67 years of street cred - climate dood quits, sez its all a big load!

[rushmc 23]

Let me go at this another way. What has this blogger done to make you think he is not credible? Has he posted a lie or something false that you know of?

Then look at NASA. Have they done any of the above?

(I will let you answer both for yourself)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>It is not about the blogger (IE: who he is or what degree he has) it is
>about the info provide. Which, per your normal mode of operation, you
>dismiss him/this off hand. One can only surmise you do this because you
>do not what to entertain the implication you might be wrong or, to a
>smaller degree, has something you have to consider.

Which is exactly the same argument the 9/11 truthers use.

[skipbelt 0]

this globe's temperatures would rocket to full global warming if it wasn't for climates like this dragging us down...
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=-78.44999695,106.87000275
check out april temps !

[billvon 3,120]

>check out april temps !

OK, let's see. From WaPo:

======================
2010 on track for warmest year on record

* Trending drier: CWG's Full Forecast | Severe storm photos *

Consistent with what NASA scientists projected earlier this year, 2010 is currently on track to be the warmest year since global instrumental records began in the late 1800s. According to recently released data from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), April 2010 was the warmest April on record, beating out 1998 for the title, and the period from January to April was the warmest such period on record.
======================

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Maybe you could tell me how many pre-law students have ever argued national policy in front of the Supreme Court?

Elena Kagan fits that bill more than any pre-law student.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Is it elitist to want to ensure the arguments being made are by somebody qualified to do so? Don't lawyers call expert witnesses rather than bloggers?

Yes. And we will have competing Nobelists, if necessary, even if that means the truth is mixed up. And this is EXACTLY the sort of lawyering obfuscational smoke and mirrors bullshit that makes people hate lawyers. So congratulations on comparing yourself to the world's most hated profession.


[Reply]I'm more than qualified to talk about flying a C-172 and give lessons on aerodynamics. The government gave me a piece of paper that says so just so I could show it to people when they ask about it.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Let me ask you, why do YOU believe this random blogger more than NASA? What is it about his presentation that convinces you he knows what he's talking about?

I don't. I don't look at random blogger and say, "He is believeable." Nor do I look at NASA and say, "I trust it."

Random blogger hasn't killed anybody because he did his job wrong and people trusted him. NASA, despite the math, believed that there was simply no way foam could penetrate the shuttle wing. As Story Musgrave said, "do a walk" and no worries about retasking satellites.

People said there were problems and could be big problems. NASA said, "Don't worry about it." These random bloggers? They are the ones saying, "Hey. NASA. There are problems with your numbers."

You, Paul, seem to believe that because NASA is the US government it cannot be wrong. And if it IS wrong, there is no way some blogger will point it out. If a blogger says NASA is wrong then clearly NASA was right to begin with.

The only thing that convinces me is when I see it myself.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>It is not about the blogger (IE: who he is or what degree he has) it is
>about the info provide. Which, per your normal mode of operation, you
>dismiss him/this off hand. One can only surmise you do this because you
>do not what to entertain the implication you might be wrong or, to a
>smaller degree, has something you have to consider.

Which is exactly the same argument the 9/11 truthers use.

No. 9/11 truthers omit "fact" to achieve their "truth." These "facts" are supplied by others.

Indeed, Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, etc., are the people who say, "Wait a minute. What you are saying doesn't make sense." These guys are not forwarding ANY new thoughts, theories, or even models of their own. Instead, they are operating as quality control - asking questions that pride of authorship precludes.

The "truthers" offer their own theories. Those get blown out of the water by providing facts and pointing out errors of fact and logic.

These bloggers that Paul doesn't like also provide facts and point out errors of logic. I don't look at them as anything more than the fact checkers who point out when NASA, et al, are flat out wrong.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

[replyConsistent with what NASA scientists projected earlier this year, 2010 is currently on track to be the warmest year since global instrumental records began in the late 1800s. According to recently released data from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), April 2010 was the warmest April on record, beating out 1998 for the title, and the period from January to April was the warmest such period on record.

[billvon 3,120]

>No. 9/11 truthers omit "fact" to achieve their "truth."

Not at all! Rhys has shown half a dozen people with their own data to "prove" (for example) that WTC7 collapsed at freefall speeds, and how that's impossible.

>Indeed, Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, etc., are the people who say,
>"Wait a minute. What you are saying doesn't make sense."

Right - just as David Chandler said "Wait a minute, what NIST says isn't making sense."

>The "truthers" offer their own theories. Those get blown out of the
>water by providing facts and pointing out errors of fact and logic.

Right. Deniers do exactly the same thing.

[skipbelt 0]

lawrocket i absolutely enjoy your posts. not because i find myself in agreement nearly exclusively , but they are so cleanly logical and well organised , also well thought out. our embattled mod got carried away with my post about april temps -100 f with wind chill colder than -130 f and lows at -110 f.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>No. 9/11 truthers omit "fact" to achieve their "truth."

Not at all! Rhys has shown half a dozen people with their own data to "prove" (for example) that WTC7 collapsed at freefall speeds, and how that's impossible.

>Indeed, Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, etc., are the people who say,
>"Wait a minute. What you are saying doesn't make sense."

Right - just as David Chandler said "Wait a minute, what NIST says isn't making sense."

>The "truthers" offer their own theories. Those get blown out of the
>water by providing facts and pointing out errors of fact and logic.

Right. Deniers do exactly the same thing.

So to extend your post

You are saying the warmist do this to?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,120]

>You are saying the warmist do this to?

Some do indeed, yes.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>You are saying the warmist do this to?

Some do indeed, yes.

You admitting that is the first step in your recovery

11 more to go

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[skipbelt 0]

getting tired of hugging trees?...
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/10/14/latest-in-enviro-nu-high-fashion-glacier-hugging-suits/

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>No. 9/11 truthers omit "fact" to achieve their "truth."

Not at all! Rhys has shown half a dozen people with their own data to "prove" (for example) that WTC7 collapsed at freefall speeds, and how that's impossible.

It should be noted that Rhys, upon the presentation of a clear and concise set of facts and perspective appears to have changed his mind on at least one topic.

Quote

>Indeed, Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, etc., are the people who say,
>"Wait a minute. What you are saying doesn't make sense."

Right - just as David Chandler said "Wait a minute, what NIST says isn't making sense."

Yep. And David Chandler is engaged in the debate and is allowed to stumble and fail. He is becoming less and less relevant and more and more marginalized when lay people and educated alike can see his arguments crumble implode.

On the other hand, you've got Mcintyre and Watts gaining relevance and credibility. How about Pat Michaels? He is roundly ridiculed and hated in the alarmist community as a denier and a contrarian. Meanwhile, his position is that the earth is warming and human activities are a factor in that warming. He is roundly despised not only because he IS a climatologist but because his position is that even though it is happening, global warming - and the effects thereof - has been negligible and will continue to be negligible.

Michaels is a guy who AGREES with the proponents. But because he points out that it's not as bad he is roundly despised.

And for those who say that we as a society do not appreciate science and are anti-science, I'd ask whose fault it is?

How many fucking decades of doomsaying from scientists have we had? How much human prosperity has occurred in the face of this doomsaying? Do you, bill, really think it is useful to publish how bad it will be if the Greenland ice sheet melts? Especially when they know it won't happen? How about the knowledge that Greenland's ice sheet is in stasis? How about when it is pointed out the in the areas where the ice sheet is losing ice the temperature is decreasing?



I'll put it this way - people notice. The uneducated public NOTICES that, you know, we've had a hot summer on the east coast and, um, life goes on. THey've noticed that temperatures HAVEN'T gone up like they said. There hasn't been a hurricane landfall in the US in more than two years when they said we should expect far more.

Scientists don't get noticed by sticking to science. Scientists get noticed when they become political beasts. The people notice when the scientists are wrong. The people notice when we don't find WMD's in Iraq. The people notice when the results don't match the predicitions.

And that is the biggest shame. The people don't trust science because the scientists can't be trusted. The GISS data errors were emblematic. McIntyre points out to GISS that North American temperatures abruptly jumped .8 degrees after 2000. GISS had used this data to show the warmest year for North America was 1998. After McIntyre pointed out the error, GISS went about refactoring the data.

The newly adjusted data made 1934 the warmest year in North America. Huh? Why was there a switch if the bad data was post-2000 data? Because GISS recalculated all years BEFORE 2000 and kept the post-2000 numbers.

GISS also ERASED ALL OF THE OLD DATA.

What is interesting is that the changes, if things were accurate, should have only been between post-2000 and pre-2000 rankings. The factoring switched 1998 and 1934 in the rankings.

What was notable was also the response. Gavin Schmidt (GISS climatologist) admitted that 1934 and 1998 switched but wrote on realclimate (a blog where he is an admin) that it was insignificant. Hansen (Schmidt's boss) went one further and denied that 1934 and 1998 switched places.

Schmidt stated on realclimate "there were some very minor knock on effects in earlier years" and "there were some very minor rearrangements in the various rankings." Hey - scientists say, "There were sme knock on effects" and "there was a rearrangement." By stating they were "very minor" this creates a new debate - is it minor or not?

The end result - Schmidt attacking climate deniers.

Interestingly, when the public mistrusts science, irrationality and fear begin to govern. Yet, fear has been the moniker of climate science. The public is increasingly seeing this fear as irrational. I personally have a great deal of anger and resentment at the "the relatively small international circle of temperature specialists" who deliberately operate outside of the "much wider scientific group." (these quotes can be googled to reveal that this is not my thought.)

