Botched environmental predictions for 2015

[Verax]

This dudes all over the place. Its a discussion on paleoclimate that somehow is countered by the 'fact' there has been no warming since 1995, and then clarification on paleoclimate studies turns into 'models' being wrong.

He sure has bought the Fox News climate story, hook line and sinker, though. Hits all the talking points, regardless of context.

LoL, I've noticed his "style" is a bit perplexing. He is obviously highly trained in denier myths and knows them all by heart.

He plays the whack a mole game where every myth he purports is knocked down he simply loads up another completely unrelated one and gives it a heave ho.

 

[Matter]

The deniers interpretation of them are false. Credible organizations have investigated them thoroughly and found no wrongdoing.

They found that those emails are false? That's the question.

 

[Matter]

This dudes all over the place.

Yep, handing you your rump in every single location. Are you going to address the email scandal or go put your invisibility cream on again. :lamo

 

[Verax]

They found that those emails are false? That's the question.

Nobody is saying the e-mails themselves are false.

 

[Matter]

Nobody is saying the e-mails themselves are false.

So, those members of the IPCC team itself who were also expressing concern/outrage over the same data as we are. Are they 'climate deniers' or healthy skeptics?

 

[Threegoofs]

Yep, handing you your rump in every single location. Are you going to address the email scandal or go put your invisibility cream on again. :lamo

First, its not a scandal.

Second, it bears no relationship to the subsequent scientific work in the field.

 

[Threegoofs]

So, those members of the IPCC team itself who were also expressing concern/outrage over the same data as we are. Are they 'climate deniers' or healthy skeptics?

Odd that the IPCC team was totally fine with referencing the MBH papers a decade after this 'concern/outrage'.

Looks like they are pretty much OK with the data, since, AGAIN, it has been independently confirmed with far larger and better datasets.
;

 

[Verax]

So, those members of the IPCC team itself who were also expressing concern/outrage over the same data as we are. Are they 'climate deniers' or healthy skeptics?

What are you even talking about?

 

[Threegoofs]

What are you even talking about?

I think he's prattling on about the Richard Tol stuff he posted above.

What an economist that is on the IPCC WG3 has to do with critiquing paleoclimate data in IPCC WG1 is a mystery to everyone but hardcore deniers, who know that the IPCC is always wrong except when they criticize other IPCC contributors.

 

[GPS_Flex]

Im not going to waste my time looking it up for you. Sorry. But I have gone over this repeatedly. And since you obviously want me to say something that you think will be wrong, why dont you just let us know what you think... or what you think I think, since that seems to be your point.

But I think its a nice illustrative example of what we know about the paleoclimate record for the last 12000 years or so. Thats about it.

So you cant tell us why its unscrupulous. Thought so.

We're in agreement then. You think it's a waste of your time to explain the relevance of data you grabbed from some unknown blogger's site, while criticizing others for using anything other than full blown studies published in your choice of scientific journals and I think it's a waste of my time to discuss such issues with a double standard bigot.

 

[Threegoofs]

We're in agreement then. You think it's a waste of your time to explain the relevance of data you grabbed from some unknown blogger's site, while criticizing others for using anything other than full blown studies published in your choice of scientific journals and I think it's a waste of my time to discuss such issues with a double standard bigot.

Well, the studies on the graph were referenced.

Bigot. That's funny.

 

[Verax]

We're in agreement then. You think it's a waste of your time to explain the relevance of data you grabbed from some unknown blogger's site, while criticizing others for using anything other than full blown studies published in your choice of scientific journals and I think it's a waste of my time to discuss such issues with a double standard bigot.

There is still a difference though. If you go to a respected site like skepticalscience or a quality blog one can argue its not peer reviewed research (even though the good ones provide references). However the difference is that these pro agw blogs mirror the mainstream agw research that is peer reviewed and credible. They are not making claims that deviate from the standard consensus.

This is in stark contrast to anti agw blogs and sites that present research that is very different from the accepted peer reviewed mainstream positions but are not backed up by anything.

 

[SlevinKelevra]

Putting forth faulty prognostications and stating the science is settled isn't science, either.

do you have science that shows that

1) CO2 vibration mode is NOT IR-active
2) we are not emitting CO2
3) CO2 is not increasing in the atmosphere and oceans
4) ..........

 

[GPS_Flex]

There is still a difference though. If you go to a respected site like skepticalscience or a quality blog one can argue its not peer reviewed research (even though the good ones provide references). However the difference is that these pro agw blogs mirror the mainstream agw research that is peer reviewed and credible. They are not making claims that deviate from the standard consensus.

This is in stark contrast to anti agw blogs and sites that present research that is very different from the accepted peer reviewed mainstream positions but are not backed up by anything.

Does this mean you’ll vouch for Jos Hagelaars and the 3 datasets graph he “shifted manually” to create? Who is Jos Hagelaars and where can I find the data required to test the graph he created?

And no, I don’t accept the premise of “fits accepted science” as a standard for measuring credibility with AGW because AGW has become too politicized. If the pro AGW folks weren’t trying so hard to hand more power to governments and control more money, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion would we?

 

[longview]

do you have science that shows that

1) CO2 vibration mode is NOT IR-active
2) we are not emitting CO2
3) CO2 is not increasing in the atmosphere and oceans
4) ..........

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and could absorb IR in the 14 to 15 um band (the lowest spin states in the lowest vibrational mode)
We are indeed emitting CO2 when we burn fossil fuels.
Do you have any Science that CO2 can cause warming beyond the accepted Direct response,(1.2 C per doubling per the IPCC)?

 

[GPS_Flex]

Well, the studies on the graph were referenced.

Oh, you should have said so. Now that I know I can simply take several faulty/contested studies and manually shift/overlay them to obtain my desired results, you’ll accept them as legitimate, so long as they are referenced, right? Good to know we got that out of the way. I thought I might actually need to support my understanding of the data I posted here just as you demand of others but if this is how we roll now, things are about to get fun.

Bigot. That's funny.

bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

Bigot - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

But I guess rampant ignorance is likely when you get your science analysis from Fox News, of all places!

Al Gore isn't a scientist, and doesn't make projections, no matter how much you and Fox want to pretend.

LOL. Spoken like someone who does not understand probabilities.

Again, getting your science info from Fox News and hackish denier blogs is a bad idea.

Went to WHOS site? Some denier? … But you don't read what scientists say, you read what Fox News says!

But I'm guessing the vocabulary is tough, and you'd rather get your info from Fox News, like in your OP.

All of this came from just a few pages within this thread. I won't speak for others but it looks pretty obstinate and intolerant to me.

 

[Threegoofs]

Does this mean you’ll vouch for Jos Hagelaars and the 3 datasets graph he “shifted manually” to create? Who is Jos Hagelaars and where can I find the data required to test the graph he created?

And no, I don’t accept the premise of “fits accepted science” as a standard for measuring credibility with AGW because AGW has become too politicized. If the pro AGW folks weren’t trying so hard to hand more power to governments and control more money, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion would we?

Why not look at Shakun's, Marcotts and Mann's papers.

Get back to us when you do.

This would, incidentally, be going back to my first response to you.

And if you don't accept 'established science', I can't really help you. I guess you just like to make stuff up in your own head that makes your life easier, because your other option is to rely on fake science, which isn't real useful.

 

[Verax]

Does this mean you’ll vouch for Jos Hagelaars and the 3 datasets graph he “shifted manually” to create? Who is Jos Hagelaars and where can I find the data required to test the graph he created?

And no, I don’t accept the premise of “fits accepted science” as a standard for measuring credibility with AGW because AGW has become too politicized. If the pro AGW folks weren’t trying so hard to hand more power to governments and control more money, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion would we?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[PeteEU]

ClimateGate 2.0: 5,000 New Emails Confirm Pattern of Deception and Collusion by Alarmists - 2011

{excerpted just for Threegoofs' reading pleasure!}



No scientific debate? Hell, this is their own team!

And the so called Climategate 2 has already been debunked. Those are selective out-takes of new emails not seen by the public but seen by the various investigators.

As some journalists said about this leak... "an apparent attempt to undermine public support for international action to tackle climate change" and considering that the emails were leaked a week before a major UN conference on climate change then...

Sorry but your views belong in the conspiracy theory section.

 

[Matter]

Oh, you should have said so. Now that I know I can simply take several faulty/contested studies and manually shift/overlay them to obtain my desired results, you’ll accept them as legitimate, so long as they are referenced, right? Good to know we got that out of the way. I thought I might actually need to support my understanding of the data I posted here just as you demand of others but if this is how we roll now, things are about to get fun.


Bigot - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary













All of this came from just a few pages within this thread. I won't speak for others but it looks pretty obstinate and intolerant to me.

Very intolerant...with a not just a little condescencion in the mix.... and he holds a decent double standard on sources (as does Verax) when discussing this. If I post scientific data from a blog, he and Verax finds it unacceptable. But if Mike Mann has a blog(for example)....welllllllllllllllll... that's totally different in a parallel universe somewhere devoid of logic. Also, these folks keep telling us the investigations have cleared them when clearly they not been cleared. Threegoofs looked a Congressional investigation that compared scientific reports and Mann ended up altering his data... and states there was no scientific data involved!

You can't make this up!

 

[Matter]

And the so called Climategate 2 has already been debunked.

By whom? Let me guess..... Mann?

 

[Matter]

Those are selective out-takes of new emails not seen by the public but seen by the various investigators.

Oh, really? As published by the Daily Telegraph in 2011.

Sorry but your views belong in the conspiracy theory section.

Somebody in this thread belongs there but it's not me.

 

[Matter]

Climategate: Pielke Senior on the NCDC CCSP report – “strong arm tactics”

{excerpted}

Last email in the series:

Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 01:14:59 +0000

From: pielke_r@comcast.net

To: james.r.Mahoney@noaa.gov, james.r.Mahoney@noaa.gov

Cc: _NESDIS NCDC CCSP Temp Trends Lead Authors

<CCSPTempTrendAuthors.NCDC@noaa.gov>; richard.moss@pnl.gov,

<richard.moss@pnl.gov>

Subject: Resignation

Dear Dr. Mahoney

I am resigning effective immediately from the CCSP Committee “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere-Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences”. For the reasons briefly summarized in my blog (http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/blog/), I have given up seeking to promote a balanced presentation of the issue of assessing recent spatial and temporal surface and tropospheric temperature trends. The NY Times article today was the last straw. This entire exercise has been very disappointing, and, unfortunately is a direct result of having the same people write the assessment report as have completed the studies.

Their premature representation of aspects of the report to the media and in a Senate Hearing before we finalized the report has made me realize that, despite the claims of some of them to the contrary, only the minimal representation of the perspective that I represent will be begrudgingly included in the report. I also learned earlier this week that a member of the Committee drafted a replacement chapter to the one that I had been responsible for and worked hard toward reaching a consensus, which was almost complete. This sort of politicking has no place in a community assessment. If such committees are put together with no intention of adequately accommodating minority, but scientifically valid perspectives, then it would be best in the future not to invite such participation on CCSP committees I will be submitting a statement as part of the public record when the report appears documenting the specific process and science issues I have with this report. On the science issues, the community at large can made a decision as to whether or not they have merit.

Respectively

Roger A. Pielke Sr.

Professor and State Climatologist

Department of Atmospheric Science

Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado 80523-1371

...very intolerant and selective group.. much like others around here.

 

[PeteEU]

Oh, really? As published by the Daily Telegraph in 2011.



Somebody in this thread belongs there but it's not me.

The Daily Telegraph is a conservative leaning paper that has pretty much consistently backed climate change deniers which makes it utterly biased.

 

[Matter]

The Daily Telegraph is a conservative leaning paper that has pretty much consistently backed climate change deniers which makes it utterly biased.

....and is quite public contrary to your assertion. Show me a news outlet that isn't biased.