He has also pointed out this rather funny website, which satirizes the whole carbon offset business.Merry Xmas, Anthony, and in my opinion your work confirming Mann's hockey stick graph is worth at least half the Nobel Prize dough McIntyre got for being an IPCC expert reviewer. If you're in New York in March, make him buy you a drink.
PS. What happened to all the kerfuffle about the code Hansen freed up? I guess that amounted to a whole lotta nothing, denial-wise.
Meanwhile,
ReplyDeletethe US senate report included the names of 400 esteemed scientists from the world's preeminent instituions,
saying the "sceince" behind manmade global warming is far less science and far more religious like dogma.
400.
That's a lot of ad homonym attacks to go through.
Best to use a broad stroke attacking them as a whole.
And it would be best to also continue avoiding the substance of what the senate report (and these hundreds of scientists) are saying.
We wouldn't want a debate about something that is "settled" after all.
And the studies cited by the report were.....gulp.....peer reviewed.
ReplyDeleteIn other words they were SCRUTINIZED by other scientists. You know, that whole scientific method thing, which requires duplication, scrutinization, ability to disprove the null hypothesis and all that jazz.
Life was so much easier when the "science" was vetted, sent back for amendement when it didn't fit the predetermined meme, and subject to only one applicable theory by an unelected bureaucracy with a political agenda.
How dare the sceintific model get in the way.
Number one from the report:
ReplyDelete"Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. "First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!" Paldor told EPW on December 4, 2007. "Second, our ability to make realizable (or even sensible) future forecasts are greatly exaggerated relied upon by the IPCC. This is true both for the numerical modeling efforts (the same models that yield abysmal 3-day forecasts are greatly simplified and run for 100 years!)," Paldor explained. "Third, the rise in atmospheric CO2 is much smaller (by about 50%) than that expected from the anthropogenic activity (burning of fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas), which implies that the missing amount of CO2 is (most probably) absorbed by the ocean. The oceanic response to increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere might be much slower than that of the atmosphere (and is presently very poorly understood). It is quite possible that after an ‘adjustment time' the ocean (which contains far more CO2 than the atmosphere) will simply increase its biological activity and absorb the CO2 from the atmosphere (i.e. the atmospheric CO2 concentration will decrease)," he added. "Fourth, the inventory of fossil fuels is fairly limited and in one generation we will run out of oil. Coal and natural gas might take 100-200 years but with no oil their consumption will increase so they probably won't last as long. The real alternative that presently available to humanity is nuclear power (that can easily produce electricity for domestic and industrial usage and for transportation when our vehicles are reverted to run on electricity). The technology for this exists today and can replace our dependence on fossil fuel in a decade! This has to be made known to the general public who is unaware of the alternative for taking action to lower the anthropogenic spewing of CO2. This transformation to nuclear energy will probably rake place when oil reserves dwindle regardless of the CO2 situation," he wrote. Paldor also noted the pressure for scientists to bow to the UN IPCC view of climate change. "Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media," he concluded. (LINK)"
There's 399 more just like it.
One more, just for fun (you'll have to get the other 398 for yourselves):
ReplyDeleteCanada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: "To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process."
My recommendation for Al Gore's carbon credit company:
ReplyDelete"Strong Sell".
Revised from last month's "hold" which was revised from "buy" the previous month.
Thanks, glad you like it.
ReplyDeleteScientific study takes hard work and time, we'll see what it says when the project is done. Likely late next year.
Patience.
I'm not even paying attention to the "Whore's Who" of Denialism anymore. Even most minor of skeptics or anyone who brings up the slightest quibble over the science gets firmly relegated to Exxon's stable of well-paid and highly-skilled hookers.
ReplyDelete...I just can't be bothered. And the twirling "cut 'n pasties" on your trolls' pendulous man-boobs have gone from amusing to obscene.
Denying basic peer review processes is a:
ReplyDelete"quibble".
Said like a true Marxist totalitarian.
The same computer models that can't predict the weather five days from now,
ReplyDeletewill tell us what will happen in 100 years.
The sceintist that thinks this is a tad outlandish is, to ti-guy and his ilk, a "whore".
Watching this meme go down in flames, and it's supporters flailing about denying the intense pain of the fire, will be much fun to watch.
Whatever, trollies. Appalling illiterates like yourselves are certainly not helping that's for sure.
ReplyDeleteAs if "Biff" knows anything about peer review or the complexity of academia.
Some of the "academic deniers" do know about it, of course...that's why they're all such bitter cranks and/or delusional.
10:50: "Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project..." STOP RIGHT THERE! NRSP -- Not Really Science People???!!?11! Sorry, your credibility just blew out all three tires at once. (tricycle)
ReplyDeleteholly stick,
ReplyDeleteAd homonym's one at a time?
Don't do it, it'll take too long.
Just use the standard drive by:
"all those 400 esteemed scientists are liars, beholden to Exxon".
What's the difference between the computer model that can't predict the weather five days out, and the model that tries to predict 100 years out?
ReplyDeleteYou can only pretend the five day model is accurate for five days.
Isn't is wonderful living in an age when "Computers" can explain everything for us!!!
ReplyDeleteWhere would we be if we could not buy "Carbon Credits" from a divinity school dropout like Al the Goricle.
Ti-gy . . . why not end the discussion by posting the "Thousands" of scientists that are always trotted out, but always remain anonomous, by the GW alarmists??? By scientists I mean of course real climate scientists . . . not Suzuki (bug doctor) or some nut-bar from Club Sierra.
Fact is . . . Big Al is raking in millions, while us dumb Canooks are freezing in the greaat white north. Al has managed to avoid every debate, his movie has been ruled a fraud by a British Court, and as it turns out the IPCC only has 52 scientists . . . of course they have thousands of enviro-whacks and politicians selecting data for their "Summaries".
The temperature has not increased in the last decade, as Hansen promised, the sea has not risen, and there is more ice today in Antartica than 10 years ago. Seems to me like another marxist/echo-terrorist/socialist/moneygrabbing scheem is about to fold.
It seems "Scepticism" is growing in the world . . .
ReplyDeleteOver 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC's view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were "futile." (LINK)
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a "consensus" of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. "I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority."
What happens when a Believer leaves the GW fold? Does he become a heratic or a denier???
But how could one denie something that was never true??? Does that make believers liars? Does that make deniers ex liars? I guess better to be a denier than a liar . . . right Al!!!
Thank God Noschool is so illiterate...otherwise, you wouldn't be able to tell where his plagiarised paragraphs end.
ReplyDeleteNoschool...mispell something at the beginning of your comments as well. The rest of us will interpret that as "begin quote," the final mispelling (as with 'heratic') being "end quote."
...He even cut 'n pasted (LINK). *snort*
Hehe,
ReplyDeleteyou know you don't add much to the equation, when a microsoft word function can take your place.
Ti-guy,
thanks for adding the spell check to this riveting (and very important) policy debate.
Do you clean windows too?
thanks for adding the spell check to this riveting (and very important) policy debate.
ReplyDeleteThere's that word "debate" again. What is with righties and their inability to understand that words have meaning?
Do you clean windows too?
Easily. Cleaning windows isn't that hard.
Don't you just luv the intellect TY-gy injects into the debate!!!!
ReplyDeleteNo facts, no science just abusive comments. Typical ass-hat lefty.
A little news from the North Pole . . .
Polar Ice . . .
On the same day Al Gore received his share of the Nobel Prize for his work on climate change — one of his main arguments is being challenged by a scientific fact. Gore has said that the northern polar ice cap could be completely gone in as little as seven years.
