Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by mosomoso

August 14, 2014, 4:31 am

≫ Next: Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by nottawa rafter

≪ Previous: Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by TGBrown

$

0

0

I think most must know that Arctic ice has been low before (MWP, early 1800s, 1920s onwards); that sea level rise (this blip) started in the late 1700s; and that this current warming looks like every other warming in that great wave series of warming and cooling called the Holocene.

How do you see a special fingerprint or exotic causation in something dead common? If Arctic ice and world temps ever stabilised, if sea levels ever went static…now that would be seriously weird.

Why are we expected to marvel over the non-weird?

---

Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by nottawa rafter

August 14, 2014, 4:38 am

≫ Next: Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by AK

≪ Previous: Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by mosomoso

$

0

0

A scientist who believes it will warm by .01 C in the next century and natural variability accounts for 99% of the warming would fall into the 97% consensus per your interpretation of Cook’s paper. The claim is a multi-layered continuum with such a big umbrella that almost any belief is covered.

Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by AK

August 14, 2014, 4:47 am

≫ Next: Comment on Week in review by jim2

≪ Previous: Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by nottawa rafter

$

0

0

<blockquote>Some processes may be “irreversible” on time scales so long they may as well be “irreversible” for purposes of economic planning. Good example is the ocean buffering of CO2. All our understanding says it *will* happen but the time scales will be on 10^2 to 10^4 years. Including weathering takes this time scale (the “long tail”) out to 10^5 years.</blockquote>What if human industry starts extracting CO2 from surface waters, at a rate that grows exponentially until it reaches an order of magnitude more than what we're currently dumping into the atmosphere from fossil carbon? Is it still <i>"irreversible"</i>?

Comment on Week in review by jim2

August 14, 2014, 4:49 am

≫ Next: Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by AK

≪ Previous: Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by AK

$

0

0

From the article:
…

Mark J. Perry
Macro, economy, Professor
Profile| Send Message|
Follow (557 followers)
Another U.S. Energy Milestone: U.S. Was The World’s Largest Petroleum Producer In April For The 18th Straight Month
Aug. 14, 2014 4:53 AM ET | Includes: BNO, CRUD, DBO, DNO, DTO, DWTI, OIL, OLEM, OLO, SCO, SZO, UCO, USL, USO, UWTI

(click to enlarge)

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) released new data this week on international energy production for the month of April, and here are some highlights of that update:

1. For the 18th month in a row starting in November 2012, “Saudi America” took the top spot again in April as the No. 1 petroleum producer in the world. Also, for the 18th straight month, total petroleum production (crude oil and other petroleum products like natural gas plant liquids, leased condensate, and refined petroleum products) in the US during the month of April at 13.63 million barrels per day (bpd) exceeded petroleum production in No. 2 Saudi Arabia (11.61 million bpd), see chart above.

2. During the 2004 to 2008 period before America’s shale boom started, Saudi Arabia routinely produced 2 – 3 million more barrels of petroleum products a day than the US. But since America’s shale revolution started in 2009, there has been a surge of nearly 60% in the supply of petroleum produced in the US and America surpassed Saudi Arabia at the end of 2012 to become the world’s No. 1 petroleum producer. In April, production of US petroleum products (13.63 million bpd) exceeded Saudi Arabia’s output (11.61 million bdp) by more than 2 million bpd, which is the biggest difference in favor of the US during the 20 year history of international production data from the EIA (see chart).
…
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2421975-another-u-s-energy-milestone-u-s-was-the-worlds-largest-petroleum-producer-in-april-for-the-18th-straight-month

Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by AK

August 14, 2014, 4:51 am

≫ Next: Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by steven

≪ Previous: Comment on Week in review by jim2

$

0

0

@NW…

I’m not talking about bubbles, I’m talking about systemic crashes. There was a whole string of mortgage/housing bubbles during the latter 20th century, but no systemic crash of the sort we saw in 2006/2007.

Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by steven

August 14, 2014, 5:05 am

≫ Next: Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

≪ Previous: Comment on A precautionary tale: more sorry than safe(?) by AK

$

0

0

I am 97% sure that if poleward heat transport is solar driven or if poleward heat transport is from internal variation and is due to switch direction, that 97% of the 97% consensus will be 97% sure they were only agreeing that humans must have some indeterminate influence on the climate but that they were sure of that at the 97% level.

Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

August 14, 2014, 5:11 am

≫ Next: Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by cwon14

≪ Previous: Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by steven

$

0

0

They will just pick another few of the model runs that “projected” that then say it is worse than they thought.

Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by cwon14

August 14, 2014, 5:12 am

≫ Next: Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by steven

≪ Previous: Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.2

$

0

0

Concluding the “97%”, like “denier” which means “Holocaust Denier” in left-wing media lexicon, like “consensus” itself is the sum total and metaphor for everything evil about the thuggish debate distortions of the climate advocate culture.

As the IPCC routinely gathers thousands of pages of research only to ignore all but the most inflammatory supporting the leadership agenda, go into a closed meeting and write the distorted and propagandist “summary statement” that suit largely non-scientists, we get the scientifically meaningless “97%” held up by the same suspects. So “97%” is something that doesn’t even mean what distorted and steered polls manufactured imply repeated in the public debate in the same fashion as if IPCC summary conclusions distort the bulk of the inconclusive or apolitical contributions to their project. A reminder that it always was and always will be politically driven. All backed by faulty and contrived research claims.

---

Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by steven

August 14, 2014, 5:13 am

≫ Next: Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by RickA

≪ Previous: Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by cwon14

$

0

0

Dallas, unfortunately probably true. We will get The Day After Tomorrow arguments.

Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by RickA

August 14, 2014, 5:20 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by David Young

≪ Previous: Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by steven

$

0

0

Paul:

“Comments are closed for this post.”

Ha Ha.

Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by David Young

August 15, 2014, 12:40 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Keitho

≪ Previous: Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by RickA

$

0

0

Yes Josh, its well documented that Mann is the world champion in the name calling department. Do you agree? Remove the beam from your own eye before you remove the speck from your neighbors eye.

Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Keitho

August 15, 2014, 12:41 am

≫ Next: Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by Faustino

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by David Young

$

0

0

President Obama has been called many much worse things and has been accused of many much worse actions and motivations than Dr. Mann and yet has not tried to shut down his opponents using litigation. No doubt Dr. Mann would be flattered to be equated with President Obama yet he goes about trying to shut down his critics using the courts and cash.

I don’t think Dr. Mann has a snowballs chance in hell of prevailing. Unfortunately for him and his followers his failure in this litigation will translate into the perceived failure of his science in the public’s eye.

Despite his undoubted intelligence and desire to win at all costs it seems he is going to fail in many ways and on multiple levels the support of many, including the judge so far, of the good and great.

Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by Faustino

August 15, 2014, 12:44 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Skiphil

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Keitho

$

0

0

W R Howard, note that Tony Brown (climatereason) is writing on the basis of extensive research of actual records of events and changes, while the work you quote derives its attributions from models and statistical manipulations rather than direct observation of causes. I’d go with the historical record over models every time.

Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Skiphil

August 15, 2014, 12:57 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Skiphil

≪ Previous: Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by Faustino

$

0

0

Joshua, the sentence you quoted does not qualify as any “argument” coherent or otherwise.

It is nothing but an ***assertion***

Whether or not you think it would be well-founded based upon a forthcoming argument, what you quoted lacks all pretense of reasoning between premises and a logically entailed conclusion.

Hence, not an argument.

p.s. Whatever one thinks of myriad comments here, many do not pretend to be an “argument” but rather are (frequently) sardonic or sarcastic musings on the issues of the day.

p.p.s. None of the above is an argument, either. I do not need to construct a logical argument to show that the sentence you quoted fails the most elementary standards of argumentation. Whether Mann’s statement might be “true” in any sense is quite distinct from whether it was argued for, whether brilliantly or poorly.

Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Skiphil

August 15, 2014, 1:09 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Nick Stokes

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Skiphil

$

0

0

Long ago I wrote to the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation), urging them to weigh in on this case. I am happy to see that they have followed my advice and joined in on this amicus brief: <a href="http://cei.org/sites/default/files/AMICUS%20BRIEF%20of%20Electronic%20Fronter%20Foundation%20et%20al%20in%20CEI%20v.%20Mann%208-11-14.PDF" rel="nofollow">amicus brief from CEI, EFF, et al.</a> ok ok, perhaps I was not a decisive influence, but I am glad to see them getting involved in this case....

---

Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Nick Stokes

August 15, 2014, 1:21 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by thisisnotgoodtogo

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Skiphil

$

0

0

True, the statement is right; but as MaxDaddy notes, it isn't even the ACLU speaking. They are quoting <a href="http://www.skeptical-science.com/people/skeptics/burzynski-quackery-updates-good-news/" rel="nofollow">Judge Easterbrook, 1994</a>.

Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by thisisnotgoodtogo

August 15, 2014, 1:27 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by DaveW

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Nick Stokes

$

0

0

Nick Stokes.
Then why did Mann argue to some success under the funny judges that investigations by scientific and governmental bodies, “laid to rest” defendants’ questions regarding Mann’s research?

Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by DaveW

August 15, 2014, 1:33 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by angech

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by thisisnotgoodtogo

$

0

0

No Nick and Michael, neither of you seem to understand that this isn’t about the science and is everything about the need for someone to be able to disagree, nastily if necessary, with propaganda (a term that is neutral in its essence, to argue for, but nefarious in its reality). From what I have read of and by Dr Mann, he has a strong political agenda and seeks to promote Anthropogenic Global Warming without regard to how he is willing to portray those who disagree with him. As a political propagandist on the ‘consensus’ side (i.e. the political establishment), he deserves no protection under the law from those who are brave enough to disagree with him. His only recourse should be better argument than his accusers.

Caveat: I’m neutral on Anthropogenic Global Warming (I think the data is inconclusive) and, as I am in concern for any religious intrusion into science, against Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by angech

August 15, 2014, 1:33 am

≫ Next: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Pekka Pirilä

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by DaveW

$

0

0

any chance of any action soon?
In Australia it takes 5-6 years to get an important case to court.
The sad thing is that Professor Mann will not have to give evidence on his work if the current appeal is upheld, unless the judge decides to call him in to defend it in order for the action to go ahead.
Can Steyn still proceed with his counter case, without an anti SLAPP ruling if Mann’s case is thrown out?
Steyn would seem to be even more of a public figure.

Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Pekka Pirilä

August 15, 2014, 1:33 am

≫ Next: Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by JamesG

≪ Previous: Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by angech

$

0

0

My impression is that there are more than 2 levels in this case.

At the bottom is the scientific work, at the top the freedom of speech important to ACLU. There are, however, intermediate levels related to the discussion of climate change related matters in public. How these levels are construed may be, what’s decisive for this case.

I do not pretend to understand well the U.S judicial issues. Thus I don’t speculate more on the outcome.