Climate change is political

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Jim Steele » Tue Dec 27, 2016 6:06 pm

OutOfBreath wrote: I dont think I have seen you once reference any serious science about the global records and the modelling.
Dan if you ever paid sincere attention to facts, I have posted more links to peer reviewed science than anyone in this forum. You are just blowing more smoke to cover up your denial. The truth is you have rarely if ever posted a link to a peer-reviewed paper to back up your rants. Unless you think the Guardian qualifies. ROTFLMAO
OutOfBreath wrote: as you are a well-known distorter of quotes.
ROTFLMAO!!! Dan you are in classic denial. You defend the self evident conspiracy of those climate scientists to alter the data to their liking by calling me a distorter. And what you clearly dont understand it only takes a handful of scientists like Phil Jones to alter the data and thus the trends. The so-called "thousands of scientists" you refer to then write papers trying to explain the fabricated trend. ROTFLMAO!

Ironically as your Guardian article pointed out, here is the only graph where adjustments and pristine data agree. And they agree that there has been no warming for over a decade. Perhaps you can explain why despite increased CO2 emissions, observed warming paused.

Image

And if you ever read the scientific literature you would see most of the thousands examining regional climates admit their results can not separate natural from anthropogenic climate change.

So Dan now its your turn to back up all your BS with science, not political rants and empty appeals to the nebulous thousands. Explain how this quote is a distortion, and why you are not in utter denial.
"Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip.

I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip".
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
robinson
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1053
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:55 am
Custom Title: Sometimes 0 is real cool hand

Re: Climate change is political

Post by robinson » Tue Dec 27, 2016 8:15 pm

I'm pretty sure the blip was because the measured temperatures were higher. That's why it appears.

Why it happened is another issue altogether.
"If you tell people the truth, make them laugh. Otherwise they will kill you"
-- Oscar Wilde

User avatar
robinson
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1053
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:55 am
Custom Title: Sometimes 0 is real cool hand

Re: Climate change is political

Post by robinson » Tue Dec 27, 2016 8:15 pm

The efforts to remove or alter the past, that's politics.
"If you tell people the truth, make them laugh. Otherwise they will kill you"
-- Oscar Wilde

Ken Fabos
Poster
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:54 pm

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Ken Fabos » Tue Dec 27, 2016 9:18 pm

Jim, without asking Tom Wrigley what he meant by what he said - and I don't think there is any obligation for him to explain anything about speculations and discussions with professional peers in private - you are just guessing what he meant. You haven't presented any actual evidence that anyone has falsified or illegitimately adjusted temperature data - the raw data is still there and the documentation for homogenisation adjustments is still there, including the raw data that I understand was never the property of CRU.The ups and downs of temperature over time are still there - including the bits you claim have been doctored out.

The differences between homogenised and raw follow the pattern we would expect to see - more adjustment back when temperature measurement practice was not as standardised. No attempt has been made to examine the documented particulars of the samples of adjustments made to see if the reasons were valid so any assumptions about that are speculation. That they were done to deliberately distort the data - that there is deliberate falsification and misconduct, with intent, has not been shown - and in the absence of evidence (and excerpts of speculations and discussions made in private aren't evidence) - those kinds of accusations are scurrilous. From where I sit your slanderous presumptions - which are well documented - are more damaging to your reputation than to Tom Wrigley's or Phil Jones.

Then your argument circles back around to the ups and downs of temperature over too short intervals, where expected variability within the expected range is claimed to somehow be unexpected and inexplicable and cannot exist within a AGW world. Why should I take those kinds of arguments seriously?

It looks to me - as it does to the US National Academy of Sciences or UK Royal Society and every other peak science body - like climate science is well grounded and presents us with an unparalleled opportunity to avoid dangerous irreversible consequences of excessive Fossil Fuel burning.

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Climate change is political

Post by OutOfBreath » Tue Dec 27, 2016 10:32 pm

robinson wrote:The efforts to remove or alter the past, that's politics.
As is being willfully ignorant on inconvenient facts.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Jim Steele » Tue Dec 27, 2016 10:36 pm

Ken Fabos wrote: From where I sit your slanderous presumptions - which are well documented - are more damaging to your reputation than to Tom Wrigley's or Phil Jones.

ROTFLMAO Your psychobabble and attempt to re-focus the problem on me is another case of classic denial. Your blind faith is so tied accepting fabricated data, you can't challenge your own assumptions or there undeniable intent

Are you for real???

Wrigley states, "So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip."

But you excuse his clear intentions with nonsense of "without asking Tom Wrigley what he meant by what he said" we cant tell???? What a boatload of weeny crap.

There is no excuse or justification. Wrigley and Jones reveal they are trying to change the data because it doesnt agree with what they theorize. What else could their words possibly mean??

Do you not have a critical thinking neuron anywhere hiding inside. The best you can blather is we can only know by asking and he doesnt have to tell. ROTFLMAO

There are countless comparisons of raw data all around the globe ( and I gave you examples above ) that show the initial data with a warm blip in the 30s and 40s, and the adjustments removed them just as they planned. But you prefer to attack those who reveal your blindness. ROTFLMAO You are a perfect sheeple.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Jim Steele » Tue Dec 27, 2016 10:38 pm

OutOfBreath wrote:
robinson wrote:The efforts to remove or alter the past, that's politics.
As is being willfully ignorant on inconvenient facts.

Peace
Dan
Indeed Dan you have clearly demonstrated you are willifully ignoring inconvenient facts! And your politcal allusions to intent show your views are based on politics
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Climate change is political

Post by OutOfBreath » Tue Dec 27, 2016 10:46 pm

JIm Steele wrote:Dan if you ever paid sincere attention to facts, I have posted more links to peer reviewed science than anyone in this forum
Yet never relevant ones and often the same ones over and over presenting a very skewed view. Misrepresenting is the word I'm looking for. Since your tactics and modus operandi is clear I wont put much effort in refuting you (throw anything to see if it sticks and decaying to conspiratard musings when using caps isnt enough.)

Otherwise its your usual blah. I am not myself a climate scientist and dont pretend to be. Neither am I a science denier when it would suit my beliefs. Your assertion that all that climate science have gathered over decades is somehow null because a small conspiracy have fooled EVERYONE (see what i did there) shows how far down the rabbit hole you've gone I'm sorry to say. You still have no idea how science and big data works. (Harping on anecdotes and limited data points, thinking a few men can control all the data gathered woeldwide and so on) Which are sortof essential to the subject if you're going to second guess thousands of specialized scientists.

Ken seems to bother taking you through the steps. I suggest you engage him honestly. That would be a first.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Climate change is political

Post by OutOfBreath » Tue Dec 27, 2016 10:48 pm

JIm Steele wrote:
OutOfBreath wrote:
robinson wrote:The efforts to remove or alter the past, that's politics.
As is being willfully ignorant on inconvenient facts.

Peace
Dan
Indeed Dan you have clearly demonstrated you are willifully ignoring inconvenient facts! And your politcal allusions to intent show your views are based on politics
I know you are but what am I?
Repeat as many times you like.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Jim Steele » Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:39 pm

OutOfBreath wrote: I am not myself a climate scientist and dont pretend to be.
That has been quite clear ever since your first post
OutOfBreath wrote: Neither am I a science denier when it would suit my beliefs.
Just the opposite is painfully obvious, based on your denial of every fact that contradicts your beliefs. What is clear by your twisted reliance on a unsupported nebulous consensus of "thousands", is that you never read the scientific literature and all the complexities and uncertainties involved in climate science. You are one of the most egregious science deniers I have met, but not yet on par with Boobo. What good science demands is that we fully vet alternative explanations and the contradictory evidence that challenges every hypothesis. Instead you try to suppress alternative hypotheses and ignore and dismiss the abundance of contradictory evidence. You then appeal to the nebulous "thousands" whose work you have never read and would probably never understand anyways, and whose beliefs you have no way of knowing otherwise. Still you pretend not to be a science denier only because one hypothesis fits your politics. Such a pitiful denier.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Climate change is political

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Dec 28, 2016 12:14 am

Well..... I also do not claim to be a scientist, even less a climate scientist.

Ha, ha........I laugh. JS: you do put on the mantle of being a Climate expert..... but very specifically do you claim that STATUS with your life/professional experience? In all cases: based on what?

...................... and if you have the honesty: have you EVER received funding from Big Fossil?

Curious minds want to know.

It amuses me that there is likely (I don't really know/care) there is more agreement on AGW than there is on evolution?

do you deny evolution of life on earth as well..... you know..... because the well established consensus by experts on which the entire subject of science is interwoven .......... is always suspect to the contrary view such as you express.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Jim Steele » Wed Dec 28, 2016 12:51 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Well..... I also do not claim to be a scientist, even less a climate scientist.
Well helllloooo Captain Obvious as if your lack scientific skills was never obvious. However your attempts to speak for "science" has been quite entertaining!
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Climate change is political

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Dec 28, 2016 1:32 am

.......and you respond "as if" you were an actual qualified scientist. You aren't.

Sucks to be you.......... fantasies and all............never able to actually answer direct questions.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Jim Steele » Wed Dec 28, 2016 1:43 am

ROTFLMAO

you even deny who I am.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Climate change is political

Post by OutOfBreath » Wed Dec 28, 2016 7:17 am

JIm Steele wrote:Instead you try to suppress alternative hypotheses and ignore and dismiss the abundance of contradictory evidence.
So I'm suppressing now? Didn't realize my own Power it seems:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/suppress?s=t
You then appeal to the nebulous "thousands" whose work you have never read and would probably never understand anyways, and whose beliefs you have no way of knowing otherwise. Still you pretend not to be a science denier only because one hypothesis fits your politics. Such a pitiful denier.
"The nebulous thousands" are the expertise of the field in question. I do not read all the raw science of physics or mechanics or what have you either, but rely on what is communicated to the public by said experts throigh various outlets. I know and trust the processes by which science functions even if I dont read everything in every field, although I do try to keep up to date with what's moving in science with various magazines and websites.

Now, what's your high-flying credentials to take on these "nebulous thousands"? Are you one of the 3 percent, are you the wrestler or motivational speaker I find on Google?

(edit) ...or is this you?
http://landscapesandcycles.net/about-us.html

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Jim Steele » Wed Dec 28, 2016 8:07 am

OutOfBreath wrote:
Now, what's your high-flying credentials to take on these "nebulous thousands"? Are you one of the 3 percent, are you the wrestler or motivational speaker I find on Google?

(edit) ...or is this you?
http://landscapesandcycles.net/about-us.html
First you misunderstand and misuse the nebulous thousands. Do you pretend to know what they all believe? Do you pretend to believe all the scientists believe the exact same thing? Do you know if they all believe in the same degree of CO2's contribution to climate versus how much they attribute to natural variations? Do you think they all believe we are all gonna die? You use the phrase "thousands of scientists" only as a device to defend your opinion without ever really knowing what they believe. Essentially we all believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but there is gret debates about its climate sensitivity. You really know virtually nothing about what the nebulous thousands believe and you will only begin to glimpse their beliefs by reading all the peer reviewed, as well as their emails. But like Ken you pretend that their thoughts so evident in their emails is meaningless. Many of the thousands of scientists that believe in some degree of CO2 climate change have confessed to they are merely accepting, just like you, the views of a few without ever critically examining their interpretations. Many simply accept the prevailing bias regards climate, because it is safe, and despite being skeptical themselves they choose to remain quiet instead of getting into pissing matches like happens here, but can hurt their careers.

Its not me versus all of the thousands. Its me against bad science wherever or whoever presents it. Its me adding my observations and interpretations to the climate puzzle. And i employ the evidence produced by nebulous thousands of scientists to support my critiques.

Second you clearly embrace the fallacy argument by authority. Credentials never determine what is right and what is wrong. Its about the evidence, and determining which interpretation best fits the facts. Its about embracing several working hypotheses until all the facts are known and all the hypotheses are tested. Its about critical thinking and not passively letting others tell us what to think no matter what credentials they wave.

Finally you can read who I am at http://landscapesandcycles.net/about-us.html
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Climate change is political

Post by OutOfBreath » Wed Dec 28, 2016 8:42 am

I have no problem with your appeals to critical thinking. I have problems with your style of argumentation and your obvious combative personality coupled with what looks to me like a less-than-optimal grasp of statistics and a couple of professional personal axes to grind. I also see no reason why I as a layman should take the word of a combative outsider of the scientific mainstream over the results presented in the time-honoured scientific channels. (Particularly when the argumentation are so deeply wedded to various limited data points)

That only leaves the question why this website seems to be the particular focus of such an esteemed scientist? Why not correct the models and publish peer reviewed papers instead? We're all amateurs here, although generally with scientific literacy.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Jim Steele » Wed Dec 28, 2016 5:03 pm

OutOfBreath wrote: I have problems with your style of argumentation and your obvious combative personality coupled with what looks to me like a less-than-optimal grasp of statistics and a couple of professional personal axes to grind. I also see no reason why I as a layman should take the word of a combative outsider of the scientific mainstream over the results presented in the time-honoured scientific channels.
Good denial techniques. Argue against the arguer and avoid the argument. Yes I am comabative when needed as I must be when attacked. You too are combative so I guess you distrust yourself. The difference between us is I provide much evidence to support my claims, and you make empty assertions

You imagine I have "a couple of professional personal axes to grind" . Really?? You are making things up again, merely to attack my integrity as a device to defend your beliefs without discussing the evidence. Not a great show of critical thinking or integrity.

And time honoured channels? Debating and critically examining all hypotheses is the only time honored science. Publication is important for allowing as many people as possible to view the arguments and offer their perspective. As evidenced by everyone here laypeople do not read journals, only a few scientists engaged in a specific line of investigation read a journal paper. Thus most people only read the press releases . Blogs and websites increase the number of minds involved in truthing out science and it is the thorough vetting of any claim that makes a scientific claim trustworthy. However the downside of blogs is protected by anonymity with names like boobo or dan, people engage in dishonest flame wars and avoid debating evidence. While the time honored science demands a hypothesis must account for all contradictory evidence, Wrigley and Jones try to force the data to fit their hypotheses. And web posters dismiss all evidence as local "because local is not part of the globe" :roll:
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Climate change is political

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Dec 28, 2016 8:40 pm

JIm Steele wrote:ROTFLMAO

you even deny who I am.
My impression from the websites/articles you have linked to is that you have studied how animal species have changed over time on some mountain range/slopes==the Alameda foothills? Such animal/plant migration/change/extinction is driven by climate change....unless you found some localized exception. A profound understanding of such migration would not make you a climate scientist. But that may be how confused you are.

You have "never" answered a direct question......with one exception I can recall when I asked you what your alternative theory for AGW was and you answered in effect that you agreed with everything AGW advanced and only disagreed with the "sensitivity" of co2 loading int he atmosphere. Every other response you have given was pure diversion.

My favorite example: what is causing sea level to be constantly going up? You give only diversionary responses. Prove me wrong. Go ahead:..................................
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Jim Steele » Wed Dec 28, 2016 11:29 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:[ Prove me wrong. Go ahead:..................................
Pasts posts prove your wrong. Your mindless babble proves you wrong. No need to engage idiocy.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 35098
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Gord » Thu Dec 29, 2016 1:36 am

OutOfBreath wrote:That only leaves the question why this website seems to be the particular focus of such an esteemed scientist? Why not correct the models and publish peer reviewed papers instead?
Is that rhetorical? :lol:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Jim Steele
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:42 am
Custom Title: A Proven Scientific Skeptic

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Jim Steele » Thu Dec 29, 2016 2:10 am

OutOfBreath wrote:Why not correct the models and publish peer reviewed papers instead? We're all amateurs here, although generally with scientific literacy.
I have attempted to correct published papers but AGW promoters circled the wagons to protect a paper that should have been retracted.

You can read and decide what's good and what's bad science.

http://landscapesandcycles.net/American ... truth.html
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." Galileo

