Duarte’s got form for rushing out rather mistaken ‘slap-downs’.
See the one that Judith cites in her post for another example.
Comment on The conceits of consensus by Michael
↧
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by guenier
My evidence to the UK House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Select Committee inquiry in 2013 may be of interest:
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidenceHtml/4191
Note my reference to what I call the “Beyond Expertise Problem” (section 2.2).
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by Hans Erren
The lead author is called Verhegg<b>e</b>n, that's with an e not an a.
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
Oh, Brandon! For heaven’s sake! You are becoming soooo predictable!
Your recent flurry of comments here, there and elsewhere, notwithstanding your vow** sometime in the last few months that – for reasons you decided to keep to yourself – appear to contradict your proclamation (via your own blog) that you weren’t going to bother gracing other skeptic blogs with your presence and attention.
Consequently, I am left with the rather distinct impression that you are inclined to perceive every issue (particularly those in which matters might have some bearing – no matter how remote – on those to which you have taken exception, in your own inimicable fashion) only in the very narrow terms of the few molecules of the very old bone(s) at which you continue to gnaw.
As the mother of my long, long ago across the street neighbour was wont to say, in such circumstances, albeit in her rather old-fashioned Mancunian way: “Give over”!
**Evidence available on request
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by Michael Layden
The thing that has long puzzled me about Cook et al’s work is what part of science it belongs to. Clearly it has nothing to do with climate science, which is concerned with temperatures, clouds, oceans, glaciers and a raft of other physical phenomena.
And if it were social science, it would surely be offering some, perhaps anthropological, analysis of why these chaps think this way.
To me, it looks, walks and quacks like political persuasion. So why does it even come up for consideration in science circles?
↧
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by cerescokid
JCH is channeling the future and the great beyond. He was a child prodigy with this capacity and began watching “I Love Lucy” before there was a “I Love Lucy” and Ricky was still in Cuba.
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by Michael Cunningham
Excellent submission, guenier. Less obvious that the politicians understood and/or accepted your evidence. Has there been a shift since 2013?
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by Michael Cunningham
Hilary, “Hadaway wi’ yuh, man!” would be the Geordie version.
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by blunderbunny
Sorry, really don’t know who you are. But if it was really that simple for science to put all of us sadly misguided bloggers in our place – It would have done so by now.
Show us some decent science, should be your first step.
Just a thought.
Stop using the word Denier…. Just another thought
Take these two simple things on board and you never know you might just get somewhere
↧
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by JCH
Actually it’s the present. They are starting to say it. From 1985 until 2013-2014, natural variation worked against ACO2 – masked it.
Against; not for, which is the AMO crowd’s, people like Michael E. Mann, assumption. PDO big; amo LITTLE.
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by blunderbunny
Sorry that was to eadler2, who I’ve now seen has a PhD…. Well I’m not going to comment on that… but you’ve just made the statement that CO2 is not beneficial to plant life ???
Would you care, upon careful consideration, to retract that remark?
↧
Comment on The conceits of consensus by JCH
Blunderbunny just provided an example of the error that has permeated climate science discussion for many years - that the AMO is causing something major to happen to the global mean surface temperature.
<a href="http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2012/10/26/is-the-amo-the-explanation-for-the-1940-1970-temperature-standstill/" rel="nofollow"><b>1940-1970 standstill</b>
What is even more interesting is that the 32 and 50 year trend is still substantially lower than reported earlier. In other words, according to this simple analysis part of the 1970-2000 warming was due to the upswing of AMO. Similarly, the 1940-1970 flat temperature may have been the result of the downswing of AMO canceling the greenhouse gas warming. This provides in my opinion a more elegant explanation than the aerosol explanation most commonly used, but more research is needed to better pinpoint whether this is true.</a>
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Nick Stokes
‘Is this correct, or myth-making? Are there mentions of the pause, casual or in the literature, before the pause? I have found none.’
It is simply a consequence of known variability. Many different things could happen, and there is no reason why anyone would speculate about this particular form in advance. There was a pause in the Dow Jones index for the first decade of this century – a good deal more convincing than the “pause” in GMST. Plenty of people would have thought that could happen, but I doubt you’ll find anyone predicting in advance exactly that phenomenon.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Editor of the Fabius Maximus website
Nick,
Your comment is so confused it’s worth analysis.
(1) “It is simply a consequence of known variability…. a good deal more convincing than the “pause” in GMST.”
First you say it exists, then you say you’re not convinced it exists.
(2) “Many different things could happen, and there is no reason why anyone would speculate about this particular form in advance.”
So you believe Edwards is incorrect and that a pause was not expected.
(3) “There was a pause in the Dow Jones index for the first decade of this century”
Of what relevance is this? The Dow Jones Index traded between 53 and 103 from its creation in the mid-1880s until WWI. There was no widespread belief back then that stocks tended to rise.
(4) “Plenty of people would have thought that could happen…”
Can anyone identify that verb tense? Or how Nick knows what climate scientists “would have thought” in the past?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
It is almost inevitable after an El Nino like 1998 that was 0.3 C above the trend line, that a long “pause” starting with that would ensue. That perturbation was worth 2 decades of the warming rate. The “pause” was always constructed with the 1998 step at one end, and is just invisible if you take 1998 out.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998.5/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1970/to:1997.5/mean:12
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Editor of the Fabius Maximus website
Jim,
“It is almost inevitable … that a long “pause” … would ensue”
If only you had written that in 1999! But that doesn’t address Edwards’ statement.
“The “pause” was always … and is just invisible if you…
I don’t understand your point. Do you believe the climate scientists who wrote the scores of papers about the pause/hiatus (especially those exploring its causes) were mistaken? Or they were wasting their time?
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by Jim D
They were addressing the skeptosphere who had been taking the “pause” seriously and in a rising chorus as long as it was not addressed. As you see, it hangs on 1998, and climate is never about one year. Or half a year.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1998.5/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1970/to:1998/mean:12
↧
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by eadler2
PA wrote:
“The satellite data trend (0.30°C) is an artifact of the interval. Since the start of 1999 (the transition from El Nino to La Nina) there is no trend. The surface measurement is primarily some combination of ALW , CGAGW, and natural influence – since only 0.054°C is due to GHG.”
I don’t see how you reach the conclusion that only 0.054C/decade is due to GHG’s. Foster and Rhamsdorf analyzed the linear trend of the residual data after the removal of the effect of the exogenous variables, using a full range of starting years between 1979, when the satellite era started and 2005. The trends were all positive. Check out this graph.
Beginning the trend analysis at the year 2000 yielded positive values between 0.13 and 0.21 DegC/decade. The lowest value is for CRU, because they do not include parts of the Arctic without surface stations in their data. The Arctic is where the surface temperature increase is the largest at about 2X the global average.
↧
Comment on Climate Change, Epistemic Trust, and Expert Trustworthiness by eadler2
Blunderbunny wrote:
“you’ve just made the statement that CO2 is not beneficial to plant life ???
Would you care, upon careful consideration, to retract that remark?”
When CO2 levels are so high that they cause increased incidence of severe drought and floods the net result would not be favorable to plant life.
↧
Comment on Week in review – science edition by maksimovich1
You can extend back in the SH and the pause persists.The sum is not equivalent to the two parts.
Then again Vostok in the instrumental period shows on hell of a pause.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
