Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Week in review by AK

0
0

Just trying to force her to waste time. I suppose you’re not trying to delay the Salby piece, since you mention that as well, I wonder what you are trying to delay.


Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by TJA

0
0

Right. OK, maybe you can find some junior climate debate site where you can practice. Maybe somebody there will not have heard and dismissed every argument you are making.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by bob droege

0
0

Are you sure that RSS uses thermometers?

That is the only place the pause lives.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Edim

0
0

Padbrit, you’re wrong. Global Warming hysteria is financed by big business. Follow the money.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Edim

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Edim

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Padbrit (@Padbrit)

Comment on Week in review by John Smith (it's my real name)

0
0

Dr. JC
Just read the Daily Kos attack on you
guilt by association … despicable
no other substance

I’ve read complaints on other sites about how “deniers” like you are winning the public relations battle …
no wonder


Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by JCH

0
0
<a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to:2010.33/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2010.33/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2010.33/to:2012/trend" rel="nofollow">you are counting on La Nina events of near record strength, and you're not likely to get them</a>

Comment on Week in review by Joshua

0
0

AK –

==> “Just trying to force her to waste time. I suppose you’re not trying to delay the Salby piece, since you mention that as well, I wonder what you are trying to delay.”

You’re a funny guy. Sometimes you write some interesting comments – and then you write garbage like that.

No, I’m not trying to “force” her to waste her time. First, I couldn’t do so even if I wanted to – so there’d be no reason for me to try. 2nd, I don’t consider her answering Gavin’s point-by-point, as she indicated she would, to be a “waste of time (and neither did she a couple of weeks ago). 3rd, I think that she should abide by the same standards that she applies to others

To be honest, I found her response to Gavin to be lacking (weak gruel, as it were) – and given the constant refrains from “skeptics” about how “realist” scientists won’t debate, I find her failure to respond to Gavin to be ironic – as is the lack of criticism from “skeptics” for her failure to respond.

And yes, I would like to see her stake out a position on whether the cause of atmospheric rise in CO2 is anthropogenic. Seems like a pretty major issue w/r/t the climate wars – and if she doesn’t think the cause is anthropogenic, then she should come out and say it, IMO.

She’s been cagey, IMO, on the issue – and given how she exploits the “most ‘skeptics’ don’t doubt that Anthropogenic CO2 warms the climate, they only doubt the magnitude of the effect,” misdirection – then it seems to me it should be relevant for her to clarify whether she thinks it viable to argue that human emissions aren’t causing the rise in atmospheric CO2.

It’s hard for me to see how she can make that characterization of “skeptical” arguments if she, herself, thinks that the rise in atmospheric CO2 isn’t even anthropogenic in nature.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Padbrit (@Padbrit)

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by Rob Ellison

0
0

They love to cite the 97% but avoid details. Yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas – but what does that mean? Most warming in the last two multi-decadal climate regimes – 1944 to 1998 was anthropogenic? Well yes – we may assume that was the case – but what does it mean in hard numbers?

Wally Broecker’s 1975 (234 citations) ‘Are We on the Brink of Pronounced Global Warming’ seems still germane. It shows a combination of factors.

It would certainly suggest that we were on the brink of a cooler regime in 1998. Many people were aware of this. There are a couple of profound implications.

Residual warming from CO2 is modest at best – some 0.07 degrees C/decade.

Non-warming – or even cooling – is likely to persist for decades.

Climate is a beast as Wally tells us – there is no guarantee that the next climate shift will not be yet cooler conditions as we leave behind a 1000 year high.

Here’s a scientific consensus for you. See what you make of it.

‘A vigorous spectrum of interdecadal internal variability presents numerous challenges to our current understanding of the climate. First, it suggests that climate models in general still have difficulty reproducing the magnitude and spatiotemporal patterns of internal variability necessary to capture the observed character of the 20th century climate trajectory. Presumably, this is due primarily to deficiencies in ocean dynamics. Moving toward higher resolution, eddy resolving oceanic models should help reduce this deficiency. Second, theoretical arguments suggest that a more variable climate is a more sensitive climate to imposed forcings (13). Viewed in this light, the lack of modeled compared to observed interdecadal variability (Fig. 2B) may indicate that current models underestimate climate sensitivity. Finally, the presence of vigorous climate variability presents significant challenges to near-term climate prediction (25, 26), leaving open the possibility of steady or even declining global mean surface temperatures over the next several decades that could present a significant empirical obstacle to the implementation of policies directed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (27). However, global warming could likewise suddenly and without any ostensive cause accelerate due to internal variability. To paraphrase C. S. Lewis, the climate system appears wild, and may continue to hold many surprises if pressed.’ Swanson et al 2009

