307 replies to this topic

[Br Cornelius]

Vast conspiracy perpetrated by thousands of scientists (including your incorruptable NASA scientists- spot the logical inconsistency there).

Its so funny I had to change my pants !!!

There you go MID the last word - or will you have another dumb Conspiracy inspired come back without any actual science to back it up.


We can only wait with bated breath for the next shocking installement.

Br Cornelius

[Br Cornelius]

Little Fish, on 15 August 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

do you think that not being able to prove AGW is not real, is proof that AGW is real?
the concept of burden of proof applies to the one who asserts.
is CAGW hypothesis even scientific?
is it falsifiable?
what is the condition that would falsify CAGW? you have not answered that question which I have repeatedly put forward.
if there is no condition that would falsify CAGW then it is not falsifiable, if it is not falsifiable then it is not scientific.

besides anything else, it is CAGW not AGW that is in dispute for most people, which means most skeptics question whether global warming is going to be catastrophic or harmful in any way shape or form.

are you aware that Peter Gleick who you have cited several times just recently, stole heartland documents and released them with a forged memo in order to demonize the skeptic thinktank of the heartland institute? analysis of writing style shows that it was gleick himself who forged the fake document. so to repeat your meme, why would Gleick need to use forged documents to make his points? this is one incident from a long line of warmist activist-scientists having behaved very badly and illegally. you are making a huge fuss over a single hearsay point from Harrison Schmitt and calling it deception, but ignoring the elephant of wrongdoings from the other side.

Burden of proof is on the side of the skeptics. They have presented no consistent or credible explanation for current data so they have no theory. Its simple really.

You would defend Heartland

As for Gleick, he was stupid and paid the price. However he did us all a service is shedding light on the coordinated campaign that Heartland has conducted in attempting to discredit climate science and scientists over many many years. I personally thank him.

A Better head than mine observes that after sustained scurrelous attacks by the likes of Heartland such an incident was inevitable;

Quote

    keeping-our-cool-while-planet-warms

Like many out there, I was saddened to hear about the role of Peter Gleick, a co-signatory on a recent op-ed about climate science, in the leak of the Heartland Institute e-mails.

I've worried for the past two years that an incident like this might happen. The segment of the climate science community that is active in outreach is subject to incredibly angry and personal attacks, starting but certainly not ending with the hacking of e-mails at the University of East Anglia. I'm certainly not that famous or public a figure, and even I often get e-mail and comments here on Maribo that make me wonder if I should have police protection. Perhaps it was inevitable that someone in the climate science community would, in a fit of frustration, respond to critics in-kind with similarly dirty tactics. We are human, after all. You can certainly understand why someone who's been unfairly attacked for years would be driven to fight fire with fire.

This is why I've been speaking and writing again and again and again about the importance, and the challenge, of maintaining perspective and humility when discussing climate change. At the risk of irritating regular readers by repeating this passage yet again, here is the conclusion from the recent BAMS paper about climate change and belief:

Reforming public communication about anthropogenic climate change will require humility on the part of scientists and educators. Climate scientists, for whom any inherent doubts about the possible extent of human influence on the climate were overcome by years of training in physics and chemistry of the climate system, need to accept that there are rational cultural, religious, and historical reasons why the public may fail to believe that anthropogenic climate change is real, let alone that it warrants a policy response.

The moderator of Saturday's jam-packed AAAS plenary discussion on science communication repeated the meme that scientists are in a "street fight". That may be true. But as I wrote last month, if climate discourse is a street fight, then we need to do more should not just* fight back with the same dirty tactics. If you want to win a fight, you need to be able to take a punch.

There is no doubt that planet is warming. The question is can we keep our cool long enough to find a solution?

http://simondonner.b...anet-warms.html

I am certain that your sympathes will be with the poor misrepresented Heartland Institute


Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 18 August 2012 - 09:16 AM.

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 18 August 2012 - 08:57 AM, said:

Burden of proof is on the side of the skeptics.They have presented no consistent or credible explanation for current data so they have no theory. Its simple really.

the "current data" is within normal fluctuation over the past several thousand years. no one has been able to explain or "model" those previous fluctuations, so there is no evidence that the current warm period is due to man made co2. until science can explain and model successfully the climate system over the last several thousand years then we cannot attribute the "current data" to man's co2 emissions, that would be proof by lack of evidence, not proof by evidence. this is what you are saying - "until you come up with a better explanation than god as the creator, then the burden of proof is on you to show god doesn't exist". the rise in temperature estimated at 0.7C over the last 150 years has happened frequently over the last several thousands of years and happens all the time in that 150 year timeframe.
what is the condition that fasifies CAGW? what can we measure empirically, and how. saying it has warmed since the little ice age is not enough.

Quote

You would defend Heartland

As for Gleick, he was stupid and paid the price. However he did us all a service is shedding light on the coordinated campaign that Heartland has conducted in attempting to discredit climate science and scientists over many many years. I personally thank him.

do you even realise Gleick's Heartland document was fake? meaning it was a lie, so you thank him for lying? Gleick lies, and that somehow discredits the Heartland Institute? seems to me this "coordinated campaign" is just a paranoid conspiracy theory held by Gleick, so he makes up a "document" in order to make his fantasy appear real.

Quote

A Better head than mine observes that after sustained scurrelous attacks by the likes of Heartland

what scurrilous attacks? I seriously don't know of any. your link doesn't document any. can you show me anything that merits the label "sustained scurrelous attacks"?
I think all you are doing here is creating a demon in order to self censor opposing information.

[Br Cornelius]

Quote

the "current data" is within normal fluctuation over the past several thousand years. no one has been able to explain or "model" those previous fluctuations, so there is no evidence that the current warm period is due to man made co2. until science can explain and model successfully the climate system over the last several thousand years then we cannot attribute the "current data" to man's co2 emissions, that would be proof by lack of evidence, not proof by evidence. this is what you are saying - "until you come up with a better explanation than god as the creator, then the burden of proof is on you to show god doesn't exist". the rise in temperature estimated at 0.7C over the last 150 years has happened frequently over the last several thousands of years and happens all the time in that 150 year timeframe.
what is the condition that fasifies CAGW? what can we measure empirically, and how. saying it has warmed since the little ice age is not enough.

There is a current long term warming trend of at least a 100yrs. All external forcings which have been measured would indicate that this runs counter to a pre-existing downward trend and a decline in solar activity. What is causing this upward trend. You are effectively invoking an unknown magical forcing which science has not identified. Until this magical unknown forcing is identified and quantified occams razor prohibits us from assuming it exists when their is a better explanation in the form of CO2. CO2 has been identified and measured as a factor in all previous large climate swings and so it is inferred that it can cause the current changes in response to the rising atmospheric CO2 levels caused by burning fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are directly identified as been the cause of the additional atmospheric CO2 because of their Isotopic fingerprint.

But you know all this.

The burden of proof doesn't mean that a thing has to be established without any possible doubt - it means can it adeaquately explain the multiple strands of evidence which are brought to bare on the issue. The body of climate research established that burden of proof to the satisfaction of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.
The skeptics have an incoherent set of false observations which do not create a coherent explanation for the empirical data and so cannot be said to establish a burden of proof. The statement that climate always changes in a truism, but fails to address the fact that all changes have causes and those causes have been established and have created an over arching climate narrative which explains historic events and can be used to infer future events.

But you know all that already.

Quote

do you even realise Gleick's Heartland document was fake? meaning it was a lie, so you thank him for lying? Gleick lies, and that somehow discredits the Heartland Institute? seems to me this "coordinated campaign" is just a paranoid conspiracy theory held by Gleick, so he makes up a "document" in order to make his fantasy appear real.

My understanding is that the body of documents were not faked and it is only supposition that says that the claimed document was a fake. For the sake of argument I will accept it was a faked. It doesn't change the fact that Heartland has coordinated a political campaign to discredit climate science and climate scientists. Gleick has cast a bit more light on those activities, for that I thank him, but regret him feeling it necessary to supplement the damning record of the Heartland institute with a faked document. For that he got his comeuppance.

Quote

what scurrilous attacks? I seriously don't know of any. your link doesn't document any. can you show me anything that merits the label "sustained scurrelous attacks"?
I think all you are doing here is creating a demon in order to self censor opposing information.

Are you for real ??
Do you really think an institution which fought tobacco regulation for decades is capable of honesty rather then paid advocacy for the highest political bidder.

By their deeds shall we judge them.

http://www.sourcewat..._global_warming


Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 18 August 2012 - 01:00 PM.

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 18 August 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

Are you for real ??
Do you really think an institution which fought tobacco regulation for decades is capable of honesty rather then paid advocacy for the highest political bidder.

By their deeds shall we judge them.

http://www.sourcewat..._global_warming

yes i am for real, there is nothing "scurrilous". the unsupported accusation of "scurrilous attacks" is itself scurrilous.
defending the right to smoke is a legitimate position, I know non smoking liberal types are disgusted by peopke wanting to smoke, but its a fact that it is a legitimate libertarian position.

your link doesn't even document anything that could be considered "scurillous attacks". nothing at all.

your sourcewatch link lists the lies in Gleick's hoax document. it doesn't say much for the credibilty of that website does it when those lies were immediately exposed as lies within days.

[Little Fish]

Br Cornelius, on 18 August 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

There is a current long term warming trend of at least a 100yrs. All external forcings which have been measured would indicate that this runs counter to a pre-existing downward trend and a decline in solar activity. What is causing this upward trend. You are effectively invoking an unknown magical forcing which science has not identified. Until this magical unknown forcing is identified and quantified occams razor prohibits us from assuming it exists when their is a better explanation in the form of CO2.

a few things here,  we are in a solar grand maxima on the multi century timescale. to imply which you've done above, that solar activity has declined over the last 100 years is false. I know you will throw out graphs showing TSI and temperature diverging over the last few decades but land temperature does not respond immediately to TSI, furthermore there are different wavelengths within TSI and some vary over time much more than others. variance of Ultraviolet within TSI for instance is much bigger than TSI would indicate and very little research has been done. data is not reliable over the last 100 years to accurately state what the climate has done, its proxies and unreliable instruments, when you combine proxies and instrumental as many warmists have done, into a single graph you are looking for trouble. what you have described above is just a perception of how things work based on assumptions (climate models) and not based on empirical measurements. the "TSI" argument doesn't even cover the planetary and solar magnetic flux, cosmic ray theories. berilium 10 as a proxy for cosmic rays shows a very good correlation with estimated  temperatures, so sun's magnetic activity modulating cosmic rays which in turn modulates low clouds affecting ocean temperatures which drives the climate system is a better hypothesis than co2.

Quote

CO2 has been identified and measured as a factor in all previous large climate swings and so it is inferred that it can cause the current changes in response to the rising atmospheric CO2 levels caused by burning fossil fuels.

this is a logical fallacy, correlation does not mean causation. when the oceans warm they release co2, so warming causes a rise in atmospheric co2, so any measurement of co2 and temperatures over millennial timescale does not prove causation, but you know all this already.

Quote

The burden of proof doesn't mean that a thing has to be established without any possible doubt - it means can it adeaquately explain the multiple strands of evidence which are brought to bare on the issue. The body of climate research established that burden of proof to the satisfaction of the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.
The skeptics have an incoherent set of false observations which do not create a coherent explanation for the empirical data and so cannot be said to establish a burden of proof. The statement that climate always changes in a truism, but fails to address the fact that all changes have causes and those causes have been established and have created an over arching climate narrative which explains historic events and can be used to infer future events.

that's your opinion.

Quote

My understanding is that the body of documents were not faked and it is only supposition that says that the claimed document was a fake.

the body of documents were not controversial.
hardly supposition, Heartland says it was forged, Gleick says he received it anonymously, writing style analysis showed it was written by Glieck, mainstream journalist commentary and analysis says it is unlikely to be real given the unprofessional style of writing and bizarre things it mentions.
there is no evidence the document was real, and plenty that says its fake.

Quote

For the sake of argument I will accept it was a faked. It doesn't change the fact that Heartland has coordinated a political campaign to discredit climate science and climate scientists.

disputing and refuting is not the same as discrediting. there is a tendency amongst warmists scientists to view counter and contrary science as ad hominem "attacks", just read mann's and gleicks twitter feed. a scientific disagreement is not an "attack". such behaviour is a sign that they are losing the scientific argument in my opinion.

Quote

Gleick has cast a bit more light on those activities, for that I thank him, but regret him feeling it necessary to supplement the damning record of the Heartland institute with a faked document. For that he got his comeuppance.

there is no "damming record", its just Gleick's paranoid imagination. he made up that crap because he thought that was what the heartland was up to, he didn't have any evidence so he made the evidence up, and shocking that warmists (and "sourcewatch") STILL believe it's true.

Edited by Little Fish, 19 August 2012 - 02:55 PM.

[Br Cornelius]

I am bored so will shut up.

Br Cornelius

[Br Cornelius]

One comment in response to Little Fishes defence of the Heartland Institutes paid advocacy of the smoking industry.
I have no personal objection to people smoking and have many friends who choose to smoke.
I do however have a strong objection to an Institution which spent decades denying the connection between smoking and lung cancer and other health effects.

If you cannot see that it is morally wrong to conceal and misrepresent scientific information which has saved many lives - then you are as morally bankrupt as the Heartland Institute itself.

Enough said.

Br Cornelius

[MID]

Br Cornelius, on 19 August 2012 - 03:03 PM, said:

I am bored so will shut up.

Br Cornelius

[Br Cornelius]

MID, on 19 August 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

Hopefully you'll do likewise.

Br Cornelius

[MID]

Br Cornelius, on 19 August 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

Hopefully you'll do likewise.

Br Cornelius

Make sure you get that last word in, now--as I knew you would.

[MysticStrummer]

MID, on 19 August 2012 - 05:56 PM, said:

Make sure you get that last word in, now--as I knew you would.

...said the guy who also seems to enjoy getting in the last word.

[Br Cornelius]

Its a point of principle with MID, so i'am just gonna have to yank his chain

Its so childish, I know.

Br Cornelius

[Doug1o29]

Little Fish, on 19 August 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

a few things here,  we are in a solar grand maxima on the multi century timescale. to imply which you've done above, that solar activity has declined over the last 100 years is false.

Just thought I'd check this out.  I ran a simple, straight-line regression on the sunspot data for a quick-and-dirty analysis.  At 95% confidence, there is no correlation between year and average daily sunspot count.  This cuts both directions:  the data did not support a decline over the last 100 years, but neither did it support an increase.  Sunspots, at least, do not support either point of view.
Doug

[Little Fish]

Doug1o29, on 20 August 2012 - 01:03 PM, said:

Just thought I'd check this out.  I ran a simple, straight-line regression on the sunspot data for a quick-and-dirty analysis.  At 95% confidence, there is no correlation between year and average daily sunspot count.  This cuts both directions:  the data did not support a decline over the last 100 years, but neither did it support an increase.  Sunspots, at least, do not support either point of view.
Doug

"no correlation" is not justifed even if you consider just sunspot counts.
I'd say there was a high correlation between solar activity proxies and temperature.

http://upload.wikime...vity_labels.svg

would you say that "solar activity has declined over the last 100 years" is correct based on the above graph?
I don't think you would.

Edited by Little Fish, 20 August 2012 - 02:40 PM.