What can one say about vicious anonymous trolls who issue self-grandiose proclamations while slithering about in their own slime?
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Skiphil
↧
↧
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by timg56
May I offer a welcome to the newest clown.
As for Tony Heller / Steve Goddard’s style, perhaps it is chosen as a result of the subject matter.
↧
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Don Monfort
The Climategate emails revealed prominent climate cabal scientists conspiring to: hide declines, evade lawful FOIA requests for data, get non-cabal climate scientists fired, get journal editors fired, re-define the peer review process to suppress non-conforming research etc. etc.
There I said it. Report me to the freaking clowns who write the unintendedly ironic and nonsensical papers about denier conspiracists, whom they imagine are all in the pay of Big Oil.
↧
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Bob Ludwick
@ Jacob
“It is really a most puzzling phenomenon. One of a whole series.”
The purpose of Climate Science, in the government/UN/NGO sense (which is essentially ALL of it), is to produce Hockey Sticks.
The purpose of Hockey Sticks is to justify legislation, regulations, and taxes, with progressives doing the legislating, regulating, and taxing.
So far, judged by comparison of results against objectives, Climate Science has been one of the most spectacularly successful ventures ever conceived of by the progressives. And based on the stories celebrating the oncoming onslaught of government actions to control Evil Carbon, the success has only just begun. The current generation of college students and primary school students are fully on board with the program, to the point where they are essentially impervious to observation. When faced with the choice of ‘Who ya gonna believe, the Climate Experts (the self selected 97%, of course) or your lyin’ eyes?’, the choice is invariably ‘The experts!’. Followed by demands that the government stop coddling the ‘deniers’ and start doing the job for which governments are established: saving us from Thermogeddon.
↧
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Joseph
Can we all agree that there is no political or scientific conspiracy to promote global warming? A conspiracy in this case would mean that scientists and or politicians <b>know</b> that the claims made by scientists are false or exaggerated. The other alternative is the one Dr. Curry offers that scientists are blind to the faults with the science and the IPCC. While I don't think this alternative is correct either because it requires lumping thousands of individuals into some group and applying a psychological diagnosis. I don't think that can be done logically. Especially considering that scientists are taught to consider new ideas and in doing so they can make a name for themselves like Dr. Curry is attempting to do.
↧
↧
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Max_OK, Citizen Scientist
Monfort cites a Republican-friendly Rasmussen survey that’s as stale as week old biscuits, which is to be expected since he’s Republican and stale himself. I shouldn’t have to point out the survey is more than 3-years old.
BTW, readers from the UK think biscuits are cookies. Here in the U.S. cookies are called cookies, not biscuits.
↧
Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Joe Born
Pierre-Normand: “. . . . This is why the gradient in average kinetic energy of the molecules is so tiny.”
I overlooked that comment previously. Excellent explanation.
Not inconsistent with that, and possibly untrue because I haven’t thought it through completely, is my guess that the ensemble of microstates of the system consisting only of the single erstwhile-isolated particle is the same when the (finite) heat bath is coupled to it at a high altitude as when the heat bath is coupled a low altitude.
Neither here nor there, I suppose, but thinking about it gave me a nice respite from dealing with estate issues in which I’m currently embroiled.
↧
Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Mike Flynn
AFOMD,
Surprise! I agree with you.
When using ultracentrifuges for uranium enrichment, external heat is required to obtain the required convection. Zippe centrifuges have been the subject of intense research, and there is a distinct lack of gravito-thermal effect in the peer reviewed literature, noted by users, or claimed by manufacturers.
Like the CO2 greenhouse effect, it purely doesn’t exist. Wishing will not make it so.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Bob Ludwick
@ Joseph
“Can we all agree that there is no political or scientific conspiracy to promote global warming?”
No.
↧
↧
Comment on Gravito-thermal discussion thread by Mike Flynn
Interestingly enough, the Moon experiences higher surface temperatures than the Earth, even though it lacks significant atmosphere, and has less gravity than the Earth.
So it would appear that an atmosphere combined with higher gravity reduces the maximum surface temperature, devout belief to the contrary notwithstanding.
Gravito-thermal effect? Excellent for promoters of free energy, perpetual motion, or purveyors of tinfoil hats. Merely a source of mild amusement for the person of average intelligence, it would appear.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Mike Flynn
Judycross,
A naive forecast, projecting tomorrow’s weather to be the same as today’s, plus or minus ten percent, has a success rate of around 86%, if memory serves me correctly.
In some locations, the percentage is somewhat greater, in others somewhat less. Any fool can forecast. It takes a special fool to forecast better than a twelve year old with a pencil and a straight edge.
Try it. You might be surprised.
Live well and prosper,
Mike Flynn.
↧
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by timg56
Rob,
Even when it comes from their own words, they will refuse to acknowledge it.
↧
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Matthew R Marler
Michael: 2. make petulant demands for others work through FOI’s
You object to FOIA? It’s a legitimate way for citizens to scrutinize the work of people in government who would rather not be scrutinized. In climate science, the FOIA requests were direct and polite; sharing of data and code are now required for publication in the best journals (in theory, any way; my few requests were not met with success.) Whether the request seems to the recipient to have been written in petulant language is incidental to the spirit and literal wording of the law. The ClimateGate emails show the petulance to have been on the side of the recipients, and they prevaricated in trying to evade compliance.
↧
↧
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Joshua
==> “One Judith isn’t whining”
I say tomato, you say tomahto.
==> “Two she is not painting herself as David”
You say tomahto, I say tomato.
