking? 😀

    [quote]John Christy used the best and latest models, he used ALL the models available, he has graphed the period of the fastest warming and during the times humans have emitted the most CO2. This is also the best data we have. If ever any model was to show the smallest skill, this would be it. None do.[/quote]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    A.D. Everard

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”][quote name=”A.D. Everard”]
    As for those today who so denigrate “deniers”, I’ve felt for awhile that we should insist they practice what they preach and actually try living the lifestyle they are so eager to foist on their children or grandchildren.

    Hypocrites, the lot of them.[/quote]

    So, the true motivation for Denialism comes out: admitting we’re responsible would mean taking responsibility, and admitting you’re wrong and changing your lifestyle are just too scary to accept. A brilliant argument to illustrate the higher order distal cause behind Denialism. Thank you[/quote]

    Man, I’ve done it. I’ve lived five years without a house, out in the wilderness, no electricity on-line, no piped water, no phone. I was lucky, I was in the sub-tropics.

    Then again, I’m not the one telling people we should end civilization to save us all from a whole 2 C.

    Now, what about you? What are you doing to prove your commitment to the faith? You’ve got a computer, a house, probably a car, you use electricity – and waste it telling people off for using electricity. Funny that.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @amirlach

    Stating you picked all model sets and actually picking all model sets are two entirely different things. If you will look at the link for the graph data, which I provided, and which is provided at the bottom of the graph in the article which you cited, you will find that the author does not include all data sets.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @amirlach

    For some predictions made by climate models: https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth501/content/p5_p10.html

    Also, see the following:

    http://web.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28_2/text/cli.htm

    http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howreliable.pdf (This one takes data on outputs of volcanic eruptions, puts it through our climate models, and demonstrates that they accurately predict the effects and duration of effects on global climate.)

    http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html#.V04wZpErKUl

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @ A.D. Everard

    Actually, I spend my time and energy confronting the religion of Denialism, and taking great care to provide actual science in lieu of the unsubstantiated claims offered by people like Steven Cappozola. I merely pointed out what I commonly observe in such discussions, namely, that Denialists, when asked for facts to support their assertions not only do not give them, they eventually reveal that it is their fear of lifestyle changes should they have to accept responsibility, and not a legitimate complaint against the accuracy of established climate science which drives the Denialist cult. Nice try at changing the topic though.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@amirlach
    Judging by our posting time stamps, I am to gather that you read, absorbed, and contemplated refutation of a 39 page technical paper in only 34 minutes? I think not. Troll elsewhere.[/quote]
    I stopped reading when they said they “estimated empirical observations”…

    Penn State? 😀 Based upon the same failed IPCC “science”… Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/2001wg1/large/05.02.jpg 😀

    Reply

  • Avatar

    A.D. Everard

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@ A.D. Everard

    Actually, I spend my time and energy confronting the religion of Denialism, and taking great care to provide actual science in lieu of the unsubstantiated claims offered by people like Steven Cappozola. I merely pointed out what I commonly observe in such discussions, namely, that Denialists, when asked for facts to support their assertions not only do not give them, they eventually reveal that it is their fear of lifestyle changes should they have to accept responsibility, and not a legitimate complaint against the accuracy of established climate science which drives the Denialist cult. Nice try at changing the topic though.[/quote]
    Not trying to change the topic, you were the one to bring up responsibility.

    When I got looking into all this, it was the skeptics that impressed me because they put facts and figures on the table, links, discussion, the lot. You could pull apart theories and go all in. All comers were welcome.

    Not so the warmists, though. No, they don’t like talking at all. They point to computer models time and time again, but don’t like to answer questions, don’t like to debate, don’t like to make data available.

    Now they are trying to silence the skeptical side. No science in that. In fact that’s the opposite of science. They are trying to make it a crime to question, to doubt.

    That’s not healthy.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”][quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@amirlach
    Judging by our posting time stamps, I am to gather that you read, absorbed, and contemplated refutation of a 39 page technical paper in only 34 minutes? I think not. Troll elsewhere.[/quote]
    I stopped reading when they said they “estimated empirical observations”…

    Penn State? 😀 Based upon the same failed IPCC “science”… Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/2001wg1/large/05.02.jpg :D[/quote]

    So, you unabashedly admit to not reading the entire paper, and therefore having absolutely no footing on which to critique it. Thanks for clarifying further that you make baseless assertions. I couldn’t have pointed it out better myself.

    Also, if you don’t like the IPCC data, cough up some resources which conclusively demonstrate your opinion over their interpretation.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    Sorry [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@JayPee

    See the following for a history of the study of the greenhouse effect: https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

    Also, see the following for a statstical refutation of the null-hypothesis for man made global warming (that it can only be natural.) http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf

    Have fun, and try again.[/quote]
    Sorry but this crap was already refuted above. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/11/lovejoys-99-confidence-vs-measurement-uncertainty/

    Reply

  • Avatar

    A.D. Everard

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”][quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@amirlach
    Judging by our posting time stamps, I am to gather that you read, absorbed, and contemplated refutation of a 39 page technical paper in only 34 minutes? I think not. Troll elsewhere.[/quote]
    I stopped reading when they said they “estimated empirical observations”…

    Penn State? 😀 Based upon the same failed IPCC “science”… Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/graphics/2001wg1/large/05.02.jpg :D[/quote]

    “Estimated empirical observations”!!! LOL. 😆

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]

    So, you unabashedly admit to not reading the entire paper, and therefore having absolutely no footing on which to critique it. Thanks for clarifying further that you make baseless assertions. I couldn’t have pointed it out better myself.

    You don’t have to eat the whole of an egg to know that it is rotten.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @A.D. Everard

    I’ve put up something like 11 sources of data for discussion, and no one is even bothering to read them. I’m perfectly willing to have the discussion you’re wishing to have. In order to have that reasoned debate though, you’re also going to have to provide, at some point, an example where observational data are taken and physical priciples applied, which demonstrates that this comes from natural, and not mad made causes. That’s a scientifically verifiable assertion (that man is not the cause) but I can never get a demonstration out of anyone.

    I have provided a statistical analysis of the argument that it is a completely natural process, and I will provide the links again here:

    To demonstrate it is in a peer-reviewed journal: http://link.springer.com/search?query=10.1007%2Fs00382-014-2128-2

    The paper: http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf

    I’d deeply love to discuss data. I’ll do it all day long. Also, this paper doesn’t depend on climate models, so no out there. 😉

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”]Sorry [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@JayPee

    See the following for a history of the study of the greenhouse effect: https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

    Also, see the following for a statstical refutation of the null-hypothesis for man made global warming (that it can only be natural.) http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf

    Have fun, and try again.[/quote]
    Sorry but this crap was already refuted above. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/11/lovejoys-99-confidence-vs-measurement-uncertainty/%5B/quote%5D

    So, your source for attempting to refute a paper in a peer-reviewed journal is not another source from a peer-reviewed journal, but a post on a blog by a “guest blogger.”

    I’m sorry, but that’s not exactly the publication venue required for refutation of science. if his opinion were worth anything on this topic, he’d publish and make us all admit we were wrong. He didn’t, and instead chose to blog about it. How convenient.

    Try again.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@JayPee

    See the following for a history of the study of the greenhouse effect: https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

    Also, see the following for a statstical refutation of the null-hypothesis for man made global warming (that it can only be natural.) http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf

    Have fun, and try again.[/quote]

    I’m surprised you so stupidly want to admit to everyone that you have idea of what proof is, what the scientific method is.

    Are al the “scientific skeptics” as bright as you ?

    Try the skeptical inquirer, they’re about as smart as you.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @amirlach

    Also, Anthony Watts, who runs the blog on which your article is posted earned no degree while at University, and his closest thing to credibility on discussing climate science is that he is a former TV weatherman.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    A.D. Everard

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@A.D. Everard

    I’ve put up something like 11 sources of data for discussion, and no one is even bothering to read them. I’m perfectly willing to have the discussion you’re wishing to have. In order to have that reasoned debate though, you’re also going to have to provide, at some point, an example where observational data are taken and physical priciples applied, which demonstrates that this comes from natural, and not mad made causes. That’s a scientifically verifiable assertion (that man is not the cause) but I can never get a demonstration out of anyone.

    I have provided a statistical analysis of the argument that it is a completely natural process, and I will provide the links again here:

    To demonstrate it is in a peer-reviewed journal: http://link.springer.com/search?query=10.1007%2Fs00382-014-2128-2

    The paper: http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf

    I’d deeply love to discuss data. I’ll do it all day long. Also, this paper doesn’t depend on climate models, so no out there. ;)[/quote]

    Really? You love the discussion idea? Pop on over to WUWT (I’m sure you can find it) and join in there. Plenty of scientists to go around willing to get right into the nitty-gritty.

    I wasn’t asking you for a discussion, you seem to have made your mind up. And clearly I am not one who fears a lifestyle change, so you’re wrong there too.

    Maybe rather than spending your time dissuading those you don’t agree with, you could dig a little deeper into the real science AND politics AND legitimate concerns and gain some understanding in why it’s not a good idea to throw civilization off a cliff because someone is scared of warm weather.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”JayPee”][quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@JayPee

    See the following for a history of the study of the greenhouse effect: https://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

    Also, see the following for a statstical refutation of the null-hypothesis for man made global warming (that it can only be natural.) http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf

    Have fun, and try again.[/quote]

    I’m surprised you so stupidly want to admit to everyone that you have idea of what proof is, what the scientific method is.

    Are al the “scientific skeptics” as bright as you ?

    Try the skeptical inquirer, they’re about as smart as you.[/quote]

    You’re not making the claim that I misunderstand the scientific method by rejecting the evidence I provide. You are making the claim, in this case, that the American Institute of Physics (https://www.aip.org/aip/about-aip) does not understand the scientific method, and that the peer-reviewers in the Journal Climate Dynamics do not understand the scientific method.

    I just want to be clear what assertions (still baseless, mind you) you are making.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote] Also, if you don’t like the IPCC data, cough up some resources which conclusively demonstrate your opinion over their interpretation.[/quote]
    [img]https://informativestats.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hayden_ipcc_arrow.jpg[/img]

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/07/nasa-ipcc-climate-models-latest-global-temperature-data-confirm-computer-simulations-lack-of-predict.html

    The Scafetta Model works a lot better.
    [img]http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c016768ef5b5a970b-pi[/img]

    And this one.
    http://climateprediction.eu/cc/Main/Entries/2013/10/7_Still_confirming_forecast_of_Apr_2011_at_73_accuracy._IPCC_forecast_at_10._What_drives_Global_Warming_(Update_2).html

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @A.D. Everard
    [quote]When I got looking into all this, it was the skeptics that impressed me because they put facts and figures on the table, links, discussion, the lot. You could pull apart theories and go all in. All comers were welcome.

    Not so the warmists, though. No, they don’t like talking at all. They point to computer models time and time again, but don’t like to answer questions, don’t like to debate, don’t like to make data available.[/quote]

    [quote]I wasn’t asking you for a discussion…[/quote]

    What changed, other than the introduction of links, data sets, and everything else you first claimed you liked?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]You’re not making the claim that I misunderstand the scientific method by rejecting the evidence I provide. You are making the claim, in this case, that the American Institute of Physics (www.aip.org/aip/about-aip) does not understand the scientific method, and that the peer-reviewers in the Journal Climate Dynamics do not understand the scientific method.[/quote]

    What you now doing is called an appeal to authority. If the science you and they are pointing to is so credible. Why does it all fail the predictive skill testing question?

    -quote] Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics said, “It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”

    Climate predictions are consistently wrong, so the hypothesis is wrong and the computer models built on it are wrong and produce meaingless results.

    Failed predictions indicate climate science remains unsettled. Corollary of the settled, solid rock arguments are that we can eliminate IPCC, or is that a reductio ad absurdum argument? [/quote]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    A.D. Everard

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@A.D. Everard
    [quote]When I got looking into all this, it was the skeptics that impressed me because they put facts and figures on the table, links, discussion, the lot. You could pull apart theories and go all in. All comers were welcome.

    Not so the warmists, though. No, they don’t like talking at all. They point to computer models time and time again, but don’t like to answer questions, don’t like to debate, don’t like to make data available.[/quote]

    [quote]I wasn’t asking you for a discussion…[/quote]

    What changed, other than the introduction of links, data sets, and everything else you first claimed you liked?[/quote]

    Oh, I got into this years ago. The fumbling around from the warmists has been hugely entertaining. They keep changing their story. EVERYTHING is proof of global warming, I mean climate change, I mean weather-weirding, or whatever it’s called this week. I haven’t found any of them to be in any way trustworthy. The claims, frankly, are getting ridiculous.

    I discuss this aplenty so I’m not searching for someone to talk to – thanks for offering though.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@amirlach

    Also, Anthony Watts, who runs the blog on which your article is posted earned no degree while at University, and his closest thing to credibility on discussing climate science is that he is a former TV weatherman.[/quote]
    I’ll take the World’s most viewed site over your failed cartoonist/wanna be Nazi identity thief any day.

    Besides… Your crappy Paper that “estimates” empirical evidence is still crappy AND refuted.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @amirlach

    [quote] What you now doing is called an appeal to authority.[/quote]

    No, no appeal to authority, since my argument doesn’t rest on their “authority,” but on the facts which they have demonstrated. Your Richard Feynman quote, while clever, is more of an appeal to authority, as it doesn’t offer any actual data of value to the discussion.

    [quote]Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics said, “It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period.”[/quote]

    [quote]Climate predictions are consistently wrong, so the hypothesis is wrong and the computer models built on it are wrong and produce meaingless results.[/quote]

    Cite your sources. I’d like to see them. Let’s all look at the same material. Just cite it.

    [quote] Failed predictions indicate climate science remains unsettled. Corollary of the settled, solid rock arguments are that we can eliminate IPCC, or is that a reductio ad absurdum argument? [/quote]

    Once again, you’re going to have to make some citations we can all look at in order to back your assertion that the predictions are failed.

    At this point, we’re past rhetoric. It’s time for facts. Put up or shut up.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote]
    I’ll take the World’s most viewed site over your failed cartoonist/wanna be Nazi identity thief any day.[/quote]

    “World’s most viewed site…,” not even close, pal:

    http://www.alexa.com/topsites

    http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/news/the-most-visited-websites-by-country

    [quote] Besides… Your crappy Paper that “estimates” empirical evidence is still crappy AND refuted.[/quote]

    Remind me again, in which scientific journal said refutatation has been published? Or are we still relying on a guest post on a blog run by a guy who couldn’t finish a degree and once worked as a television weather reporter?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]In order to have that reasoned debate though, you’re also going to have to provide, at some point, an example where observational data are taken and physical priciples applied, which demonstrates that this comes from natural, and not mad made causes. That’s a scientifically verifiable assertion (that man is not the cause) but I can never get a demonstration out of anyone.[/quote] And we can never get a demonstration that refutes Natural Variability out of alarmists.

    It’s not up to us to prove Natural Variability,(the null hypothesis) it’s up to alarmists to disprove it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not “estimated” empirical evidence.

    We have 4.5 Billion years of Natural Variability as a precedent.

    [quote]The IPCC has ignored a fundamental concept of science in every one of its reports:
    “The Null Hypothesis“.

    Ignoring the null hypothesis is a fatal flaw in all IPCC reports and why they must be rejected outright as science-based proof that humans are the cause of global warming.

    Perhaps the reason the IPCC commits such an elementary error in basic science is that it isn’t a scientific organization. It is a political arm of the UN staffed by government appointees.

    What is ‘The Null Hypothesis’?

    In all things of a statistical nature, such as measuring climate change over time, a null hypothesis is defined and tested.

    The null hypothesis must be assumed to be true unless statistical analysis proves it is outside the range of random probability.

    That range has a strict mathematical definition. It is two or more standard deviations away from the prediction of the null hypothesis.

    In laymen’s terms it means there is a 95% or greater chance that the null hypothesis is wrong.

    In that case, the null hypothesis is rejected.

    The purpose of the null hypothesis isn’t to prove anything. Its purpose is to eliminate possibilities. In the case of climate change it can be used to eliminate natural variability as a cause of climate change.

    [/quote]

    The IPCC has never ever defined a null hypothesis to build its case for human-caused global warming, even though all climate change is statistically based. That is flawed science.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]In order to have that reasoned debate though, you’re also going to have to provide, at some point, an example where observational data are taken and physical priciples applied, which demonstrates that this comes from natural, and not mad made causes. That’s a scientifically verifiable assertion (that man is not the cause) but I can never get a demonstration out of anyone.[/quote] And we can never get a demonstration that refutes Natural Variability out of alarmists.

    It’s not up to us to prove Natural Variability,(the null hypothesis) it’s up to alarmists to disprove it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not “estimated” empirical evidence.

    We have 4.5 Billion years of Natural Variability as a precedent.

    [quote]The IPCC has ignored a fundamental concept of science in every one of its reports:
    “The Null Hypothesis“.

    Ignoring the null hypothesis is a fatal flaw in all IPCC reports and why they must be rejected outright as science-based proof that humans are the cause of global warming.

    Perhaps the reason the IPCC commits such an elementary error in basic science is that it isn’t a scientific organization. It is a political arm of the UN staffed by government appointees.

    What is ‘The Null Hypothesis’?

    In all things of a statistical nature, such as measuring climate change over time, a null hypothesis is defined and tested.

    The null hypothesis must be assumed to be true unless statistical analysis proves it is outside the range of random probability.

    That range has a strict mathematical definition. It is two or more standard deviations away from the prediction of the null hypothesis.

    In laymen’s terms it means there is a 95% or greater chance that the null hypothesis is wrong.

    In that case, the null hypothesis is rejected.

    The purpose of the null hypothesis isn’t to prove anything. Its purpose is to eliminate possibilities. In the case of climate change it can be used to eliminate natural variability as a cause of climate change.

    [/quote]

    The IPCC has never ever defined a null hypothesis to build its case for human-caused global warming, even though all climate change is statistically based. That is flawed science.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]In order to have that reasoned debate though, you’re also going to have to provide, at some point, an example where observational data are taken and physical priciples applied, which demonstrates that this comes from natural, and not mad made causes. That’s a scientifically verifiable assertion (that man is not the cause) but I can never get a demonstration out of anyone.[/quote] And we can never get a demonstration that refutes Natural Variability out of alarmists.

    It’s not up to us to prove Natural Variability,(the null hypothesis) it’s up to alarmists to disprove it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not “estimated” empirical evidence.

    We have 4.5 Billion years of Natural Variability as a precedent.

    [quote]The IPCC has ignored a fundamental concept of science in every one of its reports:
    “The Null Hypothesis“.

    Ignoring the null hypothesis is a fatal flaw in all IPCC reports and why they must be rejected outright as science-based proof that humans are the cause of global warming.

    Perhaps the reason the IPCC commits such an elementary error in basic science is that it isn’t a scientific organization. It is a political arm of the UN staffed by government appointees.

    What is ‘The Null Hypothesis’?

    In all things of a statistical nature, such as measuring climate change over time, a null hypothesis is defined and tested.

    The null hypothesis must be assumed to be true unless statistical analysis proves it is outside the range of random probability.

    That range has a strict mathematical definition. It is two or more standard deviations away from the prediction of the null hypothesis.

    In laymen’s terms it means there is a 95% or greater chance that the null hypothesis is wrong.

    In that case, the null hypothesis is rejected.

    The purpose of the null hypothesis isn’t to prove anything. Its purpose is to eliminate possibilities. In the case of climate change it can be used to eliminate natural variability as a cause of climate change.

    [/quote]

    The IPCC has never ever defined a null hypothesis to build its case for human-caused global warming, even though all climate change is statistically based. That is flawed science.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks

    At this point, we’re past rhetoric. It’s time for facts. Put up or shut up.[/quote]

    Yes, you’re right, rox-in-the -head :

    Cite the scientific proof of the Greenhouse Effect or shut up and be demonstrated A LIAR.;

    Present your or anybody else’s proof.

    You won’t because
    You can’t because

    THERE IS NONE !

    Yet you go on as the reality denying idiot who so religiously adheres to the extremist leftism of global warming alarmism because it gives scum like you a façade to promote the ideology that government is some how superior to the people.

    Government is NOT superior to the people.
    and
    Scum like you are not superior to logic and the scientific method.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @amirlach
    [quote name=”amirlach”][quote] Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not “estimated” empirical evidence. [/quote]

    Seems like someone (amirlach) needs a course in what is meant by the phrase “empirical estimate” in science (as opposed to “theoretical estimate.”)

    http://www.probabilityformula.org/empirical-probability-formula.html

    Come back when you have something.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @amirlach
    [quote name=”amirlach”][quote] Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not “estimated” empirical evidence. [/quote]

    Seems like someone (amirlach) needs a course in what is meant by the phrase “empirical estimate” in science (as opposed to “theoretical estimate.”)

    http://www.probabilityformula.org/empirical-probability-formula.html

    Come back when you have something.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @JayPee
    [quote name=”JayPee”][quote name=”ihuntrocks

    At this point, we’re past rhetoric. It’s time for facts. Put up or shut up.[/quote]

    Yes, you’re right, rox-in-the -head :

    Cite the scientific proof of the Greenhouse Effect or shut up and be demonstrated A LIAR.;

    Present your or anybody else’s proof.

    You won’t because
    You can’t because

    THERE IS NONE !

    Yet you go on as the reality denying idiot who so religiously adheres to the extremist leftism of global warming alarmism because it gives scum like you a façade to promote the ideology that government is some how superior to the people.

    Government is NOT superior to the people.
    and
    Scum like you are not superior to logic and the scientific method.[/quote]

    One more time, for your personal benefit, since you can’t seem to wrap your head around the idea that the greenhouse effect is a real thing:

    http://www.livescience.com/49950-greenhouse-effect-measured-us.html

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @JayPee
    [quote name=”JayPee”][quote name=”ihuntrocks

    At this point, we’re past rhetoric. It’s time for facts. Put up or shut up.[/quote]

    Yes, you’re right, rox-in-the -head :

    Cite the scientific proof of the Greenhouse Effect or shut up and be demonstrated A LIAR.;

    Present your or anybody else’s proof.

    You won’t because
    You can’t because

    THERE IS NONE !

    Yet you go on as the reality denying idiot who so religiously adheres to the extremist leftism of global warming alarmism because it gives scum like you a façade to promote the ideology that government is some how superior to the people.

    Government is NOT superior to the people.
    and
    Scum like you are not superior to logic and the scientific method.[/quote]

    One more time, for your personal benefit, since you can’t seem to wrap your head around the idea that the greenhouse effect is a real thing:

    http://www.livescience.com/49950-greenhouse-effect-measured-us.html

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @JayPee
    [quote name=”JayPee”][quote name=”ihuntrocks

    At this point, we’re past rhetoric. It’s time for facts. Put up or shut up.[/quote]

    Yes, you’re right, rox-in-the -head :

    Cite the scientific proof of the Greenhouse Effect or shut up and be demonstrated A LIAR.;

    Present your or anybody else’s proof.

    You won’t because
    You can’t because

    THERE IS NONE !

    Yet you go on as the reality denying idiot who so religiously adheres to the extremist leftism of global warming alarmism because it gives scum like you a façade to promote the ideology that government is some how superior to the people.

    Government is NOT superior to the people.
    and
    Scum like you are not superior to logic and the scientific method.[/quote]

    One more time, for your personal benefit, since you can’t seem to wrap your head around the idea that the greenhouse effect is a real thing:

    http://www.livescience.com/49950-greenhouse-effect-measured-us.html

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@amirlach
    [quote name=”amirlach”][quote] Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not “estimated” empirical evidence. [/quote]

    Seems like someone (amirlach) needs a course in what is meant by the phrase “empirical estimate” in science (as opposed to “theoretical estimate.”)

    http://www.probabilityformula.org/empirical-probability-formula.html

    Come back when you have something.[/quote]

    @ rox-in-the-head

    I stand unequivocally by what you have said as absolute proof of your inability to comprehend.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@amirlach
    [quote name=”amirlach”][quote] Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not “estimated” empirical evidence. [/quote]

    Seems like someone (amirlach) needs a course in what is meant by the phrase “empirical estimate” in science (as opposed to “theoretical estimate.”)

    http://www.probabilityformula.org/empirical-probability-formula.html

    Come back when you have something.[/quote]

    @ rox-in-the-head

    I stand unequivocally by what you have said as absolute proof of your inability to comprehend.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@amirlach
    [quote name=”amirlach”][quote] Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Not “estimated” empirical evidence. [/quote]

    Seems like someone (amirlach) needs a course in what is meant by the phrase “empirical estimate” in science (as opposed to “theoretical estimate.”)

    http://www.probabilityformula.org/empirical-probability-formula.html

    Come back when you have something.[/quote]

    @ rox-in-the-head

    I stand unequivocally by what you have said as absolute proof of your inability to comprehend.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @amirlach
    [quote]
    @ rox-in-the-head

    I stand unequivocally by what you have said as absolute proof of your inability to comprehend.[/quote]

    Ah, the last defense of the Denialist, when they cannot offer any evidence to support their view, they just point at the other speaker, call that person stupid, and pray that anyone else who reads their comment will believe them.

    Let’s sum up the exchanges so far between you and I, @amirlach:

    I keep providing you with cited references to back my assertions, and to refute the assertions which you have made. Rather than demonstrate in any conclusive way that any of the information I have provided is incorrect, you merely remain solid in your baseless assertions that it *is* incorrect.

    The best attempts at citations you have made were from a blog post by a guest blogger on the blog of someone who failed out of college and was one a television weather personality. You’ve also not offered any demonstration that we can take the observed data, apply known physical principles, and arrive at your conclusion.

    You have nothing, and until you do, I’m not responding. Have fun.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @amirlach
    [quote]
    @ rox-in-the-head

    I stand unequivocally by what you have said as absolute proof of your inability to comprehend.[/quote]

    Ah, the last defense of the Denialist, when they cannot offer any evidence to support their view, they just point at the other speaker, call that person stupid, and pray that anyone else who reads their comment will believe them.

    Let’s sum up the exchanges so far between you and I, @amirlach:

    I keep providing you with cited references to back my assertions, and to refute the assertions which you have made. Rather than demonstrate in any conclusive way that any of the information I have provided is incorrect, you merely remain solid in your baseless assertions that it *is* incorrect.

    The best attempts at citations you have made were from a blog post by a guest blogger on the blog of someone who failed out of college and was one a television weather personality. You’ve also not offered any demonstration that we can take the observed data, apply known physical principles, and arrive at your conclusion.

    You have nothing, and until you do, I’m not responding. Have fun.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @amirlach
    [quote]I’ll take the World’s most viewed site over your failed cartoonist/wanna be Nazi identity thief any day.[/quote]

    Oh, wait, you meant WUWT is supposed to be the “world’s most viewed website”…or possibly the “world’s most viewed website on global warming” as their title suggests.

    Typing “global warming” into Google gets you 18 pages of relevant data, and WUWT isn’t anywhere in those 18 pages. I asked Google to include irrelevant search results as well. This greatly extended the number of available sites which came up…but WUWT still wasn’t even in the top 20 pages. I stopped looking for it after that.

    You just keep believing that title “World’s most visited website on global warming.” I’m certain you will, as you seem to readily swallow anything you find on any site which denies AGW and therefore conforms to your confirmation bias. You’ve already proven that you will go to any lengths necessary to avoid consideration of facts which come from sources not advocating your opinions. You’re a Denialist. It’s not science, it’s a cult, a religion, which requires you to hold to its tenets even in the face of all other available evidence.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]Cite your sources. I’d like to see them. Let’s all look at the same material. Just cite it.[/quote]
    [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/failed-climate-predictions.jpg[/img]

    Failed predictions? They made so many there is a site dedicated to them!
    http://climatechangepredictions.org/

    http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/IPCC1995_Fail.htm

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/

    https://anotherslownewsday.wordpress.com/global-warming-failed-predictions/

    Oh and on you “Pause is a Myth”?
    “Updated list of 66 excuses for the 18-26 year ‘pause’ in global warming.” With links. And quotes.
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2014/11/updated-list-of-64-excuses-for-18-26.html

    While US “scientists” try erasing the pause…
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/12/uk-ocean-scientists-were-going-to-investigate-the-pause/

    http://www.hydro-international.com/content/news/project-investigates-the-global-warming-hiatus

    And strangely the

    Reply

  • Avatar

    A.D. Everard

    |

    Ihuntrocks says of WUWT: ‘”World’s most viewed site…,” not even close, pal:’

    Over 274,000,000 views. It’s right there on their homepage, check it out: https://wattsupwiththat.com/

    There isn’t a warmist site anywhere near such a number.

    You also denigrate Anthony Watts as though he’s the only contributor to his blog and “worthless” for being a weatherman, whereas he carries many articles from many scientists and from many publications. And he knows what he’s talking about.

    You either haven’t been to WUWT or you are making a very good impression of someone who hasn’t. It’s a site well-worth exploring.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote] You’re a Denialist. It’s not science, it’s a cult, a religion, which requires you to hold to its tenets even in the face of all other available evidence.[/quote] Still waiting to see some.

    You know some that is not “estimated” empirical LOL “observations”. Hell even a single skillful prediction would be nice.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@amirlach
    [quote]
    @ rox-in-the-head

    I stand unequivocally by what you have said as absolute proof of your inability to comprehend.[/quote]

    Ah, the last defense of the Denialist, when they cannot offer any evidence to support their view, they just point at the other speaker, call that person stupid, and pray that anyone else who reads their comment will believe them.

    Let’s sum up the exchanges so far between you and I, @amirlach:

    I keep providing you with cited references to back my assertions, and to refute the assertions which you have made. Rather than demonstrate in any conclusive way that any of the information I have provided is incorrect, you merely remain solid in your baseless assertions that it *is* incorrect.

    The best attempts at citations you have made were from a blog post by a guest blogger on the blog of someone who failed out of college and was one a television weather personality. You’ve also not offered any demonstration that we can take the observed data, apply known physical principles, and arrive at your conclusion.

    You have nothing, and until you do, I’m not responding. Have fun.[/quote]

    @ rox-in-the-head

    You have the gall to say ” last defense ” when you and the rest of the alarmists have never proffered a

    FIRST PROOF

    Make all the idiotic claims and conclusions you want
    It matters not without

    PROOF

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”][quote]Cite your sources. I’d like to see them. Let’s all look at the same material. Just cite it.[/quote]
    [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/failed-climate-predictions.jpg[/img]

    Failed predictions? They made so many there is a site dedicated to them!
    http://climatechangepredictions.org/

    http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/IPCC1995_Fail.htm

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/02/the-big-list-of-failed-climate-predictions/

    https://anotherslownewsday.wordpress.com/global-warming-failed-predictions/

    Oh and on you “Pause is a Myth”?
    “Updated list of 66 excuses for the 18-26 year ‘pause’ in global warming.” With links. And quotes.
    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2014/11/updated-list-of-64-excuses-for-18-26.html

    While US “scientists” try erasing the pause…
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/12/uk-ocean-scientists-were-going-to-investigate-the-pause/

    http://www.hydro-international.com/content/news/project-investigates-the-global-warming-hiatus

    And strangely the[/quote]

    Wow…attempts to discredit John Cook, who has a degree in Physics and actually studies climate science topics because he’s a “failed cartoonist,” but then tries to cite a *cartoon* as “evidence.” That’s rich. Now you’re really showing how silly you are. Oh, and you keep clinging to Anthony Watts as if he had any credibility. That’s hilarious. Just plain hilarious. Searched through all 100 pages of results for Anthony Watts at http://scholar.google.com and unsurprisingly, not a single published paper by your former weather man.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Amirlach,

    study the verbiage
    this is a reincarnation of the multiply proven LIAR

    DREWSKI

    Who I prefer to call

    ON – GEE – AS – KEE

    Which is spelled Andrejewski

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @amirlach

    Let’s make this simple, and just end it now. Provide the evidence which proves the null hypothesis (that it’s all natural and not man-made.) Either that exists, or it doesn’t. Provide it. Time for “proof,” since you’re also making a scientifically verifiable claim (man is not responsible and other natural forces are.) It only takes one single such thing to disprove the rest of climate science. I know you won’t provide that, because you can’t. It doesn’t exist. Nothing close to it exists. In fact, as demonstrated before, when one examines that null hypothesis, the only conclusions which can be drawn from the data and established physical laws is that it *cannot* be simply natural, and must include man-made components.

    If you have that demonstration, post it. If you don’t, shut up, because you can prove nothing. That’s it…the end.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”JayPee”]Amirlach,

    study the verbiage
    this is a reincarnation of the multiply proven LIAR

    DREWSKI

    Who I prefer to call

    ON – GEE – AS – KEE

    Which is spelled Andrejewski[/quote]

    About what are you speaking? That’s just all gibberish.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”JayPee”]Amirlach,

    study the verbiage
    this is a reincarnation of the multiply proven LIAR

    DREWSKI

    Who I prefer to call

    ON – GEE – AS – KEE

    Which is spelled Andrejewski[/quote]

    About what are you speaking? That’s just all gibberish.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”JayPee”]Amirlach,

    study the verbiage
    this is a reincarnation of the multiply proven LIAR

    DREWSKI

    Who I prefer to call

    ON – GEE – AS – KEE

    Which is spelled Andrejewski[/quote]

    About what are you speaking? That’s just all gibberish.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @amirlach

    In other words, physics still has to back up your assertion and provide explanation of the observations we make, while ruling out the assertions we make. In order to be “right” you *have* to provide that model. I’m still waiting, as is the rest of science, since none of your crackpot sources has yet produced one.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @amirlach

    In other words, physics still has to back up your assertion and provide explanation of the observations we make, while ruling out the assertions we make. In order to be “right” you *have* to provide that model. I’m still waiting, as is the rest of science, since none of your crackpot sources has yet produced one.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @amirlach

    In other words, physics still has to back up your assertion and provide explanation of the observations we make, while ruling out the assertions we make. In order to be “right” you *have* to provide that model. I’m still waiting, as is the rest of science, since none of your crackpot sources has yet produced one.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@amirlach

    In other words, physics still has to back up your assertion and provide explanation of the observations we make, while ruling out the assertions we make. In order to be “right” you *have* to provide that model. I’m still waiting, as is the rest of science, since none of your crackpot sources has yet produced one.[/quote]

    @ roxinthehead

    You’re fooling nobody. Everyone here knows what pretentious lying scum you are. Entertain us if you want. We won’t laughing with you, but at you.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote] Wow…attempts to discredit John Cook, who has a degree in Physics and actually studies climate science topics because he’s a “failed cartoonist,” but then tries to cite a *cartoon* as “evidence.” That’s rich. Now you’re really showing how silly you are. Oh, and you keep clinging to Anthony Watts as if he had any credibility. That’s hilarious. Just plain hilarious. Searched through all 100 pages of results for Anthony Watts at scholar.google.com and unsurprisingly, not a single published paper by your former weather man.[/quote]

    And still not a single skillful prediction from the sum total of IPCC Science? 😀

    You forgot the proven identity theft. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/23/yes-why-does-john-cook-of-skepticalscience-and-the-97-have-to-use-identity-theft-in-his-research/
    And all of the completely refuted “97% Consensus “papers” he published.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/12/john-cook-is-cooking-up-more-97-consensus-while-two-papers-refute-his-statistical-sleights-of-hand/

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]In other words, physics still has to back up your assertion and provide explanation of the observations we make, while ruling out the assertions we make. In order to be “right” you *have* to provide that model. I’m still waiting, as is the rest of science, since none of your crackpot sources has yet produced one.[/quote] I showed you two completely Co2 free models that work a lot better than all of the IPCC’s combined.
    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/scafetta-2013-simple-solar-astronomical-model-beats-ipcc-climate-models/

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/06/pocket-calculator-climate-model-outperforms-billion-dollar-brains/

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2013/08/simple-climate-model-outperforms-ipcc.html

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/08/simple-climate-model-embarrass-experts-ipcc-billion-dollar-computer-climate-simulation.html

    And as for me having to “rule” out the assertions you make? The predictions made by your assertions/assumptions are wrong. As we have already shown.

    The fact is that the ‘null hypothesis’ of global warming has never been rejected: That natural climate variability can explain everything we see in the climate system.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    A.D. Everard

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@amirlach

    As to the ranking of WUWT versus other sites which discuss global warming, just look at these:

    WUWT Global Rank: 35,148
    WUWT US Rank: 11,642
    http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com

    NASA Climate Science Global Rank: 1,111
    NASA Climate Science US Rank: 484
    http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/climate.nasa.gov

    WUWT may be popular with Denialists, but it’s not particularly popular with fact-seekers. Sorry, just isn’t.[/quote]

    I guess you didn’t see my post upthread.

    Over 274,000,000 views. It’s on their homepage, check it out: https://wattsupwiththat.com/

    Google has it’s own issues with skeptics.

    My guess is you have never visited WUWT.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    Model from Watt’s up “Crack Pots WTFPAWNS IPCC’s Billion dollar models was run on a pocket calculator… 😀 [quote]The IPCC has long predicted that doubling the CO2 in the air might eventually warm the Earth by 3.3 oC. However, the new, simple model presented in the Science Bulletin predicts no more than 1 oC warming instead—and possibly much less. The model, developed over eight years, is so easy to use that a high-school math teacher or undergrad student can get credible results in minutes running it on a pocket scientific calculator.[/quote]
    http://wmbriggs.com/post/15095/

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    Model from Watt’s up “Crack Pots WTFPAWNS IPCC’s Billion dollar models was run on a pocket calculator… 😀 [quote]The IPCC has long predicted that doubling the CO2 in the air might eventually warm the Earth by 3.3 oC. However, the new, simple model presented in the Science Bulletin predicts no more than 1 oC warming instead—and possibly much less. The model, developed over eight years, is so easy to use that a high-school math teacher or undergrad student can get credible results in minutes running it on a pocket scientific calculator.[/quote]
    http://wmbriggs.com/post/15095/

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”][quote]In other words, physics still has to back up your assertion and provide explanation of the observations we make, while ruling out the assertions we make. In order to be “right” you *have* to provide that model. I’m still waiting, as is the rest of science, since none of your crackpot sources has yet produced one.[/quote] I showed you two completely Co2 free models that work a lot better than all of the IPCC’s combined.
    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/10/scafetta-2013-simple-solar-astronomical-model-beats-ipcc-climate-models/

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/06/pocket-calculator-climate-model-outperforms-billion-dollar-brains/

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2013/08/simple-climate-model-outperforms-ipcc.html

    http://www.c3headlines.com/2013/08/simple-climate-model-embarrass-experts-ipcc-billion-dollar-computer-climate-simulation.html

    And as for me having to “rule” out the assertions you make? The predictions made by your assertions/assumptions are wrong. As we have already shown.

    The fact is that the ‘null hypothesis’ of global warming has never been rejected: That natural climate variability can explain everything we see in the climate system.[/quote]

    So, let’s get this straight…you’re still using *this* Anthony Watts as a source: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts

    You are also trying to advance Joanne Nova as a source: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Joanne_Nova

    You also advance a blog written by an anonymous author: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca

    You also advance another blog written by another anonymous author: http://c3headlines.com

    Let’s class this up a bit, and quote from actual scientists and actual science publications, please.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    Besides Comrade Rocks in yer head. Your in denial of the recent low sensitivity papers being published.

    Seems after decades of failed predictions and the questions being raised. Alarmists have begun to reduce the assumptions about the climates sensitivity to Co2.
    [quote] Patrick J. Michaels testifies before the Committee of Natural Resources at the hearing “An Analysis of the Obama Administration’s Social Cost of Carbon”

    Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels writes:
    In his introductory remarks, Congressman Lowenthal (D-NY) went on the usual these-witnesses-are-climate-deniers rant. As I was the next speaker, I re-wrote my oral testimony to point out, in three spots, that people who did not recognize the low-sensitivity papers, or the huge disparity between the mid-tropospheric observed and modeled data, or the low sensitivity in the multiauthored Otto study (15 of the authors were lead authors in the last IPCC report), were in fact “science deniers”.
    [/quote]

    https://videopress.com/v/fYPBkAya

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”A.D. Everard”][quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@amirlach

    As to the ranking of WUWT versus other sites which discuss global warming, just look at these:

    WUWT Global Rank: 35,148
    WUWT US Rank: 11,642
    http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com

    NASA Climate Science Global Rank: 1,111
    NASA Climate Science US Rank: 484
    http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/climate.nasa.gov

    WUWT may be popular with Denialists, but it’s not particularly popular with fact-seekers. Sorry, just isn’t.[/quote]

    I guess you didn’t see my post upthread.

    Over 274,000,000 views. It’s on their homepage, check it out: https://wattsupwiththat.com/

    Google has it’s own issues with skeptics.

    My guess is you have never visited WUWT.[/quote]

    As you can clearly see, I didn’t cite Google for my results on page ranking, I cite Alexa (reading difficulties on your part?) The Alexa ranking is based solely off of visitor count.

    Also, when did visitor count to blogs become a credible arguing point? I must have missed when we decided to throw out our aversion to argumentum ad populum.
    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”A.D. Everard”][quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@amirlach

    As to the ranking of WUWT versus other sites which discuss global warming, just look at these:

    WUWT Global Rank: 35,148
    WUWT US Rank: 11,642
    http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com

    NASA Climate Science Global Rank: 1,111
    NASA Climate Science US Rank: 484
    http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/climate.nasa.gov

    WUWT may be popular with Denialists, but it’s not particularly popular with fact-seekers. Sorry, just isn’t.[/quote]

    I guess you didn’t see my post upthread.

    Over 274,000,000 views. It’s on their homepage, check it out: https://wattsupwiththat.com/

    Google has it’s own issues with skeptics.

    My guess is you have never visited WUWT.[/quote]

    As you can clearly see, I didn’t cite Google for my results on page ranking, I cite Alexa (reading difficulties on your part?) The Alexa ranking is based solely off of visitor count.

    Also, when did visitor count to blogs become a credible arguing point? I must have missed when we decided to throw out our aversion to argumentum ad populum.
    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @ roxinthehead

    Why don’t you stop lying ?

    You have NO proof of the Greenhouse Effect yet you blatantly continue on as if it’s a given.

    STOP LYING !

    You are nothing more than the scum who have preceded you and they are you

    Harry the Hammer
    Drewski
    Peter PNW
    etc.

    It’s not that hard to spot a liar
    It’s not that hard to spot a phony

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”]Besides Comrade Rocks in yer head. Your in denial of the recent low sensitivity papers being published.

    Seems after decades of failed predictions and the questions being raised. Alarmists have begun to reduce the assumptions about the climates sensitivity to Co2.
    [quote] Patrick J. Michaels testifies before the Committee of Natural Resources at the hearing “An Analysis of the Obama Administration’s Social Cost of Carbon”

    Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels writes:
    In his introductory remarks, Congressman Lowenthal (D-NY) went on the usual these-witnesses-are-climate-deniers rant. As I was the next speaker, I re-wrote my oral testimony to point out, in three spots, that people who did not recognize the low-sensitivity papers, or the huge disparity between the mid-tropospheric observed and modeled data, or the low sensitivity in the multiauthored Otto study (15 of the authors were lead authors in the last IPCC report), were in fact “science deniers”.
    [/quote]

    https://videopress.com/v/fYPBkAya%5B/quote%5D

    Oh, that often mis-quoted line of “low sensitivity” rather than “lower sensitivity.” Well, here’s some information on just exactly that study which you mention.

    http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”]Besides Comrade Rocks in yer head. Your in denial of the recent low sensitivity papers being published.

    Seems after decades of failed predictions and the questions being raised. Alarmists have begun to reduce the assumptions about the climates sensitivity to Co2.
    [quote] Patrick J. Michaels testifies before the Committee of Natural Resources at the hearing “An Analysis of the Obama Administration’s Social Cost of Carbon”

    Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels writes:
    In his introductory remarks, Congressman Lowenthal (D-NY) went on the usual these-witnesses-are-climate-deniers rant. As I was the next speaker, I re-wrote my oral testimony to point out, in three spots, that people who did not recognize the low-sensitivity papers, or the huge disparity between the mid-tropospheric observed and modeled data, or the low sensitivity in the multiauthored Otto study (15 of the authors were lead authors in the last IPCC report), were in fact “science deniers”.
    [/quote]

    https://videopress.com/v/fYPBkAya%5B/quote%5D

    Oh, that often mis-quoted line of “low sensitivity” rather than “lower sensitivity.” Well, here’s some information on just exactly that study which you mention.

    http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”]Besides Comrade Rocks in yer head. Your in denial of the recent low sensitivity papers being published.

    Seems after decades of failed predictions and the questions being raised. Alarmists have begun to reduce the assumptions about the climates sensitivity to Co2.
    [quote] Patrick J. Michaels testifies before the Committee of Natural Resources at the hearing “An Analysis of the Obama Administration’s Social Cost of Carbon”

    Climatologist Dr. Pat Michaels writes:
    In his introductory remarks, Congressman Lowenthal (D-NY) went on the usual these-witnesses-are-climate-deniers rant. As I was the next speaker, I re-wrote my oral testimony to point out, in three spots, that people who did not recognize the low-sensitivity papers, or the huge disparity between the mid-tropospheric observed and modeled data, or the low sensitivity in the multiauthored Otto study (15 of the authors were lead authors in the last IPCC report), were in fact “science deniers”.
    [/quote]

    https://videopress.com/v/fYPBkAya%5B/quote%5D

    Oh, that often mis-quoted line of “low sensitivity” rather than “lower sensitivity.” Well, here’s some information on just exactly that study which you mention.

    http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]Let’s class this up a bit, and quote from actual scientists and actual science publications, please.[/quote]

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

    How about you class this up a bit, and…
    1- List all climate forcing’s, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

    2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

    There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]Let’s class this up a bit, and quote from actual scientists and actual science publications, please.[/quote]

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

    How about you class this up a bit, and…
    1- List all climate forcing’s, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

    2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

    There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”JayPee”]@ roxinthehead

    Why don’t you stop lying ?

    You have NO proof of the Greenhouse Effect yet you blatantly continue on as if it’s a given.

    STOP LYING !

    You are nothing more than the scum who have preceded you and they are you

    Harry the Hammer
    Drewski
    Peter PNW
    etc.

    It’s not that hard to spot a liar
    It’s not that hard to spot a phony[/quote]

    Again, I have no idea what it is you’re jabbering about with multiple identities.

    As to the subject of the greenhouse effect:

    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
    http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
    http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
    http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
    http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
    http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
    http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/
    http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/
    http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
    http://climate.nasa.gov/faq/

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”JayPee”]@ roxinthehead

    Why don’t you stop lying ?

    You have NO proof of the Greenhouse Effect yet you blatantly continue on as if it’s a given.

    STOP LYING !

    You are nothing more than the scum who have preceded you and they are you

    Harry the Hammer
    Drewski
    Peter PNW
    etc.

    It’s not that hard to spot a liar
    It’s not that hard to spot a phony[/quote]

    Again, I have no idea what it is you’re jabbering about with multiple identities.

    As to the subject of the greenhouse effect:

    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
    http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
    http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
    http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
    http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/
    http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
    http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/
    http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/
    http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
    http://climate.nasa.gov/faq/

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @ roxinthehead

    I’m astonished you want to keep talking as if your previous demonstrable abject stupidity weren’t enough.

    Is there anything further you’d like to prove ?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]Oh, that often mis-quoted line of “low sensitivity” rather than “lower sensitivity.” Well, here’s some information on just exactly that study which you mention.

    www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
    [/quote] Really? It does not seem to mention the multiauthored Otto study at all.

    This is not surprising considering the Paper you claim has information about “that very study” was written in 2011. And the Multi Authored Otto Study was written in 2013…
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/20/why-the-new-otto-et-al-climate-sensitivity-paper-is-important-its-a-sea-change-for-some-ipcc-authors/

    Besides. The Linzden Chio paper supports the “lower” sensitivity position. You know because of actual empirical observations. Not those “estimated” ones. 😀

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]Oh, that often mis-quoted line of “low sensitivity” rather than “lower sensitivity.” Well, here’s some information on just exactly that study which you mention.

    www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
    [/quote] Really? It does not seem to mention the multiauthored Otto study at all.

    This is not surprising considering the Paper you claim has information about “that very study” was written in 2011. And the Multi Authored Otto Study was written in 2013…
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/20/why-the-new-otto-et-al-climate-sensitivity-paper-is-important-its-a-sea-change-for-some-ipcc-authors/

    Besides. The Linzden Chio paper supports the “lower” sensitivity position. You know because of actual empirical observations. Not those “estimated” ones. 😀

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @amirlach

    [quote]http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html[/quote]

    That link lists “1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism”

    From which of the 3,822 peer-reviewed papers published between 1991 and 2006 (as a starting sample) would you like me to demonstrate the evidence for my case that AGW is an actual thing?

    [quote]2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.[/quote]

    You’ve been provided with this before when you asked for it. For some reason, you decided that you could read a 39 page scientific research paper, absorb all of the information in it, and formulate a reason to refuse to accept the information all within only 34 minutes, remember?

    http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf

    Let’s hear *your* reasoning to refute the findings. Get as picky as you wish, but you must address the points made in the paper. I’ll wait for you to actually attempt to read it this time.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@amirlach

    [quote]http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html[/quote]

    That link lists “1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism”

    From which of the 3,822 peer-reviewed papers published between 1991 and 2006 (as a starting sample) would you like me to demonstrate the evidence for my case that AGW is an actual thing?

    [quote]2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.[/quote]

    You’ve been provided with this before when you asked for it. For some reason, you decided that you could read a 39 page scientific research paper, absorb all of the information in it, and formulate a reason to refuse to accept the information all within only 34 minutes, remember?

    http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf

    Let’s hear *your* reasoning to refute the findings. Get as picky as you wish, but you must address the points made in the paper. I’ll wait for you to actually attempt to read it this time.[/quote]

    Your peer reviewed SHIT means nothing in the face of the

    FACT

    That there is no GHE

    Apparently you have no understanding of logic.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    NASA? Yep real credible when you consider the utter failure of Hansen’s “predictions”.

    And for some strange reason they don’t trust satellites.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/20/why-does-nasa-giss-oppose-satellites/

    But they do like NOAA “adjustments”.
    [img]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif[/img]

    [quote] The corrected data from NOAA has been used as evidence of anthropogenic global warming yet it would appear that the rising trend over the 20th century is largely if not entirely an artefact arising from the “corrections” applied to the experimental data, at least in the US, and is not visible in the uncorrected experimental data record.

    This is an extremely serious issue. It is completely unacceptable, and scientifically meaningless, to claim experimental confirmation of a theory when the confirmation arises from the “corrections” to the raw data rather than from the raw data itself. This is even more the case if the organisation carrying out the corrections has published material indicating that it supports the theory under discussion. In any other branch of science that would be treated with profound scepticism if not indeed rejected outright. I believe the same standards should be applied in this case.
    [/quote]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”][quote]Oh, that often mis-quoted line of “low sensitivity” rather than “lower sensitivity.” Well, here’s some information on just exactly that study which you mention.

    www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf
    [/quote] Really? It does not seem to mention the multiauthored Otto study at all.

    This is not surprising considering the Paper you claim has information about “that very study” was written in 2011. And the Multi Authored Otto Study was written in 2013…
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/20/why-the-new-otto-et-al-climate-sensitivity-paper-is-important-its-a-sea-change-for-some-ipcc-authors/

    Besides. The Linzden Chio paper supports the “lower” sensitivity position. You know because of actual empirical observations. Not those “estimated” ones. :D[/quote]

    Yeah, you caught me, I missed adding the correct link I wanted to reference the Otto study, and got stuck editing another paragraph which included the link I provided.

    To make sure we’re talking about the same Otto study here, it’s the one with the abstract which reads:

    Otto et al. 2013
    Otto, A., F.E.L. Otto, O. Boucher, J. Church, G. Hegerl, P.M. Forster, N.P. Gillett, J. Gregory, G.C. Johnson, R. Knutti, N. Lewis, U. Lohmann, J. Marotzke, G. Myhre, D. Shindell, B. Stevens, and M.R. Allen, 2013: Energy budget constraints on climate response. Nature Geosci., 6, 415-416, doi:10.1038/ngeo1836.

    [quote]The rate of global mean warming has been lower over the past decade than previously. It has been argued that this observation might require a downwards revision of estimates of equilibrium climate sensitivity, that is, the long-term (equilibrium) temperature response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Using up-to-date data on radiative forcing, global mean surface temperature and total heat uptake in the Earth system, we find that the global energy budget implies a range of values for the equilibrium climate sensitivity that is in agreement with earlier estimates, within the limits of uncertainty. The energy budget of the most recent decade does, however, indicate a lower range of values for the more policy-relevant transient climate response (the temperature increase at the point of doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration following a linear ramp of increasing greenhouse gas forcing) than the range obtained by either analysing the energy budget of earlier decades or current climate model simulations.[/quote]

    If so, then it doesn’t purport to derail any particular climate models at all.

    Do you like that part where the guy you quote says [quote]…we find that the global energy budget implies a range of values for the equilibrium climate sensitivity that is in agreement with earlier estimates, within the limits of uncertainty[/quote]

    Even your source actually agrees with me. That’s sad. “Lower sensitivity” isn’t the same as “low sensitivity,” and Otto et al make clear that their findings regarding the energy budget of the planet are in agreement wtih earlier estimates.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”]NASA? Yep real credible when you consider the utter failure of Hansen’s “predictions”.

    And for some strange reason they don’t trust satellites.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/20/why-does-nasa-giss-oppose-satellites/%5B/quote%5D

    Why do you continue to quote the crackpot AM radio weather announcer, and at what point in your mind did he become a more credible source of information than the people who operate the satellites in space which make the readings we use on global temperature?

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts

    Anyone who goes back to read any of this will realize you are a troll. I’m sorry, you tried hard, but you failed. If that’s the best you’ve got, then goodbye, and goodnight.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @JayPee

    Provide me with the physics which demonstrably precludes the greenhouse gas effect, yet still manages to explain the observational data we have been collecting. Otherwise, you’re just trolling, and it is going to be evident to anyone who goes back to read this that you cannot cite any facts to back your own baseless assertions. If you have nothing better to add, then goodbye, and goodnight.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JJayPee

    |

    ROXINTHEHEAD

    You either address what I have said or be denominated

    A LIAR AND A PHONY

    If you think you’re going to get away with your lying’

    Think again ON – GEE – ASS – KEE

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”JJayPee”]ROXINTHEHEAD

    You either address what I have said or be denominated

    A LIAR AND A PHONY

    If you think you’re going to get away with your lying’

    Think again ON – GEE – ASS – KEE[/quote]

    Well, Steven Capozzola (@Stevencap), it looks like the “JayPee” comment troll bot script needs some work. It’s spewing junk again and can’t keep up with the topic. If you’re going to do something, do it right. 😉

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote] You’ve been provided with this before when you asked for it. For some reason, you decided that you could read a 39 page scientific research paper, absorb all of the information in it, and formulate a reason to refuse to accept the information all within only 34 minutes, remember?

    http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf

    Let’s hear *your* reasoning to refute the findings. Get as picky as you wish, but you must address the points made in the paper. I’ll wait for you to actually attempt to read it this time. [/quote] The one where they claim to have “estimated” empirical observations”… Again?

    “Statistical analysis rules out natural-warming hypothesis with more than 99 percent certainty”

    “Statistical analysis”

    of what exactly?

    Of course silly me……….. yeah, “statistical analysis” of ‘homogenized data’ – oh that’s alright then?!

    GIGO.
    😀

    Just how likely is it that we can measure global mean surface temperature over time either as an absolute value or as an anomaly to a precision of less than 1/30 Cº? It cannot be done. Yet it was essential to Lovejoy’s fiction that he should pretend it could be done, for otherwise his laughable attempt to claim 99% certainty for yet another me-too, can-I-have-another-grant-please result using speculative modeling would have visibly failed at the first fence.

    Some of the tamperings that have depressed temperature anomalies in the 1920s and 1930s to make warming this century seem worse than it really was are a great deal larger than a thirtieth of a Celsius degree.

    Fig. 1 shows a notorious instance from New Zealand, courtesy of Bryan Leyland:
    [url]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/clip_image0042.png[/url]

    Sorry Comrade Rocky but your paper fails.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”][quote] You’ve been provided with this before when you asked for it. For some reason, you decided that you could read a 39 page scientific research paper, absorb all of the information in it, and formulate a reason to refuse to accept the information all within only 34 minutes, remember?

    http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf

    Let’s hear *your* reasoning to refute the findings. Get as picky as you wish, but you must address the points made in the paper. I’ll wait for you to actually attempt to read it this time. [/quote] The one where they claim to have “estimated” empirical observations”… Again?

    “Statistical analysis rules out natural-warming hypothesis with more than 99 percent certainty”

    “Statistical analysis”

    of what exactly?

    Of course silly me……….. yeah, “statistical analysis” of ‘homogenized data’ – oh that’s alright then?!

    GIGO.
    😀

    Just how likely is it that we can measure global mean surface temperature over time either as an absolute value or as an anomaly to a precision of less than 1/30 Cº? It cannot be done. Yet it was essential to Lovejoy’s fiction that he should pretend it could be done, for otherwise his laughable attempt to claim 99% certainty for yet another me-too, can-I-have-another-grant-please result using speculative modeling would have visibly failed at the first fence.

    Some of the tamperings that have depressed temperature anomalies in the 1920s and 1930s to make warming this century seem worse than it really was are a great deal larger than a thirtieth of a Celsius degree.

    Fig. 1 shows a notorious instance from New Zealand, courtesy of Bryan Leyland:
    [url]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/clip_image0042.png[/url]

    Sorry Comrade Rocky but your paper fails.[/quote]

    Sorry, buddy, but we use measurements in Kelvin when we consult satellite data. This isn’t your kitchen thermometer here. Climate models require double-precision mathematics in order to be accepted as valid…that means taking temperatures out to at least the 3rd or 4th decimal place, or farther (255.1234 K). At a base, they are measured within 1/1,000th of a Kelvin, and in many other cases out to 1/10,000 of a Kelvin or finer.

    Sorry, but I run double-precision models for this very topic all the time.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Roxie baby

    It’s not my fault you’re an idiot

    It’s not my fault you have no understanding of science

    It’s not my fault you know nothing

    Keep talking, however pathetically.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]Why do you continue to quote the crackpot AM radio weather announcer, and at what point in your mind did he become a more credible source of information than the people who operate the satellites in space which make the readings we use on global temperature?[/quote] Like when the IPCC fraudulently “adjusted” the Solar graphs and ignored the “people who operated the satellites that make the readings used for global solar records?
    [quote]As I wrote elsewhere (Czech article ACRIM vs PMOD), Judith Lean and Claus Fröhlich are responsible for scandalous rewriting of the solar activity graphs. The original satellite data showed, that TSI (measured in Watts) increased from 1986 to 1996 by cca one third… But then Judith and Clause “laundered” the graphs and voila… solar output increase was gone.

    The people, who were in charge of the satellites and who created the original graphs (the best world astro-physicists: Doug Hoyt, Richard C.Willson) protested against this manipulation. In vain.

    R.C. Willson (head of the ACRIM satellites): “Fröhlich made unauthorised and incorrect adjustments… He did it without any detailed knowledge of the ACRIM1 instrument or on-orbit performance…The only obvious purpose was to devise a TSI composite, that agreed with the predictions of Lean’s TSI proxy model.”

    Douglas Hoyt (the famous inventor of GSN – Group Sunspot Number indicator) agrees with Willson. The graph tampering done by Judith and Claus was scientifically unjustified. Hoyt must know that. The questionable changes were done to the data from the Nimbus 7 satellite, where he used to be in charge.
    [/quote]
    http://www.climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think4/post/judithgate_ipcc_consensus_was_only_one_solar_physicist/

    [quote] Anyone who goes back to read any of this will realize you are a troll. I’m sorry, you tried hard, but you failed. If that’s the best you’ve got, then goodbye, and goodnight.[/quote] Pure projection form the guy who has failed to produce anything credible. Not a single paper refutes natural variability, despite your false 1/30th of a degree claims.

    And your still unable to list and quantify those climate forcings.

    RE Otto Rt Al. [quote]Even your source actually agrees with me. That’s sad. “Lower sensitivity” isn’t the same as “low sensitivity,” and Otto et al make clear that their findings regarding the energy budget of the planet are in agreement wtih earlier estimates.[/quote]

    Yes they say that they are in agreement with earlier estimates. Too bad those estimates are wrong eh?
    [img]https://informativestats.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hayden_ipcc_arrow.jpg[/img]

    The point is, they are having to lower sensitivity to match observations.

    Hard to do and still have a case for alarming warming right?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”][quote]Why do you continue to quote the crackpot AM radio weather announcer, and at what point in your mind did he become a more credible source of information than the people who operate the satellites in space which make the readings we use on global temperature?[/quote] Like when the IPCC fraudulently “adjusted” the Solar graphs and ignored the “people who operated the satellites that make the readings used for global solar records?
    [quote]As I wrote elsewhere (Czech article ACRIM vs PMOD), Judith Lean and Claus Fröhlich are responsible for scandalous rewriting of the solar activity graphs. The original satellite data showed, that TSI (measured in Watts) increased from 1986 to 1996 by cca one third… But then Judith and Clause “laundered” the graphs and voila… solar output increase was gone.

    The people, who were in charge of the satellites and who created the original graphs (the best world astro-physicists: Doug Hoyt, Richard C.Willson) protested against this manipulation. In vain.

    R.C. Willson (head of the ACRIM satellites): “Fröhlich made unauthorised and incorrect adjustments… He did it without any detailed knowledge of the ACRIM1 instrument or on-orbit performance…The only obvious purpose was to devise a TSI composite, that agreed with the predictions of Lean’s TSI proxy model.”

    Douglas Hoyt (the famous inventor of GSN – Group Sunspot Number indicator) agrees with Willson. The graph tampering done by Judith and Claus was scientifically unjustified. Hoyt must know that. The questionable changes were done to the data from the Nimbus 7 satellite, where he used to be in charge.
    [/quote]
    http://www.climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think4/post/judithgate_ipcc_consensus_was_only_one_solar_physicist/

    [quote] Anyone who goes back to read any of this will realize you are a troll. I’m sorry, you tried hard, but you failed. If that’s the best you’ve got, then goodbye, and goodnight.[/quote] Pure projection form the guy who has failed to produce anything credible. Not a single paper refutes natural variability, despite your false 1/30th of a degree claims.

    And your still unable to list and quantify those climate forcings.

    RE Otto Rt Al. [quote]Even your source actually agrees with me. That’s sad. “Lower sensitivity” isn’t the same as “low sensitivity,” and Otto et al make clear that their findings regarding the energy budget of the planet are in agreement wtih earlier estimates.[/quote]

    Yes they say that they are in agreement with earlier estimates. Too bad those estimates are wrong eh?
    [img]https://informativestats.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hayden_ipcc_arrow.jpg[/img]

    The point is, they are having to lower sensitivity to match observations.

    Hard to do and still have a case for alarming warming right?[/quote]

    This is where I get to leave off, as you have in one part of your argument depended on the work of Otto et al to “prove” your point, and in your last post, you attempt to discredit Otto et al, your own previously cited source.

    I understand, things like that happen when you aren’t literate in scientific literature, don’t understand basic statistics terms like “empirical estimate,” cannot determine legitimate sources from crackpots due to deeply seated confirmation bias, and rely solely on copying and pasting the words of others (credible or not). You end up copying and pasting two things which conflict with one another, and yet your argument depends on both. It’s okay, this happens all the time with paid AGW trolls. You’re not scientists and you’re not scientifically literate. You work for a marketing company, to do industry advocacy work, and you comment on behalf of people who write to a specifically scientifically illiterate audience for the purposes of spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt. I hope Steven pays you well.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]Sorry, but I run double-precision models for this very topic all the time.[/quote]

    Then you should be able to produce some skillfull predictions then. Cause Lovejoy sure cannot. There is no way in hell he can measure climate to the precision needed when the data sets are so horribly fiddled.

    [quote]Some of the tamperings that have depressed temperature anomalies in the 1920s and 1930s to make warming this century seem worse than it really was are a great deal larger than a thirtieth of a Celsius degree.[/quote]

    And his references read like a who’s who of the Climate Gate scandal…

    Nice try but sorry. No ones gonna buy it.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    A.D. Everard

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”][quote name=”A.D. Everard”][quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@amirlach

    As to the ranking of WUWT versus other sites which discuss global warming, just look at these:

    WUWT Global Rank: 35,148
    WUWT US Rank: 11,642
    http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com

    NASA Climate Science Global Rank: 1,111
    NASA Climate Science US Rank: 484
    http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/climate.nasa.gov

    WUWT may be popular with Denialists, but it’s not particularly popular with fact-seekers. Sorry, just isn’t.[/quote]

    I guess you didn’t see my post upthread.

    Over 274,000,000 views. It’s on their homepage, check it out: https://wattsupwiththat.com/

    Google has it’s own issues with skeptics.

    My guess is you have never visited WUWT.[/quote]

    As you can clearly see, I didn’t cite Google for my results on page ranking, I cite Alexa (reading difficulties on your part?) The Alexa ranking is based solely off of visitor count.

    Also, when did visitor count to blogs become a credible arguing point? I must have missed when we decided to throw out our aversion to argumentum ad populum.
    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html%5B/quote%5D

    Argumentum ad populum is not my argument for worthiness. You said of WUWT: ‘”World’s most viewed site…,” not even close, pal:’

    My response was to that. Clearly WUWT is an immensely popular site, which you refuted.

    If you know of a climate site that has more followers than that, I’d love to see it. 🙂

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”A.D. Everard”][quote name=”ihuntrocks”][quote name=”A.D. Everard”][quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@amirlach

    As to the ranking of WUWT versus other sites which discuss global warming, just look at these:

    WUWT Global Rank: 35,148
    WUWT US Rank: 11,642
    http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com

    NASA Climate Science Global Rank: 1,111
    NASA Climate Science US Rank: 484
    http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/climate.nasa.gov

    WUWT may be popular with Denialists, but it’s not particularly popular with fact-seekers. Sorry, just isn’t.[/quote]

    I guess you didn’t see my post upthread.

    Over 274,000,000 views. It’s on their homepage, check it out: https://wattsupwiththat.com/

    Google has it’s own issues with skeptics.

    My guess is you have never visited WUWT.[/quote]

    As you can clearly see, I didn’t cite Google for my results on page ranking, I cite Alexa (reading difficulties on your part?) The Alexa ranking is based solely off of visitor count.

    Also, when did visitor count to blogs become a credible arguing point? I must have missed when we decided to throw out our aversion to argumentum ad populum.
    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html%5B/quote%5D

    Argumentum ad populum is not my argument for worthiness. You said of WUWT: ‘”World’s most viewed site…,” not even close, pal:’

    My response was to that. Clearly WUWT is an immensely popular site, which you refuted.

    If you know of a climate site that has more followers than that, I’d love to see it. :-)[/quote]

    Well, there was climate.nasa.org which, as I cited, highly outranks WUWT, both internationally and here in the US. The Alexa rankings cited are based off pure visitor counts.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @A.D. Everard

    By the way, thank you for being the most pleasant person to interact with in this discussion thus far. The other two primary contributors haven’t set a very high bar, but nonetheless, I wanted to point out that you’ve been pretty reasonable, even if we haven’t been agreeing with one another. I thank you for that.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    A.D. Everard

    |

    Self-correction:

    I said “If you know of a climate site that has more followers than that, I’d love to see it.”

    I meant, of course, views. I like heavy traffic sites because discussion is on-going, deep and usually well thought out. WUWT clocks up about 10,000 views per day (by my own reckoning, watching them over the years).

    Reply

  • Avatar

    A.D. Everard

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@A.D. Everard

    By the way, thank you for being the most pleasant person to interact with in this discussion thus far. The other two primary contributors haven’t set a very high bar, but nonetheless, I wanted to point out that you’ve been pretty reasonable, even if we haven’t been agreeing with one another. I thank you for that.[/quote]

    Thank you, Ihuntrocks, I appreciate that very much. 8)

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @A.D. Everard

    No problem. 🙂 Also, no promises (since I have to create a data set through which to sort), but I will try to find a more heavily visited discussion site for this topic if there is one.

    Just for grins, here’s the site on which we’re commenting:

    Climate Change Dispatch Global Rank: 719,243

    Climate Change Dispatch US Rank:
    151,535

    http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/climatechangedispatch.com

    Again, I’ll see what I can do. Never pondered the question of traffic on this topic.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    A.D. Everard

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@A.D. Everard

    No problem. 🙂 Also, no promises (since I have to create a data set through which to sort), but I will try to find a more heavily visited discussion site for this topic if there is one.

    Just for grins, here’s the site on which we’re commenting:

    Climate Change Dispatch Global Rank: 719,243

    Climate Change Dispatch US Rank:
    151,535

    http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/climatechangedispatch.com

    Again, I’ll see what I can do. Never pondered the question of traffic on this topic.[/quote]

    Thank you! I usually pop in here once a day – more if there’s good discussion going on 😆

    What I enjoy about WUWT is that there are a lot of comments, from both sides, and that’s when the specialists get involved (the scientists in that particular field), so it turns into a classroom of sorts.

    Some sites just kick you out if you question global warming or if you present info that refutes it. That doesn’t help communication much – so the comment section is where it’s all happening, in my opinion.

    Don’t go to extra trouble on my behalf, but I will certainly take a look if you do find anything that comes up to that standard.

    Meanwhile, that alexa.com site is great! I hadn’t looked at that before. I’ve bookmarked it now.

    Have a good evening. Cheers. 🙂

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]This is where I get to leave off, as you have in one part of your argument depended on the work of Otto et al to “prove” your point, and in your last post, you attempt to discredit Otto et al, your own previously cited source.[/quote]

    The Otto et al “study” was used only to point out the growing number of more recent peer reviewed studies that point to a lower sensitivity to Co2.

    I never pointed to it for any other reason than that. Even though the Otto et al study admits to a lower sensitivity, it still grossly overestimates observed warming.

    This only shows the alarmists are having to admit to lower sensitivity while still trying to say Co2 will cause harmful warming.

    The Grants depend on it.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @rox

    Both assertions beg the question that it is agreed that climate change has been observed.

    Weather is in a state of flux and therefor climate also. Therefor it must always be changing. Why use the term ” observed ” so as to set it apart from nothing ?

    Let’s try to stick to logic.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @rox

    Both assertions beg the question that it is agreed that climate change has been observed.

    Weather is in a state of flux and therefor climate also. Therefor it must always be changing. Why use the term ” observed ” so as to set it apart from nothing ?

    Let’s try to stick to logic.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]You’ve done a good job of stifling debate by engaging in endless “link-sniping,” but the time for that is over.[/quote]

    Really? You get to decide?

    You come here and spam our threads with your crappy SkS and “Source Watch links?

    For those who want to know. This is “Source Watch”.
    [quote]SourceWatch is a propaganda site funded by an extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate organization, the Center for Media and Democracy. Just like the untrustworthy Wikipedia the content can be written and edited by ordinary web users. Users who all conveniently share an extreme left-wing bias. SourceWatch is frequently cited by those seeking to smear individuals and organizations who do not share their extreme left-wing bias since they cannot find any legitimate criticisms from respected news sources.[/quote]
    The null hypothesis (H0) is a hypothesis which the researcher tries to disprove, reject or nullify.

    As for your question.
    “On which side(s) does the burden of proof rest in science when making a testable positive assertion or a testable negative assertion?”

    The positive assertion being “Humans are responsible for observed climate change.”

    The negative assertion being “Humans are not responsible for observed climate change.”

    It’s really up to Co2 alarmists to invalidate or refute the Null Hypothesis. Lovejoy tried but was laughed off the stage by Viscount Moncton. Then his funding was cut…
    [quote] Besides, since Professor Lovejoy’s paper plays with statistics a great deal, he should know that no recognizable statistical process performed on any actual dataset (unless science now recognizes a show of hands among scientifically-illiterate, rent-seeking representatives of governments) generated IPeCaC’s “95-99% confidence” value. [/quote]

    Actually I do not deny that humans have some effect on climate. Mostly due to land use changes.

    And I do not deny that Co2 has some effect. The real question is how much.

    So back to refuting Natural Variability.

    1- List all climate forcing’s, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

    2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes. Lovejoy was a bust…

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    {quote] Why do you continue to quote the crackpot AM radio weather announcer, and at what point in your mind did he become a more credible source of information than the people who operate the satellites in space which make the readings we use on global temperature?

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts

    Anyone who goes back to read any of this will realize you are a troll. I’m sorry, you tried hard, but you failed. If that’s the best you’ve got, then goodbye, and goodnight. [/quote]

    And you cite “Source Watch”? lol…
    [quote]SourceWatch is a propaganda site funded by an extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate organization, the Center for Media and Democracy. Just like the untrustworthy Wikipedia the content can be written and edited by ordinary web users. Users who all conveniently share an extreme left-wing bias. SourceWatch is frequently cited by those seeking to smear individuals and organizations who do not share their extreme left-wing bias since they cannot find any legitimate criticisms from respected news sources.[/quote]

    What a hypocrite…

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    {quote] Why do you continue to quote the crackpot AM radio weather announcer, and at what point in your mind did he become a more credible source of information than the people who operate the satellites in space which make the readings we use on global temperature?

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Anthony_Watts

    Anyone who goes back to read any of this will realize you are a troll. I’m sorry, you tried hard, but you failed. If that’s the best you’ve got, then goodbye, and goodnight. [/quote]

    And you cite “Source Watch”? lol…
    [quote]SourceWatch is a propaganda site funded by an extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate organization, the Center for Media and Democracy. Just like the untrustworthy Wikipedia the content can be written and edited by ordinary web users. Users who all conveniently share an extreme left-wing bias. SourceWatch is frequently cited by those seeking to smear individuals and organizations who do not share their extreme left-wing bias since they cannot find any legitimate criticisms from respected news sources.[/quote]

    What a hypocrite…

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Amirlach

    The alarmists will never accept that they have the burden of proof for their extraordinary claim. They want to dictate dogma out of thin air and it should stand as self-evident unless and until their opposition should extraordinarily conclusively prove them wrong and as well to their degree of acceptability.

    They will never accept logic and classical logic driven rhetorical argumentation. Their type of conceptual formulation and derivation of conclusion does not conform to it.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.