Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 Next
Comments 47451 to 47500:
-
Clyde at 04:21 AM on 19 March 2013New Study, Same Result - Greenhouse Gases Dominate Global Warming
The abstract of the paper says -Analysing the multi-model mean over 1951 to 2010 (focussing on the most robust result), we estimate a range of possible contributions to the observed warming of approximately 0.6 K from greenhouse gases of between 0.6 to 1.2 K, balanced by a counteracting cooling from other anthropogenic forcings of between 0 and -0.5 K. -
Clyde at 04:18 AM on 19 March 2013New Study, Same Result - Greenhouse Gases Dominate Global Warming
Oops hit sumbit to soon sorry about that.dana181 says - The results of this study are consistent with the wide body of evidence supporting the settled science that human greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant cause of the current global warming.Is it a common practice in science to contine to publish papers on settled science? Like say gravity. Are scientist still (on a regular basis) publishing papers to prove gravity is settled science? -
dana1981 at 04:16 AM on 19 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
The slopes of all thee trend lines are the same (0.16°C per decade). I haven't calculated the uncertainty in those trends, but that's not relevant to the question whether their most likely values are they same - they are.
-
Clyde at 04:16 AM on 19 March 2013New Study, Same Result - Greenhouse Gases Dominate Global Warming
The abstract of the paper says -Analysing the multi-model mean over 1951 to 2010 (focussing on the most robust result), we estimate a range of possible contributions to the observed warming of approximately 0.6 K from greenhouse gases of between 0.6 to 1.2 K, balanced by a counteracting cooling from other anthropogenic forcings of between 0 and -0.5 K. -
Clyde at 04:14 AM on 19 March 2013New Study, Same Result - Greenhouse Gases Dominate Global Warming
I think some minor corrections are needed.dana1981 says - This was offset by a cooling from other human influences (mainly from aerosols) of 0 to 0.5°C. These results are consistent with all prior studies of the causes of global warming (Figure 1).The abstract of the paper says -Analysing the multi-model mean over 1951 to 2010 (focussing on the most robust result), we estimate a range of possible contributions to the observed warming of approximately 0.6 K from greenhouse gases of between 0.6 to 1.2 K, balanced by a counteracting cooling from other anthropogenic forcings of between 0 and -0.5 K. -
CTG at 04:12 AM on 19 March 2013New Study, Same Result - Greenhouse Gases Dominate Global Warming
Yes, Klapper, that does make you a fake. For a start, a real skeptic would have observed that the observations during that period lie within the confidence limits of the model runs, meaning that there is no significant difference between the model runs and the observations.
Thanks for illustrating one of the key markers of the fake skeptic - perfectly happy to sieze on terms like "not statistically significant" when applied to things that you think work in your favour, like "no warming for x years", but completely ignoring them when it would work against you. -
dana1981 at 04:11 AM on 19 March 2013New Study, Same Result - Greenhouse Gases Dominate Global Warming
Klapper @2 - maybe you shouldn't assume that somebody who isn't talking about you is talking about you.
Your comment about Figure 2 also isn't correct - the 1910 to 1945 observations are within the envelope of model runs. The fact that the observed rate is faster than the multi-model mean is probably due to natural variability, which is also likely the primary explanation for the same multi-model mean vs. observations discrepancy over the past decade.
-
Composer99 at 04:10 AM on 19 March 2013New Study, Same Result - Greenhouse Gases Dominate Global Warming
Klapper:
The warming in the observations during the period you note appears to be entirely contained within the model spread of CIMP5 models, and very nearly entirely contained within the model spread of CIMP3 models. As such, your claim that "The warming rate in the observations from 1910 to 1945 is clearly way higher than the models show it should be" is incorrect.
-
A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
JvD - I will if possible answer in more detail later, but even a quick look at Dr. Ted Trainer's work shows some poor assumptions - such as an assumed max of 25% supply from wind due to integration problems, whereas the UK has estimated 1.5-3% increase of integration costs (to the consumer) with wind providing 40% of electricity. Given that Dr. Trainer is from the UK, I find that odd, and suspect there are other errors that will become evident upon careful examination. His other points about sustainability and energy usage level are quite interesting, and worth consideration, but are quite frankly off-topic regarding the technical possibilities of supplying current and near-future power from renewables.
You are quite correct about maximum output vs transmission capacity - but I will point out that those costs are also under consideration by planners. It is clear that significant renewable input will have impacts on electrical integration - but the costs seem reasonable, and I am not aware of any show-stoppers at this point.
I've read Dr. D. MacKay's book, it's very well researched, and agree that the UK does not have the landspace required for wind/solar to supply all their needs - as I mentioned here, the UK may have a future as a net importer of energy. A transition for the UK, moving away from coal, but they are hardly the only country that is or will be an energy importer.
---
In summary, I am hearing a lot of "it isn't possible" in your posts, but little in the way of data.
-
Klapper at 03:36 AM on 19 March 2013New Study, Same Result - Greenhouse Gases Dominate Global Warming
@Albatross #1:
Why not drop the repetitive "fake skeptics" theme. Just because not everyone agrees with your interpretation of the data doesn't make them "fakes". Look at Figure 2 above. The warming rate in the observations from 1910 to 1945 is clearly way higher than the models show it should be. I'm thinking the models are missing something. Does that make me a fake?
-
Bob Lacatena at 03:12 AM on 19 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Kevin,
You can find a very clear and explicit explanation for this graph here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/john-nielsen-gammon-commentson-on-continued-global-warming.html
Are there differences? Yes. That's why it's termed an adaptation.
It is extremely unlikely that the slope of all three trend lines are the same.
Perhaps. But have you done the math to establish the fact, or simply presumed that it is unlikely, and therefore assumed that they have been doctored? And if it turns out that the slopes are correctly computed and really are that close to each other... what does that tell you?
-
JvD at 03:00 AM on 19 March 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
"JvD - Average capacity for renewables (wind, solar, etc) is the only appropriate number to be used when judging output, and is the number used when considering input to the grid."
No. The nameplate capacity matters. When connection a wind-farm to the grid, the transmission lines need to be sized to the full nameplate capacity of the wind farm, even while perhaps only 25% on average of the transmission capacity will be utilised. similarly, in order to integrate a wind farm into an energy system, the maximum power addition that can be absorbed is the nameplate capacity, not the average capacity. For example, if a country has a peak demand of 10 GW, then you cannot install more than 10GW of *nameplate* capacity wind. Anything more than the 10GW will be curtailed (lost).It is a popular but fatal flaw to assume the average capacity is what is important. It is precisely this fatal flaw that causes the IPCC, WWF and Greenpeace scenario's to crash and burn completely.
I will once again (fourth time) point to Dr. Ted Trainer's research papers on the feasibility of large scale transitions to intermittent renewables. Simply google "Ted Trainer" and you will quickly find them all. I can also recommend Dr. David MacKay's work on renewables and his book "Sustainable energy without the hot air". Together, MacKay and Trainer have already proven everything I'm trying to explain now on this thread. It is not rocket science but very simple to understand once you think about it.
-
CBDunkerson at 03:00 AM on 19 March 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
JvD wrote: "Yes I have read probably all of them. None of them disagree with my assessment, since none of them show how renewables can power the globe. All they do is show that there is enough sun, wind, etc."
Then, when confronted with studies which DO show the "how" the response is that these studies are 'propaganda' and 'not based on science'.
How is this not classic denial?
Denier: 'No evidence exists!'
Reality: 'What about all of this evidence?'
Denier: 'None of that evidence counts!'JvD, you seem to concede that "there is enough" available renewable power to cover demand. Given that, how would you prove that energy storage and transmission are both impossible? Because, if they aren't, then 'more than enough power' + 'means of delivering power when needed' = 'problem solved'.
-
Kevin8233 at 02:42 AM on 19 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
And more importantly, that the [adaptation of Neilson-Gammon's] graph is correct - unless you have some issues with it, in which case you should say so.
No, the adaptation is not correct.
1. When Neilson-Gammon made the graph, he purposefully did not calculate the confidence of the trend lines because he had made subjective choices to identify the time period and exclude "volcanic" years.
2. It is extremely unlikely that the slope of all three trend lines are the same. Assuming that his premise is correct, the noise in the system, given the small amount of data, would dictate that the trend lines would have a different slope. To state that they are the same is wrong. The only way to have them be equal is to set them equal, and not have the best fit slope prevail.
3. Even if they were the same in 2008 when the figure was created, there has since been more data points added. There is no way that these new data points exactly fit into the previously calculated trend line slope.
4. In his graph, there are only 3 volcanic years, this adaptation has 6.
5. 2006 is now a La Nina year.
So, yes, I do have a few problems with the figure.
-
Matt Fitzpatrick at 02:40 AM on 19 March 2013February 2013 Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral Update
Figure 2 plots daily values. Figure 1 simplified the data to monthly averages. A single day could be about the same three years in a row, but the average for that entire month would not necessarily be the same as well.
-
DSL at 02:33 AM on 19 March 2013February 2013 Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral Update
Kevin, here's the average, using PIOMAS, for the first 28 days of Feb since 2000:
2000 24.33407 2001 24.17046 2002 24.83382 2003 24.17132 2004 22.6975 2005 22.70664 2006 22.07546 2007 20.86318 2008 21.57939 2009 21.73621 2010 20.11296 2011 18.92079 2012 18.7425 2013 18.40486 Linear trend is roughly -500 km3 per year.
-
Kevin8233 at 02:22 AM on 19 March 2013February 2013 Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral Update
One point of confusion (on my part) that hopefully someone can clear up. In the second figure, it appears that the last 3 years are all at the same level for February (the points overlap), yet in figure 1, the February line appears to be decreasing for the past 2 years? If this is representing the same data, obviously this can't be, so correct me where I've gone wrong interpretting the second figure.
Moderator Response: [JH] Please cease and desist from reposting a comment that has been previously deleted for sloganeering. If you do not comply, your posting privileges will be rescinded. -
Composer99 at 02:22 AM on 19 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Kevin misrepresentation #1: Composer99 comment set up as authoritative voice on Skeptical Science posts. As the preface to my comment notes, I am expressing my personal opinion. It might be correct, or it might not. Nevertheless, treating what I think as being equivalent to what Skeptical Science authors think is a misrepresentation.
Kevin misrepresentation #2: In a post chock-a-block full of references to the professional literature, a graph used for illustration, that happens not to be peer-reviewed (though still useful for reasons discussed by KR) is highlighted as being of special importance.
Kevin misrepresentation #3: Debunking myths requiring peer-reviewed science of necessity. If a myth can be debunked using high-school-level statistics, or elementary logic, or 19th-century physics (which could hardly be said to be peer-reviewed in the modern sense), then that is all you need to do the debunking.
In addition, as your response to Dana in #91 shows, you are still belabouring under the mistaken impression that what's important about Watts vs Neilson-Gammon is whether or not they agree or disagree with Dana's viewpoint. What's important is what KR noted:
The point here is that Watts' paper is wrong, not that it is unsubmitted.
and
And more importantly, that the [adaptation of Neilson-Gammon's] graph is correct - unless you have some issues with it, in which case you should say so.
-
A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
JvD - Average capacity for renewables (wind, solar, etc) is the only appropriate number to be used when judging output, and is the number used when considering input to the grid.
Some numbers: 2011 US net summer generating capacity was 1.05 TW. Estimated potential US wind capacity, at a 30% gross cpacity factor, ~10-12 TW, and if using a 1/3 baseload scalar that comes out to 3-4 TW baseload. Note that this does not include solar, hydro, or other renewable possibilities - all of which expand both the average power and (by being subject to different influences on itermittancy) increase the percentage of power available as baseload.
The US National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) finds it quite possible (plausible is of course another matter, mired in politics) for renewables to supply 80% of US electrical generation by 2050 meeting baseload, hourly needs, over the entire country.
If you disagree with Archer and Jacobsons numbers, please point to research supporting your point - otherwise, you are making an ad hominem argument. His opinions on nuclear, whether correct or not, are irrelevant to the data on interconnected wind plants and baseload.
-
Albatross at 00:53 AM on 19 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Leto @84,
Excellent points, thank you.
-
Albatross at 00:49 AM on 19 March 2013New Study, Same Result - Greenhouse Gases Dominate Global Warming
Interesting post, especially the part about the spread of the CMIP5 members being broader than those from CMIP3.
Well, say the fake skeptics, scientists must be conpsiring to obtain such similar results from independent studies using different methods, tools and data (/sarc). Nope fake skeptics, it is simply called consilience.
-
Bob Lacatena at 00:44 AM on 19 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
A. Scott,
You said:
...you claim Watt's and crew do not discuss the science regarding this recent paper. Please support that claim.
But I did not make that claim. You fabricated it. I said that Watts spews BS (he does). That he occasionally has posts discussing science does not alter his BS output, and therefore it does not improve his credibility. And I certainly never said anything about his having or not having posts specifically addressing this paper. Obviously he has, as evidienced from this line from Dana's original post:
This is evident from the six separate posts on Watts' blog (to date) desperately trying...
However, Watts has committed enough sins over the years that anyone and everyone (or at least everyone who is not adamantly hoping for a particular foregone concusion from the discussion) should look askance at his words, and look elsewhere for answers.
-
jake7351 at 00:37 AM on 19 March 2013Science vs. the Feelies
Who did that Michael W?
-
Composer99 at 00:20 AM on 19 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Kevin:
Putting words into other people's mouths (figuratively speaking) is very poor form.
I strongly urge you not to engage in such disingenuous behaviour again.
Moderator Response: [JH] Kevin fell through the thin ice of sloganeering in his most recent post. It was therefore deleted. -
JvD at 23:51 PM on 18 March 2013A Detailed Look at Renewable Baseload Energy
"JvD: Could you provide some specifics on this? Perhaps refer to a few of these papers and explaining why they support your view?"
As I already wrote, Dr. Ted Trainer (among others, including Dr. David McKay) has already worked this out and has shown where the IPCC, WWF and Greenpeace renewable energy scenarios' fall down very badly. He has authored several peer-reviewed papers on this, and an article explaining his (and my) position can be found here:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/08/09/ipcc-renewables-critique/
"On what basis is your view superior to theirs?"My view is informed by science.
"Renewable baseload: Distributed networks can and will have baseload capacity - I believe the reliable baseload for a sufficiently distributed network, with zero energy storage, has been shown to be ~1/3 of average capacity (Archer & Jacobson 2007). Average capacity is IIRC ~15-30% of installed capacity, varying with type/site - by no means perfection, but a predictable fraction."
1/3 of capacity when capacity is 30% = 10% of installed capacity, which is probably about right. In Europe, the firm capacity for wind calculated in the case of a European supergrid with distributed wind power was 8% as I recall (wind industry figures), so I guess the takehome is that the USA case offers slightly higher firm capacity for connected wind than Europe. Still a 10% firm capacity rating for wind power is *terrible* and does not contradict my position on the feasibility of 100% renewables so I don't know why you are making this point. Concerning solar PV it has a firm capacity of only 0%.Be warned BTW that Stanford's Jacobson is a known propaganda producer. After Fukushima, he made some headlines in the EU with a very frightening (and completely wrong) risk assessment for the safety of European nuclear reactor fleet. Similarly, in this paper about wind firm capacity it *appears* as if connected windfarms can provide reliable baseload, but in fact the firm capacity is only 10% of nameplate capacity using Jacobson's own numbers. Similarly, the Jacobson paper on the EU nuclear fleet risk *appeared* to show huge amounts of expected fatalities per year in the EU due to nuclear accidents (and it made headlines because of this frightening appearance), but on more carefull study it turned out that EU nuclear reactors actually *save* thousands of lives yearly when compared to the alternative: coal power.
So this is a general warning: researchers like Jacobson engage in propaganda which means you have to be extra alert when trusting their research papers. Often, the conclusions that *appear* in the abstract are 180 degree opposite to the actual conclusions that follow from the particular science, as in this case. Jacobson writes to make headlines, not to increase understanding. Wind power cannot serve as significant firm capacity, which means it can only provide a minority of energy needs. The rest has to be nuclear, or else it will be natural gas or ultimately coal which equals death.
-
MA Rodger at 23:45 PM on 18 March 2013Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Syun-Ichi Akasofu
Tom Curtis @45
We should of course make clear - you do actually agree with Matthew L @42 in that you amply demonstrate that "the Mail on Sunday's reporting is atrocious" while he calls it "hysterically misinformed." Interestingly Rose's "analysis" was fantastic enough to be re-transmitted verbatum by the GWPF but it only managed to appear as a Newsbyte on Wattsupia (which adds further to the argument that GWPF stands for Gentlemen Who Prefer Fantasy).
Your disagreement with Matthew L is that he sees this journalistc nonsense as a consequence of people "making predictions such as those in the IPCC reports" while you consider it "absurd to blame climate scientists for the poor state of climate science communication."
Beyond the trivial argument that without the IPCC, without the scientific concensus, it is unlikely Rose would be given any column-inches for his climatological clap-trap, is there any further reason for Matthew L's view that making relatively precise predictions of future temperature is "foolhardy"?
In such context, the point as to which prediction is looking the more sensible or correct (Akasofu or IPCC) is pure theatre but hay-ho.The Akasofu graph (figure 5 in post) scales for 2012 as IPCC(central value) = 0.63, IPCC (range min) = 0.57, Akasofu = 0.39. Recorded temperature for 2012 are NCDC (which matches Akasofu's 'record' plotted back to 1976) = 0.56 (2008-12 average = 0.54).
And for 2013, Akasofu's graph yields a prediction of 0.37. Does anybody else care to make a prediction for the NCDC 2013 average? (So far, the Jan/Feb average stands at 0.58.)
-
John Brookes at 22:57 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Watts makes it very hard to take anything on his site seriously. He publishes quite hopeless stuff, and actively pushes climategate. He seems fixated on climate station quality, even after yet more work shows that its a non-issue.
There may be gems in Watts site, but one is inclined not to waste time looking for them.
-
Michael Whittemore at 22:57 PM on 18 March 2013Science vs. the Feelies
I have seen Venus used as an example of runway global warming causing the oceans to boil. I look forward to Peter trying to debunk the “Myth” of a possible runaway warming effect happening here on earth.
-
Tristan at 21:18 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
And doesn't that page actually say the drilling was done in 1990?
1990 - 38 = 1952?
I trust you'll bring this to Mr Watts attention, and that in the interests of good science, he'll update the graph.
-
Tristan at 21:10 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Ugh, why was my spacing edited out?
-
Tristan at 21:09 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
So: 1) The paper was published in '99. 2) The most recent data in the publication is listed as 37 years after present Therefore, present can be, at latest, 1962.Moderator Response: [DB] Added spacing where seemingly appropriate. -
Leto at 19:44 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
A Scott writes:
I also again make the constructive suggestion - that to improve the documentation - to provide firsthand confrmation - that you include a copy of (or link to) Figure 1 of R. B. Alley 2000, which shows the "present" date to be 1950 for that paper.That is indeed a reasonable suggestion, even if the route taken to it was somewhat 'inefficient'.
But do you notice a pattern here?
The SkS authors were correct in their claims about the Easterbrook graph (as you now seem to admit) - and yet you complain in strident tones that they have not laid out a sufficiently easy path for you to follow in confirming their correctness (in fact, the SkS post you linked to, http://www.skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm , made it clear that the date of the present had been confirmed by email from Alley).
The WUWT folks, by contrast, have been wrong and misleading about the same source (perhaps you are not ready to admit that, but I recommend you read WheelsOC again before replying), despite having the error pointed out to them many times - and yet you defend them, failing to realise that their repeated misuse of this source is indeed bad science.
Do you think it is at least possible that spending so long amongst contrarians has given you a cognitive bias? How else can you account for the extreme double standard? How could poor referencing of a true statement (even if that's what took place here at SkS, which I don't agree is the case) possibly attract more of your outrage than the clear examples of deliberate misinformation over at WUWT? Why no outrage at Watts or Easterbrook?
-
scaddenp at 18:56 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Well first A Scott, do you agree that the Easterbrook's graph is a misrepresentation? Read WheelsOC's comments carefully.
Moderator Response: [DB] A. Scott found the singular burden of compliance with the Comments Policy too onerous and has opted to recuse himself from further participation. -
AndyS at 18:30 PM on 18 March 2013Does Norway lack political commitment to renewables?
I have mentioned this on another thread on Norway, but Oslo has one of the best urban electric tram systems in the world. Their housing stock is also world class - many homes triple glazed.
If you point of the article is that Norway should provide a giant battery or load balancer for the fickle nature of wind and solar energy in Germany and elsewhere, then it can only be a win for Norway as they will get to dictate costs.
-
Matt Fitzpatrick at 17:20 PM on 18 March 2013February 2013 Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral Update
Quick and dirty gnuplot, using the same data, for the (no pun intended) polar plot purists out there. Thanks to Kevin C and of course Andy Lee Robinson for the idea.
-
WheelsOC at 17:15 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Well, how about an update about to my attempt to correct the misrepresentation of GISP2 data at WUWT?
My first comment and nearly all subsequent ones got through moderation (one didn't, but it was fairly inconsequential and is no real loss). Moderator D.B. Stealey (aka dbs aka Smokey) felt like making an issue of it, and Easterbrook himself commented a couple of times in an attempt to refute the correct information and support the error. He demanded an apology for my pointing out the mistake and calling it what it was.
