Global climate change
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-01-2014, 08:28 PM
RE: Global climate change
(26-01-2014 02:46 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I'd settle for one single citation by reputable climate scientists wherein weather is misconstrued as climate. Thanks.

“The persistence of the pattern seems consistent with an amplified jet stream configuration that we expect to see occur more frequently as the Arctic continues to warm disproportionately.”
-Jennifer Frances, Climate Scientist, blaming the recent cold weather on global warming

(26-01-2014 02:46 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(26-01-2014 08:32 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Both sides accuse the other of bad faith. Both oil and environmentalism are big money; naturally no debate over competing fantasy climate models is complete without enough acrimony to heat the planet.

False equivalence.

Cool story, bro.

Both sides accuse the other of corruption based on the evidence that "money corrupts" and not much else. It's FUD and you have a double standard. If money alone doesn't prove corruption then both sides must debate the real issues instead. I'm willing to give both sides the benefit of the doubt (until specific evidence proves this trust misplaced) in the interest of hearing what both sides have to say.

"I've just completed Mike's nature trick to hide the decline." Now there's a scandal: climate scientists privately colluding to publish political tracts disguised as science. (The specific goal revealed by Climategate was to create the appearance of "unprecedented warming" by smoothing the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age to create a sense of political urgency. To get to "unprecedented" you need a hockey stick, not a wavy line.) Unlike your "money proves corruption" argument (with its baked-in double standard) Climategate is a documented scandal with a clearly stated motive told in the words of its own perpetrators. But never mind that: look, money!

Give me a real scandal, not distractions.

(26-01-2014 08:32 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  ... failed predictions ...

cjlr and chas Wrote:Citations ...

If you're completely new to the idea of uncertainty in climate science Glaciergate is a good place to start, although of course its prediction won't officially have failed until 2035. The science is settled if the science we're talking about is geology, but you want failed, not merely doomed to fail. Fortunately of failed predictions past their expiration dates there are many. I'll start with these and we'll see if you need more from here:

Michael Oppenheimer, Dead Heat, 1990:
"[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots . . . [By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers ...”
Not even Y2k did that.

Doctor David Viner, Climate Scientist, CRU East Anglia, year 2000:
"... within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event ... Children just aren’t going to know what snow is."
Here's how he's being treated by his peers today. Note the part about "reputation". Failed predictions are no obstacle to the "worldwide reputation" of a "climate scientist".

There's a string of failed predictions of the north pole melting, staring with 2000 and ending with the latest arctic doomsday clock set to 2030. You can look them up yourself if you like -- there are plenty to choose from.

The 50 million homeless by 2011 (IPCC prediction) never happened. When 2011 rolled around with no homeless millions they tried to memory-hole the prediction, but the internet never forgets.

The failure of temperature predictions always up and never down was covered pretty thoroughly by climate scientist John Christy in Nature Climate Change: of the 117 predictions made in the 1990's three have come close and 114 were high.
"It's a real problem ... it shows that there really is something that needs to be fixed in the climate models."
And they always fail high. Such sharp bias throws as much suspicion on the mentality of the modelers as on the methodology of the models.

(26-01-2014 02:46 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(26-01-2014 08:32 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  ... absent [the ability] to check up on claims of climate catastrophe why should I not trust my observations of the people making the claims?

Because you appear to have convinced yourself that you know better than 98% of global climate scientists, despite freely admitting to being uneducated on the subject?

I can, without ever learning to fly a plane, know that if pilots carrying the P.T. Barnum Certificate of Clowning and Commercial Aviation consistently crash their planes the "Certified Clown Pilot" credential doesn't mean much. If I'm on the plane when the dude in the clown nose climbs into the cockpit I know to head for the emergency exit even though I have no idea how to fly the plane.

Credentialism is an ugly necessity -- and I assume by your appeal to credentialism you're no more a "climate modelling expert" than I am -- but to prevent abuse credentials must be measured against outcomes and, if the credentialed field is to survive, reformed by more rigor and better ideas from those with the expertise and open-minded objectivity to see what's wrong and fix the problems.

Maybe that reformer will be John Christy or Judith Curry. Not every climate scientist is a phrenologist; thus there is hope that climate science may not always be phrenology. Surgeons long ago had a bad reputation, too, but today if I needed surgery I wouldn't trust anyone but a credentialed surgeon to perform it. But in the meantime I'm as comfortable disagreeing with "98% of climate scientists" as I would be with "100% of phrenologists". Predictions almost always fail and always high. A bias like that isn't science; it's religion. Climate science needs more than Mike's Nature Trick if it's going to reverse its decline.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-01-2014, 09:50 PM
RE: Global climate change
(26-01-2014 08:28 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  “The persistence of the pattern seems consistent with an amplified jet stream configuration that we expect to see occur more frequently as the Arctic continues to warm disproportionately.”
-Jennifer Frances, Climate Scientist, blaming the recent cold weather on global warming

Aaaand that's not a citation. That's an un-sourced out-of-context quote.

Excepting as well that supposing climate change not to affect the jetstream would seem a truly bizarre hypothesis.

(26-01-2014 08:28 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Cool story, bro.

Both sides accuse the other of corruption based on the evidence that "money corrupts" and not much else. It's FUD and you have a double standard. If money alone doesn't prove corruption then both sides must debate the real issues instead. I'm willing to give both sides the benefit of the doubt (until specific evidence proves this trust misplaced) in the interest of hearing what both sides have to say.

There aren't two sides.

There are actual scientists, and then there are people who don't like their conclusions.

Which are you?

False equivalency is a big favourite of cranks the world over, from climate to cosmology to biology to medicine...

(26-01-2014 08:28 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  "I've just completed Mike's nature trick to hide the decline." Now there's a scandal: climate scientists privately colluding to publish political tracts disguised as science. (The specific goal revealed by Climategate was to create the appearance of "unprecedented warming" by smoothing the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age to create a sense of political urgency. To get to "unprecedented" you need a hockey stick, not a wavy line.) Unlike your "money proves corruption" argument (with its baked-in double standard) Climategate is a documented scandal with a clearly stated motive told in the words of its own perpetrators. But never mind that: look, money!

Give me a real scandal, not distractions.

"Climategate" is a desperate invention by ignorant hacks. It's so transparently manufactured I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that anyone claiming good faith would have fallen for it.

(26-01-2014 08:28 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  If you're completely new to the idea of uncertainty in climate science Glaciergate is a good place to start, although of course its prediction won't officially have failed until 2035. The science is settled if the science we're talking about is geology, but you want failed, not merely doomed to fail. Fortunately of failed predictions past their expiration dates there are many. I'll start with these and we'll see if you need more from here:

Michael Oppenheimer, Dead Heat, 1990:
"[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots . . . [By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers ...”
Not even Y2k did that.

That's not a peer-reviewed scientific article, now, is it? I'd be far more shocked if a 23 year old lay piece weren't inaccurate. Least of all one making deliberately provocative statements.

Furthermore, the following is not sound logic:
A prediction was once wrong.
THEREFORE,
All predictions are wrong.

You're... going to have to do better than that.

(hint: predictions are pretty sound, actually)

(26-01-2014 08:28 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  http://www.amazon.com/Dead-Heat-Michael-...1850432414
Doctor David Viner, Climate Scientist, CRU East Anglia, year 2000:
"... within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event ... Children just aren’t going to know what snow is."

Yes. A reference to snowfall in South-Eastern England. Which is meaningless unless you actually have the data on snowfall in Southern England over the last several decades.

Do you?

(26-01-2014 08:28 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Here's how he's being treated by his peers today. Note the part about "reputation". Failed predictions are no obstacle to the "worldwide reputation" of a "climate scientist".

That's a press release. Wherever you're copypasting this from, find a better source, m'kay?

(26-01-2014 08:28 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  There's a string of failed predictions of the north pole melting, staring with 2000 and ending with the latest arctic doomsday clock set to 2030. You can look them up yourself if you like -- there are plenty to choose from.

I asked you, since you brought it up. But nice try.

That the northern polar ice cap is shrinking is literally undeniable. So good luck with that.

At best - being charitable - I might suppose you are saying that there are some unaccounted-for systematic errors in short-term predictions. Notwithstanding that any current prediction cannot be wrong yet, by definition; notwithstanding that you have presented none of the literary review such as would be necessary to corroborate such a claim; notwithstanding evidence that some of the systematic errors tend the other way; notwithstanding the underlying validity of the climate science...

That's a not of notwithstandings there, Joshi.

(26-01-2014 08:28 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  The 50 million homeless by 2011 (IPCC prediction) never happened. When 2011 rolled around with no homeless millions they tried to memory-hole the prediction, but the internet never forgets.

That's not a citation.

(and you're, what, denying so much as the possibility?)

(26-01-2014 08:28 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  The failure of temperature predictions always up and never down was covered pretty thoroughly by climate scientist John Christy in Nature Climate Change: of the 117 predictions made in the 1990's three have come close and 114 were high.
"It's a real problem ... it shows that there really is something that needs to be fixed in the climate models."
And they always fail high. Such sharp bias throws as much suspicion on the mentality of the modelers as on the methodology of the models.

That's an opinion piece in a letters section, which is addressed in subsequent issues.

(26-01-2014 08:28 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  I can, without ever learning to fly a plane, know that if pilots carrying the P.T. Barnum Certificate of Clowning and Commercial Aviation consistently crash their planes the "Certified Clown Pilot" credential doesn't mean much. If I'm on the plane when the dude in the clown nose climbs into the cockpit I know to head for the emergency exit even though I have no idea how to fly the plane.

Right. So you do know better than the entire body of global climate research.

What you're actually doing here is denying that planes can fly.

(26-01-2014 08:28 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Credentialism is an ugly necessity -- and I assume by your appeal to credentialism you're no more a "climate modelling expert" than I am -- but to prevent abuse credentials must be measured against outcomes and, if the credentialed field is to survive, reformed by more rigor and better ideas from those with the expertise and open-minded objectivity to see what's wrong and fix the problems.

You objection seems to consist solely of "lol I am so smart, science r wrong trololol".

That's not particularly compelling.

(26-01-2014 08:28 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Maybe that reformer will be John Christy or Judith Curry. Not every climate scientist is a phrenologist; thus there is hope that climate science may not always be phrenology. Surgeons long ago had a bad reputation, too, but today if I needed surgery I wouldn't trust anyone but a credentialed surgeon to perform it. But in the meantime I'm as comfortable disagreeing with "98% of climate scientists" as I would be with "100% of phrenologists". Predictions almost always fail and always high. A bias like that isn't science; it's religion. Climate science needs more than Mike's Nature Trick if it's going to reverse its decline.

False equivalence, baseless assertions, dishonest insults; yes. Very compelling.

Move along, people. There's nothing to see here...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
27-01-2014, 11:12 PM
RE: Global climate change
(24-10-2013 07:38 AM)Chas Wrote:  http://www.upworthy.com/one-guy-with-a-m...te-7?c=cp2

He's greatly underestimating the cost. The cost is not just some taxes and regulation that lead to the worst depression ever - although that's certainly bad if true.

The cost is that it just can't be done, unless essentially all nations are compelled into compliance. There is risk of global war over this if the kind of action is taken that's necessary to actually stop it...and there is no way to judge if the worst case alternative is worse.

Maybe a middle ground of some sort makes the most sense - tax fossil fuels, and use that revenue to speed up development of alternatives. If the projections are correct, solar is *one* cycle of Moore's law away from competeing head on with coal, and two cycles away from makign natural gas obsolete. The issue is of course storage, so we need to work on that.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-01-2014, 01:06 AM
RE: Global climate change
(26-01-2014 09:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(26-01-2014 08:28 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  “... amplified jet stream ...”
-Jennifer Frances, Climate Scientist, blaming the recent cold weather on global warming

Aaaand that's not a citation. That's an un-sourced out-of-context quote.

Are you denying she said it?


(26-01-2014 09:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Excepting as well that supposing climate change not to affect the jetstream would seem a truly bizarre hypothesis.

Climate change affects everything and the climate is always changing. That's not really the issue.
Do you actually have proof that CO2 emissions affect the climate enough to change the course of the jet stream (butterfly effect notwithstanding), or are you just changing the subject?


(26-01-2014 09:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  There aren't two sides.

Have to agree there. There are actually three:

1. Deniers. "The greenhouse effect doesn't exist. AGW is a hoax."

2. Skeptics. "The greenhouse effect has been grossly exaggerated. CAGW is a hoax."

3. Warmists. "CAGW is settled science with no time or need for debate. Without immediate political action global warming will threaten the entire planet, and millions will suffer and die."

Within the "skeptic" community there is debate over how much AGW is happening, the principal question being what, accounting for all feedbacks, is the net CO2 forcing value in a planetary atmosphere, but virtually all skeptics agree that the various predictions of doom and apocalypse are based on impossibly large CO2 forcing values.
Judith Curry probably states the Skeptic's position best:
“Based upon the background knowledge that we have, the threat does not seem to be an existential one on the time scale of the 21st century, even in its most alarming incarnation."

The predictable Warmist straw-man argument that Skeptics are Deniers draws attention away from the Warmists' failed forecasts and perfect 0% apocalypse prediction success rate. (The river Platte hasn't run dry, 50 million weren't left homeless by 2011, etc., despite the lack of "urgent social change" or whatever Term of Art was fashionable at the time of the prediction.)


(26-01-2014 09:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I find it extraordinarily difficult to believe that anyone claiming good faith would have fallen for [Climategate].

Climategate hit at exactly the right time to draw attention to the most popular hoax in climate science, the "Hockey Stick Chart". It also revealed the susceptibility of the peer-review process to groupthink, political pressure, and cartelization.
Climategate has brought reform to a field in desperate need. What exactly is it, then, that you think I've "fallen for"?


(26-01-2014 09:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(26-01-2014 08:28 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Dead Heat

That's not a peer-reviewed scientific article, now, is it?

Unless you're intending to make the case that we should assume every statement from a climate scientist is a lie unless made in the narrow confines of a peer-reviewed journal you might want to rethink your invalidation of my citation. A credentialed climate scientist wrote a nonfiction book as an expert in his field predicting an apocalypse that never happened, and your response is to claim it doesn't count because it was printed on the wrong stationery.
Then, despite my having provided a list, you claim this was one isolated incident. If Oppenheimer's Apocalypse were indeed the only case you'd have a point, but it wasn't. Credentialed climate scientists have been making failed predictions of doom one upon the other ever since the 1970's, and up until recently the grandaddy exaggeration of them all, the "Hockey Stick Chart", was considered "settled science", a phrase which should by now be as discredited as the Hockey Stick itself.


(26-01-2014 09:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ... snowfall in South-Eastern England ... meaningless unless you actually have the data ...
Do you?

I could show you how to get weather reports off the internet, but I'd rather watch you pretend it no longer snows in SE England. (Hint: it's snowing right now ... without a citation!) There does come a point where demanding citations becomes trolling, and watching it snow on Merry Old England makes me think this is one of those times.

The company issuing Mr. Viner's press release was the only place to "copypaste" from (link actually) as that's the place that hired him. They hired him for his "worldwide reputation", completely disregarding his failed predictions of doom. This is a symptom, evidence that in the climate science racket apocalypse-prediction failures are so common "worldwide reputation" is untarnished by them.


(26-01-2014 09:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That the northern polar ice cap is shrinking is literally undeniable. So good luck with that.

Citation needed. Be sure to include 2013.


(26-01-2014 09:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(26-01-2014 08:28 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  50 million homeless by 2011 (IPCC prediction) never happened ... they tried to memory-hole the prediction, but the internet never forgets.

That's not a citation.

(and you're, what, denying so much as the possibility?)

Unless you're about to pretend the IPCC never made one of its most famously ridiculous claims, lawyering my citation is a distraction. And yes I am denying the possibility of the prediction turning out to have been true. Unless they dig up 50 million homeless people preserved in amber from 2011 that ship has sailed.


(26-01-2014 09:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(26-01-2014 08:28 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  ... failure of temperature predictions always up and never down ... covered pretty thoroughly by climate scientist John Christy ...

... addressed in subsequent issues

Citation needed.


(26-01-2014 09:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  What you're actually doing here is denying that planes can fly.

I'm denying they can fly safely without a competent pilot. (I've even named a couple of trustworthy fliers, John Christy and Judith Curry, and I'd add Richard Lindzen to the roster as well.)


(26-01-2014 09:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ... trololol ...

Warmist Speaking in Tongues proving Warmism isn't a religion! Heh.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2014, 09:44 PM
RE: Global climate change
I had totally forgotten about this thread. But then you made a stupid post in another and reminded me.

(28-01-2014 01:06 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  
(26-01-2014 09:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Aaaand that's not a citation. That's an un-sourced out-of-context quote.

Are you denying she said it?

No. I just don't see how it's relevant.

I provided you with a scientific article substantiating the comment in any case.

