Comment on The 97% feud by Jim Cripwell

July 28, 2014, 5:46 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The 97% feud by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread by angech

$

0

0

John, I think you are deliberately misinterpreting what I am trying to say, so let me be pedantic.

If, in physics you postulate a quantitative relationship between a dependent and independent variable, then in establishing what that relationship is, you must follow certain rules. In this case the warmists claim that as you add more CO2 (the independent variable) to the atmosphere, global temperatures (the dependent variable) will rise. The ratio of rise of CO2 and temperatures is the climate sensitivity.

In order to measure climate sensitivity, it is essential to prove that the observed rise in temperature was all caused by the rise in CO2, and no other factors were involved.

Since we do not know all the factors which affect global temperatures, this is impossible to do. So it is impractical. at the present time to measure climate sensitivity.

---

Comment on The 97% feud by Don Monfort

July 28, 2014, 5:58 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The 97% feud by Michael

≪ Previous: Comment on The 97% feud by Jim Cripwell

$

0

0

Personality disorders are rarely cured by taking a week to criticize the other side, Steven. The other side is also little joshie. He wouldn’t even know that he is criticizing himself, due to his stunning lack of self-awareness. Dude needs professional help.

Comment on The 97% feud by Michael

July 28, 2014, 6:10 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The 97% feud by wrhoward

≪ Previous: Comment on The 97% feud by Don Monfort

$

0

0

Skiphil | July 28, 2014 at 6:48 pm |
“(your) squalid comments is not admirable, it is merely…. evidence of his squalid comments.
I notice, Michael, that you only rarely respond with any kind of substantive, quality argument to anything or anyone here”

Skip, you concerns over “squalid comments” and lack of “quality arguments” would be admirable, if they hadn’t been preceded by this;

“your comment is ludicrous, simply asinine, you live in bizarro world….maliciously slanderous … so manifestly mendacious and incompetent…they are of vile and contemptible character ……malicious, tendentious … You and they are among the most intolerant, inept, and closed-minded …Get a clue….I continue to be astonished that you could be a university professor in any subject at all… I have never encountered anyone like you. Grow up and try honesty for a change.”,

which suggests your concerns are merely rhetorical.

Comment on The 97% feud by wrhoward

July 28, 2014, 6:12 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The 97% feud by John Carpenter

≪ Previous: Comment on The 97% feud by Michael

$

0

0

“Academic disputes are different from bar fights.”

Yes – academic disputes are more vicious. IMO bar fights are downright genteel compared to academic disputes.

What was that saying? “Academic politics are so vicious because the stakes are so low.”

I also have a theory that the viciousness is inversely proportional to the amount of actual data:

Many years ago, as a grad student, I attended a symposium on connections between human evolution and climate change (e.g. Pliocence acidification in Africa etc.). I and other paleoclimatologists presented on climate change in Africa and in the oceans (I was presenting on paleo-oceanographic change in the Southern Indian Ocean).

We paleoclimatologists had quite a few arguments running then (e.g. timing of Antarctic ice inception) but we had a lot of data. And as much as we argued we still enjoyed a good laugh together during the meeting and over beers after.

But I noticed some of the paleo-anthropologists had some very nasty arguments going on. And in some cases the only evidence they had to work with was a few teeth, or fragments of skeletons.

Thus my theory. So applying this theory to climate change, when it comes to *future* climate, of course we have no data whatsoever. (It seems obvious but sometimes I have to actually remind people.)

So maybe that’s the source of the nastiness in the debate.

Comment on The 97% feud by John Carpenter

July 28, 2014, 6:13 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The 97% feud by skiphil

≪ Previous: Comment on The 97% feud by wrhoward

$

0

0

Jim, your last explanation is much better and clearly is consistent with your belief, but I don’t think I deliberately misinterpret what you said. You said “you cant measure a quantity in physics unless you ensure that what is being measured was only caused by what has changed”. Clearly the entire field of physics does not adhere to that statement and, as written, that is what it infers. I was merely pointing that out. What I can’t understand is you have a big problem with physical models of complex climate systems and indirect measurement of CS and yet you apparently have no problem with equally complex particle physics that are predicted through models and theory where the experimental detection of such particles is highly uncertain and indirect as well. Physics is littered with examples where measurement cannot be reduced to simple direct relationships between a dependent and independent variables.

Comment on The 97% feud by skiphil

July 28, 2014, 6:38 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The 97% feud by rls

≪ Previous: Comment on The 97% feud by John Carpenter

$

0

0

It’s ok Michael, if anyone ever bothered to quilt-quote your comments here I would look magnificent in the comparison. Yes, every so often I lose patience with people as contemptible as you and the Rabbit. I regret it when I do, let me say that. You on the other hand, have never expressed a jot of regret never mind contrition, for your far more obnoxious performances here.

Comment on The 97% feud by rls

July 28, 2014, 7:01 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The 97% feud by skiphil

≪ Previous: Comment on The 97% feud by skiphil

$

0

0

Stevepostrel: The Duelfer Report says that no WMD were found but did find labs that had been producing VX. I’m not a chemist but how many people might have been killed with a vile of VX?

Comment on The 97% feud by skiphil

July 28, 2014, 7:10 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The 97% feud by Stephen Segrest

≪ Previous: Comment on The 97% feud by rls

$

0

0

btw Michael you butchered the very first sentence of mine you quoted, ripping it out of context and rendering it ungrammatical.

When a first term student does that in a paper they get an earful.

I didn’t bother to review the rest of your compendium for accuracy, since when someone botches the opening sentence so blatantly it is not worth the time to keep reading.

Did you ever get through that first term?

---

Comment on The 97% feud by Stephen Segrest

July 28, 2014, 7:22 pm

≫ Next: Comment on The 97% feud by rls

≪ Previous: Comment on The 97% feud by skiphil

$

0

0

I don’t know if I ever could find the “perfect” story to try and explain what I’m saying — but, here is a Time Magazine piece:

http://time.com/3041077/republicans-science-relationship/

When Jon Huntsman (who I supported) tried to even discuss GW in the 2012 Primaries, he was ridiculed by the GOP Base.

Dr. Curry was very clear in a UK interview this year that she (1) Agreed that the Earth’s temperatures were increasing (I think she used a timeframe of 40/60 years); (2) Believed in the “basic science” (which I would believe is what Dr. Molina is discussing) — I also think that this is what Steven Mosher refers to as the “no feed-back loop”.

I believe that the two (2) above points are what the 97% are saying and is certainly not “junk science”.

I believe if the Skeptic community including Politicians would say these 2 points (not framing this in politically ideology, which results in folks like Huntsman being ridiculed), then we could move into a much needed objective dialogue of the science uncertainties which Dr. Curry brings up in this great blog.

Comment on The 97% feud by rls

July 28, 2014, 7:39 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Politicizing the IPCC report by Faustino

≪ Previous: Comment on The 97% feud by Stephen Segrest

$

0

0

Stephen: I think the politcal debate she refers to is the debate between scientists; alarmists vs skeptics. Perhaps she is saying that the hysteria of CAGW is stifling the debate; interfering with needed scientific research.

Comment on Politicizing the IPCC report by Faustino

July 29, 2014, 11:56 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Politicizing the IPCC report by Skiphil

≪ Previous: Comment on The 97% feud by rls

$

0

0

The miasma explanation survived for close to 2000 years. I trust that for the sake of humanity the CAGW “explanation” will not do so.

Comment on Politicizing the IPCC report by Skiphil

July 29, 2014, 11:57 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Politicizing the IPCC report by rls

≪ Previous: Comment on Politicizing the IPCC report by Faustino

$

0

0

this is funny…. Joshua, there were no quotation marks, no italics, no indentation…. nothing to suggest it was a direct quotation. When I read it, having read JC’s lead article for this thread, it was obvious that it was not a direct quotation.

Why not just limit yourself to a quick apology? It’s a simple minor matter, but too typical of how you operate here (as others have noted). Leave it to politicians to do the “limited, partial hangout” thing (a Watergate phrase when trying to avoid responsibility).

Trying to put it back upon the wording of rls is silly, imho. His wording was fine. Accepting responsibility includes not trying to make someone else share in the blame for your “bad”….

Comment on Politicizing the IPCC report by rls

July 29, 2014, 11:57 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Politicizing the IPCC report by Michael

≪ Previous: Comment on Politicizing the IPCC report by Skiphil

$

0

0

The game above was seen played at Hogwarts. On one side the dark radiative force and on the other side the enlightened force of cloudian.

Comment on Politicizing the IPCC report by Michael

July 29, 2014, 11:58 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Politicizing the IPCC report by Skiphil

≪ Previous: Comment on Politicizing the IPCC report by rls

$

0

0

Black helicopters!

Comment on Politicizing the IPCC report by Skiphil

July 30, 2014, 12:01 am

≫ Next: Comment on Politicizing the IPCC report by Michael

≪ Previous: Comment on Politicizing the IPCC report by Michael

$

0

0

ooops now my turn to apologize!! Sorry, Joshua.

I saw the “Joshua: my bad” and thought I was reading your comment (while I was scanning comments too quickly). Ok, so rls agrees the comment should have been written more clearly, and I apologize for picking on Joshua when it was my misreading.

I still think the rls comment was fine and clear as a non-quotation, but obviously I booted my response to Joshua.

---

Comment on Politicizing the IPCC report by Michael

July 30, 2014, 12:06 am

≫ Next: Comment on Politicizing the IPCC report by The Gray Monk

≪ Previous: Comment on Politicizing the IPCC report by Skiphil

$

0

0

Skip,

This is what rls wrote before the excerpt that Joshua used;
“Michael: Here is an example of what Dr Curry said…”

An example of what Dr Curry said. Maybe you need to ponder that a bit more carefully.

But yes, I blame Joshua – he should know better than to assume that the ‘skeptics’ could get anything right.

Comment on Politicizing the IPCC report by The Gray Monk

July 30, 2014, 12:19 am

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread by WebHubTelescope

≪ Previous: Comment on Politicizing the IPCC report by Michael

$

0

0

When one of these so-called ‘experts’ and policy-makers can demonstrate to me publicly the ability to hold back the incoming tide in the Severn Estuary (or the Bay of Fundy if they prefer) I will accept the claim that we can ‘stabilise’ or hold back ‘climate change’. Until then, tell me how I can adapt and spend money on adapting rather than on ecologically damaging windmills and solar panels.

Comment on Open thread by WebHubTelescope

July 30, 2014, 12:35 am

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread by WebHubTelescope

≪ Previous: Comment on Politicizing the IPCC report by The Gray Monk

$

0

0

It is called exploratory data analysis. Maybe you want to look into it. I am guessing they don’t teach that in civ.

Comment on Open thread by WebHubTelescope

July 30, 2014, 12:41 am

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread by WebHubTelescope

$

0

0

The Right hand side (RHS) is the forcing function while the LHS is the differential equation response.

Thanks for your interest, you may yet catch on.

Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison

July 30, 2014, 12:42 am

≫ Next: Comment on Open thread by Rob Ellison

≪ Previous: Comment on Open thread by WebHubTelescope

$

0

0

He should try to explore reality – but I don’t think ENSO or indeed waves and oceanography in general is taught in electrician school.

It is like the Azimuth ENSO project – wake me up when they discover more than the basics. But I’ll presume at least that they aren’t totally bonkers.