Climate scientists brought this upon themselves through their pattern of cliquishness, secrecy, and outright squashing of dissent. The "climategate" e-mails showed the culture that was criticized in all investigations.

Selection bias is major issue that could be and could have been rectified by involvement of others in the scientific community. It's the self-imposed insulation of the climate community that causes such questions.

I'll note it's been two months since the McShane & wyner paper on Mann's Hockey Stick that found that the hockey stick methodology doesn't pan out. Realcimate has not responded since immediately after. It appears to me (and I may be wrong) that realclimate swept it under the rug and hopes it just dies.

Climate scientists are being challenged by many. These challenges are coming at the hands of scientists like physicists and statisticians because physics and statistics are relied upon so heavily by climatologists. Not to mention, these disciplines have been largely excluded (especially statisticians). Climate science has been the province of a small group - and I think that should change.

I welcome the RETURN of debate.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,120]

>Yep. And David Chandler is engaged in the debate and is allowed to
>stumble and fail.

Of course. But his supporters don't agree with that. To them, he has every bit as much credibility as the most credentialed denier.

>On the other hand, you've got Mcintyre and Watts gaining relevance
>and credibility.

Translate that to "The NIST has stumbled and fallen, and you've got David Chandler gaining relevance and credibility" and you have a typical Rhys post.

>How many fucking decades of doomsaying from scientists have we had?

Many. We had doomsayers talking about the pollution in LA. Initially this was just scientists. Then it became doctors who were actually advising people to leave, because remaining in LA would make them sick. That's as "doomsaying" as it gets.

Turns out they were right. And those doomsayers got California to pass CARB, despite industry protests that CARB would end car ownership as we knew it. And today LA is far cleaner than it was 30 years ago - even though it has far more cars.

We had doomsayers telling people back in the 50's that cigarettes could give you lung cancer. At first no one listened to them. Then people started to ask questions, so Phillip Morris started a massive campaign to prove cigarette smoking was safe. They did this by "manufacturing doubt" - claiming that the science wasn't settled, that no one really knew if it was dangerous etc. The organization that did this was called the Tobacco Institute, a supposedly 'independent' scientific organization funded by the tobacco companies to counter the growing perception that cigarette smoking was dangerous.

One of the people manufacturing doubt was Fred Singer. He wrote several pro-tobacco articles, including one that claimed secondhand smoke was no risk to anyone. He at first denied being funded by the tobacco company, then later claimed that it didn't matter where his funding came from, and he wasn't really sure anyway.

Not so ironically, he is now a climate change denier as well.

These doomsayers turned out to be right as well. Cigarette smoking does in fact greatly increase your risk for lung cancer, emphysema, COPD and heart disease. Good thing we listened to them and not the tobacco shills.

We had doomsayers back in the 1970's predicting that acid rain would do immeasurable damage to the ecosystem, and indeed we started to see streams and lakes rendered sterile by acid rain. Like clockwork, the power companies claimed that this wasn't as bad as everyone claimed, that it was a natural effect not a man-made one, and that no regulations were needed.

Fortunately scientists ignored them, and we initiated the Clean Air act and started a cap-and-trade program to regulate SOx emissions from power plants. Result - acid rain levels have declined 65%. Streams and lakes are slowly coming back to life.

So yes, we've had decades of "fucking doomsayer" scientists - and we are all much better off for it.

[skipbelt 0]

warmers, get 'em while they're hot , glacier hugging suits , they're melting fast !
and it's all because of the GW causing SUV's...
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/10/junior-seaus-car-drives-off-ocean-cliff-after-he-is-arrested-on-domestic-violence-accusation.html

[skipbelt 0]

somewhat anecdotal , but also documented , over the last ten years i have been tracking and recording atmospheric data in north america at high altitudes. 41k to 45k feet. just today i recorded a +1 isa temp at 43k feet. that would be the equivalent of a standard day at sea level of 15 degrees c being warmer by 1 degree. and the 10 year variations are about + or - 2 degrees c. not nuch if any climate change here. it's like this part of the atmosphere didn't get the memo !

[billvon 3,120]

>that would be the equivalent of a standard day at sea level of 15 degrees
>c being warmer by 1 degree.

That's more warming than even the IPCC is predicting for the next 5 years.

You alarmist you!

[skipbelt 0]

Quote

>that would be the equivalent of a standard day at sea level of 15 degrees
>c being warmer by 1 degree.
That's more warming than even the IPCC is predicting for the next 5 years.
You alarmist you!

this was a summer datapoint near the tropics , where average temperatures would be 5 to 6 degrees c warmer, get it ?
if you don't believe me , czech this...
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE69I2EC.htm