(28-01-2014 01:06 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Climate change affects everything and the climate is always changing. That's not really the issue.
Do you actually have proof that CO2 emissions affect the climate enough to change the course of the jet stream (butterfly effect notwithstanding), or are you just changing the subject?

You were the one who brought up the quote in a context which attempted (dishonestly) to make it appear as though it were inaccurate.

Since you're implicitly accepting my citation to the effect that it's not, who might we say is really changing the subject here?

(28-01-2014 01:06 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  
(26-01-2014 09:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  There aren't two sides.

Have to agree there. There are actually three:

1. Deniers. "The greenhouse effect doesn't exist. AGW is a hoax."

2. Skeptics. "The greenhouse effect has been grossly exaggerated. CAGW is a hoax."

3. Warmists. "CAGW is settled science with no time or need for debate. Without immediate political action global warming will threaten the entire planet, and millions will suffer and die."

Within the "skeptic" community there is debate over how much AGW is happening, the principal question being what, accounting for all feedbacks, is the net CO2 forcing value in a planetary atmosphere, but virtually all skeptics agree that the various predictions of doom and apocalypse are based on impossibly large CO2 forcing values.

And some people will never believe anything.

There are people who don't think the Earth goes around the Sun. There aren't "two sides" to the "centrism debate". Just more false equivalency...

"lol conspiracy" is not an answer. And that's all you have.

(28-01-2014 01:06 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Judith Curry probably states the Skeptic's position best:
“Based upon the background knowledge that we have, the threat does not seem to be an existential one on the time scale of the 21st century, even in its most alarming incarnation."

Such a statement is contrary to the opinions of the vast majority of qualified experts on the matter.

It is certainly possible. It does not seem like a good bet.

(28-01-2014 01:06 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  The predictable Warmist straw-man argument that Skeptics are Deniers draws attention away from the Warmists' failed forecasts and perfect 0% apocalypse prediction success rate. (The river Platte hasn't run dry, 50 million weren't left homeless by 2011, etc., despite the lack of "urgent social change" or whatever Term of Art was fashionable at the time of the prediction.)

Citation needed on failed predictions.
(again - you can't just say shit and not attribute and substantiate it, no matter what your copypasta repository says)

(28-01-2014 01:06 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Climategate hit at exactly the right time to draw attention to the most popular hoax in climate science, the "Hockey Stick Chart". It also revealed the susceptibility of the peer-review process to groupthink, political pressure, and cartelization.
Climategate has brought reform to a field in desperate need. What exactly is it, then, that you think I've "fallen for"?

Climategate.

Which, as has been amply discussed, does not exist.

If actual scientists performing actual statistical filtering to account for known biases in data subsets is somehow a "conspiracy" then congratulations. All science which has ever existed is a conspiracy. Hmm.

(28-01-2014 01:06 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Unless you're intending to make the case that we should assume every statement from a climate scientist is a lie unless made in the narrow confines of a peer-reviewed journal you might want to rethink your invalidation of my citation. A credentialed climate scientist wrote a nonfiction book as an expert in his field predicting an apocalypse that never happened, and your response is to claim it doesn't count because it was printed on the wrong stationery.

Do you understand the difference between the popular press and peer-reviewed scientific publication?

You seem not to.

Notwithstanding that I'd be pretty damn surprised if models from 24 years ago were still considered valid by anyone. So there's that.

(28-01-2014 01:06 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Then, despite my having provided a list, you claim this was one isolated incident. If Oppenheimer's Apocalypse were indeed the only case you'd have a point, but it wasn't. Credentialed climate scientists have been making failed predictions of doom one upon the other ever since the 1970's, and up until recently the grandaddy exaggeration of them all, the "Hockey Stick Chart", was considered "settled science", a phrase which should by now be as discredited as the Hockey Stick itself.

Yeah, no. You can say that as much as you like (and your ilk really likes to, since straw men are the easiest thing to argue against) but that doesn't make it true.

(28-01-2014 01:06 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  I could show you how to get weather reports off the internet, but I'd rather watch you pretend it no longer snows in SE England. (Hint: it's snowing right now ... without a citation!) There does come a point where demanding citations becomes trolling, and watching it snow on Merry Old England makes me think this is one of those times.

It was your claim that snowfall becoming rarer was disproven by a single data point.

Since I never claimed anything like "it no longer snows in SE England" attempting to pretend I did is rather strikingly disingenuous.

(28-01-2014 01:06 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  The company issuing Mr. Viner's press release was the only place to "copypaste" from (link actually) as that's the place that hired him. They hired him for his "worldwide reputation", completely disregarding his failed predictions of doom. This is a symptom, evidence that in the climate science racket apocalypse-prediction failures are so common "worldwide reputation" is untarnished by them.

Your repeated failure to provide any citations is noted.

Merely asserting that "oh, they're out there somewhere, I promise" is not compelling.

You seem to be maintaining your delusional thesis that "climate science" in toto, worldwide are somehow all colluding to some nebulous and ill-defined end (because LOL CONSPIRACY) despite being perpetually starved of funding and influence (because LOL CONSPIRACY) and, most strikingly, seemingly to no effect, if drips like you still feel confident in denying an entire field of research for no reason (besides LOL CONSPIRACY).

(28-01-2014 01:06 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Citation needed. Be sure to include 2013.

Ah - so you don't understand the difference between individual data points and the existence of trends. Perhaps an open-source course on Statistics would be of some use?

(but also maybe read some actual science some time, k?)

(28-01-2014 01:06 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Unless you're about to pretend the IPCC never made one of its most famously ridiculous claims, lawyering my citation is a distraction. And yes I am denying the possibility of the prediction turning out to have been true. Unless they dig up 50 million homeless people preserved in amber from 2011 that ship has sailed.

It's downright infantile to pretend that changing climates haven't affected people. Are you going so far as to attempt that claim? I should hope not, but I wouldn't put it past you.

This is, incidentally, a perfect summation of why people do treat the likes of you as a joke. You cannot simultaneously argue (as you have in this very thread) a schizophrenic combination of "climate change is not real" and "climate change is real but unconnected to human activity".

But, no, I'm sure if you keep repeating the - ahem - "logic" wherein:
A prediction was once wrong,
THEREFORE,
All predictions are necessarily wrong;
It'll eventually become true through sheer force of bloody mindedness. Good luck with that.

(28-01-2014 01:06 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  
(26-01-2014 09:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ... addressed in subsequent issues

Citation needed.

Do you not have access to scientific databases? You could just read the letters pages of the next several issues for yourself, if you did.

Or is it just not worth your time to read actual scientific publications, since apparently you are so amazingly full of yourself as to dismiss out of hand an entire family of scientific disciplines because you don't like their conclusions?

If you go anomaly hunting you will find something - though that is, as it happens the exact opposite of genuine skeptical behaviour. You are in no way a skeptic, since you admit that you will not let relevant authorities' findings influence you. That is, again, the exact opposite of genuine skeptical behaviour. "We think we found some errors in past calculations, so here are some ways those errors might be avoided in future" is an utterly banal boilerplate scientific article. That it was accepted by the review board of a journal dedicated to climate science ought to be indication enough to you that an idiotic "lol conspiracy" is tragically insufficient.

Nor does it in any case alter the consensus of the field. So there's that.

(28-01-2014 01:06 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  
(26-01-2014 09:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  What you're actually doing here is denying that planes can fly.

I'm denying they can fly safely without a competent pilot. (I've even named a couple of trustworthy fliers, John Christy and Judith Curry, and I'd add Richard Lindzen to the roster as well.)

Oooooh, three whole people. How many members does the IPCC have, again?

Are you denying the chemical properties of carbon dioxide? Are you denying the human-activity-correlated levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide? No? Good, because to do so would be reality denial the likes of a creationist would go for.

So you disagree as to the implications of those observations. That is all well and good; science is in a very fundamental sense based on disagreements. However: you do not appear to wish to engage in science. You choose instead to disregard the scientific establishment, composed though it is of educated professionals, in favour of an extreme minority view known for a striking combination of ignorance and bias, on the twin bases of "I, some schmuck with an internet connection, know better than all those real climate scientists" and "lol conspiracy".

I do hope you realize that's not very compelling.

(28-01-2014 01:06 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  
(26-01-2014 09:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ... trololol ...

Warmist Speaking in Tongues proving Warmism isn't a religion! Heh.

You're not doing a very good job of dispelling the troll impression.

Pretend to be skeptical? Check. Reject a priori conflicting opinions? Check. Smug sense of self-satisfaction? Check. Paranoid fantasies of pervasive conspiracy? Big check.

Lemme know when you've got something worth taking seriously.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
20-02-2014, 07:02 AM
RE: Global climate change
(18-02-2014 09:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(28-01-2014 01:06 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Within the "skeptic" community there is debate over how much AGW is happening, the principal question being what, accounting for all feedbacks, is the net CO2 forcing value in a planetary atmosphere, but virtually all skeptics agree that the various predictions of doom and apocalypse are based on impossibly large CO2 forcing values.

There are people who don't think the Earth goes around the Sun. There aren't "two sides" to the "centrism debate". Just more false equivalency...

False equivalency like claiming that believing Judith Curry's CO2 forcing values over her discredited alarmist peers is equivalent to believing in terracentrism? (Your blatant lack of self-awareness suggests there's some psychological projection going on here as well ... project your worst flaws onto me and in yourself you'll never see.)

(18-02-2014 09:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(28-01-2014 01:06 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Judith Curry probably states the Skeptic's position best:
“Based upon the background knowledge that we have, the threat does not seem to be an existential one on the time scale of the 21st century, even in its most alarming incarnation."

Such a statement is contrary to the opinions of the vast majority of qualified experts on the matter.

If scientists were Cardinals electing a Pope majority opinion would matter. As I understand science, though, it's the group that makes the best predictions that should be believed. The "vast majority" is tainted by a string of failed predictions of impending doom, but thankfully the "honest minority" of whom Judith Curry is the most visible leader have not yet sullied their reputations making alarmist exaggerations.

(18-02-2014 09:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It is certainly possible. It does not seem like a good bet.

Skepticism! It's directed at Judith Curry, the least deserving of it, but still, any tree grows in Brooklyn that's cause for celebration!
All you need do now is apply that fine skepticism you're sprouting toward the ones who truly deserve it: Why didn't the River Platte run dry? Where are the 50 million homeless? Why does it still regularly snow in England?

(18-02-2014 09:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(28-01-2014 01:06 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  ... perfect 0% apocalypse prediction success rate. (The river Platte hasn't run dry, 50 million weren't left homeless by 2011, etc ...

Citation needed on failed predictions.

Already given, just scroll up. Cognitive dissonance might have forced them from your mind, but scroll up and perhaps you'll remember, at least for a time.
Curiously you do go on to try to defend some of the insane predictions you're again pretending I never cited, mostly by walking them back and defending the fallback. But why would you need to defend climate scientists' crazy predictions of doom if you disbelieve they were ever made? At least on some subconscious level you're no longer in denial.

(18-02-2014 09:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Climategate ...
If actual scientists performing actual statistical filtering to account for known biases in data subsets is somehow a "conspiracy" then congratulations. All science which has ever existed is a conspiracy. Hmm.

Whether or not statistical filtering is legitimate or misleading depends on how it is used. In the case of Climategate we discovered it was used on the Hockey Stick Chart to flatten out the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age to create the appearance of "unprecedented" warming. To someone unfamiliar with the concept of misleading statistics this might come as a shock, but not all statistical methods are immune to abuse; in fact almost all of them are prone to it.

(18-02-2014 09:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(28-01-2014 01:06 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Unless you're intending to make the case that we should assume every statement from a climate scientist is a lie unless made in the narrow confines of a peer-reviewed journal ...

Do you understand the difference between the popular press and peer-reviewed scientific publication?

The difference is irrelevant. When the credential is used as a badge of scientific authority to make political demands in the popular press both person and badge should be held accountable if those predictions turn out to be ridiculously exaggerated junk science.
This in turn reflects back on the peer-reviewed journals, whether or not they agree with the public statements. Consider: either the peer reviewed journals are and have always been accurate, which means climate scientists have been lying to the public with crazy predictions of doom they knew from their peer-reviewed journals were bogus, or the peer reviewed journals are filled with the same crazy assumptions that led to the public predictions of doom, in which case the entire field of climate science needs reform and proper scientific skepticism from within to earn back credibility.
Incidentally the appearance of the now-discredited Hockey Stick Chart in the peer-reviewed literature and its widespread, rapid acceptance as "settled science" suggests the true situation regarding the [pre-Climategate] state of the peer-reviewed literature. Worse still Climategate revealed Mann and his associates acting as gatekeepers to the peer-reviewed journals, blocking their more-reasonable peers from publication to defend their indefensibly misleading work from ever being scrutinized from within the Priesthood. (Outside scrutiny could always be dismissed as not coming from a peer-reviewed publication.)

(18-02-2014 09:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Notwithstanding that I'd be pretty damn surprised if models from 24 years ago were still considered valid by anyone. So there's that.

On that we agree; likewise I'd be just as surprised if 24 years from now we aren't saying the exact same thing about today's "tipping points" and predictions of doom. (Hansen and Sato's tipping point from 2004 was supposed to come due this year if I remember correctly. I'm sure we'll know in 24 years whether anything actually tipped or not.)

(18-02-2014 09:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(28-01-2014 01:06 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  ... you pretend it no longer snows in SE England ... it's snowing right now ...

It was your claim that snowfall becoming rarer was disproven by a single data point.

Since I never claimed anything like "it no longer snows in SE England" attempting to pretend I did is rather strikingly disingenuous.

Actually your claim, or at least the one you defended despite subsequently demanding yet another redundant citation, came very close:
"Children aren't going to know what snow is."
Now you're defending that claim by downgrading it to "snowfall becoming rarer", which could prove you "right" by the difference of a single snowflake, and claiming I'm strawmanning you with the more extreme position.
Well, okay, strawman officially gone; I'm totally cool with you admitting David Viner's prediction was bogus. CAGW is an exaggeration hoax, and your own defense of this credentialed climate scientist's farcically overblown prediction by walking it back to a difference that could be as tiny as a few flakes proves my point for me. Exaggeration hoax? Check. Even you admit it? Check. Credentialed climate scientist? Check. I'm calling this one. QED.

(18-02-2014 09:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(28-01-2014 01:06 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  The company issuing Mr. Viner's press release was the only place to "copypaste" from (link actually) as that's the place that hired him. They hired him for his "worldwide reputation", completely disregarding his failed predictions of doom.

Your repeated failure to provide any citations is noted.

I provided a hyperlink to which I later referred when I corrected you for misidentifying it as a "copypaste" (like who makes that mistake?), but it is becoming clear that your only tool is a hammer which leads you to treat every problem as a nail. You're demanding yet another redundant citation, completely oblivious to both the original link and the reference to it.
It's kind of sad, really. You're so used to using the only tool you know how to use to solve the only problem you know how to solve that when someone actually provides citations you're rendered completely helpless ... so it's "tap tap tap", redundant demands for citations piling up as you hammer away on the whiteboard instead of picking up the marker and laying down some ideas.

(18-02-2014 09:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You seem to be maintaining your delusional thesis that "climate science" in toto, worldwide are somehow all colluding to some nebulous and ill-defined end (because LOL CONSPIRACY) ...

"Conspiracy", what an exciting new synonym for groupthink! Except you're waving around generalizations like "all" when I specifically mentioned Judith Curry (among others) as credible alternatives. How do you see her fitting into your conspiracy theory?

(18-02-2014 09:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(28-01-2014 01:06 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Citation needed. Be sure to include 2013.

Ah - so you don't understand the difference between individual data points and the existence of trends.

Another walkback. You throw down "literally undeniable" which 2013 literally denies then move the goalposts to smooth the data point that was literally undeniable onto a trendline you never mentioned until just now. Nice try.
By the way where exactly is your trendline? I do believe I used the magic words "citation needed" and yet, nothing ...

(18-02-2014 09:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  (but also maybe read some actual science some time, k?)

Yeah, while I'm doing that you might check up on what the Antarctic ice is doing ...

(18-02-2014 09:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(28-01-2014 01:06 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Unless they dig up 50 million homeless people preserved in amber from 2011 that ship has sailed.

It's downright infantile to pretend that changing climates haven't affected people.

50 MILLION reduced to "people." Snort! "People?" How many, pray tell? Two? Twenty? OVER 9,000? HAH! Laugh out load The IPCC figure was 50 MILLION.
Your weasel-worded walkback -- 50 MILLION HOMELESS reduced to downwards of two "affected people" -- tells me you know the IPCC prediction was crap. If you had 50 million you'd have shown them by now instead of throwing around insults like "infantile" as if I would be so distracted by ad hominems I wouldn't notice the disappearing millions.
You've once again made my argument for me. Claiming that hypothetical non-exaggerated predictions of slight changes are (or could so totally be) true only proves my claim that the real prediction made by real climate scientists is yet another exaggeration hoax. QED.
(And this from the very IPCC which you claim is more credible than Judith Curry. As if.)

(18-02-2014 09:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You cannot simultaneously argue (as you have in this very thread) a schizophrenic combination of "climate change is not real" and "climate change is real but unconnected to human activity".

Remember the 3 sides and the difference between Deniers and Skeptics and ... well, no, of course you don't.
I can and do simultaneously argue that most climate scientists are full of exaggerated crap while a few, like Judith Curry, by virtue of having not made bogus predictions of apocalyptic doom, still maintain their credibility.
That implies a belief in the greenhouse effect and AGW, although the failed predictions of the Warmists have consigned CAGW to the scrap heap of junk science history.
As fraught as climate science is these days it isn't enough to justify a claim of "settled science" to publish in a peer reviewed journal when the "peers" are the selfsame alarmists predicting catastrophes that never happen. Only the byline can truly confer credibility. Flash the credentials, write in the peer-reviewed journal, talk to the press, none of that matters until you sign your name to it and it's a trusted one. If it's not a name tainted by hoax, scandal, or junk science, then maybe it's credible.

(18-02-2014 09:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(28-01-2014 01:06 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Citation needed.

Do you not have access to scientific databases?

Whoa, there, pardner! Whatever happened to, "Do your own research?"
Apparently the only one of us expected to provide citations on command is me. Aren't you special?

(18-02-2014 09:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  anomaly hunting

"Anomaly hunting?" Even if these crazy predictions are statistically insignificant anomalies climate scientists have been selling them to the public as Gospel Truth, and before Climategate the public lapped it up without question.
The entire nation almost got suckered into a wild carbon-rationing scheme called "cap-and-trade" because of these "anomalies" as you call them. Exaggerated predictions of climate doom, anomalous or not, really freak people out, or at least they did before Climategate. The idea that the now-discredited "Hockey Stick Chart" was a mere anomaly ignores just how many climate scientists believed it without question. "Settled science" was what they were calling your "anomalies" back before Climategate threw back the curtain.

(18-02-2014 09:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  You are in no way a skeptic, since you admit that you will not let relevant authorities' findings influence you.

Credibility is a prerequisite for relevance. A true skeptic would know that. "Fool me twice, shame on who?"

(18-02-2014 09:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That is, again, the exact opposite of genuine skeptical behaviour.

Credulity without accountability is the exact opposite of skeptical behavior.

(18-02-2014 09:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(28-01-2014 01:06 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  trustworthy ... John Christy and Judith Curry ... Richard Lindzen ...

Oooooh, three whole people. How many members does the IPCC have, again?

The IPCC that made the crazy prediction of 50 million homeless by 2011? All too many, I'm afraid. There are only a few credible climate scientists whose names remain untainted by the exaggerations, distortions, and bizarre apocalyptic predictions made by the IPCC and other equally egregious organizations. But the credible ones are out there, even if they are in short supply.

(18-02-2014 09:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Are you denying the chemical properties of carbon dioxide?

Remember that part about CO2 forcing ... oh, what's the use? Of course you don't. Any value for CO2 forcing shy of "OMG! DOOM!" is obviously denialism of the very laws of physics themselves ... as long as you don't pay too close attention to the twisted wreckage of failed predictions of doom that litter the field of climate science.

(18-02-2014 09:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  But, no, I'm sure if you keep repeating the - ahem - "logic" wherein:
A prediction was once wrong,
THEREFORE,
All predictions are necessarily wrong;

You have an overly simplistic understanding of credibility. Most telling is that you divorce "predictions" from the people making them; to someone who understands the concept of credibility the history of the person or group making the statement is as important as the statement itself.
Strangely enough your tendency to accuse those with whom you disagree of being tainted by oil money shows you possess some understanding of the concept of credibility. You have yet to apply that understanding more generally, however, nor do you understand how important it is to do so in a world grown dependent on the credential as a proxy for credibility.
Credibility can be bolstered by ones own knowledge and experience; I trust Judith Curry because she has demonstrated exemplary honesty and a tendency not to exaggerate her findings, but the closer a scientific claim gets to my field of study the more likely I'd trust my own scientific judgment in helping evaluate a claim's truthfulness should the claim originate from an untrusted source. We're still not to "real science", which is only when you do the work yourself and replicate someone else's findings (or disprove them), so although "real science" in theory approaches 100% credibility neither of us are doing "real science".
What we're arguing is a matter of trust. It's really all either of us has to go on. I may have an advantage in that I understand how statistics can be manipulated in misleading ways, but I suspect your majoritarianism is as unyielding as my insistence on accountability.
You choose not to question authority so long as it holds a majority. I choose to question authority when a more credible minority holds a different view. You can sneer "copypasta" all you like, but that plus your own arguments from authority turn your insults into blind hypocrisy.
There are some climate scientists who still have some credibility, so maybe they'll tell me what you want to hear and we'll all be on the same side again. I can't build my own climate model, but I can choose to trust the people who haven't exaggerated over those who have. Where the credible scientists lead, I will follow.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-02-2014, 08:23 AM
RE: Global climate change
Other than masochism, I'm not seeing where JJ receives value added by positing climate skepticism on a minor atheist forum. I guess his mommy didn't say "I love you" enough. Tongue

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2014, 02:45 PM
RE: Global climate change
(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  False equivalency like claiming that believing Judith Curry's CO2 forcing values over her discredited alarmist peers is equivalent to believing in terracentrism? (Your blatant lack of self-awareness suggests there's some psychological projection going on here as well ... project your worst flaws onto me and in yourself you'll never see.)

Ah, armchair psychology. Stay classy.

The people who don't think evolution is real tend to be pretty convinced there are equal "sides" too. That doesn't make it so.

You have presented nothing of substance. As soon as you squawked out 'climategate' you made that quite clear.

Shall I indulge in some armchair psychology of my own? Because you seem hell-bent on denying an extremely grounded scientific consensus for no particular reason other than that it gives you a way to fell better about yourself.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  If scientists were Cardinals electing a Pope majority opinion would matter. As I understand science, though, it's the group that makes the best predictions that should be believed. The "vast majority" is tainted by a string of failed predictions of impending doom, but thankfully the "honest minority" of whom Judith Curry is the most visible leader have not yet sullied their reputations making alarmist exaggerations.

Even if you weren't making ludicrous accusations of nonsensical conspiracy touching on the work of tens of thousands of people, you'd still be presenting an idiotic argument:

A prediction was once wrong,
THEREFORE,
All predictions are wrong.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Skepticism! It's directed at Judith Curry, the least deserving of it, but still, any tree grows in Brooklyn that's cause for celebration!
All you need do now is apply that fine skepticism you're sprouting toward the ones who truly deserve it: Why didn't the River Platte run dry? Where are the 50 million homeless? Why does it still regularly snow in England?

"It still snows in southern England" and "it has gotten warmer in southern England" are not opposed statements. Do you have the honesty to admit that?

"People have been forced to move by changing climate" and "we gave a multiple choice test to every refugee on the planet to see if they marked 'climate change' " are not opposite statements. Do you have the integrity to recognize that?

Notwithstanding that river levels are far more influenced by diversion than climate change, particularly when fed by groundwater.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Already given, just scroll up. Cognitive dissonance might have forced them from your mind, but scroll up and perhaps you'll remember, at least for a time.

So, the grab bag of bad examples you gave earlier?

...

Yeah, I scrolled up. They didn't somehow become more relevant in the intervening time. Funny, that.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Curiously you do go on to try to defend some of the insane predictions you're again pretending I never cited, mostly by walking them back and defending the fallback. But why would you need to defend climate scientists' crazy predictions of doom if you disbelieve they were ever made? At least on some subconscious level you're no longer in denial.

Let me explain to you how you have attempted to argue:

You: Climate change, if it exists at all, is not related to human activity.
Me: There is a vast body of scientific evidence which says it is.
You: Nuh-uh. They are all wrong.
Me: Can you demonstrate that?
You: Someone twenty five years ago made a prediction in a book (not a peer-reviewed article) which didn't pan out. Therefore humans don't affect climate.

Do you understand how that conclusion in no way follows from that fact? Do you understand how predictions are not the same as observations? Do you understand how conclusions about climate are drawn from observation? Do you understand how predictions necessarily make specific claims based on imperfect knowledge and are inevitably wrong in large part? Do you understand the difference between being wrong in specifics and being correct in modelling trends?

Did you do a single thing besides copy and paste from a boilerplate denialism web dump?

Do you understand a single thing about statistical analysis and scientific review?

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Whether or not statistical filtering is legitimate or misleading depends on how it is used. In the case of Climategate

Ah, right, so you're still flogging that dead unicorn.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  ... we discovered it was used on the Hockey Stick Chart to flatten out the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age to create the appearance of "unprecedented" warming. To someone unfamiliar with the concept of misleading statistics this might come as a shock, but not all statistical methods are immune to abuse; in fact almost all of them are prone to it.

Yeah. No, that's complete bullshit, but whatever makes you feel better about yourself, champ.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  The difference is irrelevant.

So, in answer to my above question, it appears that you do not understand how scientific publication works.

Well, that's not particularly indicative of a good understanding of how scientific dialogue actually works and what the limitations and insights of modelling and statistical analysis are.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  When the credential is used as a badge of scientific authority to make political demands in the popular press both person and badge should be held accountable if those predictions turn out to be ridiculously exaggerated junk science.

Funnily enough, that's why such pop books are in fact not cited by modern journal articles.

Go figure.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  This in turn reflects back on the peer-reviewed journals, whether or not they agree with the public statements. Consider: either the peer reviewed journals are and have always been accurate, which means climate scientists have been lying to the public with crazy predictions of doom they knew from their peer-reviewed journals were bogus, or the peer reviewed journals are filled with the same crazy assumptions that led to the public predictions of doom, in which case the entire field of climate science needs reform and proper scientific skepticism from within to earn back credibility.

I like how the couple of examples you provided - not even current, but hey, take what you can get, I suppose - are magically construed so as to represent "climate scientists" (in toto, I guess?).

I also like how you entirely ignore the existence of anything which might make either an accurate prediction or indeed a prediction falling short of what was later observed. But no, keep on cherry picking. That's the ticket.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Incidentally the appearance of the now-discredited Hockey Stick Chart

Look, another buzzword commonly spouted by idiots.

I'll take you seriously if you can provide a substantive definition of such a thing and its history.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  in the peer-reviewed literature and its widespread, rapid acceptance as "settled science" suggests the true situation regarding the [pre-Climategate] state of the peer-reviewed literature. Worse still Climategate revealed Mann and his associates acting as gatekeepers to the peer-reviewed journals, blocking their more-reasonable peers from publication to defend their indefensibly misleading work from ever being scrutinized from within the Priesthood. (Outside scrutiny could always be dismissed as not coming from a peer-reviewed publication.)

Yeah, that's not true.

But, since it clearly makes you feel pretty special to believe it, I'm not really sure what would change your mind.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  On that we agree; likewise I'd be just as surprised if 24 years from now we aren't saying the exact same thing about today's "tipping points" and predictions of doom. (Hansen and Sato's tipping point from 2004 was supposed to come due this year if I remember correctly. I'm sure we'll know in 24 years whether anything actually tipped or not.)



(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Actually your claim, or at least the one you defended despite subsequently demanding yet another redundant citation, came very close:
"Children aren't going to know what snow is."

Which was phrasing given in an interview for a newspaper article, and was self-evidently hyperbolic for rhetorical purposes given that he goes on to say precisely that - rarer.

The statements Dr Viner actually made were:
Over the past few decades it has gotten progressively warmer on average, and therefore, commensurately, snowfall has decreased.
Therefore, continued warming in the future will be accompanied by continued decrease in snowfall.

Do you disagree with those statements? Aka what he really said (fourteen years ago)? Since you've stuck to self-satisfied, petty, inaccurate complaints against fabrications and irrelevancies, I still don't know whether you'd even agree that average temperatures have increased.

But I guess if you want to take the exaggerated claim at face value (strawman what?) and go on to say it is representative of all climate science (composition fallacy what?), that's cool too.

I just don't see how you expect anyone to take you seriously when you do.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Now you're defending that claim by downgrading it to "snowfall becoming rarer",

Yep. I wonder where I got a claim like that from.

OH WAIT. The original article you linked to.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  which could prove you "right" by the difference of a single snowflake, and claiming I'm strawmanning you with the more extreme position.
Well, okay, strawman officially gone; I'm totally cool with you admitting David Viner's prediction was bogus.

You also managed to never address my counterpoint that it does in fact snow less than it used to; preferring instead to claim - with no apparent self-awareness or understanding of statistics - that "it snowed this year, therefore there can't be a negative trend".

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  CAGW is an exaggeration hoax,

And you are aware that being an exaggeration means it's still based on something, right?

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  ... and your own defense of this credentialed climate scientist's farcically overblown prediction by walking it back to a difference that could be as tiny as a few flakes proves my point for me. Exaggeration hoax? Check. Even you admit it? Check. Credentialed climate scientist? Check. I'm calling this one. QED.

It's quite amazing how wrong you are.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  
(18-02-2014 09:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Your repeated failure to provide any citations is noted.

I provided a hyperlink to which I later referred when I corrected you for misidentifying it as a "copypaste" (like who makes that mistake?),

I said copypasta, actually, because it's abundantly obvious that you're just copying this shit from some bogus denialist website. But sure.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  No, I but it is becoming clear that your only tool is a hammer which leads you to treat every problem as a nail. You're demanding yet another redundant citation, completely oblivious to both the original link and the reference to it.

Since "context" apparently eludes you - I was asking for evidence that the supposed "predictions" you failed to substantiate ever existed within peer-reviewed scientific literature.

So anytime you would like to provide such citations, go right ahead. It's okay, I'll wait.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  It's kind of sad, really. You're so used to using the only tool you know how to use to solve the only problem you know how to solve that when someone actually provides citations you're rendered completely helpless ... so it's "tap tap tap", redundant demands for citations piling up as you hammer away on the whiteboard instead of picking up the marker and laying down some ideas.

So, you're going to go ahead and ignore the whole part where your citations are not from scientific sources and don't even say what you claim? And that you still haven't provided anything remotely resembling scientific sources on the supposed "many" so-called "doomsday predictions" you are just so sure are out there?

All right, then.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  "Conspiracy", what an exciting new synonym for groupthink! Except you're waving around generalizations like "all" when I specifically mentioned Judith Curry (among others) as credible alternatives. How do you see her fitting into your conspiracy theory?

It's your theory, bub.

I'm not the one who says "the vast majority of climate scientists are knowingly wrong and have misled the public for decades, for no clear purpose and to no clear end".

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Another walkback. You throw down "literally undeniable" which 2013 literally denies then move the goalposts to smooth the data point that was literally undeniable onto a trendline you never mentioned until just now. Nice try.
By the way where exactly is your trendline? I do believe I used the magic words "citation needed" and yet, nothing ...

Right. So that part where I said you don't know the difference between single data points and trends?

Pretty thoroughly confirmed, bro. Pretty thoroughly confirmed.

Let me summarize this particular subthread of dialogue:
Me: Arctic polar ice coverage is decreasing.
You: There was more in 2013 than 2012.
Me: One data point does not disprove a trend.
You: WHO NEEDS REAL STATISTICS TROLOLOLOL.

If the magic words are "citation needed" than you probably should read my previous post where I gave you the actual citation.
(18-02-2014 09:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  (but also maybe read some actual science some time, k?)

You're not even a good troll.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  
(18-02-2014 09:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  (but also maybe read some actual science some time, k?)

Yeah, while I'm doing that you might check up on what the Antarctic ice is doing ...

So, you did see the citation. Why did you just ask for it again?

I'm not sure what the Antarctic has to do with a scientific article which literally has the word 'Arctic' in its title, but, uh, if you're going somewhere with this, go there faster.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  
(18-02-2014 09:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It's downright infantile to pretend that changing climates haven't affected people.

50 MILLION reduced to "people." Snort! "People?" How many, pray tell? Two? Twenty? OVER 9,000? HAH! Laugh out load The IPCC figure was 50 MILLION.
Your weasel-worded walkback -- 50 MILLION HOMELESS reduced to downwards of two "affected people" -- tells me you know the IPCC prediction was crap. If you had 50 million you'd have shown them by now instead of throwing around insults like "infantile" as if I would be so distracted by ad hominems I wouldn't notice the disappearing millions.

No, it means I don't have exact figures, and perhaps more importantly, neither do you. You, incidentally, never cited the IPCC figure.

But, uh, if you want to pretend that tens of millions of people haven't been forced to move due to changes in - among other things - water supply, agricultural conditions, desertification, animal movements, and conflict arising from any or all of the above, go right ahead. I mean, I'm assuming you live in a free country.

I highly encourage you to do some actual reading on the subject. If you weren't so facetious and ignorant you might be less tedious to speak to.

Your "argument" - if I may call it that - seemingly amounts to:
"If this exact prediction is not met then it is impossible for the underlying trend to be true".

Which is asinine, but pretty much par for the course, from you.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  You've once again made my argument for me. Claiming that hypothetical non-exaggerated predictions of slight changes are (or could so totally be) true only proves my claim that the real prediction made by real climate scientists is yet another exaggeration hoax. QED.
(And this from the very IPCC which you claim is more credible than Judith Curry. As if.)

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Remember the 3 sides and the difference between Deniers and Skeptics and ... well, no, of course you don't.
I can and do simultaneously argue that most climate scientists are full of exaggerated crap while a few, like Judith Curry, by virtue of having not made bogus predictions of apocalyptic doom, still maintain their credibility.

Oh, so we're back to that fallacious line of reasoning.

"Most" climate scientists have not made "predictions of apocalyptic doom".

Making such strong statements requires one provide evidence. Or - as people with a genuine understanding of critical thinking and skepticism might say - citation needed.

Because this:
You: Most climate scientists have made predictions of apocalyptic doom.
Me: Can you substantiate that?
You: Yes. A climate scientist once made a prediction of doom.
Happens not to suffice.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  That implies a belief in the greenhouse effect and AGW, although the failed predictions of the Warmists have consigned CAGW to the scrap heap of junk science history.
As fraught as climate science is these days it isn't enough to justify a claim of "settled science" to publish in a peer reviewed journal when the "peers" are the selfsame alarmists predicting catastrophes that never happen. Only the byline can truly confer credibility. Flash the credentials, write in the peer-reviewed journal, talk to the press, none of that matters until you sign your name to it and it's a trusted one. If it's not a name tainted by hoax, scandal, or junk science, then maybe it's credible.

If you are assigning imagined "credibility" based on whether someone agrees with the position you already hold then you're going to have a bad time.

But, no, I'm sure that such circular reasoning will work, because circular reasoning always works.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Whoa, there, pardner! Whatever happened to, "Do your own research?"
Apparently the only one of us expected to provide citations on command is me. Aren't you special?

I have pointed you to several scientific articles in the course of this exchange.

You also haven't answered the question. So there's that.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  "Anomaly hunting?" Even if these crazy predictions are statistically insignificant anomalies climate scientists have been selling them to the public as Gospel Truth,

That's literally incoherent. An anomalous prediction cannot be simultaneously espoused as general truth.

But I guess it's progress, of a sort, if you are in a roundabout way finally acknowledging that one or two people decades ago are not equivalent to the established body of modern climate science. Baby steps, Joshi!

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  and before Climategate the public lapped it up without question.

The same climategate which isn't a thing.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  The entire nation almost got suckered into a wild carbon-rationing scheme called "cap-and-trade" because of these "anomalies" as you call them. Exaggerated predictions of climate doom, anomalous or not, really freak people out, or at least they did before Climategate. The idea that the now-discredited "Hockey Stick Chart" was a mere anomaly ignores just how many climate scientists believed it without question. "Settled science" was what they were calling your "anomalies" back before Climategate threw back the curtain.

You can keep saying that word, Joshi, but it doesn't make "climategate" a thing. Nor was the "Hockey Stick Chart" (to borrow your bizarre capitalization and scare quotes) ever a thing.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Credibility is a prerequisite for relevance. A true skeptic would know that. "Fool me twice, shame on who?"

Circular reasoning is not a great idea there, friend.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Credulity without accountability is the exact opposite of skeptical behavior.

You know what's just chock-full of accountability?

Peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Which you appear not to understand, care about, or even - since you refused to answer - have access to.

And yet somehow this makes you qualified to dismiss scientific consensus. Fascinating.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  The IPCC that made the crazy prediction of 50 million homeless by 2011? All too many, I'm afraid. There are only a few credible climate scientists whose names remain untainted by the exaggerations, distortions, and bizarre apocalyptic predictions made by the IPCC and other equally egregious organizations.

But the credible ones are out there, even if they are in short supply.

And yet when I ask you for those who are "tainted" by "apocalyptic predictions" you can't seem to come up with much. Funny, that.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Remember that part about CO2 forcing ... oh, what's the use? Of course you don't. Any value for CO2 forcing shy of "OMG! DOOM!" is obviously denialism of the very laws of physics themselves ... as long as you don't pay too close attention to the twisted wreckage of failed predictions of doom that litter the field of climate science.

Thanks for not answering.

I suppose what's happened here is that you're not stupid enough to deny the effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide, but you'd still rather dismiss an entire field for spurious and imagined reasons, and to do so with even the remotest shred of credibility yourself requires you not to deny basic science. Gotcha.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  
(18-02-2014 09:44 PM)cjlr Wrote:  But, no, I'm sure if you keep repeating the - ahem - "logic" wherein:
A prediction was once wrong,
THEREFORE,
All predictions are necessarily wrong;

You have an overly simplistic understanding of credibility. Most telling is that you divorce "predictions" from the people making them; to someone who understands the concept of credibility the history of the person or group making the statement is as important as the statement itself.

Whereas your judgements are made by somehow you construing single predictions of single people in non-academic contexts as representative of and endorsed by, apparently, almost all climate scientists.

You... don't see what's extraordinarily fallacious about that?

No?

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Strangely enough your tendency to accuse those with whom you disagree of being tainted by oil money shows you possess some understanding of the concept of credibility.

Yes, "accusations".

Or, y'know, truth, as we might call it.

Unless you'd care to deny the relevant findings?
(I know, I know, how unfair of me to refer you to yet another journal article you can't read - but you can at least see the abstract, right?)

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  You have yet to apply that understanding more generally, however, nor do you understand how important it is to do so in a world grown dependent on the credential as a proxy for credibility.
Credibility can be bolstered by ones own knowledge and experience; I trust Judith Curry because she has demonstrated exemplary honesty and a tendency not to exaggerate her findings, but the closer a scientific claim gets to my field of study the more likely I'd trust my own scientific judgment in helping evaluate a claim's truthfulness should the claim originate from an untrusted source. We're still not to "real science", which is only when you do the work yourself and replicate someone else's findings (or disprove them), so although "real science" in theory approaches 100% credibility neither of us are doing "real science".

I am a scientist, actually.

That's why I have access to real journals, and you don't.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  What we're arguing is a matter of trust. It's really all either of us has to go on. I may have an advantage in that I understand how statistics can be manipulated in misleading ways, but I suspect your majoritarianism is as unyielding as my insistence on accountability.

You have a profound disadvantage in that you understand neither science nor statistics nor accountability. So there's that.

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  You choose not to question authority so long as it holds a majority.

This is a tremendously bizarre assertion.

"You trust the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists, THEREFORE, you blindly trust all authority!"

What an adorable little straw man. Have you given him a name?

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  I choose to question authority when a more credible minority holds a different view. You can sneer "copypasta" all you like, but that plus your own arguments from authority turn your insults into blind hypocrisy.

No, the fact that you keep on mentioning "climategate" reveals quite thoroughly that you haven't looked into anything yourself and are just parroting those you agree with. Wait, sorry - those who are "credible".

(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  There are some climate scientists who still have some credibility, so maybe they'll tell me what you want to hear and we'll all be on the same side again. I can't build my own climate model, but I can choose to trust the people who haven't exaggerated over those who have. Where the credible scientists lead, I will follow.

Here, I'll tell you what: if, fifty years from now, the climate hasn't continued warming apace with current predictions, I owe you ten bucks. How's that sound?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
24-02-2014, 11:56 PM
RE: Global climate change
Well if ad hominems were scientific evidence you'd clearly have proven that without immediate action we're all doomed to a global warming apocalypse.

As for your bet I'll take it. My money's on Judith Curry; you can pick any one of the credentialed climate scientists who made any of the crazy predictions you're still simultaneously defending and pretending were never made. (And your "defenses" are of course still based on de-exaggerated forms of the wild claims or better still adding in wildcards like "conflicts" so you could pin virtually any death by non-natural causes on global warming.)

However, before I take the bet understand that if Judith Curry's position becomes the new consensus -- as I suspect it will, as neither evidence nor time is on the side of the alarmists -- that's the bet I'm making. Science is self-correcting; climate science will find its way eventually.

Meanwhile the process is already happening; the "vast majority" of climate scientist doomsayers that Alarmists cling to like a talisman is shrinking fast. Not all of these skeptics are climate scientists, but of those who aren't they're in related fields. (Forbes' source)
The tide is turning; skepticism is winning out over groupthink. Science does correct itself over time, and so many scientists can't get things so wrong for so many years as happened with climate science without at least a few unbiased scientists like Judith Curry noticing and using their superior understanding of the available evidence to bring other scientists along. In time the erroneous view dies of starvation and science marches on. In the meantime, well ... the death throes of cognitive dissonance can get pretty ugly.