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Climate change is political

Post by OutOfBreath » Mon Jan 02, 2017 9:55 am

JIm Steele wrote:Good denial techniques. Argue against the arguer and avoid the argument. Yes I am comabative when needed as I must be when attacked. You too are combative so I guess you distrust yourself. The difference between us is I provide much evidence to support my claims, and you make empty assertions
Just highlighting your high-strung abusive persona on here, which eventually elicits responses of a dismissive flavour from me and others. I notice you are suspended for abusive language atm. You provide largely cherry-picked evidence of limited phenomena/locations and whatever talking point in vogue atm at denier blogs. As I am not a climate scientist, I will not (indeed cannot) debate you on various specifics based on my own research, as I have none. I can only note that your views seems to be at odds with the vast majority of the Professionals, and how you are (in my view) unable to make a compelling case for your claims. So it's the usually trustworthy sources of scientific excellence (like NASA etc) vs whatever you claim as your alternative theory. I have read nothing that is not just criticism of some small part of it, and often firing from "all angles" which makes your side inconsistent, and frankly reminiscent of conspiracy-theory-think.
You imagine I have "a couple of professional personal axes to grind" . Really?? You are making things up again, merely to attack my integrity as a device to defend your beliefs without discussing the evidence. Not a great show of critical thinking or integrity.
You linked me your site. I am able to read. You provided me the evidence for my claim here.
And time honoured channels? Debating and critically examining all hypotheses is the only time honored science. Publication is important for allowing as many people as possible to view the arguments and offer their perspective. As evidenced by everyone here laypeople do not read journals, only a few scientists engaged in a specific line of investigation read a journal paper. Thus most people only read the press releases . Blogs and websites increase the number of minds involved in truthing out science and it is the thorough vetting of any claim that makes a scientific claim trustworthy. However the downside of blogs is protected by anonymity with names like boobo or dan, people engage in dishonest flame wars and avoid debating evidence. While the time honored science demands a hypothesis must account for all contradictory evidence, Wrigley and Jones try to force the data to fit their hypotheses. And web posters dismiss all evidence as local "because local is not part of the globe" :roll:
Whereas you do your flaming with full name, up close and personal. As I said, seems to be a professional beef between you and the majority (or at least a couple guys which to you represent the majority). It also to me seems limited to the treatment of a portion of US data. There is a reason why peer-review is such a cornerstone of science. It's what allows lay-people to have a clue about what is the general state of the science, and what perspectives and theories seems to be the most accepted for now.

I may change my mind somewhat if you are able to present a rival theory of what's going on, which isn't some variant theme of conspiracy BS ( will go with NASA et al over you if it's claim vs claim), but, exactly as you yourself demand, take all information into account. Like we see many of the things we would expect in a warming world. This is a fair shake and I will listen if you reply reasonably. If not, as you were.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Climate change is political

Post by OutOfBreath » Mon Jan 02, 2017 10:17 am

JIm Steele wrote:
OutOfBreath wrote:Why not correct the models and publish peer reviewed papers instead? We're all amateurs here, although generally with scientific literacy.
I have attempted to correct published papers but AGW promoters circled the wagons to protect a paper that should have been retracted.
You can read and decide what's good and what's bad science.
http://landscapesandcycles.net/American ... truth.html
Good on you. But I will not change my outlook on climate change because a micro-study from 2000 may have had questionable methodology. I put this in the box for academic bickering, without even denying (but neither acknowledging) you may have had a point. I also note that published studies (about anything ever) are rarely ever retracted, but rather if another study goes against or modifies the original study, that one will gather it's own citations and will supercede the original if it was a better study. Studies that might prove not to be that "special" after all usually just end up on the article graveyard with few references from then on.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Climate change is political

Post by OutOfBreath » Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:48 am

Gord wrote:
OutOfBreath wrote:That only leaves the question why this website seems to be the particular focus of such an esteemed scientist? Why not correct the models and publish peer reviewed papers instead?
Is that rhetorical? :lol:
Thanks for the link, Gord. Does sound familiar.

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19760
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: Climate change is political

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jan 03, 2017 8:27 pm

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/11/jim- ... seudo.html

Yes, thanks Gord. Interesting...... I suppose, but in a sad way. Ha, ha.......... does show how a small nut can grow into a really ugly old oak tree. I only wish for two things that never happen: the ones who suffer get the help they need, and that those who recommend policies could experience the universe they would create without affecting everyone else of opposing viewpoints.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Climate change is political

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Jan 04, 2017 1:49 am

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/11/jim- ... seudo.html
"Jim Steele at WUWT pushes for pseudo-science, not science, in schools"
OutOfBreath wrote:Thanks for the link, Gord. Does sound familiar.
This came out when Jim Steele first started trolling here, for a new audience.

User avatar
robinson
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1053
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 1:55 am
Custom Title: Sometimes 0 is real cool hand

Re: Climate change is political

Post by robinson » Thu Jan 05, 2017 4:00 pm

testing the moderation status of the topic
"If you tell people the truth, make them laugh. Otherwise they will kill you"
-- Oscar Wilde