brenthutch 444 #51 April 12, 2012 Quote>I was reading the incidents forum and a guy commented that only a >whuffo's story made sense with the evidence. Yep. That's why I said "often" and not "always." >Sometimes an outside eye is a good thing because experience causes >preconceived ideas. Other times experience is necessary. Of course. But when it comes to talking about skydiving fatalities at Skydive Arizona - and how to prevent them in the future - are you going to listen to a whuffo who saw a fatality, or Bryan Burke? You are making the HUGE assumption that these guys have a clue. A better analogy would be listen to a whuffo or somebody with 3 jumps. Here is an article about how climate models don't even take in to consideration the effects of clouds!?!? "We should be suspicious of computer models that try to predict something as breathtakingly complicated as earth’s climate while simultaneously ignoring key variables. " http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/04/04/a-dark-cloud-forms-over-climate-warming-models/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #52 April 12, 2012 Quote>I was reading the incidents forum and a guy commented that only a >whuffo's story made sense with the evidence. Yep. That's why I said "often" and not "always." >Sometimes an outside eye is a good thing because experience causes >preconceived ideas. Other times experience is necessary. Of course. But when it comes to talking about skydiving fatalities at Skydive Arizona - and how to prevent them in the future - are you going to listen to a whuffo who saw a fatality, or Bryan Burke? "More from climate scientists at NASA's Goddard institute: The six scientists from NASA‘s Goddard Institute for Space Studies report finding what they describe as;unexpected significant disagreements......As a result, the bottom line for the NASA scientists is quite succinct: Our new results suggest that the current knowledge of the global distribution of the AOT and, especially, aerosol microphysical characteristics remains unsatisfactory. And since this knowledge is indispensable for use in various assessments of climate and climate change, ; it would appear that current assessments of greenhouse gas forcing of climate made by the very best models in use today are deficient." These are James Hansen's guys!?? Link http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/01%20Climate%20Models%20and%20Their%20Limitations.pdf Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #53 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuote>I was reading the incidents forum and a guy commented that only a >whuffo's story made sense with the evidence. Yep. That's why I said "often" and not "always." >Sometimes an outside eye is a good thing because experience causes >preconceived ideas. Other times experience is necessary. Of course. But when it comes to talking about skydiving fatalities at Skydive Arizona - and how to prevent them in the future - are you going to listen to a whuffo who saw a fatality, or Bryan Burke? "More from climate scientists at NASA's Goddard institute: The six scientists from NASA‘s Goddard Institute for Space Studies report finding what they describe as;unexpected significant disagreements......As a result, the bottom line for the NASA scientists is quite succinct: Our new results suggest that the current knowledge of the global distribution of the AOT and, especially, aerosol microphysical characteristics remains unsatisfactory. And since this knowledge is indispensable for use in various assessments of climate and climate change, ; it would appear that current assessments of greenhouse gas forcing of climate made by the very best models in use today are deficient." These are James Hansen's guys!?? Link http://heartland.org/sites/default/files/01%20Climate%20Models%20and%20Their%20Limitations.pdf Which peer reviewed journal published that? Heartland is a joke, but I'm sure you know that. From an editorial in Nature: "Despite criticizing climate scientists for being overconfident about their data, models and theories, the Heartland Institute proclaims a conspicuous confidence in single studies and grand interpretations....makes many bold assertions that are often questionable or misleading.... Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth. ... The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters." Heartland also denies a link between tobacco use and health. www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute_and_tobacco... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #54 April 12, 2012 They quoted Climate scientists from NASA's Goddard Institute. What is with the tobacco straw man. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #55 April 12, 2012 "Which peer reviewed journal published that?" Here you go! Andronova, N., Penner, J.E., and Wong, T. 2009. Observed and modeled evolution of the tropical mean radiation budget at the top of the atmosphere since 1985. Journal of Geophysical Research 114: 10.1029/2008JD011560. Eisenman, I., Untersteiner, N., and Wettlaufer, J.S. 2007. On the reliability of simulated Arctic sea ice in global climate models. Geophysical Research Letters 34: 10.1029/2007GL029914. Norris, J.R. 2007. Observed interdecadal changes in cloudiness: Real or spurious? In Climate Variability and Extremes During the Past 100 Years, edited by S. Broennimann et al., 169–178. New York, NY: Springer. Paltridge, G., Arking, A. and Pook, M. 2009. Trends in middle- and upper-level tropospheric humidity from NCEP reanalysis data. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 98: 351–359. Kreienkamp, F., Spekat, A., and Enke, W. 2010. Stationarity of atmospheric waves and blocking over Europe—based on a reanalysis dataset and two climate scenarios. Theory of Applied Climatology 102: 205–212. Tibaldi, S. and Molteni, F. 1990. On the operational predictability of blocking. Tellus 42A: 343–365. Collins, M. 2002. Climate predictability on interannual to decadal time scales: the initial value problem. Climate Dynamics 19: 671–692.Haerter, J.O., Roeckner, E., Tomassini, L., and von Storch, J.-S. 2009. Parametric uncertainty effects on aerosol radiative forcing. Geophysical Research Letters 36: 10.1029/2009GL039050. Mishchenko, M.I., Geogdzhayev, I.V., Liu, L., Lacis, A.A., Cairns, B., and Travis, L.D. 2009. Toward unified satellite climatology of aerosol properties: What do fully compatible MODIS and MISR aerosol pixels tell us? Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy & Radiative Transfer 110: 402–408. Idso, S.B. 1998. CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic‘s view of potential climate change. Climate Research 10: 69–82. Loehle, C. and McCulloch, J.H. 2008. Correction to: A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies. Energy & Environment 19: 93–100. Solomon, S., Plattner, G.-K., Knutti, R., and Friedlingstein, P. 2009. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 106: 1704–1709. Woollings, T. 2010. Dynamical influences on European climate: an uncertain future. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A 368: 3733–3756. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #56 April 12, 2012 Wow. The point was raised earlier in this thread about how the letter says nothing about the underlying science. Then you go ad hominem on Heartland. Proving my point that there are people who are deemed unworthy of comment. Don't attack what they say. Just attack them. Which is, of course, exactly what happens in politics. It happens in science, too. Human personalities being what they are, and scientists being human... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #57 April 12, 2012 QuoteThey quoted Climate scientists from NASA's Goddard Institute. What is with the tobacco straw man. Heartland denies a link between health and tobacco smoke. No strawman. Heartland has no credibility, and neither do those who post their rubbish on DZ.COM.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #58 April 12, 2012 QuoteWow. The point was raised earlier in this thread about how the letter says nothing about the underlying science. Then you go ad hominem on Heartland. Tell it to the editorial staff of "Nature". It's their editorial that I quoted. Do you REALLY believe Nature and Heatland have the same level of credibility? Really?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #59 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteWow. The point was raised earlier in this thread about how the letter says nothing about the underlying science. Then you go ad hominem on Heartland. Tell it to the editorial staff of "Nature". It's their editorial that I quoted. Do you REALLY believe Nature and Heatland have the same level of credibility? Really? No Nature is lower"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #60 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteWow. The point was raised earlier in this thread about how the letter says nothing about the underlying science. Then you go ad hominem on Heartland. Tell it to the editorial staff of "Nature". It's their editorial that I quoted. Do you REALLY believe Nature and Heatland have the same level of credibility? Really? Ball vs Player learn the difference, you wont look as silly. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #61 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteThey quoted Climate scientists from NASA's Goddard Institute. What is with the tobacco straw man. Heartland denies a link between health and tobacco smoke. No strawman. Heartland has no credibility, and neither do those who post their rubbish on DZ.COM. And Hanson warned us of an upcoming Ice Age back in the 70, your point is? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #62 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteWow. The point was raised earlier in this thread about how the letter says nothing about the underlying science. Then you go ad hominem on Heartland. Tell it to the editorial staff of "Nature". It's their editorial that I quoted. Do you REALLY believe Nature and Heatland have the same level of credibility? Really? No Nature is lower Sorry, Marc, but that just illustrates your level of scientific competence: ZERO.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #63 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWow. The point was raised earlier in this thread about how the letter says nothing about the underlying science. Then you go ad hominem on Heartland. Tell it to the editorial staff of "Nature". It's their editorial that I quoted. Do you REALLY believe Nature and Heatland have the same level of credibility? Really? No Nature is lower Sorry, Marc, but that just illustrates your level of scientific competence: ZERO. Nah What it really shows that I strongly question ANYTHING you support as better or smarter"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #64 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteWow. The point was raised earlier in this thread about how the letter says nothing about the underlying science. Then you go ad hominem on Heartland. Tell it to the editorial staff of "Nature". It's their editorial that I quoted. Do you REALLY believe Nature and Heatland have the same level of credibility? Really? Ball vs Player learn the difference, you wont look as silly. Please tell us why you find Nature, the most prestigious of any peer reviewed scientific journal in the world, to be more credible than Heartland, an outfit that even admits its bias on its web site. It will be instructive.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #65 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteWow. The point was raised earlier in this thread about how the letter says nothing about the underlying science. Then you go ad hominem on Heartland. Tell it to the editorial staff of "Nature". It's their editorial that I quoted. Do you REALLY believe Nature and Heatland have the same level of credibility? Really? Sooo. let me get this straight. If NASA put out a press release and it is covered by Heartland, it is mindless propaganda, but if Nature covers the same press release, it is impeccable? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #66 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteWow. The point was raised earlier in this thread about how the letter says nothing about the underlying science. Then you go ad hominem on Heartland. Tell it to the editorial staff of "Nature". It's their editorial that I quoted. Do you REALLY believe Nature and Heatland have the same level of credibility? Really? Sooo. let me get this straight. If NASA put out a press release and it is covered by Heartland, it is mindless propaganda, but if Nature covers the same press release, it is impeccable? Ooh ooh, how about this one, what if Nature published something that was then was reprinted by Heartland? I guess it doesn't matter what the content is it just matters who's address is in the link. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #67 April 12, 2012 A stopped clock is right twice a day. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #68 April 12, 2012 QuoteA stopped clock is right twice a day. I don't think brenthutch is right that often.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #69 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteA stopped clock is right twice a day. I don't think brenthutch is right that often. He must be digital.Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #70 April 12, 2012 Quote and scientists being human... now you're just getting silly ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #71 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteA stopped clock is right twice a day. I don't think brenthutch is right that often. You wanted peer review, I gave you loads of peer review, and now you stand flummoxed with nothing but lame and demonstrably false PAs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brenthutch 444 #72 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWow. The point was raised earlier in this thread about how the letter says nothing about the underlying science. Then you go ad hominem on Heartland. Tell it to the editorial staff of "Nature". It's their editorial that I quoted. Do you REALLY believe Nature and Heatland have the same level of credibility? Really? Sooo. let me get this straight. If NASA put out a press release and it is covered by Heartland, it is mindless propaganda, but if Nature covers the same press release, it is impeccable? Ooh ooh, how about this one, what if Nature published something that was then was reprinted by Heartland? I guess it doesn't matter what the content is it just matters who's address is in the link. This is just too good, I did a word search on the Heartland document and found in the references...wait for it......"Gedney, N., Cox, P.M., Betts, R.A., Boucher, O., Huntingford, C., and Stott, P.A. 2006. Detection of a direct carbon dioxide effect in continental river runoff records. Nature 439: 835–838." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,151 #73 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWow. The point was raised earlier in this thread about how the letter says nothing about the underlying science. Then you go ad hominem on Heartland. Tell it to the editorial staff of "Nature". It's their editorial that I quoted. Do you REALLY believe Nature and Heatland have the same level of credibility? Really? Sooo. let me get this straight. If NASA put out a press release and it is covered by Heartland, it is mindless propaganda, but if Nature covers the same press release, it is impeccable? Ooh ooh, how about this one, what if Nature published something that was then was reprinted by Heartland? I guess it doesn't matter what the content is it just matters who's address is in the link. This is just too good, I did a word search on the Heartland document and found in the references...wait for it......"Gedney, N., Cox, P.M., Betts, R.A., Boucher, O., Huntingford, C., and Stott, P.A. 2006. Detection of a direct carbon dioxide effect in continental river runoff records. Nature 439: 835–838." How about reading the original article instead of the SPIN put on it by an organization that makes no secret of its highly biased agenda.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #74 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWow. The point was raised earlier in this thread about how the letter says nothing about the underlying science. Then you go ad hominem on Heartland. Tell it to the editorial staff of "Nature". It's their editorial that I quoted. Do you REALLY believe Nature and Heatland have the same level of credibility? Really? Sooo. let me get this straight. If NASA put out a press release and it is covered by Heartland, it is mindless propaganda, but if Nature covers the same press release, it is impeccable? Ooh ooh, how about this one, what if Nature published something that was then was reprinted by Heartland? I guess it doesn't matter what the content is it just matters who's address is in the link. This is just too good, I did a word search on the Heartland document and found in the references...wait for it......"Gedney, N., Cox, P.M., Betts, R.A., Boucher, O., Huntingford, C., and Stott, P.A. 2006. Detection of a direct carbon dioxide effect in continental river runoff records. Nature 439: 835–838." How about reading the original article instead of the SPIN put on it by an organization that makes no secret of its highly biased agenda. Like your CO2 before warming article that was debunked by the paper itself, you mean?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #75 April 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteWow. The point was raised earlier in this thread about how the letter says nothing about the underlying science. Then you go ad hominem on Heartland. Tell it to the editorial staff of "Nature". It's their editorial that I quoted. Do you REALLY believe Nature and Heatland have the same level of credibility? Really? No I do not. What does Nature say about something? Nature is a publication designed to put out science. Heartland is a political organization designed to do many things, including to publicize science. Comparing Nature to Heartland is like comparing Nature to the Sierra Club. Or comparing Nature to the IPCC. Or comparing "Nature" to realclimate.org But when Heartland says, "Here are some studies that point to other things" do you just ignore it because if Heartland likes it then it must be false? Much like I read realclimate - just because its editorial stance is not in line with my own doesn't mean I cast doubt upon the underlying science it puts forth. Take a post from realcimate yesterday that started off with "We have just passed the annual maximum in Arctic sea ice extent which always occurs sometime in March." Of course, this year it did not happen until April (first time since records kept). So there's a factual inaccuracy posted right in the first sentence. But does that mean that the underlying science that realclimate.org puts up there is bad? Nope. I'm a person who doesn't care much about the messenger. I'll still take a look at the message. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
