Bill Maher.
Comment on The legacy of climategate by Tom
↧
↧
Comment on The legacy of climategate by Girma
Willis
I greatly appreciate her previous statement, the one you quoted.
That is great. That is here considered statement. I think you expect people to be much more consistent and always precise. You always amaze me how deeper you dig. Things I have not noticed, you bring them to the surface. I agree you are with a very high IQ. Please concentrate on the main prize of IPCC’s statements that are not supported by the data. Don’t concentrate on individuals. Concentrate on the AGW theory. Thanks for your precise articles with nice figures.
↧
Comment on The legacy of climategate by Wagathon
As in Welcome to the…
If you don’t believe global warming alarmism is destroying Western civilization then answer six questions (see, Paul Driessen, et al., Cause for alarm, 23-May-10). They are as follows:
A Six Question Global Warming IQ Test: http://wp.me/p27eOk-j5
↧
Comment on The legacy of climategate by Michael
watch out for those squirrels.
↧
Comment on The legacy of climategate: Part II by Girma
your voice can only lose credibility when you present politics as though it were science.
You cannot help attacking people.
Please stop being a bully!
It is here blog and she can put whatever she likes.
↧
↧
Comment on The legacy of climategate: Part II by Bart R
Girma | May 10, 2012 at 10:04 am |
Mr. Orssengo, you have conviction in your beliefs; there is no evidence you ever were actually convinced before you took up these beliefs. To have 100% conviction is to be deaf to skepticism, and immune to reasoning. It is a level of certainty unwarranted by any level of scientific evidence, and a state alien to the scientific mind.
That’s fine. If that’s the way you want to organize your thoughts, fill your boots. However, dressing up this fervent belief in the language of statistics and images misappropriated from graphical analysis is on its face fraudulent. These are the tools of people who do not deal in 100% conviction about their studies.
It would be better if you went off and invented your own language, and your own techniques, for conveying your unshakeable preconceptions. One observes that Latin is already claimed by another religion as a language of their faith, but fingerpainting is still available as a graphical method.
↧
Comment on The legacy of climategate: Part II by Wagathon
Of course if we want we already know enough to model the climate with relatively astounding accuracy — considering it really does not change much — and not just 100s of years out but even billions of years into the future.
Should we be forced to admit simple truths? For starters, the grid blocks that are used in the constructions of GCMs are too large to accurately simulate real-world climate conditions such as thunderstorms, hurricanes and other natural processes that transfer huge amounts of energy from the surface of the Earth to the stratosphere. Accordingly, various `parameters’ to account for what cannot be conceptualized and captured and, in any event, cannot be be quantified due to the limitations of the computing power availale on planet Earth. As a result, simple approximations of real-activity are used because the ability of GCMs to accurately represent actual, observable physical processes is impossible.
As these various parameters’ are selected simply to make the model agree with empirical data, the resulting models cannot be used to as evidence of reliability in capturing reality or forecasting the future. No one honestly argue that the use of such parameterization is proven or that the use of GCMs generally is justified because we cannot assume that a “model that has been ‘tuned’ to give a good representation of certain key observations will actually provide any predictive ability.
Such closely tuned models fail to satisfy a key requirement: they have not been formally evaluated to assure that the ‘tuning’ parameters used do not exceed the degrees of freedom based on GCM’s observational testing schemes.
↧
Comment on The legacy of climategate: Part II by timg56
I’m sure they only mean Fox News. Everybody’s favorite whipping boy.
↧
Comment on The legacy of climategate: Part II by timg56
Which may explain why you come off as someone already half into their cups.
↧
↧
Comment on The legacy of climategate: Part II by Wayne2
I thought the paper sounded like something else, and last night it hit me. Maibach, et al, sounds like a job candidates answer to the question, “What is your greatest weakness?”
You know, the one where they say, “I’m so productive, so smart, so reliable, that it tends to make my co-workers jealous.” Uh huh.
↧
Comment on The legacy of climategate: Part II by R. Gates
What part of the “globe” and over what cherry-picked time frame?
↧
Comment on The legacy of climategate: Part II by hunter
Michael,
If it were a few testy e-mails, yo u might have a point.
But good luck with getting those floors to pass inspection.
↧
Comment on The legacy of climategate: Part II by Theodore
The fact that the author uncritically starts from the position that the inquiries cleared the CRU people of scientific misconduct undermines their position. It has been clearly established that the inquiries failed to investigate the misconduct, said they weren’t authorized to look for misconduct, and uncritically accepted statements by the scientists that are demonstrably false. Failng to recognize that the investigations represent nothing more than a few coats of whitewash means the lessons have not been learned and the misconduct will continue just without an email trail to be leaked.
↧
↧
Comment on The legacy of climategate: Part II by Girma
Do you realize that IPCC goat a warming rate of about 0.2 deg C per decade for the period 1970-2000 because it did not remove the warming rate due to ocean cycles shown here? => http://bit.ly/HRvReF
When you remove the cyclic component, what you are left is a uniform warming shown by the read line. There is no acceleration in the warming rate after mid 20th century compared to before it.
How sad that the scientific community of the 20th century could not pick up such a major flow.
↧
Comment on The legacy of climategate: Part II by timg56
This: We can vote out pollies but even this is pointless as we have to replace them with other pollies.
Depressing, but true.
I’m still exercising my right to vote, but am also exercising my right to stock cartridges.
↧
Comment on The legacy of climategate: Part II by Dan Wallace
I think that what most of the commenters on Dr. Curry’s site fail to remember is that AGW is only a failure of communications. By posting different stories and different interpretations only then can AGW climatologists get a true understanding of what will work well and what just won’t be swallowed. Dr. Curry is doing her best to narrow down this communications gap as fast as she can. Please give her a little leeway and she will finally accomplish this and everybody will be pleased at the final AGW pronouncements that will save the earth. Your patients until that time will be greatly appreciated.
↧
Comment on The legacy of climategate: Part II by R. Gates
Tony,
I’d be very interested to see what you consider as more accurate graphs of the MWP (called MCA by some) and the LIA than shown here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5957/1256/F1.large.jpg
Sea surface changes in the AMO, ENSO, & PDO, are separately considered in creating these graphs. Note especially the interesting and obvious shift around 1300 in all three of these as we moved from the generally warmer period of the MWP (or MCA) the the generally cooler period of the LIA.
This graph was created by Michael Mann et. al. in 2009.
Anyway, I’d be very interesting to see your data for the same periods.
↧
↧
Comment on The legacy of climategate: Part II by timg56
No,
But banning cookies is typically something one can expect the state of Mass. to do. Frontrunners in showing what it takes to be a good nanny.
Michael, are you familiar with the concept of personal responsibility? Since when is it the state’s responsibility to determine what people can and can’t eat?
↧
Comment on The legacy of climategate: Part II by timg56
This explains a lot. As I recall, there has been quite a lot reported on how medical research isn’t exactly scientific and about the non-repeatability of a lot of studies.
↧
Comment on Climate sensitivity discussion thread by Bart R
Solar correlation with GMT isolates works brilliantly as far back as the GMT instrumental record allows, until 1960, when the it falls off a cliff.
Sorry, solar influence is gone.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
