“There challenge (real climate) is to avoid scientific bias.”
Yes, one would think so. But from their point of view I.m afraid the challenge is to hide their scientific bias. Which of course is not possible…which I think explains their decline in popularity. One sided, propagandistic presentations are by their nature, beyond tedious. For hard core drones only.
Happy Xmas to all !
Merry Christmas to All, and to All a Happy New Year and continuing cool ‘pause’.
“Dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as a troll is a recipe for worse than groupthink.”
Well, maybe a symptom that one is firmly in the grips of groupthink. At any rate, I don’t see anyone here as a troll. My most engaging conversations have been with those that many here feel are trolls. I don’t see it that way any longer. I can’t claim to be perfect myself. I certainly have had my share of jabs at a few folks, but there are so many sides to how folks see the climate discussion that I don’t think any can claim they have it all correct. At any rate, I wish a peaceful and happy holiday season to all, especially to those who’s opinions I disagree with. It is the challenge from those folks who make discussions interesting… And move toward common ground as lang as you don’t descend into ad hom or take comments too seriously. In the end we just disagree about ideas, but as humans we have much more in common wrt our environment and what we do to protect it. We’re all on the same boat together.
Rule 9 is in contradiction with having these commandments at all and also with Rule 3.
And over at PolarBearScience, I’ve been championing for better biology on behalf of the number one global warming icon and its prey (walrus and Arctic seals), for two and a half years now.
This year, I’ve had twice as many views as last year and some notable indicators that I’m making a difference. There promises to be interesting times ahead.
Check out my latest post, which relates directly to some of the climate change content that Judith covers: the recent “Arctic Report Card 2014″ released by NOAA that uses dubious polar bear data to make its shaky case that recent Arctic warming has already caused harm.
http://polarbearscience.com/2014/12/19/challenging-noaas-arctic-report-card-2014-on-polar-bears/
Merry Christmas Judith and the same to your readers; all the best for the new year.
Dr. Susan Crockford, zoologist
Susan, keep up your good work!
In general, I would be interested in seeing the response among “skeptics” should 2014 turn out to be the warmest year on record, given that:
2005-2014 will be the warmest 10 year period on record.
2010-2014 will be the warmest 5 year period on record.
2014 will be the warmest year on record.
Odd way for a “hiatus” to be acting.
Dr Curry,
I’d like to thank you and all the commenters here for providing me with measures of enlightenment, amusement and irritation this last year. I wish all of you the healthiest and happiest of holidays and success in the coming year.
The Climate Troll Bestiary posting was quite amusing, especially the comparison photos. Though of course, as a sensible and truly skeptical Lukewarmer, I didn’t recognize myself in that zoo.
The slant, poor syntax, spelling, wrong word usage (pray instead of prey) and poor punctuation in the posting bothered me somewhat, but not as much as some, based on this comment left by Steve Adams:
“I love the smell of bitter angry warmists in the morning! It is so gratifying as a skeptic to see the warmist cult become the punchline we always knew you were. Reduced to petulant tantrums on your obscure blogs and comment sections of news articles in a world where relevant politicians worldwide are running away from the global warming scam as fast as they can – while it collapses like the proverbial straw house blown down by the skeptic wolf (trying to keep with your theme here!!!). You can bitterly blame skeptics for the rest of your miserable lives but it was your complete lack of ethics that eventually brought you down. Never questioning each other, your data manipulation, your ridiculous catastrophic projections, your laughable computer models that were never right about any projections, your “hiding the decline”, your refusal to comply with FOIA requests, your refusal to engage in any debate (the science is settled…LOL)…no, you never questioned any ethical or logical lapse as long as it somehow supported and enriched the cult. People will be laughing about you for generations but those of us who lived through it and fought you every step of the way know how close you were to destroying our future. Congratulations, I don’t think anybody will ever trust “scientists” again. Let’s hope a real crisis doesn’t come along because the parable of the little boy who cried wolf gives us a glimpse of your guaranteed failure.”
Enjoy your lives to the fullest, our time here is fleeting.
We just came out of a Little Ice Age into a natural and normal warm period, much like the Roman and Medieval Warm periods. We are supposed to be naturally having warm records. That is what happens in Warm Periods. We will not get a lot warmer, it has not for ten thousand years, but we can get a little warmer and still not break out of natural variability, or even get close to breaking above warm records of the past ten thousand years.
A nice post to end a rather interesting year with both the climate and the climate blogosphere. Judith is to be commended for running what I feel is the best overall climate blog. Though I am clearly in the “warmest” camp, there are few active blogs where we warmists can have a civil discussion without completely being shouted down by “skeptics”, even to the point of constant ad homs. Judith does a great job of filtering out the ad homs, though I suspect it must be a rather tedious and time-consuming task.
I think the recent episode of Tasmine posting on WUWT and the nastiness displayed there shows how very valuable CE is. I would hope that we’d see more guest posts here by her and others, where I know she’d see a completely different class of denizens.
