Lest anybody become sanguine that the mysteries of temperature adjustments have been sufficiently expounded upon…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/03/even-though-warming-has-stopped-it-keeps-getting-worse/
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by KenW
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by JustinWonder
Ha ha….California willbe dry, until it’s wet again, but someone will have a lot of power and there will be a new aristocracy, or should I say, kleptocracy.
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by J.Brookes Fang Club
NASA scientist invent time travel, go back in time, and make it colder in the United States. Again. What’s another 0.4C warming among friends, eh?
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by JustinWonder
Two electric models I would like to see:
Dodge Charger
Buick Electra
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Joshua
Ken –
Thanks for the link. It’s useful to see that I’veone the leading”skeptical” climate scientists is also a conspiracy theorist.
In contrast, the thermometer data apparently need to be adjusted in such a way that almost always leads to greater and greater warming trends.
How odd.
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Bob Ludwick
@ Agnostic
“I thought this a very poetic and apt post.”
Me too!
The good news: this guy is patently, obviously, and certifiably insane.
The bad news: he is a ‘poster child’ for those who have dictatorial power over the education of our children, from the time they begin watching cartoons while parked in front of the TV at age 2 through defending their PhD thesis before a committee of like minded zealots. Thinking like him (or at least PRETENDING to think like him is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for obtaining an advanced degree and prestigious position after graduation for anyone in a climate/environmental field.
As a bonus, his ideological cohorts exercise equally dictatorial power within every agency of our government.
Other than that, things are fine.
I wonder if we are just going to muddle along freezing our butts off for the next 15 years, then go out in a sudden blaze of glory? Or if the temperature will just start shooting up at a degree or so per year? Starting next year.
And 200 species going extinct per day? Wonder where one would go to find a list? And why we never see them itemized in the newspapers or on TV? With all the hoopla over the Spotted Owl and Snail Darter, you would think that at least ONE of the 200 species going extinct today would garner a mention.
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by swood1000
Moving away from coal is fine but what fuel source do you move to bearing in mind the unique circumstances of each country?
1. Moving away from coal is fine. he agrees.
2. what I think about the fuel sources for each country has nothing to
do with that agreement. I take his agreement is real. no ifs and or buts,
unless he was just faking agreement.
His subsequent question is neither real nor rhetorical. It does something else. Guess what it does.
Most people would agree that “Moving away from coal is fine but” means the same thing as “I have no problem with moving away from coal except for this…” It is not an unqualified acceptance followed by a qualification, as you seem to be insisting. No clause followed by “but” can be assumed to be unqualified. Nor does the clause have the appearance of an absolute assertion even without the “but”. To say that something is “fine” is to say that one generally has no objection to it, not that one embraces it completely.
It leads by deflecting the discussion and by evading the burden of justifying the starting position and the ones implied by the squirrels introduced along the way.
In a court room or during an interview, it’s fair. In a discussion, it seldom is.
If one deflects a discussion or tries to evade a burden then the appropriate response is to insist that the discussion not be deflected and insist that the person carry his burden. The appropriate response is not to entirely derail the discussion with complaints or accusations dealing with arcane points of logic that the other person likely knows nothing about and will not be able to understand. It is not “engaging without pretense” to make objections that will likely not be understood by the other person, especially if the other person has already put one on notice that he does not understand the objection.
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Bob Ludwick
@ Ken W
“Climate Games anyone?”
Of course the impact of the ‘record drouth’ would have been noticeably less had the Californians not drained their reservoirs (the ones that they have not destroyed), specifically forbidding the use of the water for irrigation, to keep the downstream fish happy and comfy.
The good news? Just think how bad it would have been if CA had NOT taken such comprehensive action to thwart the warming/drouth.
Even with all the effort, the climatary catastrophe was unprecedented over the entire (30 year) history since CNN/MSNBC/ABC/CBS/NYTIMES/LATIMES/et al
have been calling our attention to the unfolding disaster. What happened BEFORE that is unimportant, of course.
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Barnes
No conspiracy needed Josh – you once again infer something that simply is not there. Group think and bias provide sufficient explanation for much of what takes place.
↧
↧
Comment on Differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower atmosphere by Ron C.
Comparing BEST Land & Ocean to INMCM4 over last 15 years.
Best data is here: http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_summary.txt
From 1998 to 2014: BEST shows warming of 0.10C/decade; INMCM4 shows 0.12C/ decade.
From 2005 to 2014: BEST shows a plateau of 0.001C/decade; INMCM4 shows 0.09C/decade
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Joshua
Barnes-
The implication of “apparently need to be adjusted” is that there’s a conspiracy.
Why would they “need” to be adjusted “in such a way” [that in a biased manner results in warning only and no cooling] if there weren’t a deliberate, shared agenda to skew the data?
But yeah, conspiracy ideation? What conspiracy ideation?
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by JustinWonder
92% of Swiss voters reject carbon tax :
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Willard
> If one deflects a discussion or tries to evade a burden then the appropriate response is to insist that the discussion not be deflected and insist that the person carry his burden.
Why?
Let it be noted that neither Joshua nor the Moshpit did that. In response to TonyB, the latter both addressed the topic and explained how to address it. While addressing himself to Swood, Joshua never switched from the “conversation” to the meta-conversation for the simple reason that his point was not in response to anything: it was meta all the way down.
In other words, Swood is misrepresenting what’s happening.
***
> The appropriate response is not to entirely derail the discussion with complaints or accusations dealing with arcane points of logic that the other person likely knows nothing about and will not be able to understand.
Is that so?
Topicality is not an “arcane point of logic.” (It’s not even a point of logic.) Every ClimateBall player knows about switching topics. Therefore Swood offers a caricature.
Every legally-minded commenter should know about leading questions. Claiming ignorance while repeatedly “just asking” loaded and rhetorical questions is suboptimal. Claiming ignorance after having tried to pussyfoot about the notion of burden of proof, which is at the heart of the whole techniqque, is implausible.
↧
↧
Comment on Differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower atmosphere by kim
Thanks again.
=====
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by rhhardin
Herding, by the way, is only slightly directed.
Three sheep equals one sheep, is the motto. If you get a crowd of three, you can herd them as easily as one. They follow each other.
As you see in climate science. You only have to herd one.
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by swood1000
> If one deflects a discussion or tries to evade a burden then the appropriate response is to insist that the discussion not be deflected and insist that the person carry his burden.
Why?
Well, actually only if you want to have the discussion. If you don’t want to have the discussion then replying in riddles works but no reply is probably the best.
Let it be noted that neither Joshua nor the Moshpit did that. In response to TonyB, the latter both addressed the topic and explained how to address it.
After this “explanation” Tonyb said:
Yes, what does it do? I Have no idea at all as to what is being inferred by that.
Interpretations welcome.
If your objections are so clear then why was Tonyb totally mystified by the response he got?
Claiming ignorance after having tried to pussyfoot about the notion of burden of proof, which is at the heart of the whole techniqque, is implausible.
At last, a clue? How is the notion of burden of proof at the heart of the whole technique?
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by nickels
nice
↧
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by Bad Andrew
Joshua,
Have you ever asked yourself what the (scientific or otherwise) value of adjusting past temperature data is?
If so, what was the answer you gave, if any?
Andrew
↧
Comment on 2 new papers on the ‘pause’ by Salvatore Del Prete
No you did not address the issue but that is okay because I think my take on that situation might indeed be correct.
↧
Comment on ‘Big players’ and the climate science boom by beththeserf
Funny how a word or phrase can set up a train of
associations, like Joshua mentioning the hen house,
making me think of Chicken Little and climate ‘Tipping
Points,’ Yikes! … Then thoughts of the IPCC over seeing
climate science and an image of the fox in charge of
the hen house … eggs … (
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
