Climate Scientist Michael Mann sues NR

[Jack Hays]

I received a paperweight as a gift from my co-workers at a service anniversary party that had the words "Illegitimis non carborundrum" embedded in it. It sat proudly on my desk at work for years! :lamo

Good evening, Jack. :2wave:

Good evening, Polgara.:2wave:
Fake Latin or not, it's still a fine sentiment.eace

 

[polgara]

Good evening, Polgara.:2wave:
Fake Latin or not, it's still a fine sentiment.eace

:agree: It was a very appropriate, and much appreciated gift! :thumbs:

 

[code1211]

Yup. You are right, this is Latin (pseudo-Latin, in fact). The original quote seems to be "Illegitimis non carborundum", meaning "Don't let the bastards wear/get/grind you down". Here is some background:

"Yes, this means "Don't let the bastards grind you down", but it
is not real Latin; it is a pseudo-Latin joke.

"Carborundum" is a trademark for a very hard substance composed
of silicon carbide, used in grinding. (The name "Carborundum" is a
blend of "carbon" and "corundum". "Corundum" denotes aluminium
oxide, and comes to English from Tamil kuruntam; it is related to
Sanskrit kuruvinda = "ruby".) "The "-ndum" ending suggests the
Latin gerundive, which is used to express desirability of the
activity denoted by the verb, as in Nil desperandum = "nothing to
be despaired of"; addendum = "(thing) fit to be added";
corrigendum = "(thing) fit to be corrected"; and the name Amanda,
from amanda = "fit to be loved").

Illegitimis is the dative plural of illegitimus =
"illegitimate"; the gerundive in Latin correctly takes the dative to
denote the agent. Illegitimus could conceivably mean "bastard" in
Latin, but was not the usual word for it: Follett World-Wide Latin
Dictionary (Follett, 1967) gives nothus homo for bastard of known
father, and spurius for bastard of unknown father.

The phrase seems to have originated with British army
intelligence early in World War II. It was popularized when U.S.
general Joseph W. "Vinegar Joe" Stilwell (1883-1946) adopted it as
his motto. Various variant forms are in circulation."eace

I had a pretty good friend who was a priest and he loved the bastardized versions of Latin. That was one. another was, and please excuse my spelling, "Semper ubbie sub ubbie". "Always wear under wear".

I've never offered that advice to a female companion.

 

[Threegoofs]

Good evening, Polgara.:2wave:
Fake Latin or not, it's still a fine sentiment.eace

Well, code says its stupid. So fight it out.

 

[MoSurveyor]

You're right. When discussing real science and real scientists, AGW scientists and the results they produce are an entirely different topic.

In other words, "Yes, we Deniers exaggerate what the climate scientists publish and we claim they're wrong when our exaggerations don't come to pass".

 

[Somerville]

Why don't people provide links to the original pages they c & p? Here's the one for post #473 > AUE: FAQ excerpt: "Illegitimis non carborundum"

On the Wiki page one may read: "... a wooden plaque bearing the phrase sits prominently on the desk of U.S. House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner."

 

[Threegoofs]

Yup. You are right, this is Latin (pseudo-Latin, in fact). The original quote seems to be "Illegitimis non carborundum", meaning "Don't let the bastards wear/get/grind you down". Here is some background:

"Yes, this means "Don't let the bastards grind you down", but it
is not real Latin; it is a pseudo-Latin joke.

"Carborundum" is a trademark for a very hard substance composed
of silicon carbide, used in grinding. (The name "Carborundum" is a
blend of "carbon" and "corundum". "Corundum" denotes aluminium
oxide, and comes to English from Tamil kuruntam; it is related to
Sanskrit kuruvinda = "ruby".) "The "-ndum" ending suggests the
Latin gerundive, which is used to express desirability of the
activity denoted by the verb, as in Nil desperandum = "nothing to
be despaired of"; addendum = "(thing) fit to be added";
corrigendum = "(thing) fit to be corrected"; and the name Amanda,
from amanda = "fit to be loved").

Illegitimis is the dative plural of illegitimus =
"illegitimate"; the gerundive in Latin correctly takes the dative to
denote the agent. Illegitimus could conceivably mean "bastard" in
Latin, but was not the usual word for it: Follett World-Wide Latin
Dictionary (Follett, 1967) gives nothus homo for bastard of known
father, and spurius for bastard of unknown father.

The phrase seems to have originated with British army
intelligence early in World War II. It was popularized when U.S.
general Joseph W. "Vinegar Joe" Stilwell (1883-1946) adopted it as
his motto. Various variant forms are in circulation."eace

Wow. So JH cribbed this whole thing and pretended it was his own?

Not real surprised, I guess. Shame and self realization should ensue, but I'm guessing he's refractory to that.

 

[Somerville]

Wow. So JH cribbed this whole thing and pretended it was his own?

Not real surprised, I guess. Shame and self realization should ensue, but I'm guessing he's refractory to that.

Well, he did have some quote marks at the beginning and the end :lol:

 

[Jack Hays]

Wow. So JH cribbed this whole thing and pretended it was his own?

Not real surprised, I guess. Shame and self realization should ensue, but I'm guessing he's refractory to that.

Never claimed it was mine. Please note the quotation marks. Try again.

 

[Jack Hays]

Would this be a reverse hockey stick?:mrgreen:

[h=2]An illustration that CO2 won’t roast the Earth in a runaway tipping point…[/h] Posted on August 8, 2013 by Anthony Watts
…because the Earth has experienced massive CO2 pulses and recovered before.
From the something you don’t see every day department comes this graph:
[h=3]Atmospheric CO2 Concentration by Geologic Time Period[/h]
Source: GeoCO2.png Photo by dhm1353 | Photobucket
H/t to Tom Nelson
Here’s the next graph showing the sources:

Source: CO2_Decline.png Photo by dhm1353 | Photobucket

 

[Threegoofs]

Anthony Watts- a stupid mans idea of what a smart man sounds like.

 

[Jack Hays]

Anthony Watts- a stupid mans idea of what a smart man sounds like.

Classic ad hominem evasion.:mrgreen:

 

[code1211]

In other words, "Yes, we Deniers exaggerate what the climate scientists publish and we claim they're wrong when our exaggerations don't come to pass".

The link showed the predictions from the IPCC to include a range of predicted temperature for the next 100 years of between 1 and 7 degrees,

This is less scientific than most of AGW, but does a great job of exposing it for what it is.

Why do you defend this? I suppose a better question is, "What is the defense you present for this?"

 

[MoSurveyor]

The link showed the predictions from the IPCC to include a range of predicted temperature for the next 100 years of between 1 and 7 degrees,

This is less scientific than most of AGW, but does a great job of exposing it for what it is.

Why do you defend this? I suppose a better question is, "What is the defense you present for this?"

If you want to defend the quote below that's on you. You've shown no evidence, as yet. Shall I repost the definition of "projection" again, or did you get it the first time?

YOUR SIDE is arguing that they know what the global climate will be in 100 years.

 

[code1211]

If you want to defend the quote below that's on you. You've shown no evidence, as yet. Shall I repost the definition of "projection" again, or did you get it the first time?

I will accept this as the projection's accuracy being indefensible. That's all I'm saying.

 

[jmotivator]

If you want to defend the quote below that's on you. You've shown no evidence, as yet. Shall I repost the definition of "projection" again, or did you get it the first time?

So what you are saying is that the IPCC doesn't actually believe that their model is capable of predicting climate 100 years from now? All they are varying in those scenarios is CO2 -- the only part they are projecting is CO2 concentration.

The weakness in the CAGW argument is it's unbending certitude of these predictions. If they were honest and let on to the public that really they are not at all certain what the climate will be in 100 years, and that their models are not to be trusted with long term (or short term for that matter) forecasts -- essentially the bread and butter of alarmism since all the very bad things are supposed to happen well in the future -- then I'd have no problem with their work... but the world also wouldn't have endured 20 years of idiotic and wasteful fixes for a non-problem.

Note also that the IPCC graph at 100 years with constant CO2 has essentially the same standard deviation as the warming of the last 100 years, so they think they are as accurate in future forecast as they are in collating known data...

 

[MoSurveyor]

I will accept this as the projection's accuracy being indefensible. That's all I'm saying.

You can say whatever you want, that doesn't make it true. jmotivator posted a ridiculous claim, I said it was BS, and you tried but failed to defend the ridiculous claim. Now you've attempted to shift the topic and I won't bite - Boo-hoo.


Deniers constantly say scientists claim to "know" things that the scientists never claimed to know in the first place. This strand has been an excellent example of said behavior, as is the other strand on the same topic with Oscar's claims.

 

[MoSurveyor]

So what you are saying is that the IPCC doesn't actually believe that their model is capable of predicting climate 100 years from now? All they are varying in those scenarios is CO2 -- the only part they are projecting is CO2 concentration.

I'm saying you made a ridiculous claim.

If all they are varying is CO2 then I'd say there are some obvious conditions and assumptions associated with the graph, which you apparently chose to ignore until now - or at least, chose not to reveal. How typical. :roll:


As for the rest of your rant, the scientists aren't the ones publishing crap. I've said it once and I'll say it again, media and bloggers on both sides sensationalize, dramatize, and over-exaggerate the claims made in scientific publications. If you want to repeat their mistakes and perpetuate their ignorance then expect people to call BS, because that's exactly what the media and bloggers expel.

 

[code1211]

You can say whatever you want, that doesn't make it true. jmotivator posted a ridiculous claim, I said it was BS, and you tried but failed to defend the ridiculous claim. Now you've attempted to shift the topic and I won't bite - Boo-hoo.


Deniers constantly say scientists claim to "know" things that the scientists never claimed to know in the first place. This strand has been an excellent example of said behavior, as is the other strand on the same topic with Oscar's claims.

There are scientists, the war mists say 97% of them, who claim that warming is caused by the activities of man.

They have not proven it, cannot explain why what they expect to happen does not happen and they continue to assert it.

Despite you denying that they have said what I have shown you they have said by quoting them, you deny they have said it.

Are you covering your ears and repeating Na-na-na-na-na or have you acquired the ability to just not see things when they are put before you?

 

[MoSurveyor]

There are scientists, the war mists say 97% of them, who claim that warming is caused by the activities of man.

They have not proven it, cannot explain why what they expect to happen does not happen and they continue to assert it.

Despite you denying that they have said what I have shown you they have said by quoting them, you deny they have said it.

Are you covering your ears and repeating Na-na-na-na-na or have you acquired the ability to just not see things when they are put before you?

But as usual your side isn't telling the whole story. It's common in science to change one variable to highlight it's influence on the model. If the other variables change then obviously the outcome will be different. That you finally confessed and said the graph was only considering CO2 means that they are holding all other variables and showing the changes only one variable will make. I'm sure this is explained in the text or references that accompany the graphs you've been posting. This isn't kindergarten where all we do is read one or two sentences and look at the pictures. No one here is going to hand feed you or wipe your butt. You have to do that for yourself, now.


I don't just look at what's put in front of my face, I follow the references. That's the difference between us. I don't want to be force fed the partial "facts" as someone else sees them. I want to look for myself to see what's actually being said.

 

[code1211]

But as usual your side isn't telling the whole story. It's common in science to change one variable to highlight it's influence on the model. If the other variables change then obviously the outcome will be different. That you finally confessed and said the graph was only considering CO2 means that they are holding all other variables and showing the changes only one variable will make. I'm sure this is explained in the text or references that accompany the graphs you've been posting. This isn't kindergarten where all we do is read one or two sentences and look at the pictures. No one here is going to hand feed you or wipe your butt. You have to do that for yourself, now.


I don't just look at what's put in front of my face, I follow the references. That's the difference between us. I don't want to be force fed the partial "facts" as someone else sees them. I want to look for myself to see what's actually being said.

What is actually being said by very important people, President Barrack Obama is one of them, is that he wants to stop the use of fossil fuels because the damage to the environment is too great and the warming it will cause is going to end life as we know it.

Some of the results of this general line of thought have been common sense, advantage producing ends like the increase in the mileage of vehicles and the reduction of emissions that helps everyone with smog and so forth. Other things, like ruining the coal industry and the resulting cheap electricity for millions of Americans while the rest of the world brings another coal fired power plant on line every week is just nonsense. The world wide CO2 emissions continue to increase regardless of how many coal miners are put out of work.

It annoys me that the people arguing in support of the notion of AGW use all of the previous debating points of environmental pollution and then extend them to the area of AGW.

The connection does not seem to exist.

That is why I look at the predictions made by the AGW scientists to see if what they are saying actually exists in the real world. It seems to exist just fine in models, but the existence seems to end when we check what is happening in the real world.

Gravity works all the time on Earth. Apparently CO2 does not.

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=2]Denmark gets a dose of global cooling in major newspaper[/h] Posted on August 10, 2013 by Anthony Watts
Major Danish Daily Warns: “Globe May Be On Path To Little Ice Age…Much Colder Winters…Dramatic Consequences”!
Pierre Gosselin writes:
Another major European media outlet is asking: Where’s the global warming?
Image right: The August 7 edition of Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, featured a major 2-page article on the globe’s 15-years of missing warming and the potential solar causes and implications.
Moreover, they are featuring prominent skeptic scientists who are warning of a potential little ice age and dismissing CO2 as a major climate driver. And all of this just before the release of the IPCC’s 5AR, no less!
Hat-tip: NTZ reader Arne Garbøl
The August 7 print edition of the Danish Jyllands-Posten, the famous daily that published the “Muhammad caricatures“, features a full 2-page article bearing the headline: ”The behavior of the sun may trigger a new little ice age” followed by the sub-headline: “Defying all predictions, the globe may be on the road towards a new little ice age with much colder winters.”:mrgreen:

 

[jmotivator]

I'm saying you made a ridiculous claim.

Yes, you've done plenty of hand waving on that subject but have somehow managed to complete avoid making an actual argument with citation to validate your position. In other words, you have made no valid argument. So I ask again, where is this contect in IPCC AR4 that I supposedly missed? As I has said, that graph shows the IPCC predicting the future climate given just the variation in future CO2, a now you show where that isn't the case.

If all they are varying is CO2 then I'd say there are some obvious conditions and assumptions associated with the graph, which you apparently chose to ignore until now - or at least, chose not to reveal. How typical. :roll:

I post these graphs under the assumptions that those debating the subject are at least modestly familiar with them as they are the central point of contention on the subject of global warming. When I post the IPCC scenario graph I should be able to assume that you know what it is, especially since you argued that I have somehow missed the context of the graph in question. It shouldn't be a reveal for you. How can you argue that I have missed the context of the graph when you apparently didn't even know what the graph was?

I mean, it's understandable that you didn't think the IPCC was predicting climate a century in advance if you never saw that graph before or understood what the graph was representing... what gets me is that you still chose to mount an argument out of ignorance.

As for the rest of your rant, the scientists aren't the ones publishing crap. I've said it once and I'll say it again, media and bloggers on both sides sensationalize, dramatize, and over-exaggerate the claims made in scientific publications. If you want to repeat their mistakes and perpetuate their ignorance then expect people to call BS, because that's exactly what the media and bloggers expel.

Can you give me an example of a CAGW blog that you believe is exaggerated?