But Brazil’s MetSul Weather Center reports the ice and snow cover in the Arctic have recovered to within one percent of normal — even though the official start of winter is still more than a week away. And it says the southern polar ice cap actually has an additional 772,000 square miles of ice now — compared to a year ago.
Ti-gy won't know this cause he watches the mind numbing CBC . . . but it seems the 25000 odd polar bears will be safe for another year.
Anyone remember those two dummies from Belgium that tried to go to the North Pole last February, to document Gorebull Warming, They almost died, left after only 24 hours. Were they your sisters TI-GY?
"But Brazil’s MetSul Weather Center reports the ice and snow cover in the Arctic have recovered to within one percent of normal — even though the official start of winter is still more than a week away."
ReplyDeleteThat's incredible, noschool. And still a week to go before winter. The sun may only be appearing above the horizon for a few minutes a day, but it sure isn't winter in the arctic yet.
And that list of TV weathermen, creation "scientists", senile old coots, and mail order Doctorates led by swift-boater Marc Morano sure is impressive. I guess the jig's up.
He's way overdue on his whitewash sunscreen hypothesis as well. Why doesn't that surprise me.
ReplyDeleteTCO, there's a simple reason for that, unlike the one you want it to be.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to collect data that spanned warm and cold periods (seasons) of weather to determine if the response changes with variations in insolation. The datalogging in 3 Stevenson screens for that takes several months. Datalogging in the screens started in early August.
And the experiment may have be started over because the whitewash is flaking off. I'm consulting with a chemist whose specialty is Lime to see if there's an adjustment to the mix that can be made to prevent this.
Everybody is in SUCH a hurry, but the schedule isn't going to be rushed to satisfy critics. Critics like you and BCL seem to forget that I'm not a university scientist with unlimited funds and staff. I'm one guy doing this out of my own pocket.
It's easy to be a critic, anybody can do it. It's far harder to actually do the work and collect data.
A. I've done top-level work in peer-reviewed physical science. Have started new programs. I'm well aware of the scientific ethic and of the scope of work involved in starting a new examination of an area.
ReplyDeleteB. I'm all for doing careful work and for running the required number of the tests for significance, etc.
C. WHY did YOU decide to share initial results before finishing the quality test (when it supported your hypothesis) and why do you NOW refuse to show the in process findings.
D. On your site, you say last summer that you will show the results after the first month of data. Just do what you say you're going to DO!
E. I like you at times. At other times, just think you are not being tough enough on yourself.
TCO Thank you. You made some points thta made me realize I haven't done an update on the experiment. There have been a lot of updates on the station survey project, but none on the Screen project.
ReplyDeleteOf course, that lack of updates causes speculation.
So, an update on my blog is in order to fill people like yourself in.
I'll make an update right after Christmas to show what's been learned thus far and illustrate the problems, setbacks, and how I've overcome them.
In the meantime, Merry Christmas!
Mann's hockey stick lost significant scientific credibility well before Surface Stations even got started.
ReplyDeleteBCL, readers at other blogs have been entertained by your complete lack of knowledge on basic climate science, so make sure you keep visiting those other sites; your posts provide all with a good chuckle.
That Hansen released his long overdue code is a good thing. Whether proper peer review of his work could have been done without this code is another.
- Paul S
That's Surface Stations Project (tm) (Peace Be Upon It) to you, you insolent clod.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, it seems to be as refreshing a tonic to mainstream scientific research as Pajamas Media is to the EM-ESS-EM.
Merry Christmas, Anthony.
ReplyDeleteMoney is exchanging hands? Carbon dioxide emissions AREN'T being reduced, you say? So how does that help? So in other words, you're letting the rich still destroy the planet.
ReplyDeleteAnthony, I commented on your site. Please don't take my comments too harshly. I'm actually "on the side" of skeptics of conservatives, etc. But the truth is the truth. And good practice is good practice. And the skeptics with their amateur games and suspicions allow themselves very low standards of thoughtfulness. It's a pity.
ReplyDelete