peter3172, The quote is a gem. I can say no more in polite company.
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by KenW
↧
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by bobdroege
Why change the subject?
I wasn’t offering a proof of global warming, only a testable and falsifiable prediction.
If the warming of the 20th century was all natural, then we should see events of that magnitude in the proxy record, but we don’t. See Mann! and others.
If the 20th century was like the past centuries, we should have seen 20th century temperatures flat with slight variation, like the proxies show for the past 20 centuries, but we don’t, we see a spike like we haven’t seen in the last 20 centuries. Thus the null is falsified.
The null being CO2 causes no warming. Which is the part you got correct.
well done
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by aaron
It doesn’t. The precautionary principle only applies if you ask if you should curl up in a ball and die. Of course, it says you should, and you first.
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by jim2
I haven’t scoured the blog to see if this has been noted somewhere. If so, apologies.
From the article:
…
Anthropogenic climate change is a very topical issue. We consider climate sensitivity as an indicator and apply mixed-effects multilevel meta-regression to estimate potential publication selection bias and the underlying mean effect. The results confirm that publication bias is strong in this literature. After correction for the bias, the estimated true effect of climate sensitivity
is approximately one half of the simple mean of all the estimates in the collected sample of
…
literature. If the simple mean reflects climate scientists’ impression of the magnitude of climate sensitivity, that impression exaggerates the true climate sensitivity two times.
…
http://meta-analysis.cz/climate/climate_sensitivity.pdf
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by KenW
We know that you are conscientious Steven. Does that go for all the model based “experiments” i read about in the news?
↧
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by climatereason
bobdroege
Come off it Bob. The 1000 year old British record I am privileged to be able to read, courtesy of the Met Office archives and other sources, demonstrate that the weather of the past 50 to 100 years have been generally benign.
The historic record is full of ‘unprecedented’ events of which the most frequently occurring are huge and violent storms and periods of rain so intense and long lasting that they change the course of rivers and sweep away villages and more importantly, destroy crops, causing famine. Perhaps the tree ring proxies don’t record this as the most vulnerable ones were swept away….
tonyb
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by Dan Pangburn
That suggests deficiency in your engineering science skill. Can you be more specific about what you take issue with?
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by KenW
yeah, traps is not the right word. I prefer “retain” – like eating salty stuff causes you to retain beer. You just reach equilibrium a little bit later.
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by Arch Stanton
↧
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by AK
<blockquote>If the warming of the 20th century was all natural, then we should see events of that magnitude in the proxy record, but we don’t. See Mann! and others.</blockquote>The proxy record's been <b>smoothed.</b> If you don't even understand this much perhaps you should read more, comment less.<blockquote>If the 20th century was like the past centuries, we should have seen 20th century temperatures flat with slight variation, like the proxies show for the past 20 centuries, but we don’t, we see a spike like we haven’t seen in the last 20 centuries. Thus the null is falsified.</blockquote>St00pid!
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by Wagathon
The null is not, ‘CO2 causes no warming.’ Being skeptical of the Left’s theory that humanity’s CO2 is dooming the globe is what being a scientist is all about and it’s no different from being skeptical of claims that aliens cause global warming. In both instances, the null hypothesis of ‘AGW’ theory — that all observed global warming can be explained by natural causes — cannot be rejected.
Historians, long hence, will surely have a fascinating time analyzing the rise and fall of the cult of catastrophic ‘global warming’. Even now it is possible to detect close parallels with the pattern of many traditional doomsday cults. And, it is particularly interesting to note that scientists are just as susceptible to such cults as nonscientists. (Dr. Philip Stott)
With all we know about Michael Mann, how can he still have a job at Penn State?
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by timg56
RE: “Just because jumping off of a 10 story building sounds stupid, doesn’t mean it is.”
OK. How about you go first Bob.
and “The Rolling Stone is better”. (as a source of climate change news)
Bob, did you start your drinking early?
BTW – I took grad level courses in Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry. I also recognize crap science when I see it. For example Tom Karl’s latest work on SST’s. Or the regular production of papers based almost entirely on model results. If you think this is valid you really need to check yourself.
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by JCH
sea level – spiking
OHC – spiking
GMST – spiking
PDO – clearly solidly positive
AMO – spiking up
SST, lol.
I would tell you to stick your head into the sand, but it is so far up your butt it’s not going to easy to get it out. So its present position will have to suffice.
↧
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by JCH
So they have no mitigation infrastructure in England in the last 150 years?
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by Stanton Brown
I think that the biggest way that scientists fool themselves (and each other) is in thinking that the present paradigm of how science is done has any value. Scientists treat peer-reviewed, published studies as if they represent good quality work. That’s just stupid.
Take the example of Phil Jones and his use of bogus temp data from China. Somebody published it. He didn’t question it. It was published, therefore it must be good. If you point out to scientists that perhaps he has an obligation to do some due diligence regarding the data quality before using it in work which he intended to influence public policy, the scientists will tell you that science isn’t done that way.
And that’s the problem. The way science is done is a disaster for society.
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by timg56
Mike Flynn,
JCH probably is a believer in the concept of the planet having a fixed carrying capacity. Therefore people in general are the ultimate form of carbon pollution.
Of course if JCH does believe this, the question becomes “Why is he not a man of his convictions?”
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by timg56
+100
There would be a huge market for regional weather forecasts that were functionally accurate just a few months out. Yet what we get are 40+ different models which proportedly tell us what the climate will be in 100 years.
↧
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by timg56
JCH’s what’s wrong with people making money?
Tell you what, how about you pay my income taxes this year? No? Of course not. Hypocrites don’t step up.
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by Arch Stanton
Now, more weather news from the front…
Neo Ice Age starts tomorrow.
↧
Comment on How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop by Dan Pangburn
The section titled “Demonstration that CO2 has no effect on AGT” of the paper at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com covers the same stuff and also identifies the two factors that did cause the average global temperature (AGT) change since the depths of the LIA (R^2=0.97 since before 1900). About 37% of the calculated temperature change 1909-2005 was due to ocean oscillations and 63% correlates with the time-integral of sunspot numbers. The mechanism appears to be the effect that sunspots have on clouds and that AGT is very sensitive to cloud extent and average altitude as shown at http://lowaltitudeclouds.blogspot.com.
As to your survey: Ice ages or near ice ages have occurred about every 150 million years. Ice cores show that, during the current ice age, glaciations and interglacials correlate with the Milankovtich cycles. The ice core data from the current and two previous interglacials show increasing resistance to decline into glaciation. Given all that, statement 1 is least wrong.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