Getting back to our conversation, I was a scientist before I became an engineer; perhaps my being a lowly ex-scientist allows you to claim the advantage of superior credentials. I hope that is of at least some comfort to you when you realize you haven't been paying attention throughout the entire conversation to what it is you're arguing against. I am not claiming AGW is a hoax. Most of your "rebuttals" are symptoms of this fundamental misunderstanding: you still haven't figured out, despite patting yourself on the back multiple times for your perceived intellectual authority, the difference between a claim that something is exaggerated versus a claim it does not exist.

Arguing as if I were claiming global warming is a fabrication rather than an exaggeration, especially by this point, represents a complete failure of reading comprehension on your part. So if I'm not claiming based on the laundry list of overstated predictions by credentialed climate scientists that global warming is a fabrication, what must the alternative be? You're a scientist; use the process of elimination.

I'm staying out of the weeds this time, mostly because your arguments have devolved into either ad hominem or incoherence, but I will at least provide a case-in-point:

(26-01-2014 09:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(26-01-2014 08:28 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Here's how he's being treated by his peers today. Note the part about "reputation". Failed predictions are no obstacle to the "worldwide reputation" of a "climate scientist".

That's a press release. Wherever you're copypasting this from, find a better source, m'kay?

Right, so there is no "better source" than the company that hired him, but the incoherence is just getting started:

(23-02-2014 02:45 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(20-02-2014 07:02 AM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  I provided a hyperlink to which I later referred when I corrected you for misidentifying it as a "copypaste" (like who makes that mistake?),

I said copypasta, actually ...

Actually you didn't. And finally:

(23-02-2014 02:45 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ... because it's abundantly obvious that you're just copying this shit from some bogus denialist website.

No, that links to an original source, the company that HIRED David Viner.

Rolleyes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2014, 10:05 AM
RE: Global climate change
(24-02-2014 11:56 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Well if ad hominems were scientific evidence you'd clearly have proven that without immediate action we're all doomed to a global warming apocalypse.

If you say stupid things you should probably expect people to call you on it.

However - this bit:
"without immediate action we're all doomed to a global warming apocalypse"
is not something I ever said. But thanks for the straw man?

In fact, your entire bullshit "they're all catastrophic alarmists and it's a conspiracy TROLOLOLOL" angle appears to be a phantasmal straw man. Your pathetic attempts to justify such naturally contained no reference to published scientific literature.

(24-02-2014 11:56 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  As for your bet I'll take it. My money's on Judith Curry; you can pick any one of the credentialed climate scientists who made any of the crazy predictions you're still simultaneously defending and pretending were never made.

Your "predictions" were bad and you should feel bad.

I merely said that I find no evidence of widespread collusion and deliberate misdirection from the vast majority of climate scientists.

You, apparently, know better, apparently because that makes you feel special.

(24-02-2014 11:56 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  (And your "defenses" are of course still based on de-exaggerated forms of the wild claims or better still adding in wildcards like "conflicts" so you could pin virtually any death by non-natural causes on global warming.)

Actually I merely pointed out that you apparently didn't read or understand the things you attempted to provide as sources, because they in no way supported your statements.

And that you made no attempt whatsoever to provide data to refute specific claims, settling instead for bald assertion. I don't know; does that total lack of evidence work on your usual friends? They must be an incredibly credulous bunch.

(24-02-2014 11:56 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  However, before I take the bet understand that if Judith Curry's position becomes the new consensus -- as I suspect it will, as neither evidence nor time is on the side of the alarmists -- that's the bet I'm making. Science is self-correcting; climate science will find its way eventually.

Indeed. It has gotten better and will continue to do so.

(24-02-2014 11:56 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Meanwhile the process is already happening; the "vast majority" of climate scientist doomsayers that Alarmists cling to like a talisman is shrinking fast. Not all of these skeptics are climate scientists, but of those who aren't they're in related fields. (Forbes' source)

It's nice to see that you are in fact able to read a proper journal. Notwithstanding that it is a survey of those not in the field, of course, but it's a start.
(but, bonus fact: 99.4% of respondents agree the climate is changing)

Of course, the statement from the Forbes piece ("Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis") does not appear in the journal article, which says nothing of the sort. Whoops!

So, apparently neither you nor Forbes actually read the study and its methodology and findings.

Cue sad trombone.

(24-02-2014 11:56 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  The tide is turning; skepticism is winning out over groupthink.

Since you have been utterly unable to substantiate any of the views you attributed to the majority of climate scientists, I fail to see why your assessment of changing views would be any more accurate than your assessment of views in the first place.

(24-02-2014 11:56 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Science does correct itself over time, and so many scientists can't get things so wrong for so many years as happened with climate science without at least a few unbiased scientists like Judith Curry noticing and using their superior understanding of the available evidence to bring other scientists along. In time the erroneous view dies of starvation and science marches on. In the meantime, well ... the death throes of cognitive dissonance can get pretty ugly.

Right, but maybe instead of combining irrelevancies, out of context remarks, and warmed over nonsense from thirty years ago, you could conduct an actual literature review of modern climate science in order to actually understand it before slagging off on it as delusional groupthink because you disagree with the straw man who lives in your head.

Do you think you could try that?

(24-02-2014 11:56 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Getting back to our conversation, I was a scientist before I became an engineer; perhaps my being a lowly ex-scientist allows you to claim the advantage of superior credentials. I hope that is of at least some comfort to you when you realize you haven't been paying attention throughout the entire conversation to what it is you're arguing against. I am not claiming AGW is a hoax.

No, you merely opened with the judgement that all climate scientists were wrong because "conspiracy" and that weren't you oh so smart for being better than them.

Then you mentioned Climategate (not a thing) and the "Hockey Stick" (not a thing). That didn't exactly help your credibility.

(24-02-2014 11:56 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Most of your "rebuttals" are symptoms of this fundamental misunderstanding: you still haven't figured out, despite patting yourself on the back multiple times for your perceived intellectual authority

I know, right? References to actual scientific literature which disputes your unsourced claims totally is the same as patting myself on the back.

(24-02-2014 11:56 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  ... the difference between a claim that something is exaggerated versus a claim it does not exist.

You do realize I already pointed out the exact same thing to you?

No?
(23-02-2014 02:45 PM)cjlr Wrote:  And you are aware that being an exaggeration means it's still based on something, right?

(24-02-2014 11:56 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  Arguing as if I were claiming global warming is a fabrication...

Citation needed on that, buddy. I've only responded to individual claims of yours.

(24-02-2014 11:56 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  ... rather than an exaggeration, especially by this point, represents a complete failure of reading comprehension on your part. So if I'm not claiming based on the laundry list...

Where 'laundry list' consists of a tiny number of bad sources, some of which don't even say what you claim. Gotcha.

(24-02-2014 11:56 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  ... of overstated predictions by credentialed climate scientists that global warming is a fabrication, what must the alternative be? You're a scientist; use the process of elimination.

I'm staying out of the weeds this time, mostly because your arguments have devolved into either ad hominem or incoherence, but I will at least provide a case-in-point:

"Incoherence" is apparently your word for responding with facts.

As to ad hominem, well, even I lose my patience with idiots eventually. Sorry.

(24-02-2014 11:56 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  
(26-01-2014 09:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That's a press release. Wherever you're copypasting this from, find a better source, m'kay?

Right, so there is no "better source" than the company that hired him...

It makes no reference to the specifics of his work. What little it does say is that he has a "worldwide reputation" and has worked in the field.

It therefore does not corroborate the claims you made. It is therefore a bad source for those claims.

It bothers me that you don't understand this.

You count a casual statement in a newspaper article as though it represented the sum total of his work, you appear to consider "it still snowed" to disprove the statement "it will snow less in the future", and you consider a press release mentioning that he is a climate scientist to be somehow meaningful.

Not least of the problems with this pathetically shallow "analysis" is that he is still one person. You have made no reference to academic work. You have made no reference to scientific dialogue.

(24-02-2014 11:56 PM)Jumpy Joshi Wrote:  And finally:

(23-02-2014 02:45 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ... because it's abundantly obvious that you're just copying this shit from some bogus denialist website.

No, that links to an original source, the company that HIRED David Viner.

Rolleyes

Which, as we've noted, has nothing to do with any of your claims. So there's that.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: