How to rebut climate hysteria in a few easy steps

earth spaceIt’s lonely being a “climate skeptic.” At social gatherings, you’re likely to be the lone outcast if you say you “don’t believe in catastrophic global warming.” Of course, what you really mean is, you don’t believe that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are driving contemporary warming. Regardless, it’s not the sort of thing people want to hear at parties. However, listed below are some possible responses to typical climate statements and questions that may pop up.

You don’t believe in global warming?

Yes, I do. The Earth has warmed by roughly 0.8 degrees Celsius since the late 1800s.

You don’t believe in climate change?

Yes, I do. The Earth’s climate has changed multiple times, just in the past 1,000 years.

CO2 levels are rising and the Earth is warming.

CO2 concentrations have risen slightly over the past century or so, to 0.04% of the earth’s atmosphere. At the same time, though, solar output has increased tremendously. This significant increase in solar activity—the most in as much as 2,000 years—is likely to be the key driver of 20th century warming.

But CO2 levels are the highest in 800,000 years.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere are currently among the lowest ever recorded on the planet. The past 800,000 years is a convenient timeframe, however, since the earth has undergone repeated glacial cycles in that time—which has progressively lowered atmospheric CO2.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. More CO2 means more warming.

CO2 possesses a major limitation as a greenhouse gas. As demonstrated in laboratory studies, CO2 exponentially loses heat-trapping capacity as its concentration increases. This happens because, even in small quantities, CO2 quickly becomes opaque to a certain spectrum of infrared radiation. It rapidly absorbs all of the infrared radiation it can, which means that adding additional quantities of CO2 will not contribute any meaningful warming. CO2 is also a “well-mixed gas,” which means that its concentrations are distributed throughout the atmosphere. Consequently, its heat-trapping function is essentially saturated throughout the troposphere and stratosphere.

But higher CO2 levels mean higher temperatures? I saw that graph in ‘An Inconvenient Truth’.

Al Gore left out a key point when citing the parallel relationship between historical levels of CO2 and temperature. Carbon dioxide dissolves in water, and cold water can hold more CO2 than warm water. When the climate cools, the oceans gradually cool, slowly drawing in more CO2 and lowering atmospheric CO2 content. When the climate warms, as seen at the start of the most recent interglacial period roughly 18,000 years ago, the oceans gradually release CO2. (This is the reason why a bottle of soda kept in hot sunlight will leak or burst— because the warmer soda water is no longer able to hold all of the dissolved CO2.) When global temperatures change, CO2 concentrations follow along.

Scientists say that CO2 is warming the Earth.

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it helps maintain warmth in the atmosphere. But as noted above, CO2’s heat-trapping function is essentially saturated by the current level of 0.04 percent. Furthermore, climate models actually project that most of the presumed “man-made” warming will come from an increase in atmospheric water vapor. The principal idea of “anthropogenic global warming” is that the small amount of additional warming contributed by CO2 (before it becomes saturated) will cause more water vapor to enter the atmosphere. Since water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas of the atmosphere (and is responsible for roughly 80 percent of the “greenhouse effect”), this water vapor will create positive feedback for further warming.

Unfortunately, the theory disregards the cooling feedback caused by clouds (since atmospheric water vapor transitions to clouds). Cloud cover provides net cooling by reflecting solar radiation back into space, shading ground surfaces, and producing rain (precipitation not only cools surface temperatures but also scrubs atmospheric CO2).

But 97% of scientists believe in global warming?

What’s most amusing is that, truthfully, no one really knows how many scientists there are in the world. Or what they actually think of global warming. Or how many of them are scientists in relevant scientific disciplines. However, the “97% consensus” figure is actually a methodologically flawed statement. Only 32.6% of the papers studied in the infamous John Cook study actually stated a position endorsing anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. However, 97% of those said that “recent warming is mostly man-made.” And so what we have is a misleading statement that has become cited as fact.

Well, 2015 was the hottest year ever, and now 2016 is even hotter. Explain that?

The warming experienced in 2015-2016 is a direct result of the current El Niño.

El Niño is caused by global warming

El Niño is a naturally occurring phenomenon. It happens when prevailing winds start to fade after progressively “piling up” water in the western Pacific Ocean. This surplus, warmer water washes back over the eastern Pacific, releasing tremendous amounts of heat. 2015’s spike in temperatures was due to El Niño. It would be dishonest and inaccurate to claim that 2015’s increase in surface temperatures was simply due to man-made warming. Here’s more on the latest El Niño, and why even alarmists admit that it is not a manifestation of man-made warming.

The “pause in global temperatures” is just people denying that the Earth is getting hotter and hotter

Satellite measurements from both UAH-Huntsville and RSS clearly show the “pause” in global temperatures (I.e. a net flatlining of temperatures over the past 15-20 years.) The current El Niño is already fading, and one can reasonably expect to see a drop-off in temperatures. Since 1950 with 11 of the last 15 strong El Niño events flipped to a La Niña. More significantly, the pause has been the subject of numerous debates and research papers. Climate alarmists don’t deny that it has happened, they just offer various explanations. Even a February 2016 paper co-authored by Michael Mann shows that there was indeed a global warming pause.

There is no “pause” in global warming

There is real concern as to the accuracy and reliability of recent temperature measurements being reported by NOAA. Last year, NOAA adjusted temperatures downward in the last century to make the last 15 years appear warmer. Magically, they “erased” the pause. By including measurements of seawater temperatures taken from the engine manifolds of ocean-going vessels, they essentially cooled the past to warm the present. Here’s an academic summary of papers that quickly debunked NOAA’s “new” temperature findings. It’s interesting to note that it is NOAA’s revised measurements that are being used to make claims such as “warmest year ever” etc…

With the pause removed, NASA then quietly adopted NOAA’s “cooked” temperature record so that both agencies could make these “warmest ever” claims. Currently, NOAA is under House investigation for tampering with temperature data and colluding with activists to promote the Obama administration’s global warming agenda.

NOTE: These are simple points, based on elementary climate and geologic science. It would be helpful if more people studied the basic issues involved in the climate debate before accepting the alarmist rhetoric trumpeted by a media that thrives on sensationalism.

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (210)

  • Avatar

    Miner49er

    |

    Great essay! here’s more. Nature recycles ambient CO2 into limestone.

    Fossil fuels do not materially affect climate. Maybe climate is warming. It is supposed to be warming, because earth is in an interglacial period. Which begs the question why some scientists and government agencies try to pad the record by “adjusting” prior-period temperature data.

    Its really pretty simple. Nature sequesters CO2 as limestone. The higher the atmospheric CO2 partial pressure, the faster it becomes limestone.

    Climate change results from a combination of (non-CO2) causes, such as sunspots, solar orbital variations, cosmic rays’ effect on clouds, and plate tectonics (well documented elsewhere).

    But it cannot be caused by CO2 arising from fossil fuels use, because nature effectively recycles CO2 as carbonate minerals (limestone) through numerous calcification processes. Only 3% of CO2 emissions come from fossil fuels use.

    Only 3% of CO2 emissions come from fossil fuels use. Most of the rest arises from rotting vegetation in swamps and jungles. Carbon dioxide emissions and fossil fuels use are beneficial, and climate change is a false premise for regulating them. See http://www.thegwpf.com/28155/.

    There is no empirical evidence that CO2 from fossil fuels affects climate. Human activities cause only about 3% of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to the atmosphere. The rest arise from rotting vegetation. Changes in temperature cause changes in CO2 emissions from these sources, and are not caused by them.

    CO2 is in equilibrium. Mineral carbonates are the ultimate repository of atmospheric CO2. Anyone who passed 10th grade chemistry can know this using public information. Limestone and marble are familiar forms of mineral carbonate.

    CO2 is an essential component of mineral carbonate (CaCO3, for calcium). See the paper http://bit.ly/1NziTF4 by Norwegian researcher Tom Segalstad.

    Carbonates form in seawater and soils through biological and chemical calcification processes. The simplified formula is CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. Anyone can make magnesium carbonate quickly in a kitchen by mixing carbonated water with milk of magnesia.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    Ca is Calcium not Magnesium

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    Sorry … I see that you meant Mg not Ca

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Michael Neibel

    |

    I agree with all the talking points above. But I would like to see all of you stop calling yourselves skeptics. Here is why. First, there is nothing wrong with being skeptical of a proposition-like climate change-before one has examined the evidence in support. But when one has done so and found contrary evidence or evidence that the proposition’s supporting evidence is flawed, then you are no longer a skeptic. You are a critic. It is vitally important you call yourselves what you are, critics.

    Critic carries with it an aura of respect, a dignity based on the pursuit and examination of facts in dispute. The AGW mongers want to obliterate that concept in the mind of the public and press. So they are creating a cognitive package deal that replaces critic with the package of skeptic and denier.

    The original concept of skeptic referred to an ancient Greek group of philosophers called appropriately enough ‘the skeptics.’ They believed that knowledge was not possible to man, that man can know nothing for sure. ‘Denier’ is one who denies knowledge for no particular reason, just for the hell of it. In other words one who is irrational.

    Today’s intellectuals are packaging ‘denier’ and ‘skeptic’ together as the essential characteristic of ‘critic’ hoping to remove the relationship of reason to facts from the concept of ‘critic’ and replace it with ‘irrational denier.’ Don’t help them get away with it. Critic is a badge of honor you should all be proud to wear.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    peter jonigkeit

    |

    We are skipping the main reasons for the panic over climate change. The ability to tax absolutely nothing in the name of junk science. This opportunity in the UN’s quest for a one world government through wealth distribution under Agenda 21 and now Agenda 2030 will never be duplicated if this entire hoax falls apart. Follow the money and it becomes obvious. One more thing regarding the loyalty of certain climate scientists to this scam is simply,….there’s no funding for everything is OK, but unlimited funding for “the sky is falling”. Elementary my dear Watson.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Vrig

    |

    Poor response to “2015 was hottest year ever”. That statement is so misleading, and is based on NASA in reference to hottest year over the modern temperature record since the late 1800s, and that is debatable (30s were hotter). There were many warmer periods since the end of the last ice age that were warmer than today, including the Roman, Medieval, Minoan and Holocene Optimum warm periods. And we are still at one of the coldest periods in Earth’s 5 Billion year history

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GoFigure

    |

    Stating that the temperature has increased 8/10 of a degree (“global warming”) since the “late 1800s” is misleading.

    Our current warming began, by definition, at the bottom of the LIA which puts it in the mid 1600s. That’s 200 years of natural warming (and considerably more than 8/10s of a degree). co2 level did not begin to increase until the mid 1800s (or later). At an average 2ppmv per year that would have taken another 100 years before it could have (potentially) had any impact on measurable temperature.

    That brings us to about 1950, so 300 years of only natural warming being measured.
    But, from the mid 40s to about 1975 was a mild cooling, add another 25 years of natural warming.

    There was an actual warming from 1975 to about 1998. Our two satellites show no additonal warming after 1998 (about 18+ years of “hiatus”) until the El Nino which began in mid 2015.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    billlex

    |

    AND. Look up Milankovitch Cycles. Wobbles of the earth……sun cycles……..variance in orbits………

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Tony P

    |

    [quote name=”Michael Neibel”]I agree with all the talking points above. But I would like to see all of you stop calling yourselves skeptics. Here is why. First, there is nothing wrong with being skeptical of a proposition-like climate change-before one has examined the evidence in support. But when one has done so and found contrary evidence or evidence that the proposition’s supporting evidence is flawed, then you are no longer a skeptic. You are a critic. It is vitally important you call yourselves what you are, critics.

    Critic carries with it an aura of respect, a dignity based on the pursuit and examination of facts in dispute. The AGW mongers want to obliterate that concept in the mind of the public and press. So they are creating a cognitive package deal that replaces critic with the package of skeptic and denier.

    The original concept of skeptic referred to an ancient Greek group of philosophers called appropriately enough ‘the skeptics.’ They believed that knowledge was not possible to man, that man can know nothing for sure. ‘Denier’ is one who denies knowledge for no particular reason, just for the hell of it. In other words one who is irrational.

    Today’s intellectuals are packaging ‘denier’ and ‘skeptic’ together as the essential characteristic of ‘critic’ hoping to remove the relationship of reason to facts from the concept of ‘critic’ and replace it with ‘irrational denier.’ Don’t help them get away with it. Critic is a badge of honor you should all be proud to wear.[/quote]
    Quite true, Michael–words matter! Especially in the eyes & ears of an ignorant public which is why the leftists chose their labels carefully early on. They quickly won the perception war while sanity & reason (along with the scientific method) have been playing catchup ever since.
    Like using the word ‘normal’ to describe today’s temp forecast–‘yesterday was 5 degrees above normal’ when the word used really should be AVERAGE! I’ve been trying to get some Mets to change this as ‘normal’ in the public’s sense means that is what the temp always has been on that day or time period where ‘average’ gives the immediate sense of variability.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Tony P

    |

    [quote name=”Michael Neibel”]I agree with all the talking points above. But I would like to see all of you stop calling yourselves skeptics. Here is why. First, there is nothing wrong with being skeptical of a proposition-like climate change-before one has examined the evidence in support. But when one has done so and found contrary evidence or evidence that the proposition’s supporting evidence is flawed, then you are no longer a skeptic. You are a critic. It is vitally important you call yourselves what you are, critics.

    Critic carries with it an aura of respect, a dignity based on the pursuit and examination of facts in dispute. The AGW mongers want to obliterate that concept in the mind of the public and press. So they are creating a cognitive package deal that replaces critic with the package of skeptic and denier.

    The original concept of skeptic referred to an ancient Greek group of philosophers called appropriately enough ‘the skeptics.’ They believed that knowledge was not possible to man, that man can know nothing for sure. ‘Denier’ is one who denies knowledge for no particular reason, just for the hell of it. In other words one who is irrational.

    Today’s intellectuals are packaging ‘denier’ and ‘skeptic’ together as the essential characteristic of ‘critic’ hoping to remove the relationship of reason to facts from the concept of ‘critic’ and replace it with ‘irrational denier.’ Don’t help them get away with it. Critic is a badge of honor you should all be proud to wear.[/quote]
    Quite true, Michael–words matter! Especially in the eyes & ears of an ignorant public which is why the leftists chose their labels carefully early on. They quickly won the perception war while sanity & reason (along with the scientific method) have been playing catchup ever since.
    Like using the word ‘normal’ to describe today’s temp forecast–‘yesterday was 5 degrees above normal’ when the word used really should be AVERAGE! I’ve been trying to get some Mets to change this as ‘normal’ in the public’s sense means that is what the temp always has been on that day or time period where ‘average’ gives the immediate sense of variability.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Tony P

    |

    [quote name=”Michael Neibel”]I agree with all the talking points above. But I would like to see all of you stop calling yourselves skeptics. Here is why. First, there is nothing wrong with being skeptical of a proposition-like climate change-before one has examined the evidence in support. But when one has done so and found contrary evidence or evidence that the proposition’s supporting evidence is flawed, then you are no longer a skeptic. You are a critic. It is vitally important you call yourselves what you are, critics.

    Critic carries with it an aura of respect, a dignity based on the pursuit and examination of facts in dispute. The AGW mongers want to obliterate that concept in the mind of the public and press. So they are creating a cognitive package deal that replaces critic with the package of skeptic and denier.

    The original concept of skeptic referred to an ancient Greek group of philosophers called appropriately enough ‘the skeptics.’ They believed that knowledge was not possible to man, that man can know nothing for sure. ‘Denier’ is one who denies knowledge for no particular reason, just for the hell of it. In other words one who is irrational.

    Today’s intellectuals are packaging ‘denier’ and ‘skeptic’ together as the essential characteristic of ‘critic’ hoping to remove the relationship of reason to facts from the concept of ‘critic’ and replace it with ‘irrational denier.’ Don’t help them get away with it. Critic is a badge of honor you should all be proud to wear.[/quote]
    Quite true, Michael–words matter! Especially in the eyes & ears of an ignorant public which is why the leftists chose their labels carefully early on. They quickly won the perception war while sanity & reason (along with the scientific method) have been playing catchup ever since.
    Like using the word ‘normal’ to describe today’s temp forecast–‘yesterday was 5 degrees above normal’ when the word used really should be AVERAGE! I’ve been trying to get some Mets to change this as ‘normal’ in the public’s sense means that is what the temp always has been on that day or time period where ‘average’ gives the immediate sense of variability.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Tony P

    |

    [quote name=”billlex”]AND. Look up Milankovitch Cycles. Wobbles of the earth……sun cycles……..variance in orbits………[/quote]

    Been saying this for a while. Somehow, a major player like the sun always seems to be left out of the equation & far too many reasoned scientists still discount the sun’s effect on our climate, oddly enough. We’re too close, the sun is too powerful & it is too variable for it NOT to affect the planet’s systems.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Tony P

    |

    [quote name=”billlex”]AND. Look up Milankovitch Cycles. Wobbles of the earth……sun cycles……..variance in orbits………[/quote]

    Been saying this for a while. Somehow, a major player like the sun always seems to be left out of the equation & far too many reasoned scientists still discount the sun’s effect on our climate, oddly enough. We’re too close, the sun is too powerful & it is too variable for it NOT to affect the planet’s systems.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Tony P

    |

    Yes, Peter and I wish this had been somehow included in a terrifically written piece by Mr. Capozzola. There are some on the gullible left, mostly the naive youth, who really believe the nonsense but far too many of the leaders of the charade want to be the next oil barons.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    1: CO2 levels are rising and the earth is warming.

    2: Solar activity and temperature trends don’t match up in recent years.

    [1 and 2 are addressed by: http://www.skepticalscience.co…]

    3: But CO2 levels are the highest in 800,000 years.

    “CO2 levels in the atmosphere are currently among the lowest ever recorded in the earth’s long history. The past 800,000 years is a convenient timeframe to cite, however, since the earth has undergone repeated glacial cycles in that time—which has reduced atmospheric CO2.”

    [3 is addressed by: http://www.skepticalscience.co…]
    [3 is also addressed by: http://www.skepticalscience.co…]

    4: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. More CO2 means more warming.

    “CO2 possesses a major limitation as a greenhouse gas, and one that casts doubt on its ability to function as the sole agent of climate change. As demonstrated in laboratory studies, CO2 exponentially loses heat-trapping capacity as its concentration increases. This happens because, even in minuscule quantities, CO2 quickly becomes opaque to a certain spectrum band of infrared radiation. Essentially, CO2 rapidly absorbs all of the infrared radiation it can. Adding additional quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere will not contribute much additional heat-trapping function. CO2 is also a “well-mixed gas,” which means that its concentrations are distributed throughout the atmosphere. Consequently, its heat-trapping function is essentially reaching a saturation point throughout the troposphere and stratosphere.”

    5: But higher CO2 levels mean higher temperatures. I saw that graph in “An Inconvenient Truth.”

    [7 is addressed by: http://www.skepticalscience.co…]

    8: 2015 was the hottest year ever, and now 2016 is even hotter.

    “The warm temperatures experienced in 2015-2016 are the direct result of a strong El Nino”

    9: El Nino is caused by global warming.

    [8 and 9 are addressed by: http://www.skepticalscience.co…]

    9: The “pause in global temperatures” is just people denying that the earth is getting hotter and hotter.
    10: NOAA says there’s no “pause” in global warming.

    [9 is addressed by: http://www.skepticalscience.co…]

    [10 is addressed by: http://www.skepticalscience.co…]

    11: But the oceans are becoming acidic.

    [11 is addressed by: http://www.skepticalscience.co…]

    12: But the glaciers are melting.

    [12 is addressed by: http://www.skepticalscience.co…]

    13: But there are more hurricanes and more tornadoes.

    [13 is addressed by: http://www.skepticalscience.co…]

    14: But we need to cut dangerous carbon pollution.

    [14 is addressed by: http://www.skepticalscience.co…]

    [14 is also addressed by: http://www.skepticalscience.co…]

    “To conclude, it’s helpful to study the basic issues involved in the climate debate (as well as recent geologic history) when considering various aspects of global warming.”

    [Now there’s something on which we can all agree. It *is* helpful to study the basic issues involved in the climate debate, as well as recent geologic history when considering various aspects of global warming. Next time, Steven Capozzola might want to consider some study before posting .]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    1: CO2 levels are rising and the earth is warming.

    2: Solar activity and temperature trends don’t match up in recent years.

    [1 and 2 are addressed by: http://www.skepticalscience.co…]

    3: But CO2 levels are the highest in 800,000 years.

    “CO2 levels in the atmosphere are currently among the lowest ever recorded in the earth’s long history. The past 800,000 years is a convenient timeframe to cite, however, since the earth has undergone repeated glacial cycles in that time—which has reduced atmospheric CO2.”

    [3 is addressed by: http://www.skepticalscience.co…]
    [3 is also addressed by: http://www.skepticalscience.co…]

    4: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. More CO2 means more warming.

    “CO2 possesses a major limitation as a greenhouse gas, and one that casts doubt on its ability to function as the sole agent of climate change. As demonstrated in laboratory studies, CO2 exponentially loses heat-trapping capacity as its concentration increases. This happens because, even in minuscule quantities, CO2 quickly becomes opaque to a certain spectrum band of infrared radiation. Essentially, CO2 rapidly absorbs all of the infrared radiation it can. Adding additional quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere will not contribute much additional heat-trapping function. CO2 is also a “well-mixed gas,” which means that its concentrations are distributed throughout the atmosphere. Consequently, its heat-trapping function is essentially reaching a saturation point throughout the troposphere and stratosphere.”

    5: But higher CO2 levels mean higher temperatures. I saw that graph in “An Inconvenient Truth.”

    [7 is addressed by: http://www.skepticalscience.co…]

    8: 2015 was the hottest year ever, and now 2016 is even hotter.

    “The warm temperatures experienced in 2015-2016 are the direct result of a strong El Nino”

    9: El Nino is caused by global warming.

    [8 and 9 are addressed by: http://www.skepticalscience.co…]

    9: The “pause in global temperatures” is just people denying that the earth is getting hotter and hotter.
    10: NOAA says there’s no “pause” in global warming.

    [9 is addressed by: http://www.skepticalscience.co…]

    [10 is addressed by: http://www.skepticalscience.co…]

    11: But the oceans are becoming acidic.

    [11 is addressed by: http://www.skepticalscience.co…]

    12: But the glaciers are melting.

