sculptor
Valued Senior Member
Now, that's funny.
Climate-gate
- Thread starter Photizo
- Start date
Now, that's funny.
I hate babysitting.
bishop hill said:
* Mar 18
link to Pielkes original comment* (via original bishop hill link):
* Wed Mar 18, 09:00:00 AM MDT
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.uk...howComment=1426682430954#c8326848552182770678
RealClimate said:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...vere-tropical-cyclone-pam-and-climate-change/
I am guessing the update was TODAY.
And again you make the claim Soon received $1million which is false. The Smithsonian received the money and no one knows how much they paid/allocated to Soon. However, Judith Curry talked about her funding and said the Uni took approx 1/2 off the top. I have little doubt the smithsonian took a substantial cut.
If your going to follow the money, follow it both ways.
Well in reading the real climate comments number 40 is an interesting read.
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20101114/article/11141026?p=1&tc=pg
Last edited:
Is it worth expanding the discussion to include other planets and moons experiencing climate change currently or do we just put it in the inexplicable "too hard" basket?
I am sure most skeptics of ACC will be soon pointing at the climate change displaying on other planets in this solar system as a way of reinforcing their skepticism of just how much man kind is responsible for what is being observed here and dare I say "abroad" (out yonder).
I am sure most skeptics of ACC will be soon pointing at the climate change displaying on other planets in this solar system as a way of reinforcing their skepticism of just how much man kind is responsible for what is being observed here and dare I say "abroad" (out yonder).
I never minded babysitting so much, so long as the little hobgoblins were behaving. But, what's a Jesus Closet * for if you can't use it once in a while?
That's a good point several people have mentioned. Smithsonian stated that Soon is responsible for securing the source of funding, but since it is under their umbrella, they are clearly aware of this source, and no one has demonstrated or even attempted to do so, that I've witnessed, that this money went straight into Soon's pocket.
It feels more than a bit disingenuous that Smithsonian, august and upright institution that it is, is clearly in some type of damage control mode, and are doing their best to distance themselves from Soon, although so far have refrained from outright severing any contracts. Since they were a go between in this whole process, it's less than honest in appearance that they now are at least feigning to be shocked or concerned, and that there WILL be an investigation. But in the Church of Science, one must be seen to be keeping up appearances, and not farting loudly in the pew. Pun intended.
Why all the focus on Soon then? He seems to have the mark of a favored scapegoat. Not only was Smithsonian Insitute a party, but there were also several co-authors. I find it strange that only one sole individual is singled out.
Then again, should we really trust Smithsonian anyway since we know they spirited away all those Nephilim husks? Bastards!
That would be too reasonable. Seems HHH is in play: Hysteria, Hyperbole, and Hypocrisy.
Uncommon sense tells us that when contrarians receive funding from an energy company, it clearly taints their work.
When the AGW faithful receive money from a company or organization connected to "green" or enviro issues and activism, miraculously taint-free.
But, I think it may be proof that some benevolent entity is smiling down on them when any of the evil evil evil Satanic Big Oil behemoths ** funds any of the Anthropogenic Global _____ (whatever term it is currently), they are able to resist the corrupting powers that such Oil money carries with it.
Why does BP have a statement on their website that they accept prevailing wisdom on climate change?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...ns-unsustainable-warns-on-global-warming.html
Interesting...
Bring down the unemployment numbers in the lesser simian community by employing monkeys to design climate forecasting? A novel idea.
I was unaware of that issue. Highly interesting. Somewhat reminiscent of the UK Met office and its somewhat questionable predictions (disclaimer- I'm going from memory and don't feel like dredging up sources right now) a few years back about warmer than average winters that came in with a vengeance. And if I recall, the second or third year in a row of such prognostications they quickly removed the errant forecast rather promptly from their official website.
So now Big Insurance is profiting from the Church of Runaway Warming? Sounds totally innocent.
To sum up: profit in one direction = EVIL, profit in the other direction = GOOD???
*For those that don't realise, the italicized and bolded text in the quote is meant to be clicked on and redirected to a Youtube of "Carrie", no, i never had nor intend in the future to put forth the effort and finances to build a "Jesus Closet". I'm just a realist who recognizes that someone out there has no sense of humor.
** I actually do not trust in any way any large multinational oil, energy, finance, or any other type of corporation, for the record.
*** editing and formatting on this site has changed somewhat since i last was on. forgive me any transgressions incurred in my confusion!
Last edited:
But, what's a Jesus Closet * for if you can't use it once in a while?
that made me laugh. We called the kids house apes rather than hobgoblins.
Disingenuous sums it up quite well. Cant add to your comment, can only agree. Well put.Giambattista said:
Gotta have someone to throw under the bus. Its all about the funding (and hopefully will deflect further inquiry on other funding sources with other employees).