==> “Three asking her to name names is a typical male response to violence against women.”
IMO, this situation isn’t analogous to responding to women talking about violence committed against them. I think that continuing to employ that rhetoric is cynical and exploitative of a serious social problem – like exploiting the social problem of bullying by calling people who write blog comments (which have no real impact on anyone’s life) bullies, or cynically exploiting the social problem of holocaust denial by hand-wringing about being called a “climate denier,” or exploiting the problem of starving children by implying that if only we’d stop advocating for alternative energy, the network of social problems that cause starvation would suddenly disappear.
==> “Before Judith ever went public With any of this her her husband and I had some nice chats about this.”
Other than name-dropping, I fail to see the relevance.
==> “Nothing is improved by naming names”
This gets a bit tricky. It is valid for a supervisor to limit an academic’s career advancement if that academic produces poor quality work. It is not valid for a supervisor to limit an academic’s career advancement simply because he/she doesn’t like the political implications of that academic’s work.
Sometimes it might be difficult to determine the one from the other – but in this case Judith is saying that the situation is clear cut. In such a clear cut situation, we have a supervisor, or a group of supervisors who are acting unprofessionally and damaging others. In such a case, I would say it would be clear improvement to have those people evaluated openly, and held accountable for their irresponsible actions. By not “naming-name,” Judith would be, implicitly, enabling their lack of accountability. Seems that from Judith’s argument, she has nothing to lose at this point. .
↧
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Curious George
Bob – thank you for a detailed explanation. Fortunately, our positions are not vastly different. I agree – assuming that our models faithfully represent a chaotic climate system – that the best we can do in the long term is to map the chaotic attractor, one point at a time. But that is a big and unproven assumption. I have shown that a CAM5.1 model overestimates a heat transfer by water evaporation from tropical seas by 2.5% or more. – http://judithcurry.com/2013/06/28/open-thread-weekend-23/#comment-338257
If models don’t even have basic thermodynamic properties of water right, why should we assume that a chaotic attractor exhibited by the model has anything to do with a chaotic attractor of the real climate system? Two examples of a 2.5% error:
1) Consider a model that has a day that’s only 23 1/2 hours long. Its climate would probably resemble the Earth, but I don’t dare to estimate long-term consequences.
2) Consider a model that has a triple point of water 267 degrees K instead of 273 K. Running from today’s initial conditions you would see a rapid melting of polar caps and a significant long-term warming trend.
I agree with both you and Dame Slingo that running a good model 10,000 times yields valuable insights. But not running CAM 5.1 or its ilk.
↧
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Rob Ellison
QED. 97% of climate ninnies have identified a vast right wing conspiracy to cynically sell unsafe product to clueless consumers. Perfectly true – although they have given up on sowing doubt about tobacco health impacts and have moved on to not really giving a damn about global warming.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx
‘As for your question: at the end of the century we were sitting on the highest global temperature value of the modern record. Since then we have leveled off and we may in fact be cooling. “We have reached the top of the mountain”, therefore it’s not surprising that the last decade is one of the warmest on record. Think about it! The important aspect is that the warming of the 80s and 90s has stopped and the models missed it completely! The important issue is that we have entered a new regime in global temperature tendency. In fact, I find it very misleading that scientists will present “the warmest decade” argument to justify their beliefs (or failures).’ Anastasios Tsonis – Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric and Mathematical Sciences
This is of course no possible reason to question ‘the science’ on imminent climate doom – or the role of corporate greed in destroying the planet.
.
↧
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by brent
River Kwai
Building Bridges and Destroying Them
Recognizing the dying Shears, Nicholson exclaims, “What have I done?” Warden fires his mortar, mortally wounding Nicholson. The dazed colonel stumbles towards the detonator and collapses on the plunger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bridge_on_the_River_Kwai
The bridge on the river Kwai ending
Until we have a point of recognition acknowledging
“What have I done? ”
We are nowhere near a solution
↧
↧
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by cwon14
That’s right beng, “obvious” by the early 80’s and even early for others which is why Dr. Curry’s near or about 2006 “epiphany” that skepticism in the face of a theory devoid of empirical evidence or even logic deserves to be questioned. She’s lamenting life outside the NYTimes leftist bubble culture like a Soviet defector’s claim of missing the motherland in the 1950’s. Sorry, the stakes for freedom are/were a little higher then that for many in the brazen distortion of “science” to shove essentially a Marxist carbon control plan down the worlds throat long before CG. That CG is so pivotal in the commentary reflects how out-of-touch to the broader issues of the climate agenda her narrative remains.
↧
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Curious George
Rob – apologies. I should have addressed you as Rob, not Bob. :-(
↧
Comment on The legacy of Climategate: 5 years later by Joshua
==> “Just to recap, you and JCH think Judith should stop addressing the science and instead take action to ruin the careers of the people who she has criticized- Curry’s criticism in this case being that these people didn’t address the science but instead attempted to ruin her career.
My guess, and it’s just a guess, is that Curry doesn’t want to join you. She wants to fight you.
But you can dream.”
I can ‘t speak for JCH.
I don’t think that calling out people who have irresponsibly block her career advancement, or who irresponsibly block the production of valid science from others, would be mutually exclusive from her addressing the science.
And Judith spends quite a bit of time not addressing the science directly, and instead advocating for her own view w/r/t the political and policy implications of climate science (although she uses some sort of magical imbalance fairy to dust her own advocacy with pixie dust).
Judith wants to fight me? An anonymous blog troll? She wants to fight Joshie? As brandon might say – “that makes no sense.”
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