    [12 is addressed by: http://www.skepticalscience.co…]

    13: But there are more hurricanes and more tornadoes.

    [13 is addressed by: http://www.skepticalscience.co…]

    14: But we need to cut dangerous carbon pollution.

    [14 is addressed by: http://www.skepticalscience.co…]

    [14 is also addressed by: http://www.skepticalscience.co…]

    “To conclude, it’s helpful to study the basic issues involved in the climate debate (as well as recent geologic history) when considering various aspects of global warming.”

    [Now there’s something on which we can all agree. It *is* helpful to study the basic issues involved in the climate debate, as well as recent geologic history when considering various aspects of global warming. Next time, Steven Capozzola might want to consider some study before posting .]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    [quote name=”Michael Neibel”]I agree with all the talking points above. But I would like to see all of you stop calling yourselves skeptics. Here is why. First, there is nothing wrong with being skeptical of a proposition-like climate change-before one has examined the evidence in support. But when one has done so and found contrary evidence or evidence that the proposition’s supporting evidence is flawed, then you are no longer a skeptic. You are a critic. It is vitally important you call yourselves what you are, critics.

    Critic carries with it an aura of respect, a dignity based on the pursuit and examination of facts in dispute. The AGW mongers want to obliterate that concept in the mind of the public and press. So they are creating a cognitive package deal that replaces critic with the package of skeptic and denier.

    The original concept of skeptic referred to an ancient Greek group of philosophers called appropriately enough ‘the skeptics.’ They believed that knowledge was not possible to man, that man can know nothing for sure. ‘Denier’ is one who denies knowledge for no particular reason, just for the hell of it. In other words one who is irrational.

    Today’s intellectuals are packaging ‘denier’ and ‘skeptic’ together as the essential characteristic of ‘critic’ hoping to remove the relationship of reason to facts from the concept of ‘critic’ and replace it with ‘irrational denier.’ Don’t help them get away with it. Critic is a badge of honor you should all be proud to wear.[/quote]
    Michael, this is spot-on! The self-assumed title of “skeptic” has always nagged at me and you have perfectly described why. We must pay attention to the semantic games and manipulations of the left/media cartel.

    Another measure that we must employ more often is not to answer various allegations straight away with reasoned responses, but rather to begin our replies with the phrase, [b]”I don’t accept the premise…”[/b]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]1: CO2 levels are rising and the earth is warming.[/quote] Nope sorry! Your only half right. Co2 is indeed rising but temperatures are not rising as predicted. See the 20 year “pause”.
    [img]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/11/02/article-2485612-1927936900000578-580_634x534.jpg[/img]

    [quote]2: Solar activity and temperature trends don’t match up in recent years.[/quote]
    Actually when you look at how the IPCC fudged the Solar activity graphs to match another failed model prediction, it matches up perfectly.

    http://www.climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think4/post/judithgate_ipcc_consensus_was_only_one_solar_physicist/

    Reading the letters of protest written by the guys who built and operated the satellite one can safely disregard anything the IPCC or the proven identity thief John Cook has to say on the matter.

    Rocks in your head. You need to find a credible source. sCeptical UN-science will never be taken seriously here.

    It’s a Joke.
    [img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lbw90JPZq6Q/U3B9roVxLAI/AAAAAAAABJ4/swCjiaMzqFk/s1600/Herr+Cook.gif[/img]

    [quote]Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook (who apparently pretends to be a Nazi). It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored, while Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared. The irony of the site’s oxymoronic name “Skeptical Science” is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions.

    John Cook is now desperately trying to cover up his background that he was employed as a cartoonist for over a decade with no prior employment history in academia or climate science.

    Thanks to the Wayback Machine we can reveal what his website originally said,

    “I’m not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist” – John Cook, Skeptical Science
    [/quote]

    All of SkS’s talking points have been refuted ad-nausea. By the guy who’s identity John Cook stole.
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/John_Cook_Skeptical_Science.pdf

    So stop posting links to that misinformation site. Thanks.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    Also, in case anyone else is confused, this is the John Cook who runs Skeptical Science:

    https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ZEN_Z2UAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

    John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He originally obtained a Bachelor of Science at the University of Queensland, achieving First Class Honours with a major in physics.

    He co-authored the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand with Haydn Washington, and the 2013 college textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis with Tom Farmer. He also lead-authored the paper Quantifying the Consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, which was tweeted by President Obama and was awarded the best paper published in Environmental Research Letters in 2013. In 2014, he won an award for Best Australian Science Writing, published by the University of New South Wales.

    He is currently completing a PhD in cognitive psychology, researching how people think about climate change.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    In case anyone is wondering about Steven Capozzola, he is a self-described, “Media consultant. CEO of CAP Media LLC. Advocate for U.S. manufacturing & affordable power.”

    He also has not a single peer-reviewed scientific paper to his name. He’s a marketing man…a spin-doctor.

    https://twitter.com/Stevencap

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Grimm Bastard

    |

    ☀ A friendly reminder: As with every year when we head into the summer — and naturally warmer weather as a result — you’re going to be bombarded by “Climate Change” propaganda. The same propagandists of which remains quiet all winter long will use summer as their pivot to try and convince you that stealing your income and your liberties is required to fight the big bad Climate Boogeyman.

    What used to be called “Global Warming” was changed to “Climate Change,” because it ended up being that man was NOT warming the world — even when the NOAA, IPCC and Goddard Institute fabricated numbers and research to appear as such.

    For the past couple of years the Climate Inquisition have tried to push the new brand name dubbed “Climate Disruption” because the Earth’s “natural” climate change has been getting in the way of the perception management opportunities of using “Climate Change” into spooking people out of their money. The intent however is that they want to be able to blame all of the “cooling” on “manmade warming” with simple terminology, hence “Climate Disruption.”

    A co-chair of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has admitted that “Climate Change” is used for ☭ Global Socialism ☭, the literal stealing and redistribution of your money to other nations, and you don’t have any say in the matter and you get nothing in return. Carbon is blamed for the “computer modeled” warming because carbon can be linked to human activity and therefor it can be taxed!

    The entire “Climate Change Platform” has been developed for the sustained taxation of the world’s population. They do nothing positive with the money they steal, there are no viable solutions to combating “climate change.” Instead of using the billions they’ve taken and used it on something that is tangible, such as pollution, it’s used line the pockets of politicians, academics and science-activists.

    Don’t fall for the b.s. The climate on Earth has always changed, before man, and will continue to change, after man. ☃

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”Grimm Bastard”]☀ A friendly reminder: As with every year when we head into the summer — and naturally warmer weather as a result — you’re going to be bombarded by “Climate Change” propaganda. The same propagandists of which remains quiet all winter long will use summer as their pivot to try and convince you that stealing your income and your liberties is required to fight the big bad Climate Boogeyman.

    What used to be called “Global Warming” was changed to “Climate Change,” because it ended up being that man was NOT warming the world — even when the NOAA, IPCC and Goddard Institute fabricated numbers and research to appear as such.

    For the past couple of years the Climate Inquisition have tried to push the new brand name dubbed “Climate Disruption” because the Earth’s “natural” climate change has been getting in the way of the perception management opportunities of using “Climate Change” into spooking people out of their money. The intent however is that they want to be able to blame all of the “cooling” on “manmade warming” with simple terminology, hence “Climate Disruption.”

    A co-chair of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has admitted that “Climate Change” is used for ☭ Global Socialism ☭, the literal stealing and redistribution of your money to other nations, and you don’t have any say in the matter and you get nothing in return. Carbon is blamed for the “computer modeled” warming because carbon can be linked to human activity and therefor it can be taxed!

    The entire “Climate Change Platform” has been developed for the sustained taxation of the world’s population. They do nothing positive with the money they steal, there are no viable solutions to combating “climate change.” Instead of using the billions they’ve taken and used it on something that is tangible, such as pollution, it’s used line the pockets of politicians, academics and science-activists.

    Don’t fall for the b.s. The climate on Earth has always changed, before man, and will continue to change, after man. ☃[/quote]

    A friendly reminder: If you do not cite sources for the assertions you make, then your assertions are baseless. You did provide one link, and that was nice, but there are an awful lot of assertions there, and nothing else to back any of them. In order to facilitate thoughtful discussion, and to ensure ease of communication, would you please share the sources which you feel are authoritative (credible, correct) in backing each of the assertions you have made?

    Looking forward to some good debate.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Grimm Bastard

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”][quote name=”Grimm Bastard”]☀ A friendly reminder: As with every year when we head into the summer — and naturally warmer weather as a result — you’re going to be bombarded by “Climate Change” propaganda. The same propagandists of which remains quiet all winter long will use summer as their pivot to try and convince you that stealing your income and your liberties is required to fight the big bad Climate Boogeyman.

    What used to be called “Global Warming” was changed to “Climate Change,” because it ended up being that man was NOT warming the world — even when the NOAA, IPCC and Goddard Institute fabricated numbers and research to appear as such.

    For the past couple of years the Climate Inquisition have tried to push the new brand name dubbed “Climate Disruption” because the Earth’s “natural” climate change has been getting in the way of the perception management opportunities of using “Climate Change” into spooking people out of their money. The intent however is that they want to be able to blame all of the “cooling” on “manmade warming” with simple terminology, hence “Climate Disruption.”

    A co-chair of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has admitted that “Climate Change” is used for ☭ Global Socialism ☭, the literal stealing and redistribution of your money to other nations, and you don’t have any say in the matter and you get nothing in return. Carbon is blamed for the “computer modeled” warming because carbon can be linked to human activity and therefor it can be taxed!

    The entire “Climate Change Platform” has been developed for the sustained taxation of the world’s population. They do nothing positive with the money they steal, there are no viable solutions to combating “climate change.” Instead of using the billions they’ve taken and used it on something that is tangible, such as pollution, it’s used line the pockets of politicians, academics and science-activists.

    Don’t fall for the b.s. The climate on Earth has always changed, before man, and will continue to change, after man. ☃[/quote]

    A friendly reminder: If you do not cite sources for the assertions you make, then your assertions are baseless. You did provide one link, and that was nice, but there are an awful lot of assertions there, and nothing else to back any of them. In order to facilitate thoughtful discussion, and to ensure ease of communication, would you please share the sources which you feel are authoritative (credible, correct) in backing each of the assertions you have made?

    Looking forward to some good debate.[/quote]

    The burden of proof lies solely on those who believe in “manmade climate change” to challenge both the facts and observations I’ve posted. You may feel free reveal what you perceive to be baseless or assertive.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”Grimm Bastard”][quote name=”ihuntrocks”][quote name=”Grimm Bastard”]☀ A friendly reminder: As with every year when we head into the summer — and naturally warmer weather as a result — you’re going to be bombarded by “Climate Change” propaganda. The same propagandists of which remains quiet all winter long will use summer as their pivot to try and convince you that stealing your income and your liberties is required to fight the big bad Climate Boogeyman.

    What used to be called “Global Warming” was changed to “Climate Change,” because it ended up being that man was NOT warming the world — even when the NOAA, IPCC and Goddard Institute fabricated numbers and research to appear as such.

    For the past couple of years the Climate Inquisition have tried to push the new brand name dubbed “Climate Disruption” because the Earth’s “natural” climate change has been getting in the way of the perception management opportunities of using “Climate Change” into spooking people out of their money. The intent however is that they want to be able to blame all of the “cooling” on “manmade warming” with simple terminology, hence “Climate Disruption.”

    A co-chair of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has admitted that “Climate Change” is used for ☭ Global Socialism ☭, the literal stealing and redistribution of your money to other nations, and you don’t have any say in the matter and you get nothing in return. Carbon is blamed for the “computer modeled” warming because carbon can be linked to human activity and therefor it can be taxed!

    The entire “Climate Change Platform” has been developed for the sustained taxation of the world’s population. They do nothing positive with the money they steal, there are no viable solutions to combating “climate change.” Instead of using the billions they’ve taken and used it on something that is tangible, such as pollution, it’s used line the pockets of politicians, academics and science-activists.

    Don’t fall for the b.s. The climate on Earth has always changed, before man, and will continue to change, after man. ☃[/quote]

    A friendly reminder: If you do not cite sources for the assertions you make, then your assertions are baseless. You did provide one link, and that was nice, but there are an awful lot of assertions there, and nothing else to back any of them. In order to facilitate thoughtful discussion, and to ensure ease of communication, would you please share the sources which you feel are authoritative (credible, correct) in backing each of the assertions you have made?

    Looking forward to some good debate.[/quote]

    The burden of proof lies solely on those who believe in “manmade climate change” to challenge both the facts and observations I’ve posted. You may feel free reveal what you perceive to be baseless or assertive.[/quote]

    The assertions which I feel to be baseless are any assertions (statements which you wish to us to take an accept as fact, as separate from a statement of opinion) which do not provide citations supporting that “fact.” A fact is something which we can demonstrate to be true or false. Without citing sources, or making the required demonstration, there is no offer of falsification, therefore, the assertion is baseless and may only be equated with opinion, which itself requires nothing more than your own assertion.

    So, for everything in your original post which you consider to be a fact, rather than an opinion, I would require a citation which supports your position that the “fact” is indeed, true.

    Also, I will note, and I do not want us to get sidetracked from the more important starting issue of providing accurate sources for claims of fact, your assertion that the “burden of proof lies solely with those who believe in “manmade climate change,”” is only true if we consider your negative assertion (man is *not* responsible for climate change) to be a non-testable negative assertion. In the case of science, we’re all bound by the same laws of physics, mechanics of chemistry, etc. When you make a statement such as “man is not responsible fo climate change,” you are making a scientifically testable assertion yourself. You have an equal obligation to provide evidentiary data sets and models demonstrating applied physical principle to demonstrate what other causes would be responsible while ruling out man’s contribution in so doing. That, however, is another part of the discussion to be had after we first see from which sources you draw the assertions, aside from the single link you provided, in your original post.

    Thank you again, and I look forward to continued quality debate.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Grimm Bastard

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]
    Also, I will note, and I do not want us to get sidetracked from the more important starting issue of providing accurate sources for claims of fact, your assertion that the “burden of proof lies solely with those who believe in “manmade climate change,”” is only true if we consider your negative assertion (man is *not* responsible for climate change) to be a non-testable negative assertion. In the case of science, we’re all bound by the same laws of physics, mechanics of chemistry, etc. When you make a statement such as “man is not responsible fo climate change,” you are making a scientifically testable assertion yourself. You have an equal obligation to provide evidentiary data sets and models demonstrating applied physical principle to demonstrate what other causes would be responsible while ruling out man’s contribution in so doing. That, however, is another part of the discussion to be had after we first see from which sources you draw the assertions, aside from the single link you provided, in your original post.

    Thank you again, and I look forward to continued quality debate.[/quote]

    Again since you side-stepped the offer:

    [quote]The burden of proof lies solely on those who believe in “manmade climate change” to challenge both the facts and observations I’ve posted. You may feel free reveal what you perceive to be baseless or assertive.[/quote]

    Emphasis on: “[i]You may feel free reveal what you perceive to be baseless or assertive.[/i]”

    Ambiguity isn’t going to help push any kind of debate on “climate change” and the various social, economic, political and environmental aspects that fabricate it. What I posted was a statement of facts that I feel to be factual based on both observation and information that you may feel free to verify, your “requirement” isn’t a requirement for sharing this statement. The non-inclusion of “citations” doesn’t discredit my statement.

    You do not create the rules for any kind of discourse.

    Going by your posting history here, you’re far more interested an a debate consisting of link-sniping to articles derived by science-activists as your rebuttal, while not actually doing any of the rebutting yourself. A majority of your citations are from ideological sources with one in particular by John Cook who has been discredited long ago for his fabrication of a “consensus” based on feelings rather than science.

    Getting into a war-of-links isn’t going advance any kind of discussion. You are free to pick things a part that you feel you can address in my original post.

    Until then:

    Science-activism is not science.
    Predictive Computer modeling is not science.
    Science is a full physical process, not a computer game.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @Grimm Bastard

    Actually, from my posting history, you’ll find that the sources from which I share are quite varied. I will admit that my initial post provided links to only one website, and that it is one which is absolutely despised (for reasons quite apparent), by Denialists.

    Additionally, I would love to have an actual debate. That I am pulled into “link-sniping” is certainly not by my choice. I have not been quite vocal in stopping it, but I promise I will attempt to be more vocal in the future (as I am now attempting.)

    I would like to note that sharing sources is for the purpose if clear communication, so that each party in the discussion is afforded the opportunity to analyze the basis for the point of view of each other participant. If there is a particular point of disagreement on a topic, we should first address the topics advanced in the comment thread, and secondarily address incidental issues one may have with offered sources. If you don’t like something specific in the source, then offer a source (as an example of your view…you get to pick which one you feel represents your view) and let that be part of the discussion.

    In the interest of good debate, and to start from a standpoint of neither party being required to provide a citation in the beginning, may we begin this debate by addressing the ideological topic, “With which party/parties does the burden of proof lie when testing both negative and positive assertions in the field of science?”

    I feel this is actually the best way to start, as we also get to discuss the role of skepticism and criticism from each point of view.

    Thank you again. Looking forward to good debate.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @Grimm Bastard

    [quote]You do not create the rules for any kind of discourse.[/quote]

    I’m attempting to create a set of rules collaboratively, with you, by offering suggestings. Once we reach a set of communications rules to which we mutually agree, then we can begin *debate*. I’m challenging you to a debate (or accepting your challenge, either way.)

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Grimm Bastard

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@Grimm Bastard

    [quote]You do not create the rules for any kind of discourse.[/quote]

    I’m attempting to create a set of rules collaboratively, with you, by offering suggestings. Once we reach a set of communications rules to which we mutually agree, then we can begin *debate*. I’m challenging you to a debate (or accepting your challenge, either way.)[/quote]

    Twice already you were invited to address the contents of my original “climate change” statement. You avoided both opportunities. You are now being invited a [b]third time [/b]: “You may feel free reveal what you perceive to be baseless or assertive.”

    I know what you’re trying to do and it’s not going to work. You have more than enough information to initiate a “debate” if you wish on the content of my OP.

    Otherwise, take it for the [b]statement[/b] that it is.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    A set of rules ?

    The rules have always been the scientific method and logic. But rox-in-the-head will never accept that because his alarmist stance doesn’t conform to it.

    When you have bona fide scientific fact staring you in the face, what is there to ” debate ” ?

    Science is not a form of political argument and word shading and opponent cajoling. Nor is it courtroom drama or chatroom BS.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”Grimm Bastard”][quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@Grimm Bastard

    [quote]You do not create the rules for any kind of discourse.[/quote]

    I’m attempting to create a set of rules collaboratively, with you, by offering suggestings. Once we reach a set of communications rules to which we mutually agree, then we can begin *debate*. I’m challenging you to a debate (or accepting your challenge, either way.)[/quote]

    Twice already you were invited to address the contents of my original “climate change” statement. You avoided both opportunities. You are now being invited a [b]third time [/b]: “You may feel free reveal what you perceive to be baseless or assertive.”

    I know what you’re trying to do and it’s not going to work. You have more than enough information to initiate a “debate” if you wish on the content of my OP.

    Otherwise, take it for the [b]statement[/b] that it is.[/quote]

    Fine, I take everything in your original post as offered. I take it entirely as opinion, and I disagree with your opinion.

    Now, on to the important statement you made:

    [quote]The burden of proof lies solely on those who believe in “manmade climate change” to challenge both the facts and observations I’ve posted.[/quote]

    This is the one which I am choosing to address, as you invited me to address anything I wanted.

    I again reject the assertion that the burden of proof lies solely with those who accept the idea of man-made climate change.

    I offer that the burden of proof lies equally with both sides. The side which accepts the idea of man-made climate change is making a positive assertion, and it is testable. It has been tested, and continues to be tested. There is no doubt that there is a burden of proof which lies with those making such a positive assertion (logic tells us that there is a burden of proof on the person making a positive assertion.)

    However, you assert that the burden lies *solely* on those making the positive assertion, in this case, that humans are responsible for climate change.

    When you make a scientific (and not a philosophical) statement that something is *not* the case, (i.e., a negative assertion such as, “Humans are not responsible for observed climate change,”) you are also making a statement which is testable and falsifiable by the scientific method. In order for the positive assertion to be incorrect (that humans are responsible for observed climate change), there is still a burden on science to determine *what* is responsible. That assertion also requires a set of observed data (the same used when making the positive assertion, since observation is observation, if you don’t mind the tautology), and then apply physical principles of physics and chemistry (the same which are forced on those making the positive assertion), and to demonstrate, by application of those known physical mechanics to the observed data creating a model, which describes what *is* responsible for the change we observe, while simultaneously including in its accounting a conclusive demonstration that the positive assertion is not true (that humans are responsible for observed climate change.)

    It is, therefore, my assertion, that the burden of proof lies equally with both the positive and negative assertions, as both are testable and falsifiable by experimental science.

    Do you accept this explanation, or reject it? If you reject it, please provide examples of fallacious reasoning on my part.

    Thank you, and once again, I look forward to continued debate.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @Grim Bastard
    @JayPee is completely correct.
    [quote]he rules have always been the scientific method and logic.[/quote]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @Grim Bastard
    @JayPee is completely correct.
    [quote]he rules have always been the scientific method and logic.[/quote]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @Grim Bastard
    @JayPee is completely correct.
    [quote]he rules have always been the scientific method and logic.[/quote]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@Grim Bastard
    @JayPee is completely correct.
    [quote]he rules have always been the scientific method and logic.[/quote][/quote]

    Should read:

    [quote]The rules have always been the scientific method and logic.[/quote]

    Sorry about that, everyone.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@Grim Bastard
    @JayPee is completely correct.
    [quote]he rules have always been the scientific method and logic.[/quote][/quote]

    Should read:

    [quote]The rules have always been the scientific method and logic.[/quote]

    Sorry about that, everyone.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@Grim Bastard
    @JayPee is completely correct.
    [quote]he rules have always been the scientific method and logic.[/quote][/quote]

    Should read:

    [quote]The rules have always been the scientific method and logic.[/quote]

    Sorry about that, everyone.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@amirlach

    Wrong, and roundly disproven. Your “pause” is a myth, and nothing more. Oh, and look, none of those come from “SkepticalScience.” [/quote]

    You should tell it to these guys. They seem to not have gotten the memo. 😀
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/12/uk-ocean-scientists-were-going-to-investigate-the-pause/

    And while your at it tell it to these consensus climate scientists. A veritable who’s who list of the Climate Gate Scandal.

    They also disagree! 😀

    Jimbo on Watts Up With That rounds up the climate scientists confessing to this lack of warming:

    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005

    “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”

    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009

    ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

    Dr. Judith L. Lean – Geophysical Research Letters – 15 Aug 2009
    “…This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming…”

    Dr. Kevin Trenberth – CRU emails – 12 Oct. 2009

    “Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…..The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

    Dr. Mojib Latif – Spiegel – 19th November 2009

    “At present, however, the warming is taking a break,”…….”There can be no argument about that.”

    Dr. Jochem Marotzke – Spiegel – 19th November 2009

    “It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community…. We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”

    Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010

    “I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”

    Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010

    [Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”

    [A] “Yes, but only just”.

    Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research – 2010

    “…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero;…”

    Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June 2011

    “…..it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008…..”

    Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change – 18th September 2011

    “There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period)….”

    Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 14 October 2012

    “We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.”

    Dr. James Hansen – NASA GISS – 15 January 2013

    “The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.”

    Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change – 7 April 2013

    “…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period…”

    Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June 2013

    “…the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models….”

    Professor Masahiro Watanabe – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 June 2013

    “The weakening of k commonly found in GCMs seems to be an inevitable response of the climate system to global warming, suggesting the recovery from hiatus in coming decades.”

    Professor Rowan Sutton – Independent – 22 July 2013
    “Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years.”

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@amirlach

    Wrong, and roundly disproven. Your “pause” is a myth, and nothing more. Oh, and look, none of those come from “SkepticalScience.” [/quote]

    You should tell it to these guys. They seem to not have gotten the memo. 😀
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/12/uk-ocean-scientists-were-going-to-investigate-the-pause/

    And while your at it tell it to these consensus climate scientists. A veritable who’s who list of the Climate Gate Scandal.

    They also disagree! 😀

    Jimbo on Watts Up With That rounds up the climate scientists confessing to this lack of warming:

    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005

    “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….”

    Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009

    ‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

    Dr. Judith L. Lean – Geophysical Research Letters – 15 Aug 2009
    “…This lack of overall warming is analogous to the period from 2002 to 2008 when decreasing solar irradiance also countered much of the anthropogenic warming…”

    Dr. Kevin Trenberth – CRU emails – 12 Oct. 2009

    “Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming…..The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

    Dr. Mojib Latif – Spiegel – 19th November 2009

    “At present, however, the warming is taking a break,”…….”There can be no argument about that.”

    Dr. Jochem Marotzke – Spiegel – 19th November 2009

    “It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community…. We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”

    Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010

    “I’m a scientist trying to measure temperature. If I registered that the climate has been cooling I’d say so. But it hasn’t until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.”

    Dr. Phil Jones – BBC – 13th February 2010

    [Q] B – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”

    [A] “Yes, but only just”.

    Prof. Shaowu Wang et al – Advances in Climate Change Research – 2010

    “…The decade of 1999-2008 is still the warmest of the last 30 years, though the global temperature increment is near zero;…”

    Dr. Robert K. Kaufmann – PNAS – 2nd June 2011

    “…..it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008…..”

    Dr. Gerald A. Meehl – Nature Climate Change – 18th September 2011

    “There have been decades, such as 2000–2009, when the observed globally averaged surface-temperature time series shows little increase or even a slightly negative trend1 (a hiatus period)….”

    Met Office Blog – Dave Britton (10:48:21) – 14 October 2012

    “We agree with Mr Rose that there has been only a very small amount of warming in the 21st Century. As stated in our response, this is 0.05 degrees Celsius since 1997 equivalent to 0.03 degrees Celsius per decade.”

    Dr. James Hansen – NASA GISS – 15 January 2013

    “The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.”

    Dr. Virginie Guemas – Nature Climate Change – 7 April 2013

    “…Despite a sustained production of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period…”

    Dr. Hans von Storch – Spiegel – 20 June 2013

    “…the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) — a value very close to zero….If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models….”

    Professor Masahiro Watanabe – Geophysical Research Letters – 28 June 2013

    “The weakening of k commonly found in GCMs seems to be an inevitable response of the climate system to global warming, suggesting the recovery from hiatus in coming decades.”

    Professor Rowan Sutton – Independent – 22 July 2013
    “Some people call it a slow-down, some call it a hiatus, some people call it a pause. The global average surface temperature has not increased substantially over the last 10 to 15 years.”

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @amirlach

    [quote]You should tell it to these guys. They seem to not have gotten the memo. 😀
    wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/12/uk-ocean-scientists-were-going-to-investigate-the-pause/[/quote]

    So, from your presentation, your advocation of this as being fact is because you heard it from Anthony Watts’ website?

    This Anthony Watts?

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

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @amirlach

    [quote]You should tell it to these guys. They seem to not have gotten the memo. 😀
    wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/12/uk-ocean-scientists-were-going-to-investigate-the-pause/[/quote]

    So, from your presentation, your advocation of this as being fact is because you heard it from Anthony Watts’ website?

    This Anthony Watts?

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

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]Also, in case anyone else is confused, this is the John Cook who runs Skeptical Science:

    https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ZEN_Z2UAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao

    John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He originally obtained a Bachelor of Science at the University of Queensland, achieving First Class Honours with a major in physics.

    He co-authored the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand with Haydn Washington, and the 2013 college textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis with Tom Farmer. He also lead-authored the paper Quantifying the Consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, which was tweeted by President Obama and was awarded the best paper published in Environmental Research Letters in 2013. In 2014, he won an award for Best Australian Science Writing, published by the University of New South Wales.

    He is currently completing a PhD in cognitive psychology, researching how people think about climate change.[/quote]

    And is still an admitted and proven identity thief… Zero credibility. :zzz

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    For those who do not know “WattsUp”:

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

    [quote]Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries
    References: Cubby, Ben (2012 [last update]). Scientist denies he is mouthpiece of US climate-sceptic think tank. watoday.com.au. Retrieved on February 15, 2012.
    [/quote]

    That’s “WattsUpWithThat.”

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]So, from your presentation, your advocation of this as being fact is because you heard it from Anthony Watts’ website?[/quote]

    Who heard it from JIMBO, who collected the quotes from the sources. If you can find one that is a misquote please let us know.

    And nothing about the CRU’s investigation of the “pause”. Or are you claiming this is also a figment of Watt’s imagination?

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

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”][quote]So, from your presentation, your advocation of this as being fact is because you heard it from Anthony Watts’ website?[/quote]

    Who heard it from JIMBO, who collected the quotes from the sources. If you can find one that is a misquote please let us know.

    And nothing about the CRU’s investigation of the “pause”. Or are you claiming this is also a figment of Watt’s imagination?

    http://www.hydro-international.com/content/news/project-investigates-the-global-warming-hiatus%5B/quote%5D

    Your source article
    [quote]http://www.hydro-international.com/content/news/project-investigates-the-global-warming-hiatus{/quote]
    does not even give an author name for the article. There is absolutely zero credibility in this.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”][quote]So, from your presentation, your advocation of this as being fact is because you heard it from Anthony Watts’ website?[/quote]

    Who heard it from JIMBO, who collected the quotes from the sources. If you can find one that is a misquote please let us know.

    And nothing about the CRU’s investigation of the “pause”. Or are you claiming this is also a figment of Watt’s imagination?

    http://www.hydro-international.com/content/news/project-investigates-the-global-warming-hiatus%5B/quote%5D

    Your source article
    [quote]http://www.hydro-international.com/content/news/project-investigates-the-global-warming-hiatus{/quote]
    does not even give an author name for the article. There is absolutely zero credibility in this.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    Sorry,

    [quote]Your source article
    [quote]http://www.hydro-international.com/content/news/project-investigates-the-global-warming-hiatus{/quote]
    does not even give an author name for the article. There is absolutely zero credibility in this.[/quote][/quote]

    Should have been

    [quote]Your source article
    [quote]http://www.hydro-international.com/content/news/project-investigates-the-global-warming-hiatus[/quote]
    does not even give an author name for the article. There is absolutely zero credibility in this.[/quote][/quote]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”]Your such an idiot…. Here’s your “zero Credibility in this”… Rebuttal.

    UK Ocean Scientists(NOC). Not the UK Met or CRU, investigate the imaginary “mythical” PAUSE!

    http://phys.org/news/2016-03-global-hiatus.html

    You should follow your own advice and do some basic searching. 😀

    http://www.bing.com/search?q=Dr+Bablu+Sinha,+who+is+the+project+lead+for+NOC&src=IE-TopResult&FORM=IETR02&conversationid=%5B/quote%5D

    That is possibly the best source which you could have consulted, and I thank you for doing so. I mean, it too lays out the same information, that there is in fact a team and they are investigating why climate change rates vary from decade to decade.

    At the bottom of the article it says
    [quote] Explore further: New study explains the role of oceans in global ‘warming hiatus'[/quote] and gives the following link:
    http://phys.org/news/2014-12-role-oceans-global-hiatus.html

    There’s your “pause.” Now accounted for in the climate models, thanks to that study…which is explained in the article.

    Interestingly enough, your silly attempt at trying to show me how to use a search engine

    [quote]You should follow your own advice and do some basic searching. 😀

    http://www.bing.com/search?q=Dr+Bablu+Sinha,+who+is+the+project+lead+for+NOC&src=IE-TopResult&FORM=IETR02&conversationid=%5B/quote%5D

    instructs me to search for Dr. Sinha, who happens to be a person who took part in the study which demonstrates the mechanics behind your “pause” and has now helped us refine climate models…which still link CO2 production to climate change.

    [quote]The new analysis has been published in Geophysical Research Letters by Professor Sybren Drijfhout from the University of Southampton and collaborators from the National Oceanography Centre (NOC) Dr Adam Blaker, Professor Simon Josey, Dr George Nurser and Dr Bablu Sinha, together with Dr Magdalena Balmaseda from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF).

    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-12-role-oceans-global-hiatus.html#jCp%5B/quote%5D

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”]Your such an idiot…. Here’s your “zero Credibility in this”… Rebuttal.

    UK Ocean Scientists(NOC). Not the UK Met or CRU, investigate the imaginary “mythical” PAUSE!

    http://phys.org/news/2016-03-global-hiatus.html

    You should follow your own advice and do some basic searching. 😀

    http://www.bing.com/search?q=Dr+Bablu+Sinha,+who+is+the+project+lead+for+NOC&src=IE-TopResult&FORM=IETR02&conversationid=%5B/quote%5D

    That is possibly the best source which you could have consulted, and I thank you for doing so. I mean, it too lays out the same information, that there is in fact a team and they are investigating why climate change rates vary from decade to decade.

    At the bottom of the article it says
    [quote] Explore further: New study explains the role of oceans in global ‘warming hiatus'[/quote] and gives the following link:
    http://phys.org/news/2014-12-role-oceans-global-hiatus.html

    There’s your “pause.” Now accounted for in the climate models, thanks to that study…which is explained in the article.

    Interestingly enough, your silly attempt at trying to show me how to use a search engine

    [quote]You should follow your own advice and do some basic searching. 😀

    http://www.bing.com/search?q=Dr+Bablu+Sinha,+who+is+the+project+lead+for+NOC&src=IE-TopResult&FORM=IETR02&conversationid=%5B/quote%5D

    instructs me to search for Dr. Sinha, who happens to be a person who took part in the study which demonstrates the mechanics behind your “pause” and has now helped us refine climate models…which still link CO2 production to climate change.

    [quote]The new analysis has been published in Geophysical Research Letters by Professor Sybren Drijfhout from the University of Southampton and collaborators from the National Oceanography Centre (NOC) Dr Adam Blaker, Professor Simon Josey, Dr George Nurser and Dr Bablu Sinha, together with Dr Magdalena Balmaseda from the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF).

    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-12-role-oceans-global-hiatus.html#jCp%5B/quote%5D

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]The measurement error was crucial to the thesis of the Lovejoy paper, yet the reviewers allowed him to get away with saying it was only 0.03 Cº when the oldest of the global datasets, and the one favored by the IPCC, actually publishes, every monthy, combined uncertainties that are ten times larger.[/quote]

    And Lovejoy is further skewered by a guy with a couple papers and an incredibly simple climate model that WTFPAWNS the entire legion of IPCC’s failed billion dollar GCM’s.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/23/the-empire-of-the-viscount-strikes-back/

    Sadly Lover Boy’s Funding was cut off… 😥

    [quote]

    Yet he rants blithely on to the effect that the Canadian government has “axed climate research” (hurrah!); that it gave him no funding for his research (so he got more than he deserved); that it has “shamelessly promoted the dirtiest fuels” (but CO2 is not dirty, it is the stuff of life); that it has “reneged on its international climate obligations” (no, it took lawful and timeous advantage of the opt-out clause in the Kyoto Protocol and, therefore, has no “international climate obligations”);

    that “two decades of international discussion have failed to prevent emissions from growing” (along with crop yields and net primary productivity of trees and plants, thanks to CO2 fertilization); and, finally, that “the world needs to drop the skepticism and change course – humanity’s future depends on it” (but, as T.H. Huxley said, to the scientist “skepticism is the highest of duties, blind faith the one unpardonable sin”, and whenever someone says humanity’s future depends on something he means his income depends on it). [/quote]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]There’s your “pause.” Now accounted for in the climate models, thanks to that study…which is explained in the article.[/quote] Not exactly… Not yet anyways.
    [quote]Dr Sinha concluded: “The deeper understanding gained in this study of the processes and regions responsible for variations in oceanic heat drawdown and retention will improve the accuracy of future climate projections.” [/quote]

    “New research shows that ocean heat uptake across three oceans is the likely cause of the ‘warming hiatus’ – the current decade-long slowdown in global surface warming.”

    And in the “Featured” Sidebar, right besides the “likely” cause of the “Pause” is this?

    Deep, old water explains why Antarctic Ocean hasn’t warmed? Yeah ok. 😀

    May 30, 2016

    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-05-deep-antarctic-ocean-hasnt.html#jCp
    http://phys.org/news/2016-05-deep-antarctic-ocean-hasnt.html

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]There’s your “pause.” Now accounted for in the climate models, thanks to that study…which is explained in the article.[/quote] Not exactly… Not yet anyways.
    [quote]Dr Sinha concluded: “The deeper understanding gained in this study of the processes and regions responsible for variations in oceanic heat drawdown and retention will improve the accuracy of future climate projections.” [/quote]

    “New research shows that ocean heat uptake across three oceans is the likely cause of the ‘warming hiatus’ – the current decade-long slowdown in global surface warming.”

    And in the “Featured” Sidebar, right besides the “likely” cause of the “Pause” is this?

    Deep, old water explains why Antarctic Ocean hasn’t warmed? Yeah ok. 😀

    May 30, 2016

    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-05-deep-antarctic-ocean-hasnt.html#jCp
    http://phys.org/news/2016-05-deep-antarctic-ocean-hasnt.html

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]It is, therefore, my assertion, that the burden of proof lies equally with both the positive and negative assertions, as both are testable and falsifiable by experimental science.[/quote]

    Well it is an assertion. You do seem to put the Ass in Assertion! Even while your turning the Scientific Method on it’s head. Like Trenberth.

    The Null Hypothesis is just a tool used to compare a new hypothesis with generally accepted understandings. The default state.

    Like the 4.5 Billion year precedence of Natural Variability that existed before man made Co2 was any kind of relevant factor.

    I suppose you could reverse the Null hypothesis and say that the climate since 1934(the generally agreed year man made Co2 became a major factor). Is the “default state, and one needs to “prove” that the 4.5 Billion years before that were Natural… 😮

    The complete and utter failure of the CAGW Models to skillfully predict recent or any Climate really invalidates the assumptions they were based upon.

    NOAA and the CRU both say about the same thing.

    “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

    The completely mythical “Pause” that alarmists made all those excuses for has already invalidated the CAGW hypothesis at the 95% level, like five years ago.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”][quote]It is, therefore, my assertion, that the burden of proof lies equally with both the positive and negative assertions, as both are testable and falsifiable by experimental science.[/quote]

    Well it is an assertion. You do seem to put the Ass in Assertion! Even while your turning the Scientific Method on it’s head. Like Trenberth.

    The Null Hypothesis is just a tool used to compare a new hypothesis with generally accepted understandings. The default state.

    Like the 4.5 Billion year precedence of Natural Variability that existed before man made Co2 was any kind of relevant factor.

    I suppose you could reverse the Null hypothesis and say that the climate since 1934(the generally agreed year man made Co2 became a major factor). Is the “default state, and one needs to “prove” that the 4.5 Billion years before that were Natural… 😮

    The complete and utter failure of the CAGW Models to skillfully predict recent or any Climate really invalidates the assumptions they were based upon.

    NOAA and the CRU both say about the same thing.

    “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

    The completely mythical “Pause” that alarmists made all those excuses for has already invalidated the CAGW hypothesis at the 95% level, like five years ago.[/quote]

    Please see the Berkley guide “Understanding Science, How Science Really Works” at http://undsci.berkeley.edu/faqs.php

    Pay special attention to the section on null hypothesis, which reads

    [quote]What is a null hypothesis?
    A null hypothesis is usually a statement asserting that there is no difference or no association between variables. The null hypothesis is a tool that makes it possible to use certain statistical tests to figure out if another hypothesis of interest is likely to be accurate or not. For example, if you were testing the idea that sugar makes kids hyperactive, your null hypothesis might be that there is no difference in the amount of time that kids previously given a sugary drink and kids previously given a sugar-substitute drink are able to sit still. After making your observations, you would then perform a statistical test to determine whether or not there is a significant difference between the two groups of kids in time spent sitting still.[/quote]

    Science is still responsible for explaining what is happening when it is *not* the case of the positive assertion. Things are still happening, physical laws still apply, and there is observational data. Observational data plus applied physical mechanics gives us a scientific model. You too have an obligation to provide a model of what is happening, even if you do not agree with the premise of another…in fact, you are under mroe obligation to provide a “correct” model if you feel that another offered model is incorrect. That’s science.

    Now, about those models, which you so religiously refuse to provide, which demonstrate the state of the world where the null hypothesis is true.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Why is it that the rock hunter cannot produce what amirlach asked for, even [b][i]one[/i][/b] peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability? Everyone knows that NV has changed climates for billions of years. So in order to claim a new driver of climate, one would need to first disprove NV.

    Where has this ever ben done? And what sort of fool or demon would claim the science is settled, and sacrifice 21,000 people every day, when step number one of the process has never been accomplished?

    The null hypothesis really has nothing to do with NV, because the forcings of NV have yet to be quantified. If you cannot measure it, you cannot model it.

    So where is the refutation of NV?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @rox

    In re : Berkeley science publication

    I’ll try to be as civil as I can.

    It is very telling that that publication is referenced in defining the scientific process.
    Very telling that it refers to control groups.
    Very telling that it refers to inductive reasoning and correlation.

    Are you aware that the publication is talking about the
    SOCIAL ” SO-CALLED ” SCIENCES ?

    You know, like Sociology, Political ” so-called ” Science.

    The exact sciences, like chemistry, physics, etc. use the time honored Scientific Method instead.

    Conspicuously absent, of course, is any reference to mathematics ( the language of science ). Nearly all Math was thrown out of the social so-called sciences a long time ago because it was too exact and required too much precision in observation and interpretation.

    Control groups are unnecessary in the exact sciences for they fulfill no function. Inductive reasoning is self-admittedly inexact ( take any basic logic course ). Correlation can never make the ” quantum leap ” to causality because of the ” post hoc ergo propter hoc ” fallacy.

    If you are saying that meteorology and climatology should be reduced to the credibility of the social so-called sciences, I’m all for reducing it even further.

    At best, Climatology should be thought of as a speculative branch philosophy, some what like Metaphysics.

    And why not ?
    At least some of the metaphysical poets were entertaining.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @rox

    In re : Berkeley science publication

    I’ll try to be as civil as I can.

    It is very telling that that publication is referenced in defining the scientific process.
    Very telling that it refers to control groups.
    Very telling that it refers to inductive reasoning and correlation.

    Are you aware that the publication is talking about the
    SOCIAL ” SO-CALLED ” SCIENCES ?

    You know, like Sociology, Political ” so-called ” Science.

    The exact sciences, like chemistry, physics, etc. use the time honored Scientific Method instead.

    Conspicuously absent, of course, is any reference to mathematics ( the language of science ). Nearly all Math was thrown out of the social so-called sciences a long time ago because it was too exact and required too much precision in observation and interpretation.

    Control groups are unnecessary in the exact sciences for they fulfill no function. Inductive reasoning is self-admittedly inexact ( take any basic logic course ). Correlation can never make the ” quantum leap ” to causality because of the ” post hoc ergo propter hoc ” fallacy.

    If you are saying that meteorology and climatology should be reduced to the credibility of the social so-called sciences, I’m all for reducing it even further.

    At best, Climatology should be thought of as a speculative branch philosophy, some what like Metaphysics.

    And why not ?
    At least some of the metaphysical poets were entertaining.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @rox

    In re : Berkeley science publication

    I’ll try to be as civil as I can.

    It is very telling that that publication is referenced in defining the scientific process.
    Very telling that it refers to control groups.
    Very telling that it refers to inductive reasoning and correlation.

    Are you aware that the publication is talking about the
    SOCIAL ” SO-CALLED ” SCIENCES ?

    You know, like Sociology, Political ” so-called ” Science.

    The exact sciences, like chemistry, physics, etc. use the time honored Scientific Method instead.

    Conspicuously absent, of course, is any reference to mathematics ( the language of science ). Nearly all Math was thrown out of the social so-called sciences a long time ago because it was too exact and required too much precision in observation and interpretation.

    Control groups are unnecessary in the exact sciences for they fulfill no function. Inductive reasoning is self-admittedly inexact ( take any basic logic course ). Correlation can never make the ” quantum leap ” to causality because of the ” post hoc ergo propter hoc ” fallacy.

    If you are saying that meteorology and climatology should be reduced to the credibility of the social so-called sciences, I’m all for reducing it even further.

    At best, Climatology should be thought of as a speculative branch philosophy, some what like Metaphysics.

