Call in Mosher to explain to us why these important adjustments don’t change the conclusion.
Andrew
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Bad Andrew
↧
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Ahora intentan negar La Pausa (en el calentamiento global). De risa. | PlazaMoyua.com
[…] Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? […]
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by bobgately
If the temperature was about 70 deg. F between the ice ages, then shouldn’t we expect the current temperature to continue to increase until we get to about 70 deg. F since we are still in an ice age? What difference does it make what causes a rising temperature since we always have a rising temperature following an ice age and we are still in an ice age?
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Stanton Brown
The alarmists want us to know that while they haven’t been able to figure out what has happened over the last few decades, they are absolutely certain what will happen in the next century. I suspect that their admission that their understanding of the recent past was flawed might not build a lot of confidence in their claims about the future.
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Editor of the Fabius Maximus website
Tony,
Thanks for the additional history. I didn’t know this went back to the 1960s.
The famous letter to President Nixon about cooling described in NOAA’s official history was December 1972. The reduction of aerosols following the Clean Air Act of 1963 and its ever-tightening amendments had their effect, so that a 1974 textbook I cited discussed cooling as a possibility, but with warming more likely. And the rest is history…
↧
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by 125WMARION (@N565UA)
Why not manufacture a homogenized ocean set by synthesizing a decontamination of the boat data to conform with the more robust – and scientifically-intended – buoy data? Why did they chose to make the buoy data “more like the boat data” and not the other way around? Am I missing a clear reason, or is the obvious answer staging in my mind the real reason?
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Mark Silbert
Adjusting buoy data to match “ship of opportunity” data is totally bizarre. We spend billions of dollars launching satellites and deploying state of the art ocean buoys and then “correct” their data to match ship obs, really?
The more details of GST estimation I am exposed to just confirms my existing bias that the entire endeavor is silly and subjective.
What will alarmist bureaucracy stoop to next?
↧
Comment on Why Skeptics hate climate skeptics by Don Monfort
I don’t get your point, PE. People and organizations evolve. You seem to be suggesting that some sinister force took over here:
“How did a group founded to combat claims of the paranormal evolve to becoming a support organization for an astronomer charging that Climate Change Denial is a Threat to National Security? If history were a little different perhaps the skeptic’s organizations would be challenging the climate mainstream.”
Are they really a support organization for that? Seems rather hyperbolic. What little differences in history could have resulted in these folks doing the opposite of what they are doing? You seem to give them little credit for integrity, or is it intelligence. My guess is they are persuaded by the consensus story. A lot of people are.
As for Randi’s (1) comments seemingly endorsing climate skepticism and (2) what you characterize as the retraction, he said the same thing in both:
(1)”I base this on my admittedly rudimentary knowledge of the facts about planet Earth.”
(2) “Again, the importance and the impact of this phenomenon is well beyond my grasp. I merely expressed my thoughts about the controversy, and I received a storm (no pun intended) of comments, many of which showed a lack of careful reading that led to unfair presumptions and interpretations.”
He didn’t know what he was talking about. Perhaps later he felt that he gained some insight and decided to go with the consensus, textbook science as had been his habit in the past.
Why they call themselves skeptics, we don’t know. Probably just an affectation. Anyway, not very interesting.
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by superchillskeptic
Ah, it seems as though things have become utterly shameless as the Paris meeting nears. This was bound to happen.
I think that a novel aspect of this is some of the new language being used in the AP story. Seth Borenstein (who writes several biased articles every week) uses the term “non-scientist” three times when referring to people skeptical of CAGW. I have to wonder if we’ll see this offensive tactic again. The piece also tries to re-write the IPCC’s handling of the hiatus–as though the IPCC was just humoring the “non-scientists”. I suppose we’ll see that theme again, too.
In any case, the role of activist journalists like Mr. Borenstein interests me and I was wondering if there is anything worth reading about their involvement in the climate change debate. Thanks in advance for any recommendations. :-)
↧
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Wagathon
The scientific credibility of government global warming scientists is on hiatus.
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by AK
I predict there will continue to be more “<i>post-hoc adjustments</i>”. We'll see how successful that prediction is.
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by climategrog
Never is a tall order. Maybe just once would help.
If just ONE TIME they did not adjust the data so it gets closer to what the models say it “should” be.
If as much effort was put into CORRECTING the models instead of ‘correcting’ the data, they may get somewhere.
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by aaron
It’s almost as if they are intentionaly destroying their credibility.
↧
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Bad Andrew
Aaron,
I’ve often thought that some of the obvious over the top stuff from Warmers were cries for help. But I might be wrong.
Andrew
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by Don Monfort
So we should not indulge in vaporous considerations of conflict of interest in drug research. The science will stand or fall on its merit.
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by curryja
I agree.
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by curryja
thx
↧
↧
Comment on Why Skeptics hate climate skeptics by Willard
> I don’t know what a “climate contrarian” is.
All of 1-9 are cases of incredulity, David Skurnik, not skepticism. You may find other cases in that matrix:
https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/
If you have other cases that have not been mentioned in the contrarian matrix, with a source, I’ll consider adding it.
***
Here’s how we can distinguish incredulity from skepticism:
[I]n all ordinary cases of incredulity, the grounds for the doubt can, in principle, be removed. As Wittgenstein would say, doubt occurs within the context of things undoubted. If something is doubted, something else must be held fast because doubt presupposes that there are means of removing the doubt. We doubt that the bird is a robin because, at least in part, we think we know how robins typically fly and what their typical coloration is. That is, we think our general picture of the world is right—or right enough—so that it does provide us with both the grounds for doubt and the means for potentially removing the doubt. Thus, ordinary incredulity about some feature of the world occurs against a background of sequestered beliefs about the world. We are not doubting that we have any knowledge of the world. Far from it, we are presupposing that we do know some things about the world. To quote Wittgenstein, “A doubt without an end is not even a doubt” (Wittgenstein 1969, ¶ 625).
In contrast, philosophical skepticism attempts to render doubtful every member of some class of propositions that we think falls within our ken. One member of the class is not pitted against another. The grounds for either withholding assent to the claim that we can have such knowledge or denying that we can have such knowledge are such that there is no possible way either to answer them or to neutralize them by appealing to another member of the class because the same doubt applies to each and every member of the class. Thus, philosophical doubt or philosophical skepticism, as opposed to ordinary incredulity, can not, in principle, be removed. Or so the philosophical skeptic will claim!
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/
If you want an application of more of the same:
http://planet3.org/2012/08/24/incredibilism/
Incredibilism is easy. Skepticism is harder.
***
In all fairness, those who call themselves “skeptics” (those who hate) are no true skeptics either. They are merely evidence-based knowledge activists. OTOH, there might be reasons why evidence-based activists “hate” climate contrarians.
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by fulltimetumbleweed/tumbleweedstumbling
No, they should always make a clear statement of potential conflict of interest by stating very clearly it is the policy of the administration we work under that climate change exists and is real and it is our job to prove it and if we don’t, we will likely be fired or have our money cut off. That way people would know just how seriously to take them. Imagine the screaming if someone with funding from say The Evil Koch brothers had published this article? The attitude that government scientists are off limits for conflict of interest is silly.
↧
Comment on Has NOAA ‘busted’ the pause in global warming? by David Wojick
What this actually busts is the surface statistical models. Booya!
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
