WebHubTelescope,
Could you elaborate on these graphs you are showing?
I don’t see the link with the hockey stick. With the blade maybe, but what is a blade without a stick?
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by Romain
↧
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by A fan of *MORE* discourse
Latimer Alder requests “Please provide specific examples of the failings [of] Rud Istvan’s commentaries.”
Thank you for this request, Latimer Alder!
Answer Rud Istvan publicly embraced willfully ignorant denialism with “Nope. Nada. Nein.”
Ouch … Rud grossly fumbled that one … what is your next request, Latimer Alder?
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ddffee&fg=00aa00&s=1 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by pokerguy
People who personify nature are almost always making a mistake. Wendell Berry is deeply confused I’m afraid.
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by climatereason
Fan
Latimer asked you a specific question;
“Please provide specific examples of the failings [of] Rud Istvan’s commentaries.”
You don’t seem to have actually answered with the SPECIFIC failings. Perhaps you can enumerate them?
Whilst you are about it can you point me in the direction of Dr Hansens paper on rising temperatures since 1690? As you know Giss was only a staging post and not a starting post for rising temperatures and I am sure he will have addressed this reality. Thank you
tonyb
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by Don Monfort
You are confused, fanny. That wasn’t an editorial. It was a straightforward report on the results of a public opinion poll. The public is just not that worried about getting burned up by CO2. You are losing. You are letting Mother Nature down. If you really believe that the earth is in danger, you might consider the possibility that demonizing those you want to convince is not a good strategy. But you are having too much fun as a clownish pain-in-the-ass provocateur.
↧
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by Eric H.
Steven Mosher- You have my standing ovation for this post.
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by A fan of *MORE* discourse
Regarding Rud Istvan’s failings Click the link, read, and think!
Regarding Hansen’s recent articles perhaps you have in-mind Climate Sensitivity, Sea Level, and Atmospheric CO2 … or references therein?
If you’re exclusively seeking to cherry-pick minor flaws, that focus is itself trait #13 of denialism, eh TonyB?
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ffffee&fg=ff0088&s=1 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by michael hart
Further to Steve Mosher’s and Willis Eschenbach’s disagreement…
I have sat through more than one Cardiovascular Journal-Club meeting in a University Hospital, where the Chair closed with a comment about how much fun it had been to trash a paper published in Science [Magazine].
One one such occasion a key piece of experimental evidence was within the domain of two or three post-docs in the audience who pronounced that it apparently contained a serious error commonly found with that particular technique, but they couldn’t be 100% sure based on the presented data.
Another member of the audience inquired why a reviewer/referee wouldn’t have picked-up on the matter. A faculty Professor, who appeared to be one of the mildest-mannered and smartest people in the room, declared with a resigned look on his face that “that is a question you just can’t ask.”
How much of the MSM realizes that many areas of science, like the rest of the world, contain minefields regarding what you can say and ask in a professional context without causing (possibly) career-damaging offense?
People like Steve McIntyre, coming from more engineering-oriented backgrounds, are more used to asking those types of questions. Or at least apparently more often than many influential climate-researchers are used to answering such questions.
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by A fan of *MORE* discourse
↧
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by michael hart
I add that many “areas of science” do not have $$Trillion political-, economic-, and humanitarian-decisions riding on people asking the right question at the right time.
In fact I know of only one area of science that currently meets those criteria. Clinical decisions in medicine, or oil-field development, are not based on MSM celebration of shoddy Science papers, so it seems reasonable that the IPCC should be required to expect higher standards that may be commonplace in other disciplines.
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by Wagathon
What Felix Vasquez Jr. said when reviewing <em>Life of Pi</em> also applies to AGW theory in the modern world of Western academia--i.e., proponents of global warming endorse <em>the notion of blind faith, and denial as a positive character trait.</em>
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by michael hart
“…what is a blade without a stick?”
A baseball bat.
Either way, it is a blunt instrument which is not ‘teasing’ anything out of the data (to use the favorite noun of those describing science which is not elegant but contrived).
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by A fan of *MORE* discourse
pokerguy ludicrously opines “People who personify nature are almost always making a mistake. Wendell Berry is deeply confused I’m afraid.”
LOL … PokerGuy, it’s time to “tell the truth and shame the Devil!”
PokerGuy, have you, personally, read any of Wendell Berry’s essays, fiction, or poetry?
Because Wendell Berry’s works don’t personalize Nature! Berry’s dry-eyed conservative philosophy is the precise opposite … that it’s Nature that naturalizes us humans.
Thanks for making us Wendell-Berry-conservatives smile, PokerGuy!
↧
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by michael hart
verb :)
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by DayHay
Adding scale is also very interesting:
http://i.imgur.com/s19MOMd.jpg
Yep, obviously we are in big trouble…..
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by Latimer Alder
@A Fan of More Discourse
Since your response to requests for specific examples is merely handwaving unspecific generalities and vague broadbrush links to vague broadbrush complaints about abstract philosophical constructs, I’ll assume that this is yet another to add to the long list of subjects on which your monotonous ‘discourse’ includes no worthwhile content.
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by willard (@nevaudit)
I will point at this title:
> NRC’s artless untruths on climate change and food security
http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/22/nrcs-artless-untruths-on-climate-change-and-food-security/
and that will be all,
for now.
↧
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by manacker
Jim Cripwell and Myrrh
It has been said that CAGW, as outlined by IPCC in its AR4 report, is impossible to falsify or corroborate with empirical scientific evidence from actual physical observations or reproducible experimentation.
But “impossible” is a BIG word.
The galactic cosmic ray cloud nucleation hypothesis proposed by Henrik Svensmark et al. is another case in point.
Just as for the CAGW hypothesis, the underlying mechanism has been demonstrated experimentally under controlled conditions. For neither hypothesis, however, does this experimental work provide empirical data to support and quantify (or falsify) the hypothesis that this mechanism actually exerts a climate forcing resulting in a perceptible effect on global temperature in our atmosphere.
But, unlike the case for CAGW, actual reproducible experimentation under controlled conditions simulating our atmosphere are planned at CERN to either corroborate and quantify or falsify the Svensmark hypothesis.
Once this work has been completed, we will (hopefully) have empirical evidence to tell us whether or not the demonstrated cosmic ray cloud nucleation mechanism really has an impact on our global temperature.
My question to the two of you: If this is possible for the Svensmark hypothesis (I am assuming the money spent at CERN will not ne in vain), why could something similar not be done for the CAGW hypothesis?
Billions are being spent on all sorts of peripheral work or sea levels, Arctic sea ice extent, etc. as well as model studies on CAGW, so why is no one working on the basics?
Is the underlying reason because CAGW proponents are afraid of what theses experiments will show (i.e. models are easier to control than actual physical experiments)?
I have a hard time erasing the suspicion in my mind that this might be the biggest reason why such experiments are not being considered, after all these many years of unresolved scientific debate on “anthropogenic climate change”.
What do you think?
Max
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by A fan of *MORE* discourse
timg56 asks “Fan, what parish to you attend Mass at?”
Why, the very same parish as the redoubtable Wendell Berry!
“The same ancient Catholic Church to which you and I, and all of us, and every mother’s son and soul of us belong; the great and everlasting First Congregation of this whole worshipping world; we all belong to that; only some of us cherish some queer crotchets no ways touching the grand belief; in THAT we all join hands.”
You belong to this same parish, timg56!
↧
Comment on Playing hockey – blowing the whistle by manacker
kim
“it’s hot in the kitchen”
Whadja expect? (Aincha heard of “global warmin”?)
Max
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