    And why not ?
    At least some of the metaphysical poets were entertaining.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Michael Crichton

    |

    So this is what I’ve been missing out on.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Michael Crichton

    |

    So this is what I’ve been missing out on.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    prestigio

    |

    post hoc ergo propter hoc
    sefir bereshith
    the beginning created
    the gods the heavens and the earth

    Reply

  • Avatar

    prestigio

    |

    post hoc ergo propter hoc
    sefir bereshith
    the beginning created
    the gods the heavens and the earth

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”JayPee”]@rox

    In re : Berkeley science publication

    I’ll try to be as civil as I can.

    It is very telling that that publication is referenced in defining the scientific process.
    Very telling that it refers to control groups.
    Very telling that it refers to inductive reasoning and correlation.

    Are you aware that the publication is talking about the
    SOCIAL ” SO-CALLED ” SCIENCES ?

    You know, like Sociology, Political ” so-called ” Science.

    The exact sciences, like chemistry, physics, etc. use the time honored Scientific Method instead.

    Conspicuously absent, of course, is any reference to mathematics ( the language of science ). Nearly all Math was thrown out of the social so-called sciences a long time ago because it was too exact and required too much precision in observation and interpretation.

    Control groups are unnecessary in the exact sciences for they fulfill no function. Inductive reasoning is self-admittedly inexact ( take any basic logic course ). Correlation can never make the ” quantum leap ” to causality because of the ” post hoc ergo propter hoc ” fallacy.

    If you are saying that meteorology and climatology should be reduced to the credibility of the social so-called sciences, I’m all for reducing it even further.

    At best, Climatology should be thought of as a speculative branch philosophy, some what like Metaphysics.

    And why not ?
    At least some of the metaphysical poets were entertaining.[/quote]

    The Berkely link addresses social sciences in specific as they have a heavier reliance on statistics than do most “hard” sciences. The concept of “null hypothesis” which @amirlach mentions is a concept from statistics. The same statistics used by Lovejoy to test the null hypothesis and found it lacking. The same Lovejoy published in peer-reviewed literature. The same published Lovejoy who has not had to print a retraction…still published.

    Keep up with the conversation.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”Michael Crichton”]So this is what I’ve been missing out on.[/quote]

    If you’re referring to this thread, then I’m afraid you haven’t missed much in the way of quality debate. A bunch of link-sniping and sidestepping of arguments and responsibilities, and a bunch of petitions to the authority of a crackpot AM radio weather announcer.

    Personally, I’ve been doggedly trolled on two articles on this website, by both @JayPee and @amirlach. The only commonality between the two articles, other than my commenting, of course, is that both articles are written by Steven Capozzola, who is
    [qutoe]Media consultant. CEO of CAP Media LLC. Advocate for U.S. manufacturing & affordable power.[/quote]
    https://twitter.com/Stevencap

    I’m beginning to think there is no coincidence between the tireless (though admittedly confused and ill-executed) trolling attempts by these two individuals and the fact that there is a marketing firm behind these articles.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    Also, sorry to everyone, I keep missing closing quote tags. The information about the article author, Steven Capozzola, should read:

    Steven Capozzola is a self-described
    [quote]Media consultant. CEO of CAP Media LLC. Advocate for U.S. manufacturing & affordable power.[/quote]
    https://twitter.com/Stevencap

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @ rox-in-the-head

    I not only stand by everything I’ve said, I formally claim you failed to refute so much as an iota of what I have said.

    Not expecting you to understand, I call upon all other visitors to evaluate for themselves and comment at will if they desire.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]For the benefit of everyone else, I will provide it again here:

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

    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

    As one might note in the previously mentioned comment thread, @amirlach refuses to actually read the paper, makes assertions about it anyway, and when confronted about it, only has Anthony Watts as a source to back him. @amirlach is a troll, and likely a paid one.
    [/quote]

    For the benefit of everyone else, I will provide the refutations for this effusion of a paper here. Again…

    And for some reason our friendly neighbourhood thread bomber keeps claiming Watt’s is the “source”. Actually Watt’s only reposted the refutation.

    And the refutation speaks for itself really. Funny how he ignores that and instead tries to slander Watt’s while reposting the same invalidated effusion of a paper eh?

    [quote]Now, if you and I know all this, do you suppose the peer reviewers did not know it? The measurement error was crucial to the thesis of the Lovejoy paper, yet the reviewers allowed him to get away with saying it was only 0.03 Cº when the oldest of the global datasets, and the one favored by the IPCC, actually publishes, every monthy, combined uncertainties that are ten times larger.

    Let us be blunt. Not least because of those uncertainties, compounded by data tampering all over the world, it is impossible to determine climate sensitivity either to the claimed precision of 0.01 Cº or to 99% confidence from the temperature data.

    For this reason alone, the headline conclusion in the fawning press release about the “99% certainty” that climate sensitivity is similar to the IPCC’s estimate is baseless. The order-of-magnitude error about the measurement uncertainties is enough on its own to doom the paper. There is a lot else wrong with it, but that is another story.
    [/quote]
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/11/lovejoys-99-confidence-vs-measurement-uncertainty/

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]I have actually provided a peer-reviewed paper to @amirlach in a different comment thread on a different article on this same website

    (http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/blame-and-shame-in-the-global-warming-debate.html)
    For the benefit of everyone else, I will provide it again here: “Scaling fluctuation analysis and statistical hypothesis testing of anthropogenic warming”, S. Lovejoy, Climate Change, published online April 6, 2014. link.springer.com/search?query=10.1007%2Fs00382-014-2128-2[/quote]

    It really is true that arrogance is the [i]worst[/i] form of ignorance.

    [i]For the benefit of everyone else[/i], please explain to the class just how this tripe refutes NV.

    Hint: [i]God[/i] you are stupid. 😆

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]Now, about those models, which you so religiously refuse to provide, which demonstrate the state of the world where the null hypothesis is true.[/quote]

    What models are you referring too? I never said I had a “model” that did any such thing.

    Nice try, but “reversing” the Null Hypothesis never worked for Ternbeth either.

    I might be tempted if the funding was also “reversed”. 29 Billion a year sounds pretty good.

    And just so you know, for future reference. Your “gotcha” questions are mentioned above the posting box.
    [quote]A great example of commenting guidelines can be found here. These are suggestions everyone should try to follow. Please note: ‘Don’t take criticisms personally, don’t rise to bait or attempts at gotchas. Make the points YOU want to make.'[/quote]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

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

    I not only stand by everything I’ve said, I formally claim you failed to refute so much as an iota of what I have said.

    Not expecting you to understand, I call upon all other visitors to evaluate for themselves and comment at will if they desire.[/quote]

    @JayPee The only specific claim I recall you making or for which you requested an answer would be your statement that, “There is no greenhouse gas effect.” I’ll address that for you now. if there are any other questions afterward, I’d be happy to try to patiently address those as well. Now, on to the, “There is no greenhouse gas effect” misunderstanding which you have.

    The atmosphere of the Earth is less able to absorb shortwave radiation from the Sun than thermal radiation coming from the surface. The effect of this disparity is that thermal radiation escaping to space comes mostly from the cold upper atmosphere, while the surface is maintained at a substantially warmer temperature. This is called the “atmospheric greenhouse effect”, and without it, the Earth’s surface would be much colder. In fact, physics demonstrates to us that the surface temperature of the Earth, at its current distance from the Sun would be 33 degrees C cooler than it is measured to be now.

    This principle is easily demonstrated through basic physics, as a bare rock orbiting the sun at the distance of the Earth should be far colder than the Earth actually is. The explanation for this observation was based on the work of John Tyndall, who discovered in 1859 that several gasses, including carbon dioxide and water vapor, could trap heat. This was the first evidence for what we know now as greenhouse gasses. The relationship between greenhouse gas concentrations and surface temperature was proved by a Swedish scientist named Svante Arrhenius before the end of the same century.

    This absorption is due to trace gasses which make up only a very small part of the atmosphere. Such gasses are opaque to thermal radiation, and are called “greenhouse gasses”. The most important greenhouse gasses on Earth are water vapor and carbon dioxide, with additional contributions from methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and others. If the atmosphere was simply a dry mix of its major constituents, Oxygen and Nitrogen, the Earth would freeze over completely.

    As regards [b]empirical evidence[/b], we only have to look to our moon for evidence of what the Earth might be like without an atmosphere that sustained the greenhouse effect. While the moon’s surface reaches 130 degrees C in direct sunlight at the equator (266 degrees F), when the sun ‘goes down’ on the moon, the temperature drops almost immediately, and plunges in several hours down to minus 110 degrees C (-166F).

    Since the moon is virtually the same distance from the sun as we are, it is reasonable to ask why at night the Earth doesn’t get as cold as the moon. The answer is that, unlike the Earth, the moon has no water vapor or other greenhouse gasses, because of course it has no atmosphere at all. Without our protective atmosphere and the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be as barren as our lifeless moon; without the heat trapped overnight in the atmosphere (and in the ground and oceans) our nights would be so cold that few plants or animals could survive even a single one.

    The most conclusive evidence for the greenhouse effect – and the role CO2 plays – can be seen in data from the surface and from satellites. By comparing the Sun’s heat reaching the Earth with the heat leaving it, we can see that less long-wave radiation (heat) is leaving than arriving (and since the 1970s, that less and less radiation is leaving the Earth, as CO2 and equivalents build up). Since all radiation is measured by its wavelength, we can also see that the frequencies being trapped in the atmosphere are the same frequencies absorbed by greenhouse gasses.

    The simplest direct observation of the greenhouse effect at work is atmospheric back radiation. Any substance that absorbs thermal radiation will also emit thermal radiation; this is a consequence of Kirchoff’s law. The atmosphere absorbs thermal radiation because of the trace greenhouse gasses, and also emits thermal radiation, in all directions. This thermal emission can be measured from the surface and also from space. The surface of the Earth actually receives in total more radiation from the atmosphere than it does from the Sun.

    Please feel free to watch the following video from the University of Redding for more information: https://youtu.be/PTfnuX-HVk8

    Oh, also, our predictions of atmospheric behavior with regard to CO2 require there to be a warming of the troposphere and a cooling of the stratosphere. This is observed and confirmed by instrumental data.

    I hope that helps you and anyone else with the same questions.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]And for some reason our friendly neighbourhood thread bomber keeps claiming Watt’s is the “source”. Actually Watt’s only reposted the refutation.[/quote]

    He is truly an arrogant fool. The child thinks he is teaching us something new, and of value. 😮

    What a fool believes…

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    The problems with the Null Hypothesis where climate change is concerned, are that 1) we still have not come close to understanding or even knowing all of the drivers of climate and 2) there is nothing unusual about our climate and therefore no reason to think that anything we are seeing is in any way unusual.

    Riockheads Null Hypothesis example above clearly discusses a [i]change[/i], in behavior of the children, something that does not apply to our climate which is acting just as it always has. CO2 is not sugar for the planet.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”][quote]For the benefit of everyone else, I will provide it again here:

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

    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

    As one might note in the previously mentioned comment thread, @amirlach refuses to actually read the paper, makes assertions about it anyway, and when confronted about it, only has Anthony Watts as a source to back him. @amirlach is a troll, and likely a paid one.
    [/quote]

    For the benefit of everyone else, I will provide the refutations for this effusion of a paper here. Again…

    And for some reason our friendly neighbourhood thread bomber keeps claiming Watt’s is the “source”. Actually Watt’s only reposted the refutation.

    And the refutation speaks for itself really. Funny how he ignores that and instead tries to slander Watt’s while reposting the same invalidated effusion of a paper eh?

    [quote]Now, if you and I know all this, do you suppose the peer reviewers did not know it? The measurement error was crucial to the thesis of the Lovejoy paper, yet the reviewers allowed him to get away with saying it was only 0.03 Cº when the oldest of the global datasets, and the one favored by the IPCC, actually publishes, every monthy, combined uncertainties that are ten times larger.

    Let us be blunt. Not least because of those uncertainties, compounded by data tampering all over the world, it is impossible to determine climate sensitivity either to the claimed precision of 0.01 Cº or to 99% confidence from the temperature data.

    For this reason alone, the headline conclusion in the fawning press release about the “99% certainty” that climate sensitivity is similar to the IPCC’s estimate is baseless. The order-of-magnitude error about the measurement uncertainties is enough on its own to doom the paper. There is a lot else wrong with it, but that is another story.
    [/quote]
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/11/lovejoys-99-confidence-vs-measurement-uncertainty/%5B/quote%5D

    As I’ve provided you with a paper in a peer-reviewed journal, which has not been made to retract, I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask for a source on the same level for refutation. A post to a blog, by [b]*anyone*[/b] is not a reputable refutation where this is concerned, however fervently you personally believe it to be. If, in fact, Lovejoy is incorrect, then please provide me with a publication in a peer-reviewed journal which backs that assertion.

    The more obscure the claim, the more obscure the publishing venue.

    Lovejoy: Peer-reviewed journal.
    “Refutation”: Guest post on Anthony Watts’ blog.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @gator

    [quote]2) there is nothing unusual about our climate and therefore no reason to think that anything we are seeing is in any way unusual.[/quote]

    Incorrect. Instrumental data contradicts your assertion and shows an accelerated rate of warming over the past 30 years.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]The most conclusive evidence for the greenhouse effect – and the role CO2 plays – can be seen in data from the surface and from satellites.[/quote]

    Yup!

    [img]http://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Lindzen_Choi2009.jpg[/img]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Incorrect. Instrumental data contradicts your assertion and shows an accelerated rate of warming over the past 30 years.[/quote]

    😆 God you are dumber than I thouight. Was the earth formed three decades ago? 😆

    Look out! We have a New Earther! 😆

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”][quote]The most conclusive evidence for the greenhouse effect – and the role CO2 plays – can be seen in data from the surface and from satellites.[/quote]

    Yup!

    [img]http://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Lindzen_Choi2009.jpg[/img][/quote]

    You quite visibly cite data from Lindzen and Choi (2009). Wouldn’t that be the same Lindzen, who said of that 2009 paper that it contained contained “some stupid mistakes…It was just embarrassing.?”

    The paper from which you draw your data was debunked by:

    Trenberth et al (2010)
    Murphy (2010)
    Chung et al (2010)
    Dessler (2011)

    When the data you cite comes from a flawed set, expect it to look stupid. How about posting a picture of the most recent information, eh? 😉

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”][quote]Incorrect. Instrumental data contradicts your assertion and shows an accelerated rate of warming over the past 30 years.[/quote]

    😆 God you are dumber than I thouight. Was the earth formed three decades ago? 😆

    Look out! We have a New Earther! :lol:[/quote]

    Looks like your reading skills are pretty weak, just like your attempts at jokes, and your writing skills (as evidenced above by quoting you), you will find that I said

    [quote] accelerated rate of warming over the past 30 years[/quote]

    That pretty clearly implies, at least in the English language, that there is previous data, and that there was a change, at least around 30 years ago, which caused an acceleration in the previous rate.

    They must not speak the language very well in your part of the country.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]You quite visibly cite data from Lindzen and Choi (2009). Wouldn’t that be the same Lindzen, who said of that 2009 paper that it contained contained “some stupid mistakes…It was just embarrassing.?”[/quote]

    Nice quote taken out of context. Lindzen stands by the paper which was pweer reviwed and published.

    Your critics are eating crow, and trying to explain away “The Pause”.

    Now back to refuting NV. We are still waiting with bated breath. 😆

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]there was a change, at least around 30 years ago, which caused an acceleration in the previous rate[/quote]

    [i]What[/i] previous rate? The Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

    God you are dumb.

    Still awaiting refutation of NV.

    Enough spam.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”][quote]You quite visibly cite data from Lindzen and Choi (2009). Wouldn’t that be the same Lindzen, who said of that 2009 paper that it contained contained “some stupid mistakes…It was just embarrassing.?”[/quote]

    Nice quote taken out of context. Lindzen stands by the paper which was pweer reviwed and published.

    Your critics are eating crow, and trying to explain away “The Pause”.

    Now back to refuting NV. We are still waiting with bated breath. :lol:[/quote]

    No, Lindzen doesn’t “stand by the paper,” which is why they attempted a repeat and revision of it in 2011, Lindzen and Choi (2011), also referred to as (LC11).

    Lindzen and Choi tried to address some of the criticisms of their 2009 paper in a new version which they submitted in 2011 (LC11), However, LC11 did not address most of the main comments and contradictory results from their 2009 paper.

    Lindzen and Choi first submitted LC11 to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) after adding some data from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES).

    PNAS editors sent LC11 out to four reviewers, who provided comments available here. Two of the reviewers were selected by Lindzen, and two others by the PNAS Board. All four reviewers were unanimous that while the subject matter of the paper was of sufficient general interest to warrant publication in PNAS, the paper was not of suitable quality, and its conclusions were not justified. Only one of the four reviewers felt that the procedures in the paper were adequately described.

    As PNAS Reviewer 1 commented,

    [quote]”The paper is based on…basic untested and fundamentally flawed assumptions about global climate sensitivity”[/quote]

    These remaining flaws in LC11 included:

    Assuming that that correlations observed in the tropics reflect global climate feedbacks.

    Focusing on short-term local tropical changes which might not be representative of equilibrium climate sensitivity, because for example the albedo feedback from melting ice at the poles is obviously not
    reflected in the tropics.

    Inadequately explaining methodology in the paper in sufficient detail to reproduce their analysis and results.

    Failing to explain the many contradictory results using the same or similar data (Trenberth, Chung, Murphy, and Dessler).

    Treating clouds as an internal initiator of climate change, as opposed to treating cloud changes solely as a climate feedback (as most climate scientists do) without any real justification for doing so.

    As a result of these fundamental problems, PNAS rejected the paper, which Lindzen and Choi subsequently got published in a rather obscure Korean journal, the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science.

    On, and if you believe the quote Lindzen was “taken out of context,” you may find the article from where it was taken here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/earth/clouds-effect-on-climate-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html?pagewanted=3&_r=2

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”][quote]there was a change, at least around 30 years ago, which caused an acceleration in the previous rate[/quote]

    [i]What[/i] previous rate? The Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

    God you are dumb.

    Still awaiting refutation of NV.

    Enough spam.[/quote]

    Which rate of warming? The rate of warming we have been observing through instrumental data since somewhere near 1850.

    You’ve also been provided with the paper which rules out natural variance alone as a cause: http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf

    That paper is from a peer-reviewed journal. No refutations are to be found in any peer-reviewed journals. I suggest you read it, and if you can, understand what it says. Don’t be like @amirlach and just quit when you find a term you don’t understand.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    To all: Still waiting for anyone to cite a peer-reviewed publication refuting Lovejoy’s findings. That’s the challenge at the moment for the “But it’s natural variance” crowd, and for the “null hypothesis” crowd, since that’s exactly what Lovejoy statistically tests.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Two of the reviewers were selected by Lindzen, and two others by the PNAS Board. All four reviewers were unanimous that while the subject matter of the paper was of sufficient general interest to warrant publication in PNAS, the paper was not of suitable quality, and its conclusions were not justified. Only one of the four reviewers felt that the procedures in the paper were adequately described.[/quote]

    Gee, where have I heard this before, hmmm…

    [quote]“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”[/quote]
    -Kevin Trenberth

    Gee, isn’t that one of your priests?

    And yes, I read that NYT article shortly after it was published, as I read all of both sides, and think for myself. I also was a climatology student right after the Ice Age Scare, and have followed the science since.

    Still awaiting your refutation of NV. Please do not bore me with any more of your childish beliefs and hero worship.

    Facts. Science. Refutation of NV, Focus…

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Which rate of warming? The rate of warming we have been observing through instrumental data since somewhere near 1850. You’ve also been provided with the paper which rules out natural variance alone as a cause: http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthro.climate.dynamics.13.3.14.pdf That paper is from a peer-reviewed journal. No refutations are to be found in any peer-reviewed journals. I suggest you read it, and if you can, understand what it says. Don’t be like @amirlach and just quit when you find a term you don’t understand.[/quote]

    So the Earth is 165 years old? 😮

    And no, your silly link does not even come close to ruling out NV. If you think it does, please explain, I need a good laugh.

    Enough BS, refute NV or admit you are wrong.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]To all: Still waiting for anyone to cite a peer-reviewed publication refuting Lovejoy’s findings. That’s the challenge at the moment for the “But it’s natural variance” crowd, and for the “null hypothesis” crowd, since that’s exactly what Lovejoy statistically tests.[/quote]

    You mean Lovejoy’s model? Models are oinly useful if you can actually measure the subject.

    Refutation of NV or STFU.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Rockhead could at least give credit for his spam…

    [quote]These remaining flaws in LC11 included: Assuming that that correlations observed in the tropics reflect global climate feedbacks. Focusing on short-term local tropical changes which might not be representative of equilibrium climate sensitivity, because for example the albedo feedback from melting ice at the poles is obviously not reflected in the tropics. Adequately explaining methodology in the paper in sufficient detail to reproduce their analysis and results. Failing to explain the many contradictory results using the same or similar data (Trenberth, Chung, Murphy, and Dessler). Treating clouds as an internal initiator of climate change, as opposed to treating cloud changes solely as a climate feedback (as most climate scientists do) without any real justification for doing so.[/quote]

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=128

    The real deniers hang out at SkS. They deny the MWP and NV, sadz… 😥

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Rockhead could at least give credit for his spam…

    [quote]These remaining flaws in LC11 included: Assuming that that correlations observed in the tropics reflect global climate feedbacks. Focusing on short-term local tropical changes which might not be representative of equilibrium climate sensitivity, because for example the albedo feedback from melting ice at the poles is obviously not reflected in the tropics. Adequately explaining methodology in the paper in sufficient detail to reproduce their analysis and results. Failing to explain the many contradictory results using the same or similar data (Trenberth, Chung, Murphy, and Dessler). Treating clouds as an internal initiator of climate change, as opposed to treating cloud changes solely as a climate feedback (as most climate scientists do) without any real justification for doing so.[/quote]

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=128

    The real deniers hang out at SkS. They deny the MWP and NV, sadz… 😥

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”][quote]Two of the reviewers were selected by Lindzen, and two others by the PNAS Board. All four reviewers were unanimous that while the subject matter of the paper was of sufficient general interest to warrant publication in PNAS, the paper was not of suitable quality, and its conclusions were not justified. Only one of the four reviewers felt that the procedures in the paper were adequately described.[/quote]

    Gee, where have I heard this before, hmmm…

    [quote]“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”[/quote]
    -Kevin Trenberth

    Gee, isn’t that one of your priests?

    And yes, I read that NYT article shortly after it was published, as I read all of both sides, and think for myself. I also was a climatology student right after the Ice Age Scare, and have followed the science since.

    Still awaiting your refutation of NV. Please do not bore me with any more of your childish beliefs and hero worship.

    Facts. Science. Refutation of NV, Focus…[/quote]

    So, out of all of the possible information provided to you, you turn to this, rather than anything which is rooted in facts, numbers, anything else? It’s easy to see why you refuse to advance any arguments for which I ask. It is out of lack of ability. If you’d admit that, I could respect that.

    [quote]I also was a climatology student right after the Ice Age Scare[/quote]

    A former student, and obvious non-graduate using outdated data as an arguing point. No surprise there.

    Once again, I challenge you, find a peer-reviewed article which contradicts Lovejoy. Hint: You can’t. There isn’t one. Your only contradiction comes from a guest post on Anthony Watt’s website, ostensibly by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley. This individual, should it be the same, has been involved of the publication of one paper in the past. If he feels he has a refutation worthy of science for another paper presented in a peer-reviewed journal, the venue for addressing this is another peer-reviewed journal (or the same journal, matters not which.) Instead, Monckton publishes as a guest on a blog with his criticism.

    The more obscure the claim, the more obscure the publishing venue.

    Until either [b]you[/b] tackle what [b]you[/b] feel to be incorrect about that paper, in a proper format for rebuttal of such argument (hint, it’s going to require some mathematics to pull this off), or find a [b]peer-reviewed[/b] source which refutes it.

    Until then, yes, your natural variance only has been addressed. Without a proper refutation, this issue is closed, insofar as I am concerned. I would love to take it up again once you can marshall the required resources for your response to have any validity in refuting a scientific claim.

    Goodbye, and goodnight.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]As I’ve provided you with a paper in a peer-reviewed journal, which has not been made to retract, I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask for a source on the same level for refutation.[/quote] Not been made to retract? Well as alarmist have been very effective at subverting the Pal Review process. And allowing dross like this to pass… You might have me there.

    I mean, even this “Paper” has not yet been to retract.
    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=0A4D38D6BC7CEFBE6E4EC089F462453A.ip-10-40-2-73

    [quote]Now, Richard Tol has tried to replicate their study and it turns out they have done pretty much everything wrong. And they don’t want to release the data so anyone else can check it. Outrageous.

    Read Tol’s letter to the Peter Høj, University of Queensland: “the main finding of the paper is incorrect, invalid and unrepresentative.”
    http://richardtol.blogspot.ca/2013/08/open-letter-to-vice-chancellor-of.html

    It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.
    [/quote]
    So as you can see, NOT being made to retract is hardly any proof of it’s quality. Specially when it is written by a fellow traveler and cLIEmate Comrade.

    And so i’m afraid i’m going to have to ask for a supporting source to the astounding claim that one can measure global mean surface temperature to a precision of less than 1/30 Cº?

    You keep dodging the fact that what Lovejoy claims is simply not possible. Well unless you can prove otherwise. 1/30th of a degree. Go!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]As I’ve provided you with a paper in a peer-reviewed journal, which has not been made to retract, I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask for a source on the same level for refutation.[/quote] Not been made to retract? Well as alarmist have been very effective at subverting the Pal Review process. And allowing dross like this to pass… You might have me there.

    I mean, even this “Paper” has not yet been to retract.
    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=0A4D38D6BC7CEFBE6E4EC089F462453A.ip-10-40-2-73

    [quote]Now, Richard Tol has tried to replicate their study and it turns out they have done pretty much everything wrong. And they don’t want to release the data so anyone else can check it. Outrageous.

    Read Tol’s letter to the Peter Høj, University of Queensland: “the main finding of the paper is incorrect, invalid and unrepresentative.”
    http://richardtol.blogspot.ca/2013/08/open-letter-to-vice-chancellor-of.html

    It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.
    [/quote]
    So as you can see, NOT being made to retract is hardly any proof of it’s quality. Specially when it is written by a fellow traveler and cLIEmate Comrade.

    And so i’m afraid i’m going to have to ask for a supporting source to the astounding claim that one can measure global mean surface temperature to a precision of less than 1/30 Cº?

    You keep dodging the fact that what Lovejoy claims is simply not possible. Well unless you can prove otherwise. 1/30th of a degree. Go!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]To all: Still waiting for anyone to cite a peer-reviewed publication refuting Lovejoy’s findings. That’s the challenge at the moment for the “But it’s natural variance” crowd, and for the “null hypothesis” crowd, since that’s exactly what Lovejoy statistically tests.[/quote]
    And yet he comes up with the same sensitivity figures as the IPCC AR4-5? 😀

    The predictive skill of these “assumptions” is laughable. Seeing as they all failed when compared to experiment.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”][quote]As I’ve provided you with a paper in a peer-reviewed journal, which has not been made to retract, I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask for a source on the same level for refutation.[/quote] Not been made to retract? Well as alarmist have been very effective at subverting the Pal Review process. And allowing dross like this to pass… You might have me there.

    I mean, even this “Paper” has not yet been to retract.
    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=0A4D38D6BC7CEFBE6E4EC089F462453A.ip-10-40-2-73

    [quote]Now, Richard Tol has tried to replicate their study and it turns out they have done pretty much everything wrong. And they don’t want to release the data so anyone else can check it. Outrageous.

    Read Tol’s letter to the Peter Høj, University of Queensland: “the main finding of the paper is incorrect, invalid and unrepresentative.”
    http://richardtol.blogspot.ca/2013/08/open-letter-to-vice-chancellor-of.html

    It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.
    [/quote]
    So as you can see, NOT being made to retract is hardly any proof of it’s quality. Specially when it is written by a fellow traveler and cLIEmate Comrade.

    And so i’m afraid i’m going to have to ask for a supporting source to the astounding claim that one can measure global mean surface temperature to a precision of less than 1/30 Cº?

    You keep dodging the fact that what Lovejoy claims is simply not possible. Well unless you can prove otherwise. 1/30th of a degree. Go![/quote]

    So, again, your argument is to cite someone speaking as a guest on a blog when trying to discredit a peer-reviewed and published paper. This is getting old. The proper venue for addressing a peer-reviewed paper published in a journal is to publish your own paper, in a peer-reviewed journal. Even Denialists have their own peer-reviewed journals, and surely no one would have kept these people out of them. Still, no papers at all. Just blog posts.

    The more obscure the claim, the more obscure the publishing venue.f

    Until you can either provide a detailed mathematical refutation of Lovejoy [b]yourself[/b] or can provide a credible source claiming to do so, the issue is closed. We may revisit it again when you have marshalled the required resources.

    Until then, goodnight, and goodbye.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”][quote]As I’ve provided you with a paper in a peer-reviewed journal, which has not been made to retract, I’m afraid I’m going to have to ask for a source on the same level for refutation.[/quote] Not been made to retract? Well as alarmist have been very effective at subverting the Pal Review process. And allowing dross like this to pass… You might have me there.

    I mean, even this “Paper” has not yet been to retract.
    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=0A4D38D6BC7CEFBE6E4EC089F462453A.ip-10-40-2-73

    [quote]Now, Richard Tol has tried to replicate their study and it turns out they have done pretty much everything wrong. And they don’t want to release the data so anyone else can check it. Outrageous.

    Read Tol’s letter to the Peter Høj, University of Queensland: “the main finding of the paper is incorrect, invalid and unrepresentative.”
    http://richardtol.blogspot.ca/2013/08/open-letter-to-vice-chancellor-of.html

    It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.
    [/quote]
    So as you can see, NOT being made to retract is hardly any proof of it’s quality. Specially when it is written by a fellow traveler and cLIEmate Comrade.

    And so i’m afraid i’m going to have to ask for a supporting source to the astounding claim that one can measure global mean surface temperature to a precision of less than 1/30 Cº?

    You keep dodging the fact that what Lovejoy claims is simply not possible. Well unless you can prove otherwise. 1/30th of a degree. Go![/quote]

    So, again, your argument is to cite someone speaking as a guest on a blog when trying to discredit a peer-reviewed and published paper. This is getting old. The proper venue for addressing a peer-reviewed paper published in a journal is to publish your own paper, in a peer-reviewed journal. Even Denialists have their own peer-reviewed journals, and surely no one would have kept these people out of them. Still, no papers at all. Just blog posts.

    The more obscure the claim, the more obscure the publishing venue.f

    Until you can either provide a detailed mathematical refutation of Lovejoy [b]yourself[/b] or can provide a credible source claiming to do so, the issue is closed. We may revisit it again when you have marshalled the required resources.

    Until then, goodnight, and goodbye.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]So, out of all of the possible information provided to you, you turn to this, rather than anything which is rooted in facts, numbers, anything else?[/quote]

    No, I am rooted in the fact that there is nothjing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate, and the fact that you cannot refute NV.

    Glad you finally found religion.

    [quote]A former student, and obvious non-graduate using outdated data as an arguing point. No surprise there.[/quote]

    Surprise surprise! I actually graduated with a degree in Remote Sensing, however most of my background is in Geology, which is why I am a skeptic. But nice failed attempt at a dig skippy. 😉

    [quote]Once again, I challenge you, find a peer-reviewed article which contradicts Lovejoy.[/quote]

    Lovejoy contradicts Lovejoy. 😆

    His work fails to illustrate the patterns of NV of the Late Holocene, among other things. So sadz you did not know this. 😥

    I am so glad you enjoyed pretending to refute NV, I hope it was good for you.

    Get back to us when you can list all climate forcings, then we can look at quantifying them. That should be loads of fun!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]So, out of all of the possible information provided to you, you turn to this, rather than anything which is rooted in facts, numbers, anything else?[/quote]

    No, I am rooted in the fact that there is nothjing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate, and the fact that you cannot refute NV.

    Glad you finally found religion.

    [quote]A former student, and obvious non-graduate using outdated data as an arguing point. No surprise there.[/quote]

    Surprise surprise! I actually graduated with a degree in Remote Sensing, however most of my background is in Geology, which is why I am a skeptic. But nice failed attempt at a dig skippy. 😉

    [quote]Once again, I challenge you, find a peer-reviewed article which contradicts Lovejoy.[/quote]

    Lovejoy contradicts Lovejoy. 😆

    His work fails to illustrate the patterns of NV of the Late Holocene, among other things. So sadz you did not know this. 😥

    I am so glad you enjoyed pretending to refute NV, I hope it was good for you.

    Get back to us when you can list all climate forcings, then we can look at quantifying them. That should be loads of fun!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”][quote]So, out of all of the possible information provided to you, you turn to this, rather than anything which is rooted in facts, numbers, anything else?[/quote]

    No, I am rooted in the fact that there is nothjing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate, and the fact that you cannot refute NV.

    Glad you finally found religion.

    [quote]A former student, and obvious non-graduate using outdated data as an arguing point. No surprise there.[/quote]

    Surprise surprise! I actually graduated with a degree in Remote Sensing, however most of my background is in Geology, which is why I am a skeptic. But nice failed attempt at a dig skippy. 😉

    [quote]Once again, I challenge you, find a peer-reviewed article which contradicts Lovejoy.[/quote]

    Lovejoy contradicts Lovejoy. 😆

    His work fails to illustrate the patterns of NV of the Late Holocene, among other things. So sadz you did not know this. 😥

    I am so glad you enjoyed pretending to refute NV, I hope it was good for you.

    Get back to us when you can list all climate forcings, then we can look at quantifying them. That should be loads of fun![/quote]
    [quote name=”Gator”][quote]So, out of all of the possible information provided to you, you turn to this, rather than anything which is rooted in facts, numbers, anything else?[/quote]

    No, I am rooted in the fact that there is nothjing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate, and the fact that you cannot refute NV.

    Glad you finally found religion.

    [quote]A former student, and obvious non-graduate using outdated data as an arguing point. No surprise there.[/quote]

    Surprise surprise! I actually graduated with a degree in Remote Sensing, however most of my background is in Geology, which is why I am a skeptic. But nice failed attempt at a dig skippy. 😉

    [quote]Once again, I challenge you, find a peer-reviewed article which contradicts Lovejoy.[/quote]

    Lovejoy contradicts Lovejoy. 😆

    His work fails to illustrate the patterns of NV of the Late Holocene, among other things. So sadz you did not know this. 😥

    I am so glad you enjoyed pretending to refute NV, I hope it was good for you.

    Get back to us when you can list all climate forcings, then we can look at quantifying them. That should be loads of fun![/quote]

    Sorry, I failed to find the citation required to either Lovejoy contradicts Lovejoy, nor any mathematical analysis of our own to conclusively demonstrate that Lovejoy is incorrect.

    So, you can’t understand the mathematics to the extent required to make a formal rebuttal yourself, and you can’t find any other Denialist who can do it for you in a manner which would pass basic peer-review, even in a Denialist publication.

    Continue speaking if you wish, but do not expect a response until I get what I asked for. I’ve given you the evidence you requested. That you religiously deny it while providing nothing conclusive against it does not interest me.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”][quote]So, out of all of the possible information provided to you, you turn to this, rather than anything which is rooted in facts, numbers, anything else?[/quote]

    No, I am rooted in the fact that there is nothjing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate, and the fact that you cannot refute NV.

    Glad you finally found religion.

    [quote]A former student, and obvious non-graduate using outdated data as an arguing point. No surprise there.[/quote]

    Surprise surprise! I actually graduated with a degree in Remote Sensing, however most of my background is in Geology, which is why I am a skeptic. But nice failed attempt at a dig skippy. 😉

    [quote]Once again, I challenge you, find a peer-reviewed article which contradicts Lovejoy.[/quote]

    Lovejoy contradicts Lovejoy. 😆

    His work fails to illustrate the patterns of NV of the Late Holocene, among other things. So sadz you did not know this. 😥

    I am so glad you enjoyed pretending to refute NV, I hope it was good for you.

    Get back to us when you can list all climate forcings, then we can look at quantifying them. That should be loads of fun![/quote]
    [quote name=”Gator”][quote]So, out of all of the possible information provided to you, you turn to this, rather than anything which is rooted in facts, numbers, anything else?[/quote]

    No, I am rooted in the fact that there is nothjing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate, and the fact that you cannot refute NV.

    Glad you finally found religion.

    [quote]A former student, and obvious non-graduate using outdated data as an arguing point. No surprise there.[/quote]

    Surprise surprise! I actually graduated with a degree in Remote Sensing, however most of my background is in Geology, which is why I am a skeptic. But nice failed attempt at a dig skippy. 😉

    [quote]Once again, I challenge you, find a peer-reviewed article which contradicts Lovejoy.[/quote]

    Lovejoy contradicts Lovejoy. 😆

    His work fails to illustrate the patterns of NV of the Late Holocene, among other things. So sadz you did not know this. 😥

    I am so glad you enjoyed pretending to refute NV, I hope it was good for you.

    Get back to us when you can list all climate forcings, then we can look at quantifying them. That should be loads of fun![/quote]

    Sorry, I failed to find the citation required to either Lovejoy contradicts Lovejoy, nor any mathematical analysis of our own to conclusively demonstrate that Lovejoy is incorrect.

    So, you can’t understand the mathematics to the extent required to make a formal rebuttal yourself, and you can’t find any other Denialist who can do it for you in a manner which would pass basic peer-review, even in a Denialist publication.

    Continue speaking if you wish, but do not expect a response until I get what I asked for. I’ve given you the evidence you requested. That you religiously deny it while providing nothing conclusive against it does not interest me.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @gator

    In case you can’t tell, you’re being called upon to provide a [b]demonstration[/b]. You must [b]demonstrate[/b] proof. This is why [b]proofs[/b] are found to end in QED, or “quod erat demonstrandum.”

    it is one thing to claim something. It is an entirely different thing to [b]demonstrate[/b] something.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @gator

    In case you can’t tell, you’re being called upon to provide a [b]demonstration[/b]. You must [b]demonstrate[/b] proof. This is why [b]proofs[/b] are found to end in QED, or “quod erat demonstrandum.”

    it is one thing to claim something. It is an entirely different thing to [b]demonstrate[/b] something.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]So, you can’t understand the mathematics[/quote]

    Ooooh! Please do explain them mathematicans! 😆

    List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them. This should be easy peasy! Lovejoy done figgered it out. 😆

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]You must demonstrate proof.[/quote]

    The Earth has. There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate. Period.

    [quote]Until then, goodnight, and goodbye.[/quote]

    Isn’t it past your bedtime? 😆

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]You must demonstrate proof.[/quote]

    The Earth has. There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate. Period.

    [quote]Until then, goodnight, and goodbye.[/quote]

    Isn’t it past your bedtime? 😆

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @gator

    [quote]Ooooh! Please do explain them mathematicans! 😆 [/quote]

    “Mathematicians” practice the discipline of “mathematics.” 😆

    Additionally, the entirety of your counter argument to your lack of understanding of mathematics:

    [quote]Ooooh! Please do explain them mathematicans! 😆

    List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them. This should be easy peasy! Lovejoy done figgered it out. :lol:[/quote]

    This does not demonstrate any sufficient mathematical knowledge on your part to refute Lovejoy. To demonstrate that would require you to, well, do the mathematics and dispute Lovejoy. Thanks for trying though.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Thanks for trying though.[/quote]

    Sure wish you wouyld try, instead of spamming this site.

    There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @gator

    [quote]There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate.[/quote]

    Then you must have a model which uses existing data, applies physical principles, and demonstrates that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate.

    Please, [b]demonstrate[/b] this.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Then you must have a model which uses existing data, applies physical principles, and demonstrates that there is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate.[/quote]

    I don’t need a model. It has been warmer, it has been colder, it has been wetter, and it has been drier. Instead of reading climate porn, try taking a Geology class or two, you [i]will[/i] learn something, if you [i]want[/i] to learn that is.

    Good night little one!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @gator

    I do wish to thank you for carrying this “discussion” out to the extent to which it came. It is a good example of what happens when one repeatedly confronts Denialists with facts from the existing body of science.

    At the end, the Denialist, when stripped of “ready-made” responses provided by marketing men, when deprived of appeals to Denialist echo chambers and paid industry lobbyists as sources, and asked to confront actual science: they cannot. They won’t admit that they cannot.

    For the benefit of any audience reading, rather than the active participants in the “discussion,” I will quote @gator one again in closing, and leave you with a reminder of what will eventually happen if you choose to press the Denialist past all comfortable forms of denial:

    [quote]I don’t need a model. It has been warmer, it has been colder, it has been wetter, and it has been drier[/quote]

    This is the best a Denialist can offer when asked for a model, which takes existing data, applies the laws of physics and chemistry, and gives us working mechanics for the system in which we find ourselves.

    This sounds a bit like Aristotle’s explanation of all things being composed of, “Earth, Water, Air, and Fire” when one compares it what the actual body of scientific knowledge has come to painstakingly uncover.

    Also, most responses end this way, when the Denialist is out of options:

    [quote] Instead of reading climate porn, try taking a Geology class or two, you will learn something, if you want to learn that is.

    Good night little one![/quote]

    They will often assume that they are in possession of information which you yourself do not have, just because you do not come to the same conclusions which they wish you to. Additionally, you’ll see the knuckle-dragging descent into ad hominem implications (such as you’re not educated enough to understand because you don’t agree with me), ad hominem attacks, and the cute application of dminuative names such as “child” to you in order to have a last-ditch effort at making themselves still somehow feel superior, even in defeat.

    Once again, thank you @gator, for providing all current and future readers with a look into what happens when we refuse to stop confronting Denialists.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]To all: Still waiting for anyone to cite a peer-reviewed publication refuting Lovejoy’s findings. That’s the challenge at the moment for the “But it’s natural variance” crowd, and for the “null hypothesis” crowd, since that’s exactly what Lovejoy statistically tests.[/quote]

    Statistically tests?

    Well if you have one foot in boiling water and the other in iced water, statistically you should be quite comfortable.


    richardscourtney

    April 12, 2014 at 3:08 am

    Viscount Monckton of Brenchley:

    I write to support your critique of the analysis by Lovejoy.

    You rightly point out that measurement error prevents the conclusion of Lovejoy from being correct. I add that here is a more fundamental reason why Lovejoy’s analysis cannot be correct.

    There is no agreed definition of ‘global temperature’.
    Each team which provides values of ‘global temperature’ uses a unique definition of the parameter and frequently alters the definition it uses. Your article alludes to this when it states the variations in locations and numbers of measurement sites, and when it reports the frequent changes to the calculated collations of the measurements.

    These variations and changes could be responsible for ALL the observed variations in global temperature values. Simply, an undefined parameter cannot have a precision. And alteration to its definition alters its determination which alters its value. Hence, the variations in global temperature values could be a result of the variations in the applied definition(s) of global temperature.

    Therefore, any claim to have determined the precision of global temperature values is spurious.

    A more full explanation of these issues is in Appendix B of this item
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]To all: Still waiting for anyone to cite a peer-reviewed publication refuting Lovejoy’s findings. That’s the challenge at the moment for the “But it’s natural variance” crowd, and for the “null hypothesis” crowd, since that’s exactly what Lovejoy statistically tests.[/quote]

    Statistically tests?

    Well if you have one foot in boiling water and the other in iced water, statistically you should be quite comfortable.


    richardscourtney

    April 12, 2014 at 3:08 am

    Viscount Monckton of Brenchley:

    I write to support your critique of the analysis by Lovejoy.

    You rightly point out that measurement error prevents the conclusion of Lovejoy from being correct. I add that here is a more fundamental reason why Lovejoy’s analysis cannot be correct.

    There is no agreed definition of ‘global temperature’.
    Each team which provides values of ‘global temperature’ uses a unique definition of the parameter and frequently alters the definition it uses. Your article alludes to this when it states the variations in locations and numbers of measurement sites, and when it reports the frequent changes to the calculated collations of the measurements.

    These variations and changes could be responsible for ALL the observed variations in global temperature values. Simply, an undefined parameter cannot have a precision. And alteration to its definition alters its determination which alters its value. Hence, the variations in global temperature values could be a result of the variations in the applied definition(s) of global temperature.

    Therefore, any claim to have determined the precision of global temperature values is spurious.

    A more full explanation of these issues is in Appendix B of this item
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”][quote name=”ihuntrocks”]To all: Still waiting for anyone to cite a peer-reviewed publication refuting Lovejoy’s findings. That’s the challenge at the moment for the “But it’s natural variance” crowd, and for the “null hypothesis” crowd, since that’s exactly what Lovejoy statistically tests.[/quote]

    Statistically tests?

    Well if you have one foot in boiling water and the other in iced water, statistically you should be quite comfortable.


    richardscourtney

    April 12, 2014 at 3:08 am

    Viscount Monckton of Brenchley:

    I write to support your critique of the analysis by Lovejoy.

    You rightly point out that measurement error prevents the conclusion of Lovejoy from being correct. I add that here is a more fundamental reason why Lovejoy’s analysis cannot be correct.

    There is no agreed definition of ‘global temperature’.
    Each team which provides values of ‘global temperature’ uses a unique definition of the parameter and frequently alters the definition it uses. Your article alludes to this when it states the variations in locations and numbers of measurement sites, and when it reports the frequent changes to the calculated collations of the measurements.

    These variations and changes could be responsible for ALL the observed variations in global temperature values. Simply, an undefined parameter cannot have a precision. And alteration to its definition alters its determination which alters its value. Hence, the variations in global temperature values could be a result of the variations in the applied definition(s) of global temperature.

    Therefore, any claim to have determined the precision of global temperature values is spurious.

    A more full explanation of these issues is in Appendix B of this item
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm “[/quote]

    [quote]Richard S. Courtney is the Technical Editor for CoalTrans International, a journal of the international coal trading industry.[/quote] http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-s-courtney

    Plus, there’s no mathematical refutation, and yet still no peer-reviewed cited sources. @armilach You are possibly the worst copy/paste troll ever.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”][quote name=”ihuntrocks”]To all: Still waiting for anyone to cite a peer-reviewed publication refuting Lovejoy’s findings. That’s the challenge at the moment for the “But it’s natural variance” crowd, and for the “null hypothesis” crowd, since that’s exactly what Lovejoy statistically tests.[/quote]

    Statistically tests?

    Well if you have one foot in boiling water and the other in iced water, statistically you should be quite comfortable.


    richardscourtney

    April 12, 2014 at 3:08 am

    Viscount Monckton of Brenchley:

    I write to support your critique of the analysis by Lovejoy.

    You rightly point out that measurement error prevents the conclusion of Lovejoy from being correct. I add that here is a more fundamental reason why Lovejoy’s analysis cannot be correct.

    There is no agreed definition of ‘global temperature’.
    Each team which provides values of ‘global temperature’ uses a unique definition of the parameter and frequently alters the definition it uses. Your article alludes to this when it states the variations in locations and numbers of measurement sites, and when it reports the frequent changes to the calculated collations of the measurements.

    These variations and changes could be responsible for ALL the observed variations in global temperature values. Simply, an undefined parameter cannot have a precision. And alteration to its definition alters its determination which alters its value. Hence, the variations in global temperature values could be a result of the variations in the applied definition(s) of global temperature.

    Therefore, any claim to have determined the precision of global temperature values is spurious.

    A more full explanation of these issues is in Appendix B of this item
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm “[/quote]

    [quote]Richard S. Courtney is the Technical Editor for CoalTrans International, a journal of the international coal trading industry.[/quote] http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-s-courtney

    Plus, there’s no mathematical refutation, and yet still no peer-reviewed cited sources. @armilach You are possibly the worst copy/paste troll ever.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    One has to ask, how well this “model” can predict actual climate? As asked by a Statistician no less.
    [quote] His model, which is frankly absurd, is to say the change in global temperatures is a straight linear combination of the change in “anthropogenic contributions” to temperature plus the change in “natural variability” of temperature plus the change in “measurement error” of temperature. (Hilariously, he claims measurement error is of the order +/- 0.03 degrees Celsius; yes, three-hundredths of a degree: I despair, I despair.)

    His conclusion is to “reject”, at the gosh-oh-gee level of 99.9%, that the change of “anthropogenic contributions” to temperature is 0.

    Can you see it? The gross error, I mean. His model assumes the changes in “anthropogenic contributions” to temperature and then he had to supply those changes via the data he used (fossil fuel use was implanted as a proxy for actual temperature change; I weep, I weep). Was there thus any chance of rejecting the data he added as “non-significant”?

    Is there any proof that his model is a useful representation of the actual atmosphere? None at all. But, hey, I may be wrong. I therefore challenge Lovejoy to use his model to predict future temperatures. If it’s any good, it will be able to skillfully do so. I’m willing to bet good money it can’t.
    [/quote]
    http://wmbriggs.com/post/8061/

    Yes it has not been “made to retract”, yet. Nor has it been tested by observations.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]This is the best a Denialist can offer when asked for a model, which takes existing data, applies the laws of physics and chemistry, and gives us working mechanics for the system in which we find ourselves.[/quote]

    OMG! This fool prefers fantasy to reality, but really, don’t most kids?

    Then rockhead devolves even further, refusing to admit NV still explains the world around us.

    Talk about a denier. Sadz. 😥

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]This is the best a Denialist can offer when asked for a model, which takes existing data, applies the laws of physics and chemistry, and gives us working mechanics for the system in which we find ourselves.[/quote]

    OMG! This fool prefers fantasy to reality, but really, don’t most kids?

    Then rockhead devolves even further, refusing to admit NV still explains the world around us.

    Talk about a denier. Sadz. 😥

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”]One has to ask, how well this “model” can predict actual climate? As asked by a Statistician no less.
    [quote] His model, which is frankly absurd, is to say the change in global temperatures is a straight linear combination of the change in “anthropogenic contributions” to temperature plus the change in “natural variability” of temperature plus the change in “measurement error” of temperature. (Hilariously, he claims measurement error is of the order +/- 0.03 degrees Celsius; yes, three-hundredths of a degree: I despair, I despair.)

    His conclusion is to “reject”, at the gosh-oh-gee level of 99.9%, that the change of “anthropogenic contributions” to temperature is 0.

    Can you see it? The gross error, I mean. His model assumes the changes in “anthropogenic contributions” to temperature and then he had to supply those changes via the data he used (fossil fuel use was implanted as a proxy for actual temperature change; I weep, I weep). Was there thus any chance of rejecting the data he added as “non-significant”?

    Is there any proof that his model is a useful representation of the actual atmosphere? None at all. But, hey, I may be wrong. I therefore challenge Lovejoy to use his model to predict future temperatures. If it’s any good, it will be able to skillfully do so. I’m willing to bet good money it can’t.
    [/quote]
    http://wmbriggs.com/post/8061/

    Yes it has not been “made to retract”, yet. Nor has it been tested by observations.[/quote]

    So, as a source, once again, we have a blog post. Not a peer-reviewed journal article. That would be what is required to overturn another peer-reviewed journal article. You cannot overturn a peer-reviewed journal article with a blog post, no matter how many blog posts you may find.

    Once again, the more obscure the claim, the more obscure the publishing venue.

    Peer-reviewed journals vs. blog posts.

    Note: I’m also willing to accept [b]your[/b] personal, worked out examples of where Lovejoy is incorrect mathematically in his assertions. I allow you the opportunity to overturn it if you have the mathematics required to do so.

    Until then, blogs are not peer-reviewed journals.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Some have requested, repeatedly, quantification of climate forcings, you can find a good example here if you’re interested:[/quote]

    Instead of repeatedly spamming this site with your oversold links, why don’t you list all forcings and then quantify them.

    Easy peasy! Right?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]Some have requested, repeatedly, quantification of climate forcings, you can find a good example here if you’re interested: http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/what-are-climate-forcings/54094%5B/quote%5D
    “Using current global climate simulations, NASA GISS shows in the image below the changes in effectiveness of the main radiative forcings since 1880.”

    Which Global Climate “simulations”? Seeing as all of them have failed when compared to observation. 😀

    And even the IPCC admitted the IPCC admitted that the level of scientific understanding (LSU) of 7 of 11 known climate factors
    was “very low” and that for another the LSU was “low”.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]Some have requested, repeatedly, quantification of climate forcings, you can find a good example here if you’re interested: http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/what-are-climate-forcings/54094%5B/quote%5D
    “Using current global climate simulations, NASA GISS shows in the image below the changes in effectiveness of the main radiative forcings since 1880.”

    Which Global Climate “simulations”? Seeing as all of them have failed when compared to observation. 😀

    And even the IPCC admitted the IPCC admitted that the level of scientific understanding (LSU) of 7 of 11 known climate factors
    was “very low” and that for another the LSU was “low”.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”][quote name=”amirlach”]One has to ask, how well this “model” can predict actual climate? As asked by a Statistician no less.
    [quote] His model, which is frankly absurd, is to say the change in global temperatures is a straight linear combination of the change in “anthropogenic contributions” to temperature plus the change in “natural variability” of temperature plus the change in “measurement error” of temperature. (Hilariously, he claims measurement error is of the order +/- 0.03 degrees Celsius; yes, three-hundredths of a degree: I despair, I despair.)

    His conclusion is to “reject”, at the gosh-oh-gee level of 99.9%, that the change of “anthropogenic contributions” to temperature is 0.

    Can you see it? The gross error, I mean. His model assumes the changes in “anthropogenic contributions” to temperature and then he had to supply those changes via the data he used (fossil fuel use was implanted as a proxy for actual temperature change; I weep, I weep). Was there thus any chance of rejecting the data he added as “non-significant”?

    Is there any proof that his model is a useful representation of the actual atmosphere? None at all. But, hey, I may be wrong. I therefore challenge Lovejoy to use his model to predict future temperatures. If it’s any good, it will be able to skillfully do so. I’m willing to bet good money it can’t.
    [/quote]
    http://wmbriggs.com/post/8061/

    Yes it has not been “made to retract”, yet. Nor has it been tested by observations.[/quote]

    So, as a source, once again, we have a blog post. Not a peer-reviewed journal article. That would be what is required to overturn another peer-reviewed journal article. You cannot overturn a peer-reviewed journal article with a blog post, no matter how many blog posts you may find.

    Once again, the more obscure the claim, the more obscure the publishing venue.

    Peer-reviewed journals vs. blog posts.

    Note: I’m also willing to accept [b]your[/b] personal, worked out examples of where Lovejoy is incorrect mathematically in his assertions. I allow you the opportunity to overturn it if you have the mathematics required to do so.

    Until then, blogs are not peer-reviewed journals.[/quote]

    And untested models are still un-validated and prove nothing.

    Predictive skill or more correctly lack can overturn it.

    It is only as valid as it is predictive.

    I suppose we will have to wait until it can be compared to experiment eh?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”][quote name=”amirlach”]One has to ask, how well this “model” can predict actual climate? As asked by a Statistician no less.
    [quote] His model, which is frankly absurd, is to say the change in global temperatures is a straight linear combination of the change in “anthropogenic contributions” to temperature plus the change in “natural variability” of temperature plus the change in “measurement error” of temperature. (Hilariously, he claims measurement error is of the order +/- 0.03 degrees Celsius; yes, three-hundredths of a degree: I despair, I despair.)

    His conclusion is to “reject”, at the gosh-oh-gee level of 99.9%, that the change of “anthropogenic contributions” to temperature is 0.

    Can you see it? The gross error, I mean. His model assumes the changes in “anthropogenic contributions” to temperature and then he had to supply those changes via the data he used (fossil fuel use was implanted as a proxy for actual temperature change; I weep, I weep). Was there thus any chance of rejecting the data he added as “non-significant”?

    Is there any proof that his model is a useful representation of the actual atmosphere? None at all. But, hey, I may be wrong. I therefore challenge Lovejoy to use his model to predict future temperatures. If it’s any good, it will be able to skillfully do so. I’m willing to bet good money it can’t.
    [/quote]
    http://wmbriggs.com/post/8061/

    Yes it has not been “made to retract”, yet. Nor has it been tested by observations.[/quote]

    So, as a source, once again, we have a blog post. Not a peer-reviewed journal article. That would be what is required to overturn another peer-reviewed journal article. You cannot overturn a peer-reviewed journal article with a blog post, no matter how many blog posts you may find.

    Once again, the more obscure the claim, the more obscure the publishing venue.

    Peer-reviewed journals vs. blog posts.

    Note: I’m also willing to accept [b]your[/b] personal, worked out examples of where Lovejoy is incorrect mathematically in his assertions. I allow you the opportunity to overturn it if you have the mathematics required to do so.

    Until then, blogs are not peer-reviewed journals.[/quote]

    And untested models are still un-validated and prove nothing.

    Predictive skill or more correctly lack can overturn it.

    It is only as valid as it is predictive.

    I suppose we will have to wait until it can be compared to experiment eh?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”][quote]This is the best a Denialist can offer when asked for a model, which takes existing data, applies the laws of physics and chemistry, and gives us working mechanics for the system in which we find ourselves.[/quote]

    OMG! This fool prefers fantasy to reality, but really, don’t most kids?

    Then rockhead devolves even further, refusing to admit NV still explains the world around us.

    Talk about a denier. Sadz. :cry:[/quote]

    @gator, with his repeated insistence, that, “natural variance is the cause” (though he chooses to word this differently via the proxy phrasing of asking that one disprove natural variance), is making a scientifically testable claim, namely, that natural variance explains all of the outcomes we have seen, and that this should be verifiable by an application of the laws of physics and chemistry to our observed data set. He doesn’t understand what a model is in science, but it’s not something you glue together for a science fair, but in this case, a model of physical principles applied to observed data.

    @gator and other Denialists cannot show us, via any computational method that their assertion that only natural variance factors explain the observed trends, and conform to a physical model.

    Now, if you *do* attempt to apply the observed data and established principles of physics and chemistry, you arrive with a computational model which does not in any way represent the climate which we have now. This has been done repeatedly by climate scientists. In fact, the reason we research climate change is because the “natural variance” model does not describe the world in which we live.

    However, actual climate science, which does take the observed data, does apply physical and chemical laws, and does describe what we observe now. It also is backward-predictive of past events (using the same mechanics of physics and chemistry and feeding in a known data set from the past). It has also been forward-predictive in determining the climatic reaction to volcanic eruptions (when they happen), including cooling and re-warming information.

    The only missing piece of information on the Denialist side, the one which would cause all of science, by force of correctness, to change that stance on human-induced climate change, is a demonstration, based on data and physics, which demonstrates that only natural variation can account for what we see, and that man is not changing the climate.

    @gator Cannot produce that model, because it cannot be produced — natural variance is not the answer and we already know this. Well, except @gator, who has proven time and time again a firmly held belief that a model isn’t required, and can’t seem to understand why one would be required, no matter how much anyone may try to explain to the contrary.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”][quote]Some have requested, repeatedly, quantification of climate forcings, you can find a good example here if you’re interested:[/quote]

    Instead of repeatedly spamming this site with your oversold links, why don’t you list all forcings and then quantify them.

    Easy peasy! Right?[/quote]

    What’s wrong, is AccuWeather not on your “approved reading” list?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]@gator Cannot produce that model…[/quote]

    Models are fantasy. I give reality, and I get spammed, again.

    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 rockhead. NV can explain it all.

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

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]@gator Cannot produce that model…[/quote]

    Models are fantasy. I give reality, and I get spammed, again.

    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 rockhead. NV can explain it all.

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

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]What’s wrong, is AccuWeather not on your “approved reading” list?[/quote]

    What’s wrong, are you unable to list all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

    Still hiding behind a link little one? 😆

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]What’s wrong, is AccuWeather not on your “approved reading” list?[/quote]

    What’s wrong, are you unable to list all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

    Still hiding behind a link little one? 😆

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]What’s wrong, is AccuWeather not on your “approved reading” list?[/quote]

    What’s wrong, are you unable to list all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

    Still hiding behind a link little one? 😆

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”][quote name=”ihuntrocks”][quote name=”amirlach”]One has to ask, how well this “model” can predict actual climate? As asked by a Statistician no less.
    [quote] His model, which is frankly absurd, is to say the change in global temperatures is a straight linear combination of the change in “anthropogenic contributions” to temperature plus the change in “natural variability” of temperature plus the change in “measurement error” of temperature. (Hilariously, he claims measurement error is of the order +/- 0.03 degrees Celsius; yes, three-hundredths of a degree: I despair, I despair.)

    His conclusion is to “reject”, at the gosh-oh-gee level of 99.9%, that the change of “anthropogenic contributions” to temperature is 0.

    Can you see it? The gross error, I mean. His model assumes the changes in “anthropogenic contributions” to temperature and then he had to supply those changes via the data he used (fossil fuel use was implanted as a proxy for actual temperature change; I weep, I weep). Was there thus any chance of rejecting the data he added as “non-significant”?

    Is there any proof that his model is a useful representation of the actual atmosphere? None at all. But, hey, I may be wrong. I therefore challenge Lovejoy to use his model to predict future temperatures. If it’s any good, it will be able to skillfully do so. I’m willing to bet good money it can’t.
    [/quote]
    http://wmbriggs.com/post/8061/

    Yes it has not been “made to retract”, yet. Nor has it been tested by observations.[/quote]

    So, as a source, once again, we have a blog post. Not a peer-reviewed journal article. That would be what is required to overturn another peer-reviewed journal article. You cannot overturn a peer-reviewed journal article with a blog post, no matter how many blog posts you may find.

    Once again, the more obscure the claim, the more obscure the publishing venue.

    Peer-reviewed journals vs. blog posts.

    Note: I’m also willing to accept [b]your[/b] personal, worked out examples of where Lovejoy is incorrect mathematically in his assertions. I allow you the opportunity to overturn it if you have the mathematics required to do so.

    Until then, blogs are not peer-reviewed journals.[/quote]

    And untested models are still un-validated and prove nothing.

    Predictive skill or more correctly lack can overturn it.

    It is only as valid as it is predictive.

    I suppose we will have to wait until it can be compared to experiment eh?[/quote]

    No. Our models have repeatedly been shown to be backward-predictive (taking a historical data set, applying known physical principles, and arriving at an already known conclusion about the past climate to verify the physics of the models).

    Our models are also forward predictive when given information on a volcanic eruption, they accurately predict anticipated results (such as cooling and re-warming periods). We have this information before the event finishes taking place, and our answers do come out correctly.

    Are you voluntarily or involuntarily ignorant of these basic aspects of climate modeling?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”][quote name=”ihuntrocks”][quote name=”amirlach”]One has to ask, how well this “model” can predict actual climate? As asked by a Statistician no less.
    [quote] His model, which is frankly absurd, is to say the change in global temperatures is a straight linear combination of the change in “anthropogenic contributions” to temperature plus the change in “natural variability” of temperature plus the change in “measurement error” of temperature. (Hilariously, he claims measurement error is of the order +/- 0.03 degrees Celsius; yes, three-hundredths of a degree: I despair, I despair.)

    His conclusion is to “reject”, at the gosh-oh-gee level of 99.9%, that the change of “anthropogenic contributions” to temperature is 0.

    Can you see it? The gross error, I mean. His model assumes the changes in “anthropogenic contributions” to temperature and then he had to supply those changes via the data he used (fossil fuel use was implanted as a proxy for actual temperature change; I weep, I weep). Was there thus any chance of rejecting the data he added as “non-significant”?

    Is there any proof that his model is a useful representation of the actual atmosphere? None at all. But, hey, I may be wrong. I therefore challenge Lovejoy to use his model to predict future temperatures. If it’s any good, it will be able to skillfully do so. I’m willing to bet good money it can’t.
    [/quote]
    http://wmbriggs.com/post/8061/

    Yes it has not been “made to retract”, yet. Nor has it been tested by observations.[/quote]

    So, as a source, once again, we have a blog post. Not a peer-reviewed journal article. That would be what is required to overturn another peer-reviewed journal article. You cannot overturn a peer-reviewed journal article with a blog post, no matter how many blog posts you may find.

    Once again, the more obscure the claim, the more obscure the publishing venue.

    Peer-reviewed journals vs. blog posts.

    Note: I’m also willing to accept [b]your[/b] personal, worked out examples of where Lovejoy is incorrect mathematically in his assertions. I allow you the opportunity to overturn it if you have the mathematics required to do so.

    Until then, blogs are not peer-reviewed journals.[/quote]

    And untested models are still un-validated and prove nothing.

    Predictive skill or more correctly lack can overturn it.

    It is only as valid as it is predictive.

    I suppose we will have to wait until it can be compared to experiment eh?[/quote]

    No. Our models have repeatedly been shown to be backward-predictive (taking a historical data set, applying known physical principles, and arriving at an already known conclusion about the past climate to verify the physics of the models).

    Our models are also forward predictive when given information on a volcanic eruption, they accurately predict anticipated results (such as cooling and re-warming periods). We have this information before the event finishes taking place, and our answers do come out correctly.

    Are you voluntarily or involuntarily ignorant of these basic aspects of climate modeling?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]Plus, there’s no mathematical refutation, and yet still no peer-reviewed cited sources. @armilach You are possibly the worst copy/paste troll ever.[/quote]

    It really mathematically refutes itself. It uses fossil fuel use was implanted as a proxy for actual temperature change…

    Oh and “desmog? Likely even worse than your NAZI dress up serial identity thief.

    Desmog is funded by a convicted internet fraudster.
    [quote]DeSmog does at least get its funding from only the highest moral authority, right? Well, wrong again. DeSmog was founded with $300,000 from its chief benefactor John Lefebvre. Lefebvre is a convicted Internet fraudster currently out on bail awaiting conviction after pleading guilty in the NETeller multi-million dollar online pay system scam. Of its chief benefactor, DeSmog’s supporters are only told: “The DeSmogBlog team is especially grateful to our benefactor John Lefebvre, a lawyer, internet entrepreneur and past-president of NETeller, a firm that has been providing secure online transactions since 1999. John has been outspoken, uncompromising and courageous in challenging those who would muddy the climate change debate, and he has enabled and inspired the same standard on the blog.”

    It was those same “secure online transactions” that led to Lefebvre becoming a convicted felon now facing up to five years in the slammer. Now why should DeSmog want to “hide” such key information about its “high-profile source of funding”? Much as Lefebvre’s “standards” didn’t run to US ‘legal requirements’, we might feel DeSmog’s “standards” don’t run to giving a voice to dissent in democratic debate. [/quote]

    You seem to like to copy/paste from these smear sites. Why is it that when I search for guys like Jagadish Shukla in your smear sites. All that comes up is a smear about GMU being funded by the Koch Brothers? But nothing on Shukla’s grant scandal’s? Couldn’t be a bias against skeptics? Could it?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @amirlach

    [quote]Desmog is funded by a convicted internet fraudster.
    DeSmog does at least get its funding from only the highest moral authority, right? Well, wrong again. DeSmog was founded with $300,000 from its chief benefactor John Lefebvre. Lefebvre is a convicted Internet fraudster currently out on bail awaiting conviction after pleading guilty in the NETeller multi-million dollar online pay system scam. Of its chief benefactor, DeSmog’s supporters are only told: “The DeSmogBlog team is especially grateful to our benefactor John Lefebvre, a lawyer, internet entrepreneur and past-president of NETeller, a firm that has been providing secure online transactions since 1999. John has been outspoken, uncompromising and courageous in challenging those who would muddy the climate change debate, and he has enabled and inspired the same standard on the blog.”

    It was those same “secure online transactions” that led to Lefebvre becoming a convicted felon now facing up to five years in the slammer. Now why should DeSmog want to “hide” such key information about its “high-profile source of funding”? Much as Lefebvre’s “standards” didn’t run to US ‘legal requirements’, we might feel DeSmog’s “standards” don’t run to giving a voice to dissent in democratic debate. [/quote]

    I noticed something here, which I also noticed about your post regarding Sourcewatch.org

    You use the “quote” function, but in neither circumstance do you cite from where you are quoting. What’s with the deliberate source hiding? Let’s see the links for both of those.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @amirlach

    [quote]You seem to like to copy/paste from these smear sites. Why is it that when I search for guys like Jagadish Shukla in your smear sites. All that comes up is a smear about GMU being funded by the Koch Brothers? But nothing on Shukla’s grant scandal’s? Couldn’t be a bias against skeptics? Could it?[/quote]

    I also cite things from peer-reviewed journals, internationally accredited science organizations, and the international organizations most directly responsible for studying the planet on which we live. Don’t forget those too.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @amirlach

    [quote]You seem to like to copy/paste from these smear sites. Why is it that when I search for guys like Jagadish Shukla in your smear sites. All that comes up is a smear about GMU being funded by the Koch Brothers? But nothing on Shukla’s grant scandal’s? Couldn’t be a bias against skeptics? Could it?[/quote]

    I also cite things from peer-reviewed journals, internationally accredited science organizations, and the international organizations most directly responsible for studying the planet on which we live. Don’t forget those too.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @amirlach

    [quote] It really mathematically refutes itself. It uses fossil fuel use was implanted as a proxy for actual temperature change…[/quote]

    Then I’m certain you won’t mind providing the mathematics used in the paper which utilize this, and also providing corrected mathematics to show why the assertions are not valid/true.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @amirlach

    [quote] It really mathematically refutes itself. It uses fossil fuel use was implanted as a proxy for actual temperature change…[/quote]

    Then I’m certain you won’t mind providing the mathematics used in the paper which utilize this, and also providing corrected mathematics to show why the assertions are not valid/true.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Then I’m certain you won’t mind providing the mathematics used in the paper which utilize this, and also providing corrected mathematics to show why the assertions are not valid/true.[/quote]

    This from the child who refuses to list all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

    Hypocritical little fool.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Then I’m certain you won’t mind providing the mathematics used in the paper which utilize this, and also providing corrected mathematics to show why the assertions are not valid/true.[/quote]

    This from the child who refuses to list all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

    Hypocritical little fool.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @gator

    [quote]Still hiding behind a link little one? :lol:[/quote]

    I suppose. Puts me in direct opposition to you. who are starkly naked in your arguments.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Puts me in direct opposition to you. who are starkly naked in your arguments.[/quote]

    RFeally? Then why can you not list all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

    Emperor rockhead, you have no clothers.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”][quote]Then I’m certain you won’t mind providing the mathematics used in the paper which utilize this, and also providing corrected mathematics to show why the assertions are not valid/true.[/quote]

    This from the child who refuses to list all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

    Hypocritical little fool.[/quote]

    I’m sorry, @gator, but I once again failed to see any argument which makes up for why you cannot refute Lovejoy’s paper, and why you can’t find any peer-reviewed sources which do so.

    Whether I provide what you ask for, or if I have yet to do so, doesn’t not excuse you from having to back your own assertions.

    Papers, please.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    You obviously don’t get that Lovejoy oversold his goods, and his work proved only that he has a bias.

    List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

    Are you stupid? Can’t you find this info?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”]You obviously don’t get that Lovejoy oversold his goods, and his work proved only that he has a bias.

    List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

    Are you stupid? Can’t you find this info?[/quote]

    Okay, I’ll make no more references to Lovejoy, as it apparent by now to anyone reading that you cannot do what you have been asked to do.

    Now, to satisfy your continued question:

    This information is found:

    Here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051607/full

    Here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051607/full#grl29172-bib-0007

    For your reading pleasure, @gator, so that you may have an answer to your question, and along with it, possibly an understanding of what you are discussing. Links are also provided here not just for your benefit, but for the benefit of others, so that they may read for themselves, and so they know upon which sources I have called.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @gator

    Additionally, I provided links because the required quantification for which you have asked exceeds the limits of a single post…multiple posts actually.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Now, to satisfy your continued question: This information is found: Here: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051607/full Here: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051607/full#grl29172-bib-0007[/quote]

    Please help me, because I have never found in the text of these papers anything other than modeled assumptions.

    Point out [i]exactly[/i] where in the text it lists all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

    Or are you hiding behind links again?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]I provided links because the required quantification for which you have asked exceeds the limits of a single post[/quote]

    😆

    What a fool believes.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]I provided links because the required quantification for which you have asked exceeds the limits of a single post[/quote]

    After 50 posts, you could have maybe at least [i]tried[/i], instead of hiding behind links, and failing to answer the question repeatedly.

    So still waiting.

    List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

    Care to weasel out again? 😆

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”][quote]Now, to satisfy your continued question: This information is found: Here: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051607/full Here: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051607/full#grl29172-bib-0007[/quote]

    Please help me, because I have never found in the text of these papers anything other than modeled assumptions.

    Point out [i]exactly[/i] where in the text it lists all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.[/quote]

    At this point, @gator, your personal reading comprehension and source search abilities are not my personal problem, nor are the problem of anyone else who can go there and read for themselves. You’ve received what you have been taught to ask of others. That you cannot parse and understand the material once given, and that there is no section in any Denialist handbook which you can consult which deals with this information, is irrelevant to the correctly provided information.

    Also, your misunderstanding of modeling in climate science is painful.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]At this point, @gator, your personal reading comprehension and source search abilities are not my personal problem[/quote]

    Your refusal to speak for yourself, and your inability to show you understand forcings is your problem. You are gullible, because you do not know how to think for yourself.

    Care to try again? Or maybe for the first time? 😆

    List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

    More continued refusal to answer in 3,2,1…

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”][quote]At this point, @gator, your personal reading comprehension and source search abilities are not my personal problem[/quote]

    Your refusal to speak for yourself, and your inability to show you understand forcings is your problem. You are gullible, because you do not know how to think for yourself.

    Care to try again? Or maybe for the first time? 😆

    List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

    More continued refusal to answer in 3,2,1…[/quote]

    Bad marketing troll, bad! Shoo! Shoo! How much does Steven pay you?

    https://twitter.com/Stevencap

    No one reading is fooled by you.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Also, your misunderstanding of modeling in climate science is painful.[/quote]

    Laughable. You actually believe the models are able to accurately predict that which they cannot measure.

    Or would you care to prove me wrong and list all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

    More obfuscation in 3, 2, ….

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Bad marketing troll, bad! Shoo! Shoo! How much does Steven pay you? https://twitter.com/Stevencap No one reading is fooled by you.[/quote]

    So…

    #1- You cannot list all climate forcings, cannot order them from most to least effective, and cannot then quantify them.

    #2- You cannot provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

    And lastly, you cannot disprove the 4,500,000,000 year precedent.

    Impressive!

    Call it a win little champ! 😆

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”][quote]Also, your misunderstanding of modeling in climate science is painful.[/quote]

    Laughable. You actually believe the models are able to accurately predict that which they cannot measure.

    Or would you care to prove me wrong and list all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

    More obfuscation in 3, 2, ….[/quote]

    @gator “There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from existing data.”

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Bad marketing troll, bad! Shoo! Shoo! How much does Steven pay you? twitter.com/Stevencap No one reading is fooled by you.[/quote]

    Just the refusal and obfuscation I predicted. Oh wow! Models of idiots work fine!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]”There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from existing data.”[/quote]

    What data?All you provide are oversold links that do not perform as advertised.

    #1- You cannot list all climate forcings, cannot order them from most to least effective, and cannot then quantify them.

    #2- You cannot provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

    And lastly, you cannot disprove the 4,500,000,000 year precedent.

    More refusals and obfuscations coming…

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @gator

    [quote]Call it a win little champ! :lol:[/quote]

    it was already called a win when you were given a peer-reviewed paper demonstrating that what you assert cannot be true, and once you began repeatedly failing to provide any sort of peer-reviewed literature to state anything to the contrary. The rest of this, has just been me reveling in my victory really. I should be ashamed, but you’ve made it so much fun. Trying to have the last word, even when you have no argument, and lost all hope of having one long ago. All the little nicknames for me. I just couldn’t let it go. But I am now. Goodbye.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]it was already called a win when you were given a peer-reviewed paper demonstrating that what you assert cannot be true,[/quote]

    You cannot accurately model that which you cannot measure, and nobody has yet to measure all forcings, not even close.

    Sorry but Lovejoy et al have never refuted NV. Dream on little guy. Then ask yourself in the morning why you deny science.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]should be ashamed, but you’ve made it so much fun.[/quote]

    Well, I guess we’re all just lucky that you enjoy humiliation, and being wrong.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    Well, I guess I’ll actually leave with a mathematics joke (not to be confused with joke mathematics, which is behind Denialism):

    “What’s @gator’s view of reality multiplied by [i]i[/i]?” Real.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]Are you voluntarily or involuntarily ignorant of these basic aspects of climate modeling?[/quote] Models are tools not proof. They might be interesting if they produce skillful results that match real world observations. Yours has yet to be tested in this manner. [quote]Our models are also forward predictive when given information on a volcanic eruption, they accurately predict anticipated results (such as cooling and re-warming periods). We have this information before the event finishes taking place, and our answers do come out correctly. [/quote] Actually I was referring to the Lovejoy Model specifically.

    Can you link to where it has made skillful predictions? Forwards or backwards? With supporting data independent of itself.

    Now they are “our” models? 😮

    [quote]No. Our models have repeatedly been shown to be backward-predictive (taking a historical data set, applying known physical principles, and arriving at an already known conclusion about the past climate to verify the physics of the models). [/quote] As most of the “historical” data sets have been repeatedly adjusted one might wonder if they have been “adjusted” to fit the model results. Or which came first? The Chicken Little “adjustments” or the eggish Model? “Historical” data set, showing almost perfect correlation between USHCN adjustments and NOAA atmospheric CO2 numbers.
    [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/screenhunter_1618-aug-03-09-45.gif[/img]
    Raw: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/ushcn.tavg.latest.raw.tar.gz
    Final: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/ushcn.tavg.latest.FLs.52i.tar.gz

    [quote]Up until now the adjustments have made no sense, because they didn’t appear to correlate to anything in the real world. But now we can see that correlate almost perfectly with the amount of CO2 in atmosphere. Red below is CO2 and blue is the USHCN adjustments.[/quote]
    [img]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif[/img]
    This appears to be a perfect example of confirmation bias coded directly into their algorithm.

    “Our algorithm is working as designed”

    – Recent NCDC press release

    So one has to question just how well your models do at (taking a historical data set, applying known physical principles, and arriving at an already known conclusion about the past climate to verify the physics of the models)? When the “historical data set” has a history of being repeatedly “adjusted” to fit failed models and a Co2 rise in some kind of circular confirmation bias feedback loop? 😮

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@amirlach

    [quote] It really mathematically refutes itself. It uses fossil fuel use was implanted as a proxy for actual temperature change…[/quote]

    Then I’m certain you won’t mind providing the mathematics used in the paper which utilize this, and also providing corrected mathematics to show why the assertions are not valid/true.[/quote]

    Well it has made an unsupportable and unverifiable claim that it can measure global temperature to 1/30th of a degree by using fossil fuel consumption as a proxie.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”][quote]Are you voluntarily or involuntarily ignorant of these basic aspects of climate modeling?[/quote] Models are tools not proof. They might be interesting if they produce skillful results that match real world observations. Yours has yet to be tested in this manner. [quote]Our models are also forward predictive when given information on a volcanic eruption, they accurately predict anticipated results (such as cooling and re-warming periods). We have this information before the event finishes taking place, and our answers do come out correctly. [/quote] Actually I was referring to the Lovejoy Model specifically.

    Can you link to where it has made skillful predictions? Forwards or backwards? With supporting data independent of itself.

    Now they are “our” models? 😮

    [quote]No. Our models have repeatedly been shown to be backward-predictive (taking a historical data set, applying known physical principles, and arriving at an already known conclusion about the past climate to verify the physics of the models). [/quote] As most of the “historical” data sets have been repeatedly adjusted one might wonder if they have been “adjusted” to fit the model results. Or which came first? The Chicken Little “adjustments” or the eggish Model? “Historical” data set, showing almost perfect correlation between USHCN adjustments and NOAA atmospheric CO2 numbers.
    [img]https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/screenhunter_1618-aug-03-09-45.gif[/img]
    Raw: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/ushcn.tavg.latest.raw.tar.gz
    Final: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2.5/ushcn.tavg.latest.FLs.52i.tar.gz

    [quote]Up until now the adjustments have made no sense, because they didn’t appear to correlate to anything in the real world. But now we can see that correlate almost perfectly with the amount of CO2 in atmosphere. Red below is CO2 and blue is the USHCN adjustments.[/quote]
    [img]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/ts.ushcn_anom25_diffs_urb-raw_pg.gif[/img]
    This appears to be a perfect example of confirmation bias coded directly into their algorithm.

    “Our algorithm is working as designed”

    – Recent NCDC press release

    So one has to question just how well your models do at (taking a historical data set, applying known physical principles, and arriving at an already known conclusion about the past climate to verify the physics of the models)? When the “historical data set” has a history of being repeatedly “adjusted” to fit failed models and a Co2 rise in some kind of circular confirmation bias feedback loop? :o[/quote]

    When I said “our models,” allow me to clarify that I was referring to existing climate models which are accepted by science. I only become “our” in the sense that I too accept those models. I hope that provides necessary clarification for that.

    Also, when I refer to “historical data set”, I mean pre-industrial climate data sets. Things like the climate patterns of the Holocene, etc. That the models extrapolate from known data, and produce the same results in time periods where man had no industrial interference helps us validate the physics inherent in the model before we use it for other data sets, such as post-industrial times, where we find ourselves now.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]”What’s @gator’s view of reality multiplied by i?” Real.[/quote]

    Once again, as predicted, a childish obfuscation. Rockhead cannot admit that he cannot list all climate forcings, cannot order them from most to least effective, and cannot then quantify them. Instead he hides behind links and ignores repeated requests for actual data.

    Oh, and he lies about going away. 😆

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

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

    [quote] It really mathematically refutes itself. It uses fossil fuel use was implanted as a proxy for actual temperature change…[/quote]

    Then I’m certain you won’t mind providing the mathematics used in the paper which utilize this, and also providing corrected mathematics to show why the assertions are not valid/true.[/quote]

    Well it has made an unsupportable and unverifiable claim that it can measure global temperature to 1/30th of a degree by using fossil fuel consumption as a proxie.[/quote]

    It is incumbent on you now to demonstrate, via your own mathematics, or via mathematics from a peer-reviewed source in order to make the claim that you are making. Please [b]demonstrate[/b] [i]mathematically[/i] for us.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Please demonstrate mathematically for us.[/quote]

    What a f*cking hypocrite!

    List all climate forcings, cannot order them from most to least effective, and cannot then quantify them.

    Come on child, it’s past your bed time, on with it! 😆

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”][quote]Please demonstrate mathematically for us.[/quote]

    What a f*cking hypocrite!

    List all climate forcings, cannot order them from most to least effective, and cannot then quantify them.

    Come on child, it’s past your bed time, on with it! :lol:[/quote]

    I changed my mind. It’s still too fun, and I can’t go.

    @gator To what level of detail, may I ask, would you like me to list these forcings, and over how long a period would you like this to be done. Please state the parameters which you are seeking.

    For a 100-year climate prediction, with varying parameters for factors to which the climate is sensitive , like changes in carbon dioxide and the sulfur cycle (among the many parameters), it requires 1,915,068 [b]billion[/b] floating point operations at the resolution of current operating climate models. How much detail would you like?

    I’m running 8 such models concurrently as we speak. 🙂 You know, taking actual data, applying actual physical principles, and actually demonstrating mechanics.

    Just specify your parameters, and I will give you the data you request, tailored to your requested parameters.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]How much detail would you like?[/quote]

    Let me spell it out again, and I will type slowly so you can keep up.

    List [i]all [/i]climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify [/i]them.

    Enough obfuscations.

    Data please.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]tailored to your requested parameters.[/quote]

    Yes, beacuse we can “tailor” the world around us, to serve our agendas.

    The Earth is the “parameter”.

    So, list all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.

    No more hand waving will be accepted.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”][quote]How much detail would you like?[/quote]

    Let me spell it out again, and I will type slowly so you can keep up.

    List [i]all [/i]climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then [i]quantify [/i]them.

    Enough obfuscations.

    Data please.[/quote]

    Once again, I request [b]to what degree of precision[/b] do you wish this data be given? I want to ensure that I satisfy [b]exactly[/b] the curiosity level which you yourself have on this particular issue.

    Or have you only been taught to ask for this thing repeatedly, and not taught what to do when someone asks you a follow-up question for clarification? That’s what I’m doing: Following up to determine to which degree of precision you wish me to [i]quantify[/i] climatic forcings. Quantification requires parameters, and I am asking you to set them so you may receive exactly that for which you ask.

    Parameters, please.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Parameters, please.[/quote]

    The funny thing is that you think you can. Or is it you still do not understand the request.

    Try again, and I want youir most “precise” (it will actually be “precious”) answer.

    List [i]all[/i] (that means ALL) climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual (a dictionary may be helpful), and then [i]quantify[/i] (that’s that math stuff, numbers and all) them all.

    No more hand waving, get busy.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”][quote]Parameters, please.[/quote]

    The funny thing is that you think you can. Or is it you still do not understand the request.

    Try again, and I want youir most “precise” (it will actually be “precious”) answer.

    List [i]all[/i] (that means ALL) climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual (a dictionary may be helpful), and then [i]quantify[/i] (that’s that math stuff, numbers and all) them all.

    No more hand waving, get busy.[/quote]

    So, that boils down to, “Oh, I don’t know how to state the parameters which I require to be met. Quick, what do I do…uh, yeah, just say “you choose the precision.”

    All of this talk about mathematics and forcing factors is meant to obscure the fact that you were repeatedly asked to make a mathematical demonstration about things with which you disagree in a particular peer-reviewed article which discredits your assertions. Let’s not lose track of the fact that you cannot provide that.

    Assume I give you the information for which you ask. Would it bring you any closer to providing that for which you have been asked? No, it would not.

    Assume I give it, but give it incorrectly, or refuse or fail to give it at all. Does that have any bearing on your inability to provide that which has been requested of you? No, it doesn’t.

    So, as my response to your question has absolutely nothing to do with you giving a response to my question, which I have also asked repeatedly, let’s assume I fail or refuse.

    With that out of the way (and the appropriate level of mock-shame on my part.)

    Now, as [b]you[/b] have said before,

    [quote](that’s that math stuff, numbers and all) them all.

    No more hand waving, get busy..[/quote]

    I too am awaiting a demonstration, and you are failing brilliantly to give it. You’ve tried your obfuscationary tactic. It mattered not if I would fail or succeed. Now, back to Lovejoy, and your inability to provide even one single line of mathematics in the entire discussion, let alone any which rises to the level required to serve as a rebuttal to Lovejoy.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]When I said “our models,” allow me to clarify that I was referring to existing climate models which are accepted by science. I only become “our” in the sense that I too accept those models. I hope that provides necessary clarification for that.[/quote]

    And so where are these models that have passed testing by science? You know ones that can make skillful predictions when compared to experiment or observation?

    I showed you my models that work, show me yours.

    [quote]It is incumbent on you now to demonstrate, via your own mathematics, or via mathematics from a peer-reviewed source in order to make the claim that you are making. Please demonstrate mathematically for us.[/quote]

    How about you use the Lovejoy method and tell us what the Global Average T is today?

    You reversed the Null Hypothesis, so now I am reversing your method.

    It is incumbent on YOU now to demonstrate, via Lovejoy statistical mathematics, or via mathematics from a peer-reviewed, or ANY source that can be verified, in order to make the claim that you are making. Please demonstrate mathematically for us Comrade Rocks in your socks.

    T-globe is the measured mean global temperature anomaly to 1/30th of a degree of your choosing.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”][quote]When I said “our models,” allow me to clarify that I was referring to existing climate models which are accepted by science. I only become “our” in the sense that I too accept those models. I hope that provides necessary clarification for that.[/quote]

    And so where are these models that have passed testing by science? You know ones that can make skillful predictions when compared to experiment or observation?

    I showed you my models that work, show me yours.

    [quote]It is incumbent on you now to demonstrate, via your own mathematics, or via mathematics from a peer-reviewed source in order to make the claim that you are making. Please demonstrate mathematically for us.[/quote]

    How about you use the Lovejoy method and tell us what the Global Average T is today?

    You reversed the Null Hypothesis, so now I am reversing your method.

    It is incumbent on YOU now to demonstrate, via Lovejoy statistical mathematics, or via mathematics from a peer-reviewed, or ANY source that can be verified, in order to make the claim that you are making. Please demonstrate mathematically for us Comrade Rocks in your socks.