Giambattista said:
Add it to the list:
Article said:
http://dailysignal.com/2011/11/14/report-80-of-doe-green-energy-loans-went-to-obama-backers/
@quack
first of all, it is not a matter of being "too hard" but of being totally blind to historical data
can you give me the historical data on even the Moon which we can review to demonstrate "warming" or even a trend of anything?
we cannot logically "expand" this to the planets with no historical data to establish a baseline, nor can we say that they are "warming" considering there is no data supporting this conclusion... until we can put sensors on the different planets/moons and track the data, there is no point in including them as it only will obfuscate the issue with Earth... where we DO have the ability to historically establish temps in time as well as monitor and observe with great detail.
This does not take away from the AGW effects either. These effects are known on Earth and there is an overwhelming preponderance of scientific data supporting the AGW issues, from CO2 & man made warming to the knowledge and ability to separate natural CO2 emissions from anthropogenic emissions (the techniques which are demonstrated in numerous studies, from oceanic to atmospheric studies)
Feel free to read any of the following links. If there are any refutes that the deniers think of (especially the ones who state that this or that physics is wrong or that they've been debunked) then there is a simple, logical way of logically seeing who is more correct: note which studies are corrected or retracted
IF the deniers are correct, then the studies will be corrected or retracted (because that is how science works)
if the science is correct, the studies will be left as is.
here are some links to enjoy:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Lacis_etal_1.pdf
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/12/124002/pdf/1748-9326_9_12_124002.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/305/5682/362
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6956/full/425365a.html
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1797/20141856
here is one that demonstrates the future problems with AGW and warming... not only was her (Francis) predictions validated and we are seeing them manifested today in the US, but she was spot on in her predictions and it shows the power of modern physics and climate science
i would also suggest the video's below the link... they explain the study (BY Francis in her own words... one long, one short vid)
http://marine.rutgers.edu/~francis/pres/Francis_Vavrus_2012GL051000_pub.pdf
Francis 40 min video:
this study is supported by recent findings here: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/
and here: http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/air_temperature.html
ROTFLMFAOI never minded babysitting so much, so long as the little hobgoblins were behaving. But, what's a Jesus Closet * for if you can't use it once in a while?
you made me spit my coffee all over my laptop!
Barring further Reagan era cuts to the various research operations, that is being done and has been for some time. Not only that, but the solar output itself is being measured in various ways, recently some direct ways.quantum said:
That would apply to the actual scientific discussion, of course, which involves stuff like math and requires one's numbers to add up properly. For example, graphs used in the actual discussion involve error bars, and the data has not contradicted the hypothetical calculations until it (together with its own error range) has moved out of the error range that was part of the calculation.
For example: The two planets closest to the sun, Venus and Mercury, do not appear to be rapidly warming. Also, the changes in the solar output appear to be small and fluctuating.
Out of the hundreds of solar system bodies measured I think (last count) eight appear to feature sharply increasing temperatures on some part of their surface over some recent interval of time. In all cases so far this warming appears to be greatly exaggerated from the very small changes measures in solar output, and does not appear to be fluctuating in the same ways (often the data set is too poor to assess that, of course).
In the case of Terra we do have a pretty good data set, and we know for sure that it is warming sharply, the warming is greatly exaggerated compared with the solar changes, and it is not fluctuating in the same way. In the case of Terra we also have a better idea of the possible mechanisms, so that we can rule out various possibilities still in play elsewhere (release of internal heat, say).
Thanks for posting that... i've passed on (with others) a very similar argument to zephir, the ultimate troll, many times on Phys.org
of course, as almost everyone knows, zephir never lets any reality interfere with his pseudoscience and delusions...
He's even developed a philosophy (he calls it a theory but, of course, there is no math, no empirical data or anything else) that these data points you discussed above are proof of dark matter causing the warming
or was it aether causing it
i can't remember
LOL
So THANKS, iceaura
something interesting regarding the deniers and their inability to accept science over their religion/conspiracy/politics/beliefs etc
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetc....1371/journal.pone.0075637&representation=PDF
Skepticism is an integral component of science. Furthermore, maintaining a skeptical attitude towards those who claim "the science is settled" is perfectly acceptable--and inevitable by definition. The observable behaviors on the part of those who believe "the science is settled" towards skeptics who disagree with them further undermines their credibility in turn fueling further doubt/suspicions as to their motivations, etc.
Name calling/labeling skeptics "deniers" is just one of these types of observable behaviors. The irony is the so called 'scientists' who believe "the science is settled" behave exactly like those they love to lampoon i.e. hypocritical religious zealots, effectively becoming caricatures of themselves.
But trolling the Internet with bullshit nonsense isn't skepticism.
first off - I am not sure there are scientists who believe the "science is settled" ... that would be more for the layman or hobby physicist
maybe someone like an engineer with a purpose, finite goals and driven focused situational set of reachable goals
and i believe very strongly in skepticism.
I am not saying anything against being skeptical or of having a skeptical attitude.
I was once a skeptic of the claims of climate science myself a few years ago... but i was given a precious piece of advice that i found to be invaluable: forget the politics, media and the biased sources - go straight to the SCIENCE and see what it has to say
There is a line however.
and as brucep points out, most of the "deniers" of science are nothing more than trolls
some are educated, but are not intelligent... I put quote a few people in that category, including Dr. Patrick Moore, the author of that horrible article that i argued against a few posts back (#2026)
now, when i use the term "denier" it is a label that is accurate and it means exactly what it implies:
When someone is willing to completely ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence of something just because it doesn't jibe with their political, religious or other (pseudoscience, faith, name it) set of beliefs, then that person is denying reality.
That is not an ad hominem, it is a label of classification. It is also highly accurate.
As a denier, these people are assuming a worldwide conspiracy in science with tens of thousands of players on the field cross culturally with some cultures that are so diametrically opposed to each other that cohesive interrelationships are absolutely not possible. Taking that into consideration, it is far more likely that my twin is buried underneath my bed next to Elvis, Jimmy Hoffa, Ron White and a pair of aliens shot out of the sky near Area 51 than a worldwide climate science conspiracy.
the big problem comes about when the so-called skeptics try to talk science with NO scientific evidence
These people are the worst "deniers" that i am speaking of when i label someone a denier... educated or not
and the educated ones are nothing more than hypocritical money grubbing idiots, IMHO
Some people give what may seem, at first blush, a decent argument. They seem logical and methodical... until you logically look at the situation.
For instance: one serious crackpot seems to think that he has the entire climate mapped out in a brass bowl with ice and water. He wrongly assumes that CO2 cannot be a large part of the problem or even have a fraction of the effects on the climate based upon his limited knowledge of science and that waterbowl... although he actually thinks he is well versed in physics (and claims a chemistry background), his lack of comprehension and hypocrisy is made worse after being shown the science behind the problem, the cycle of CO2 and water vapor and how it interacts, and then, dismissing this as irrelevant, goes back to the same rhetoric.
This is the typical denier who is likely being paid to obfuscate the science.
And before you start arguing that i am simply claiming conspiracy and it is not validated, think again. this is a known situation and it is also proven by a scientific study who found some big oil and big $$ industry hiding funds to intentionally obfuscate climate science in order to work against it and keep the status quo. This underground movement is in the study here: http://www.drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing Delay - Climatic Change.ashx
you can read the article which references the study here: http://phys.org/news/2013-12-koch-brothers-reveals-funders-climate.html
SO that is NOT an assumed conspiracy without evidence, it is a proven fact and an underground movement funded by big oil/$$$industry
How can we be sure that the science is valid or that it is not "debunked" as so many trolling idiots (especially from the denier crowd) have claimed?
it is simple: the scientific method
Watch this little clip from Dr. Tyson... it really does explain it all
Scientists COMPETE to prove each other wrong... and get "points" for scoring against someone else
THAT is what keeps the scientific method going and makes it so strong
so when someone (a denier) says to me "I can debunk that study with this simple Wiki graph" and makes up some random diatribe why everyone else in the world is stupid and should listen to them, then the first thing i do is check the studies and their status
if a study is not altered, changed or retracted, then we can rightfully assume that the denier is delusional and full of BS
so when i see arguments like this:
especially in light of the evidence, like this http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm
Then i wonder as to the intentions of the poster. I would consider the poster either highly uninformed or intentionally denying the evidence (depending on the situation and the post, reason and historical arguments against or for various types of science)
-NOTE- normally i do not link blogs, however, i felt that the link to skeptical science is, in this case, very accurate and it also references studies and information that are clear, concise and accurate as well. The article i linked is justified by the information referenced and there is plenty more out there supporting it as well. And even with a failed model, we can learn a great deal... so no model is bad. only what you take away from it. IOW - learn from it or the blame is yours, not the model or the science.
There are many different types of "denier", and yes, there can be "deniers" in every camp, but one thing is for sure: the ones who deny the science are doing so at not only their own peril, but potentially at the peril of everyone around them
And that is not me trying to be "alarmist" but more a "realist"
the climate situation is the same thing as pollution: it is not a problem of a singular nature or of singular personal consequences... it always involves everyone around you and can potentially involve descendents for long periods of time afterwards as well.
is it fair to condemn our future because we are stupid now?
soliloquy done... for now
"all that they want to pull off through it"??
Really?
this is a conspiratorial and political argument
not a scientific one
Why do you think climate science has a problem with credibility in the public's therefore various government(s) perception? ( if any)
Most of the later ones are ballpark with the absolutes and quite accurate with such large scale properties as the direction of slope.sculptor said:
The error bars are fairly large, after all. It's not easy to model something unprecedented like this, where a lot of the calculations have to be done from first principles and basic physics - there are no sufficiently similar situations in the past to check with.
The tend to miss high with air temps outside the polar regions and miss low with consequences inside the polar regions - possibly, these are related.
The power and money to be gained, and losses to be avoided, by seeing to that.
There are entire media networks, with TV stations and internet operations and radio hosts and newspapers, paid to damage the credibility of science. The money is not wasted.
Last edited: