No point reading beyond this line……”but the scientific evidence that people are causing climate change is overwhelming, and mounting” because the reality is that the scientific evidence of manmade heating was entirely model-based and is now disproven by mother nature. The only available evidence (ie the data) tells us that the stratosphere hasn’t cooled since 1995, the sea surface temperature down to 700m hasn’t warmed since accurate records replaced guesswork, the tropical troposhere shows no sign of the ‘hotspot’ that would indicate water vapour positive feedback and the global temperature hasn’t increased since 1997. ie the evidence, far from ‘mounting’ is non-existent and always was. The current debate is about where this expected manmade heat went, not about it actually being evident! If any writer doesn’t know these absolute basics then there is nothing he can ever contribute to the discourse.
Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by JamesG
↧
↧
Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by thisisnotgoodtogo
” Tree-ring based climate records reveal PDO effects that have resulted in 20-30 year periods of hot, dry summers coupled with decreased winter snowpack (Pederson et al. 2004). These periods have induced rapid recession, as high as 100 m/yr between 1917-1941″
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Nick Stokes
The investigations didn’t decide on the validity of the research. They investigated whether there was misconduct.
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by JamesG
It’s mostly about whether the judge leans to the left or the right otherwise it would have been thrown out long ago. Quite simply, if you make base allegations in print against everyone who disagrees with you then you are entitled to expect they do the same. The fact that such a truly simple matter takes so long is a total indictment of the legal system.
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Nick Stokes
“someone to be able to disagree, nastily if necessary”
I haven’t seen the defense argue that nastiness was necessary. But no, it’s a case about defamation and damage. No-one is arguing that you can’t disagree.
“he deserves no protection”? What principle is that? Where does the law say that “propagandists” are to be treated differently?
↧
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by JamesG
The amazing thing about Krugman is how he could so correctly identifiy that the vast majority of economists fell in love with an idea that was wrong, due to massive dogma, confirmation bias and trusting models too much and real data not enough yet that he cannot comprehend this happens in science too. It doesn’t matter how many people believe a hypothesis – if mother nature disagrees then it must be wrong.
The idea of who is the biggest sinner of course really depends on whether the cure is worse than the putative disease. We could even say that the previous mistakes of the consensus of economists has cost us far more than climate policy. You’d thing he’d have learnt something about hubris by now!
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by bit chilly
the definition of “attack” in academia is a source of great amusement to me. as children i think most people would have recited the “sticks and stones” nursery rythme ,though it appears many academics failed to understand it.
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by beththeserf
What the hell! Give that mann a medal. (
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Lou
After graduating from college in 2000 apparently having already learned how “dirty” things have ran at colleges – DO NOT QUESTION PROFESSORS! – After 14 years, it is amazing how much of everything I questioned turned out to be right. I had thought the professors know everything since they did so much work but there was something I thought was not quite right but I was just young and not yet quite knowledgeable. It’s just funny how things turned out. “Liberal” professors are the worst kind that have happened to USA and everywhere else. They are not really “liberal” as they claim to be. That’s the hard earned life lesson for me. Unfortunately, not for others. They got brainwashed instead…
↧
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Bob Greene
Mann seems very reluctant to go to court and defend his good name.
When I hear the words climate science and peer reviewed, Mr. Mann somehow comes to mind.
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by A fan of *MORE* discourse
Question Does the abusive language of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Mac Steyn pass through Judith Curry’s own Climate Etc filters?
Experimental Test Verbatim quotes will be posted as a response to this post!
The world wonders!
![\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=bbffcc&fg=0055ff&s=2 "\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 Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by A fan of *MORE* discourse
Outcome of Experiment The abusive language of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Mac Steyn FAILS Climate Etc moderation standards.
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Speed
Mann suing Steyn is like trying to win an argument in blog comments. Wouldn’t Mann be more productive doing good science than writing briefs?
↧
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by nottawa rafter
Faustino
Krugman’s denial of Social Security adding to the deficit when the SS trustees report clearly shows it does, makes your point and puts him in the same camp as Mann, et al. The message is everything. Never mind the
facts.
It is sad a Nobel laureate can be provenwrong so easily.
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Joshua
Nice biblical reference there, David –
World champion?
He name-calls. Never defended it. Never will.
Judith complains about his name-calling. RPJr. complains about name-calling. Lots of people complain about his name-calling. Name-calling is often a topic in these threads. You know, the whole “denier” outrage
So one would think that: (a) Judith wouldn’t yuk it up with RPJr. about what names to call Mann and, (b) many “denizens” of Climate Etc.would hold Judith to the standard they often argue should apply to others.