The evolution of the climate blogosphere should really pick up steam in 2015. The climate itself will be partially the driver of this, IMO. The “hiatus” gave “skeptics” a bit of encouragement that the issue of AGW was DOA. Sadly, those who were encouraged by the “hiatus” automatically are excluded from the category of true skeptics, as honest skeptics are actually neutral to the issue and are neither encouraged nor discouraged as they have no dog in the fight– they simply want to know what is most likely true. I strongly anticipate warming in the troposphere to return with a vengeance over the next few years, and this, more than anything, will cause the rapid repositioning and evolution of the climate blogosphere.
http://popesclimatetheory.com/page75.html
The new normal and natural temperature cycle of the most recent ten thousand years will continue into the future. A tiny amount of CO2 cannot change this normal and natural cycle.
http://popesclimatetheory.com/page16.html
It just don’t get above +2 anymore
I still rather like ATTP. I have been able to post there a number of times without trouble. There are people there who are nasty to me, but that’s part of posting on the web; ATTP tends to try to be fair-minded, try to respond seriously, and try to prevent gratuitous nastiness and stupidity. He sometimes acknowledges good points.
Trenberth described the null hypothesis quite differently. I recall it as something like the warming is natural (therefore not human made). Something like that. Then his article tried to say that it was time to flip the null on its head – which I gather didn’t go over so well with other scientists.
Anyway – I don’t recall the definition of null having to do with the relationship of just two variables.
Super, you wrote: Then, looking at the temperature data in figure 1, I would consider more carefully the atmosphere’s powerful tendency to revert to the long-term mean. The pattern then strongly suggests that we’re at a peak for the global temperature anomaly and that we’ll likely have some cooling.
The long term temperature is a cycle that goes above the mean and then below the mean. Temperature never returns to the long term mean, it just crosses the mean to the other bound. The Polar Ice Cycle does not seek a mean. It drives temperature from above the mean to below the mean. Then the Polar oceans freeze and turn off snowfall and the sun drives temperature from below the mean to above the mean.
Temperature varies in a cycle that goes warm, cold, warm, cold, warm, cold, etc. You can see this by just looking at actual official NOAA and NASA data. You can see this in the Ice Core Data.
I agree with you that we are near a peak, but this peak, like the Roman and Medieval Peaks, will last a few hundred years and then will drop below the mean to a minimum similar to the Little Ice Age.
Temperature does not try to maintain a mean. Earth Temperature cycles above and below the thermostat setting, just like in my house. My house warms until the Air Conditioner comes on and then cools until the Air Conditioner turns of. The Thermostat, the Set Point for Earth, is the temperature that Polar Sea Ice melts and freezes. Snowfall is turned on by thawed Polar Oceans and turned off by frozen Polar Oceans. The temperature is fixed by the temperature that oceans freeze and thaw. That does not change. The temperature record shows that the temperature is bounded close above and below this set point.
If you disagree, offer a different theory for why the temperature has been so well bounded for ten thousand years.
Consensus Theory has nothing that produces a well bounded cycle for the past ten thousand years. Consensus Theory Models go out of bounds in just a few years while real temperature stays well inside the bounds of the past.
Nonsense. I’ve known atheists and believers. The atheists were gooder. But some who said they were believers may have been phonies.
Judith Curry
happy holidays
my little climate blog story
happened to hear a right wing talk show host say “there hasn’t been any global warming in 17 years”
at the time I thought this could not possibly be true
began to search
found Sks, to which I had a very negative reaction
then stumbled onto CE… positive reaction
If Sks is the “big gorilla”
then the “warm side” is in sad shape
their posts draw comments numbering in single digits
is it disinterest or censorship?
“Week in Review” had hundreds of comments after the threading crashed
…during a major holiday
this has got to be an indicator
also..the “psychology of denialism” meme is despicable and a signal to me that the warm side is loosing confidence in their position
although looks like we can look forward to more of that silliness
“communitarian”
“individualist”
tripe
thanks Judith
CE is one of my favorite things in 2014
without you I would not know of Tonyb, kim, and beth the serf
I would also not know IPCC, HADCRU, SST, AMO, ARGO, BEST
making me quite an annoyance to all my friends
:)
I don’t think so. There are many right ways to live.
JimD said “The term, denier, is always relative.”
And that is what makes it such a poor label (really it is just an insult and name-calling).
I have been called a denier for arguing that ECS will turn out to be lower than 3c. Anything between 1.5c and 4.5c is within the IPCC range so some might think I could not be a denier if I espouse an ECS of 1.6C – yet I get called denier.
The people who label others deniers based on IPCC reports also take the reports as gospel. What if ECS were to end up being 1.45C (below the IPCC range)? Do we measure denial based on who turns out to be correct?
I would encourage all people to stop using the label denier. Because it is relative it is meaningless and just plain insulting.
I would much rather have people call me wrong or right.