    T-globe is the measured mean global temperature anomaly to 1/30th of a degree of your choosing.[/quote]

    So, let me make sure I synthesize your argument here correctly. It’s, “I can’t perform the mathematical actions required to refute the paper which you have cited, nor can I find any peer-reviewed sources to refute it. Instead, I will now attempt to give you a math problem, and see if I can sidestep my way around answering a direct question.”

    I think that pretty much sums it up. Until you find exactly what it is that you believe is incorrect and provide a [b]mathematical demonstration[/b] then you have no case against it. You’ve been given the options of creating it yourself (you have delivered no mathematics to date) and you have been given the option of peer-reviewed papers to support your assertions, and you have given none of those.

    No matter how many silly little questions you may pose to distract from this, and whether i answer them correctly, incorrectly, or refuse to answer them at all, it brings you no closer to being able to provide the arguments which are required of you to provide an authentic refutation of Lovejoy.

    Enough obfuscation, enough hand-waving, and enough trying to sidestep the subject at hand.

    Mathematics or papers, can you cite them?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]Once again, I request to what degree of precision do you wish this data be given? I want to ensure that I satisfy exactly the curiosity level which you yourself have on this particular issue.[/quote]

    How about we go with the Lovejoy level of “precision”. The 1/30th of a degree Kelvin or Hobbs. Pick one.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”][quote]Once again, I request to what degree of precision do you wish this data be given? I want to ensure that I satisfy exactly the curiosity level which you yourself have on this particular issue.[/quote]

    How about we go with the Lovejoy level of “precision”. The 1/30th of a degree Kelvin or Hobbs. Pick one.[/quote]

    Perhaps you did not read the above comment. Sending me on a mathematical errand to distract from your inability to either perform the mathematical actions required to form an authentic refutation of Lovejoy’s work, or to provide a peer-reviewed source which has. No more hand-waving.

    From you @amirlach we will need to see some [b]demonstration[/b].

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @amirlach

    Internet-scraping troll-bot failed.
    [quote] How about we go with the Lovejoy level of “precision”. The 1/30th of a degree Kelvin or Hobbs. Pick one.[/quote]

    By “Kelvin or Hobbs”, perhaps you meant “Calvin and Hobbes?”

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Face it

    This is ” run up the counter ” drewski again

    Soundly proven WRONG dozens of times

    Soundly proven a serial LIAR as well

    Thinks he still can win by volume of inane commentary

    Pathetically laughable

    But no matter how insulting and degrading, it gives the attention he craves and thinks he’s getting

    Attention he can ” get ” nowhere else

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]I request to what degree of precision do you wish this data be given?[/quote]

    And I told you to give me the most precise measurements you can.

    Maybe if you tried reading my posts instead of recopying them, you would fare better.

    List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

    Enough hand waving little one.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]I too am awaiting a demonstration, and you are failing brilliantly to give it.[/quote]

    Gaia has given it, you moron.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Face it This is ” run up the counter ” drewski again[/quote]

    It sure acts like Drewski (stupid and dishonest), and even started using a tag line similar to the tag that Drewski used to hate when I did it to him.

    [i]Papers please! [/i]

    The fact remains that we have a cyber-idiot who seems to think that climate models trump reality, and that he has the ability to list all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

    But does he really?

    Nope.

    He is a liar just like Drewski. He claims to be able to do something that he onbviously cannot, and makes this lie of a claim over and over and over again (just like D).

    Reminds me of a kid I knew in school who claimed he had a ’69 Camaro, but we just were never allowed to see it. The rest of the class knew he was an idiot and a liar, but he thought he was clever. What a fool believes…

    So Rockhead, prove us all wrong, show us your list of all climate forcings, then order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all. Highest level of precision please, after all, it trumps reality.

    We are still waiting…

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    [quote]Anyone interested in the origin of Lovejoy’s accuracy to within 0.03 Kelvin may wish to note that this is the difference between instrumental data sets, namely NOAA NCDC, NASA GISS, and HadCRUT3. Lovejoy discusses the derivation of this figure in section 2.3, “The instrumental data and the effective climate sensitivity,” pages 10-19.[/quote]

    From the Inntroduction…

    [i]First, we used a stochastic 78 approach that combines all the (nonlinear) responses to natural forcings as well as the 79 (natural) internal nonlinear variability into a single global stochastic quantity Tnat(t)
    80 that thus [b]take into account all the natural variability[/b].[/i]

    OK, then [i]list[/i] all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.

    I can claim to be invisible, and even build a model that “proves” this. But reality shows I am quite visible.

    Lovejoy makes a ridiculous claim in first stating he has identified [i]all[/i] forcings, a further ridiculous claim when he says he can [i]quantify [/i]them[i] all[/i].

    Everyone knows (except the ignorant) that clouds. for one, are problematic and their contributions are not well understood.

    Lovejoy wanted to be the darling of the CAGW world, and fell flat on his lying face,

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Gator

    I’ve always believed in Duck theory :

    If it looks like an a**h*le
    talks like an A**h*le and
    walks………………………

    IT’S AN A**H*LE !!!

    The various appellations matter not, they are all one and the same from
    Harry the hammerhead to the current retard Rox-up-his-A**

    Incredibly he thinks he is accomplishing something and demonstrably displaying his intelligence.

    Well, he is displaying what he thinks is intelligence.

    He’ll be back again.
    He needs the attention no matter how negative.
    He needs to feel important, no matter how pathetically.
    He will return under a new name as if we can’t figure out who/what he is.
    And he thinks this makes him important and smart and proof that his existence is somehow worthy and necessary.

    It is that pathetic.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    So a “Peer Reviewed” Paper? That refutes the claim that Natural Variability is refuted by this paper?

    [quote](Lovejoy,S., 2014)

    “While the statistical rejection of a hypothesis can’t generally be used to conclude the truth of any specific alternative, in many cases – including this one – the rejection of one greatly enhances the credibility of the other.”[/quote]

    Well considering he admits that his statistical method has not proven, or disproven NV. The claim that “the rejection of one greatly enhances the credibility of the other.” Could be true in a general sense, but is irrelevant in this case.
    [quote]“This study will be a blow to any remaining climate-change deniers,” [/quote] I have yet to meet any climate change deniers. Natural Variability has “changed” climate for 4.5 Billion years. [quote] Lovejoy says. “Their two most convincing arguments – that the warming is natural in origin, and that the computer models are wrong – are either directly contradicted by this analysis, or simply do not apply to it.”[/quote]
    So how does this study, which admits that “a statistical rejection of a hypothesis can’t generally be used to conclude the truth of any specific alternative, in many cases – including this one”, do what it just admitted it cannot do? IE: Directly contradict NV?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”amirlach”]So a “Peer Reviewed” Paper? That refutes the claim that Natural Variability is refuted by this paper?

    [quote](Lovejoy,S., 2014)

    “While the statistical rejection of a hypothesis can’t generally be used to conclude the truth of any specific alternative, in many cases – including this one – the rejection of one greatly enhances the credibility of the other.”[/quote]

    Well considering he admits that his statistical method has not proven, or disproven NV. The claim that “the rejection of one greatly enhances the credibility of the other.” Could be true in a general sense, but is irrelevant in this case.
    [quote]“This study will be a blow to any remaining climate-change deniers,” [/quote] I have yet to meet any climate change deniers. Natural Variability has “changed” climate for 4.5 Billion years. [quote] Lovejoy says. “Their two most convincing arguments – that the warming is natural in origin, and that the computer models are wrong – are either directly contradicted by this analysis, or simply do not apply to it.”[/quote]
    So how does this study, which admits that “a statistical rejection of a hypothesis can’t generally be used to conclude the truth of any specific alternative, in many cases – including this one”, do what it just admitted it cannot do? IE: Directly contradict NV?[/quote]

    To be more specific about the overall assertion of Lovejoy’s paper, please read the abstract, notably the final line, in which Lovejoy states

    [quote] Even in the most unfavourable cases, we may reject the natural variability
    hypothesis at confidence levels > 99%. [/quote]

    See also, from the conclusion:

    [quote]However, even in the most extreme cases, we are still able to reject the natural variability hypothesis with confidence levels  >99% -­‐ and with the most likely values -­‐ at levels  >99.9%

    Finally, fluctuation analysis shows that the variability of the recent period solar forcing was close to preindustrial levels (at all scales), and that volcanic forcing variabilities were a factor 2-­‐3 times weaker (at all scales), so that they cannot explain the warming either.[/quote]

    Fine, I admit that you have between a 0.1% and 1% chance of being correct, in that it can only be natural fluctuations. I’m comfortable admitting that there is a 0.1% to 1% chance that what we expect to be happening in the climate is not happening. That’s a pretty tight margin of error.

    How comfortable are you, consequently, with the demonstrated statistical analysis giving you a 99% to 99.9% likelihood of being absolutely incorrect about your assertion?

    Again, if you have a problem with the mathematics in the paper, Lovejoy provided them, so you can critique them…but that requires mathematics in return.

    What it boils down to is that, with a certainty of between 99% and 99.9%, we may reject your hypothesis.

    Glad I could clear that up.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @amirlach

    I like the repeated references to the 4.5 billion year history of the Earth. If we take things to that time scale, then it would be perfectly within the boundaries of the system for the surface to be boiling rock and for us to have an atmosphere which cannot sustain life.

    Given that we’re only interested in the states of the planet which may continue to sustain life, forgive me if I tend to disregard periods of the past where life is not sustainable on our planet. Mind you, when I say this, I do not disregard any mechanics which drove these states — i definitely accept the laws of physics — it is just that making such claims has no bearing on our current problem, which in the way in which climate is changing.

    To say that we must look at the 4.5 billion year history, and realize that it has been wetter and dryer, hotter and cooler, is the climatological equivalent to measuring the weather this way:

    [img]https://img0.etsystatic.com/044/0/7882207/il_570xN.574588222_bu40.jpg[/img]

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]First, we used a stochastic 78 approach that combines all the (nonlinear) responses to natural forcings as well as the 79 (natural) internal nonlinear variability into a single global stochastic quantity Tnat(t)[/quote]

    It’s kinda like making sausage.
    [img]http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/sausage-1984526.jpg[/img]

    Maybe you can smoosh all of the “forcings” into one casing, and hope that the variables and errors cancel each other out?

    Only there is no way you could every be sure which forcing was doing what, but you end up with a tasty looking, darling of a dingus anyways.
    [quote]Lovejoy wanted to be the darling of the CAGW world, and fell flat on his lying face.[/quote]

    He said the magic words the “reviewers”( IPCC Comrade’s for the Cause) wanted to hear. Although just slightly different, it largely agrees with the sensitivity found in AR4-5.

    CHA-CHING!!!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @amirlach
    [quote]Lovejoy wanted to be the darling of the CAGW world, and fell flat on his lying face.[/quote]

    For the third time now, you use a “quote” with absolutely no attribution. The same technique you attempted to use to “discredit” SkepticalScience and Sourcewatch.org

    The more obscure your claims, the more you attempt to obfuscate your sources.

    Your argument, once again, boils down to an inability to address the mathematics in Lovejoy’s paper, and a desperate attempt to tackle the problem without addressing the mathematics.

    Either you can show, mathematically, the Lovejoy is incorrect, or you cannot. It’s a statistics paper. The only way out of this is mathematics on your part which [b]demonstrate[/b] to the contrary. You don’t have them, else you would have readily provided them. Or one of your other Denialists would have in a peer-reviewed journal (not a guest post on Anthony Watts’ blog.)

    Please, do tell me, from where did that last “quote” you used arise, and for that matter, from whence came the other two?

    No more distractions. You have 3 sources to cite from things you have claimed, and you are still sorely lacking in the production of mathematics to refute Lovejoy’s analysis.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    For all concerned where Lovejoy may have determined his figures for listing and quantifying climatic forcings, see also Stochastic and scaling climate sensitivities: Solar, volcanic and orbital forcings S. Lovejoy and D. Schertzer (2012) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051871/pdf

    Also, without getting sidetracked, @amirlach should still recall that we’re owed 3 attributions for quotes and a whole lot of mathematics to demonstrate why Lovejoy is wrong.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @rox-up-his-a**

    Is there something you don’t understand about being generally regarded as a stupid a** ?

    You’re a PROVEN liar, phony who nonetheless keeps repeating your oral defecation as if every time enunciated it must be soundly defeated again or else however stupidly presumed :
    you win the day.

    Plenty of people visit this site w/o comment purely for the humor.

    I don’t expect you’ll determine who they’re laughing at.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @rox-up-his-a**

    Is there something you don’t understand about being generally regarded as a stupid a** ?

    You’re a PROVEN liar, phony who nonetheless keeps repeating your oral defecation as if every time enunciated it must be soundly defeated again or else however stupidly presumed :
    you win the day.

    Plenty of people visit this site w/o comment purely for the humor.

    I don’t expect you’ll determine who they’re laughing at.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    [quote name=”JayPee”]@rox-up-his-a**

    Is there something you don’t understand about being generally regarded as a stupid a** ?

    You’re a PROVEN liar, phony who nonetheless keeps repeating your oral defecation as if every time enunciated it must be soundly defeated again or else however stupidly presumed :
    you win the day.

    Plenty of people visit this site w/o comment purely for the humor.

    I don’t expect you’ll determine who they’re laughing at.[/quote]

    Seems to me they’ll likely start by laughing at the person whose major contribution to the discussion has been, “The greenhouse gas effect doesn’t exist.”

    Gee, wonder who that is?

    Also, still needing that math from you guys…and those 3 citations for quotes from @amirlach

    Anyone who can read can plainly see that there was nothing offered in contradiction to Lovejoy which actually rises to the challenge of refuting Lovejoy. Nice try, @JayPee.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @ brain=rock

    So now you’re not only going to try to win by running up the counter,
    you’re arrogant persistence as well as if no one is supposed to know that you are a liar, a multiply proven phony .

    Well, go ahead. I don’t care how many times you want to display your lack of comprehension.
    But I will call you out for your lies, insults and arrogance.

    Have a good day.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @JayPee

    [quote]So now you’re not only going to try to win by running up the counter,
    you’re arrogant persistence as well as if no one is supposed to know that you are a liar, a multiply proven phony .[/quote]

    That’s not even close to a sentence in English. If you’re going taunt me, do it coherently.

    [quote]Well, go ahead. I don’t care how many times you want to display your lack of comprehension.[/quote]

    Why should you care how often anyone shows a lack of comprehension. You’ve not been afraid to put yourself out there and demonstrate time and time again that you have little comprehension in this subject, but keep posting anyway. (That’s not an insult, it’s an observation from your posting history, which includes “The greenhouse gas effect isn’t real” and a conclusive demonstration that you lack the required mathematical skills to explore a paper in the field you are trying to “refute.”)

    [quote]But I will call you out for your lies, insults and arrogance.[/quote]

    You would have much to do with calling out insults in your own posts, and those of everyone else participating in the discussion.

    As for “lies,” see your repeated posts that, “There is no greenhouse gas effect.”

    As for arrogance, see above, and also realize that you’re still *thinking* you have refuted a mathematical paper without providing any mathematics.

    [quote]Have a good day.[/quote]

    You too! Thanks! 🙂

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    @ idiot rox

    It’s all been proven, stated before.

    The FACT that you are incapable of comprehension is not our problem, but yours.

    Keep lying
    Keep being an idiot

    Have a good day.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]it is just that making such claims has no bearing on our current problem, which in the way in which climate is changing.[/quote]
    What problem?
    [img]http://i.snag.gy/BztF1.jpg[/img]

    Yeah, scary…
    [quote] However, even in the most extreme cases, we are still able to reject the natural variability hypothesis with confidence levels >99% -­‐ and with the most likely values -­‐ at levels >99.9% [/quote]

    The same 99.9% confidence level, Lovejoy’s festival of sausage produced? That agrees with the utterly failed IPCC AR4-5 Models?

    They kinda lost my interest after the 95% confidence level. 😀 99.9% The Dhoom Song got real old real fast.
    [img]https://informativestats.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/hayden_ipcc_arrow.jpg[/img]

    The sum total of IPCC science claims a very high confidence level, yet the predictions based upon this are rubbish.

    [quote]Again, if you have a problem with the mathematics in the paper, Lovejoy provided them, so you can critique them…but that requires mathematics in return.[/quote]

    Or just comparing his results to experiment.

    His study predicts, with 95% confidence, that a doubling of carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere would cause the climate to warm by between 2.5 and 4.2 degrees Celsius.

    “That range is more precise than – but in line with the IPCC’s prediction that temperatures would rise by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius if CO2 concentrations double.”

    Which has not mirrored by MATHEMATICAL measurements. 😥

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Amirlach

    I expect idiot ROX to respond just like moron DREWSKI that this is an ” old tired argument that has no modern relevance ”
    regardless that it is

    ABSOLUTELY TRUE

    and reduces their position to

    ABSOLUTE INANITY.

    But don’t expect the arrogant pig to recognize nor accept that.

    They have an agenda to drive home and that’s it.

    And I fully expect a totally arrogant , ignorant, and lying response from idiot rox.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    I’m surprised. With a (generous) 1% chance of being right, you’ve all been wrong 100% of the time.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    You keep up the idiocy
    roxie-baby
    I’ll keep calling you out.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]@amirlach
    [quote]Lovejoy wanted to be the darling of the CAGW world, and fell flat on his lying face.[/quote]

    For the third time now, you use a “quote” with absolutely no attribution. The same technique you attempted to use to “discredit” SkepticalScience and Sourcewatch.org

    The more obscure your claims, the more you attempt to obfuscate your sources. [/quote] Actually that quote about falling on his face was from Gator’s post above. And was anything I said about “Source Watch or SkS untrue? SkS after all was set up to serve Mann. A clearing house for alarmist claptrap that is…

    Unreliable*
    Skeptical Science – John Cook

    * Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.”

    [quote] Your argument, once again, boils down to an inability to address the mathematics in Lovejoy’s paper, and a desperate attempt to tackle the problem without addressing the mathematics.

    Either you can show, mathematically, the Lovejoy is incorrect, or you cannot. It’s a statistics paper. The only way out of this is mathematics on your part which [b]demonstrate[/b] to the contrary. You don’t have them, else you would have readily provided them. Or one of your other Denialists would have in a peer-reviewed journal (not a guest post on Anthony Watts’ blog.)[/quote]

    Like I already told you, his Paper refutes itself.
    [quote]His study predicts, with 95% confidence, that a doubling of carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere would cause the climate to warm by between 2.5 and 4.2 degrees Celsius.

    “That range is more precise than – but in line with the IPCC’s prediction that temperatures would rise by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius if CO2 concentrations double.”
    http://www.mcgill.ca/channels/news/global-warming-just-giant-natural-fluctuation-235236

    Which has refuted by EMPIRICAL MATHEMATICAL measurements. 😥
    [/quote]

    [quote] Please, do tell me, from where did that last “quote” you used arise, and for that matter, from whence came the other two? [/quote] Sure right after you List all Climate Forcing’s and quantify them. No more distractions your sorely lacking in the production of data you claim to have.

    [quote] No more distractions. You have 3 sources to cite from things you have claimed, and you are still sorely lacking in the production of mathematics to refute Lovejoy’s analysis.[/quote]
    His and the IPCC’s assumed climate sensitivity’s have been refuted by observations.
    [img]http://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Climate-Model-Comparison.png[/img]

    “I’ll see your “95 percent of scientists believe in global warming” talking point and raise you a “95 percent of reality thinks your climate models are garbage.” According to that chart of actual satellite and surface temperature observations vs. what was predicted by 90 different climate models, 95 percent of models overestimated actual temperatures. Nothing says Science™ like predicting stuff incorrectly over and over and over again.”

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    And it’s late. My Model is locked and will have results when I wake up. (I too use models). Though mine are required to conform to real world empirical and destructive testing. Having predictive failures that grossly over estimate a materials response, like the ones above do, would not just be hilariously embarrassing, they would get people killed.

    And don’t get me started on “adjusting” data to match failed predictions…

    Reply

  • Avatar

    ihuntrocks

    |

    @approach

    Tired of your models “locking up?” Try some exception handling. Works quite well on well-wrtten models.

    I’d hate to know that something on which my life depends is modeled with no exception handling. Please, don’t tell me these things. Life is stressful enough without such knowledge.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Me

    |

    You hunt rocks err so your name says, and play with puter models, do you hind cast like the rest too or is like it locksup and ya can’t do diddy with it? Ya know I think I’ll refer to you as leaverite, and you should know what that is since you hunt rocks. Apparently still hunting for your AGW too, hey leaverite? 😆

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Hey me! Given his affinity for climate models, I would say he is most likely a collector of coprolites.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote]Tired of your models “locking up?” Try some exception handling. Works quite well on well-wrtten models.[/quote]

    I was paraphrasing a Bruce Banner quote from Avengers…
    [quote]Bruce Banner: “We are, the models locked and we’re sweeping for the signature now. When we get a hit, we’ll have the location within half a mile.” [/quote]

    As a fan of Science Fiction(models?), I thought you might have gotten that one. 😀

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote name=”ihuntrocks”]I’m surprised. With a (generous) 1% chance of being right, you’ve all been wrong 100% of the time.[/quote]

    Like the Co2 based GCM’s?

    [quote]Your argument, once again, boils down to an inability to address the mathematics in Lovejoy’s paper, and a desperate attempt to tackle the problem without addressing the mathematics. [/quote]

    Your fixation on math and statistic’s is quite amusing. His math and statistical calculations could very well be stellar. It’s quite irrelevant, his predictions are wrong.

    Let’s assume for the sake of argument that your right and Lovejoy’s math is perfect. Yet his prediction still failed when compared to reality. *In best Ancient Aliens Narration voice*Why might that be?
    [img]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/yz4fd5b819.jpg[/img]

    “Might it be that his assumptions about T-natural were incorrect?”

    You know? Those climate forcing’s you Co2 Lysenkoists keep refusing to quantify?

    Reply

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”]Hey me! Given his affinity for climate models, I would say he is most likely a collector of coprolites.[/quote]
    We are awaiting his new petrified crap “study”, that quantifies Cave Mann’s GDP as a proxy for Global Warming!
    [img]http://www.offscreen.be/sites/default/files/images/movie/one_million_02.jpg[/img]

    Suggested Titles for said “study”.

    Fire Hot? Or why do these “Model’s” Run Hot? 😉

    Reply

Leave a comment

No Trackbacks.