Try finding one thread at Climate Etc. where those who complain about name-calling don’t name-call. You know, the whole “alarmist” “warmist” “statist” “warmista” “Lysenkoist” thing (actually, haven’t seen Lysenko much recently. Where’s hunter?). Perhaps the best is when Judith and other “skeptics” discuss the appropriateness of using “denier” for those who think there’s a higher risk of ACO2 negatively affecting the climate.
Are there any biblical quotes you can think of on the topic of how to treat others relative to how you expect to be treated?
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Joshua
If you think that Mann’s statement was incoherent, then you must think that it is incoherent when you read the common “denizen” refrain about how “climate scientists are part of an evil cabal seeking to take away your freedom in support of creating a socialist world government.”
Which was the point that I made earlier. Did you have some difficulty understanding that point?
↧
Comment on Appeals to the climate consensus can give the wrong impression by Donald Rapp
“And indeed over the past 50 years each successive decade has been warmer than the previous one.”
That is simply not true. Furthermore, why limit oneself to 50 years? We have reasonable data for at least 100 years. And during that period there two warming periods, one 30 years long and one 22 years long. There were two cooling or flat periods, one 25 years long, and one 16 years long and still in play. There is no evidence that this was caused by greenhouse gases and there is a good correlation with Nino indices.
“AND it is also true that looking at the most recent decade+ it’s hard to make the case for a clear and unambiguous trend either way. So the warming trend may have slowed or stopped, but at a high temperature compared to previous decades. That is why statements like “it hasn’t warmed since _____ (pick your starting year) ” and “this is the warmest decade on record” may both be true.”
But the fact that there is no trend in itself defies the greenhouse theory. But you are right that we remain on a high plateau. This might possibly be at least partly explainable by the fact that past period dominated by strong El Ninos removed reflective snow and ice from higher northern latitudes that was not replaced during periods of weal La Ninas. On the other hand there might be some combination of rising greenhouse gas concentrations coupled to El Nino predominance that produces the periods of warming. Who knows?
“Calling the past decade+ a “pause” or a “hiatus” is probably correct, but both words imply it’s temporary. This begs the question: if it’s a “pause” when will it end? And what will the rate of warming be following the pause?”
What about the period from 1941 to 1976? Was that a pause, a hiatus, a stoppage, or what? In fact it was not only a pause, but the global temperature average actually decreased.
↧
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by philjourdan
Mann’s case (all of them really) boils down to one simple question. Do you have the right not to be offended? If the answer is yes, then you side with Mann. If the answer is no, then you side with Steyn et. al. Understanding there is a different level of proof for a “public person” versus a non-public person, really is irrelevant.
So the question is: Do you have a right not to be offended?
No one likes to be offended. But it is a part of life.
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Michael
Dave W,
Huh?
Should there be some special law that excludes scientists from access to civil law??
↧
Comment on Mann vs Steyn et al. discussion thread by Joshua
He is arguing that the constant refrain that we hear among “skeptics,” that ““climate scientists are part of an evil cabal seeking to take away your freedom in support of creating a socialist world government.” is the result of attacks emanating from well-funded and well-organized campaigns the conservative media.
It’s an argument that I don’t think is entirely correct, although I think it is at least partially true. There is little doubt that there are well-funded (I suppose well-funded is a subjective term) efforts on the part of well-organized (again perhaps relative) organizations to attack climate scientists. And much of those attacks are promoted by conservative media. I don’t agree entirely, however, as I think that the ubiquity of those kind of attacks is not entirely attributable to those well-organized and well-funded attacks. Some of extent to which that “notion” exists is a more organic process where it is generated in a more individual mechanism of identity-protection and identity-aggression among individual “skeptics” because of their ideological//political identifications.
In other words, I would guess that GarM, Wags, CWON, etc. would have that notion independent of the attacks funded and organized by organizations like the Heartwell Institute.
==> “It is nothing but an ***assertion***”
Well, yes. He argued by assertion because he didn’t provide evidence. The evidence of the “notion” he spoke of is ubiquitous. The causality behind that widespread “notion” is not so easy provide evidence of. His argument would have been better if he had provided evidence. The ubiquity of argument by assertion is one of the problems with the blogospheric world of the climate wars.
==> “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 ”
See above.
So yes, the argument isn’t coherent. Which brings us back to my original comment:
That reads like a solid chunk of the comments here at Climate Etc. – think GaryM, Wags, Cwon and the like. I never realized that you thought that so much of the Denizens’ arguments were incoherent.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