I doubt that it can get past the internal filter fitted in Borg Collective blogospheris echo chambers – a filter that is both psychologically and sociologically primed. Psychologically because they have been buttressed by ideas of consensus for too long – and abused too many anti-science sceptics – to make acceptance of the science of complexity and uncertainty a bridge too far. Thus they need to stridently discredit Curry, Tsonis and whoever else is deemed to have stepped out of line. You will find it here with Joshua, Webbly, Willard, Michael and now this shallow twit bravely venturing into the realm of the dragon. Sociologically because it is linked to progressive ambitions to transform societies and economies. Thus a world that is not warming is undermines both the psychological constructs around in and out groups and the political ambitions that are the most potent expression. The ground they are finding is shifting under them and they are in a losing struggle to shore up the battlements crumbling around them.

Their world is one of smug self satisfaction buttressed by the groupthink – and vile behavior, dishonesty, and stunning hatred and malice as a standard way to deal with the bete noir of climate dissent. This routinely includes castigating the other for unfairly calling them names. Funny as hell really – welcome to the real world where there are far fewer limits to free expression than in the echo chambers of the progressives. If he stayed – he might discover the science of complexity and uncertainty but neither seems very likely. Too much of a challenge to the smug personality constructs inadequately buttressed with too few and too silly Borg collective memes.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by WebHubTelescope (@WHUT)

0
0

“I was not aware of this until Rob Ellison drew my attention to it.”

JD, #OwnGoal perhaps (?)

Unlike the global warming signal, not unprecedented.

Comment on Week in review by AK

0
0

If that’s the only problem, yes. It may have to wait for a little more maturity in materials technology. Problem is, IMO, they’re pointing at the wrong location. They need to float it on the ocean, cool it with water pumped from the deep. (And perhaps, while they’re at it, let that warmed water float on the surface, with its nutrients, and add to the carbon pump.)

Comment on Week in review by jim2

0
0

Scott – I believe we need to re-examine this rather asinine idea of a surgical war. Let’s examine it in light of the unsuccessful “containment” wars with WWI and WWII. Collateral damage might be the only way some militants get the message that survival lies at the end of the path to peace. We might also consider cutting off a few heads of the militant hydra also, political, religious, or otherwise if they teach hate.


Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by David Springer

0
0

“the man behind the hockey stick fraud”

Isn’t a graph that sort of bears the shape of a hockey stick, but isn’t actually used to play hockey, a fraudulent hockey stick by definition?

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by phatboy

0
0

Must be all that global warming causing the atmosphere to hold more moisture.
Oh, hang on …

Comment on Week in review by AK

0
0

But I still think using methanogens to convert electrolytic H2 will turn out more cost-effective.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by RickA

0
0

Markus said “those who accuse fraud have the burden of proof.”

True.

However, nobody is suing Mann for fraud.

Instead Mann is suing Steyn and Simberg for defamation.

Mann has the burden of proof on defamation in the DC court:

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/district-columbia-defamation-law

According to District of Columbia law, defamation claims have four elements:

1. the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff;
2. the defendant published the statement without privilege to a third party;
3. the defendant’s fault in publishing the statement amounted to at least negligence; and
4. either the statement was actionable as a matter of law irrespective of special harm or its publication caused the plaintiff special harm.

So Mann has to show that Steyn (for example) made a FALSE and DEFAMATORY statement about Mann. Mann has to show the statement was False. Mann has to show that Steyn’s statement was not true. I hope the burden of proof is clear on this point. Mann has the burden of proving that Steyn’s statement that the hockey stick graph was fraudulent is not true. Beyond that, if Steyn’s statement is an opinion it cannot be defamation.

So Markus – I hope who has the burden of proof is now clear.

Comment on Fraudulent(?) hockey stick by David Springer

0
0

How does a career get advanced without someone acting?

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images