Easterbrook continued to insist that the graph was labelled correctly, i.e. that "years before present" meant "years before 2000 AD." It's actually "years before 1950," which puts the most recent data in Easterbrook's graphs (which Watts subsequently reused and misrepresented as being Alley's) at 1855. This means that it captures none of the data from the late 19th century onwards. Easterbrook actually claimed that Alley labelled the X axis himself.
Since he was citing Alley (2000) and Cuffey and Clow (1997), I pulled up a copy of Alley's original paper and looked through the two data sets online. There was A) no graph similar to the one Easterbrook uses which labels anything in relation to the year 2000 AD, and B) all definitions of "before present" in Alley's paper, the Cuffey and Clow paper, and in all the GISP2 data sets and relevant pages at the NCDC, define "before present" as "before 1950." It is their standard convention for the whole GISP project (and many other fields involved in reconstructing the past). GISP2 pages at the NCDC explicitly spell this out in no uncertain terms. So not only was Easterbrook's claim unsupported, it was directly contradicted by the sources he cites. It's not even an easy mistake to make in the first place, let alone after the issue has been brought to his (and Watts's) attention for several years now.
None of the evidence I produced was addressed by Easterbrook or Stealey at all. I suggested that, because this was such a common issue at WUWT (Easterbrook's graphs get a lot of mileage there and this issue comes up a lot in the comments when that happens), someone at the blog could easily just ask Alley and clear the whole thing up once and for all. It would certainly give them iron-clad proof of their own correctness whenever the issue was brought up, IF they were correct. Apparently neither Easterbrook, Watts, or Stealey felt like this was a good idea! Fed up, I turned to Richard Alley myself and sent off a polite email asking about the dating convention he used, or if he ever labelled GISP2 data based around 2000 AD as "present." He confirmed what everybody else had already said; "before present" means "before 1950." He doesn't remember publishing any plot of the GISP2 data where "before present" is relative to 2000. I'm not the first person to ask him that question or get that answer. Gareth Renowden did likewise several years ago and received the same confirmation. I'd already given a link to his account at the start.
When I posted Dr. Alley's response in the thread, Stealey equated it to someone pretending to email the Pope and making up a fake reply. So not only did they have no inclination to ask for themselves to save their own credibility, they refused to believe someone who did (again). The last post so far is mine, pointing out that even if they don't believe me about contacting Alley, there is still all the other damning evidence in Easterbrook's own sources. Consistent with the rest of the exchange, nobody so far has offered any evidence to the contrary nor any argument to counter it. Despite being demonstrably wrong, nobody at the blog would budge or even acknowledge the error.
This just reinforces my previous suggestion for the eleventh denialist strategy: never give up on a bad argument no matter how thoroughly or repeatedly debunked it may be.
As an aside: this doesn't really seem to support A. Scott's argument about the level of scientific discourse at WUWT. None of the behavior I described above resembles a scientific approach. Scientists, for one thing, go out of their way to see if they're wrong. It's not just part of the job, it's part of the process of science. Neither Dr. Easterbrook, Anthony Watts, or D.B. Stealey treated the issue with a scientific mindset. Why should they? They already "know" what the answer is. They deny the validity of anything which contradicts their preconceived answer; regarding global warming, that means they wind up rejecting virtually all the science. That's what makes them denialists, and the ten strategies outlined in this post (+ my humble contribution) are how denialists operate. Hence the lack of scientific thinking at the blog; science and denialism are mutually exclusive because the scientific method doesn't work in the presence of a denialist mindset which can't accept uncomfortable data.
It's not just about climate change. Denialists of evolution, HIV/AIDS denialists, etc. operate from the same playbook. They all stick very closely to the stragies outlined here. That's how you can recognize denialism for what it is.
-
Leto at 17:06 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
A. Scott,
You'd be taken a bit more seriously if you showed some capacity for recognising your own mistakes. Are you aware of saying anything in this thread so far that is demonstrably wrong? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Hint, try your post at 13:24 PM on 18 March, 2013 Do you still stand by all of that?
Leto.
-
A. Scott at 14:52 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Dana - I make the same challneg to you as I did to Sphaerica in post 75 above. You attack Watt's - now its different attack - that its "bad science" - I say prove it.
If you're going to attack - and claim its bad science - then you should have the ability - and the burden - to prove it. We are discussing the Marcott paper. What is "bad science" - your term - in the articles at WUWT on the topic?
You made the accusation - I think its perfectly fair to expect you to support it. If it is "bad" as you claim, shouldn't be hard for you to show it.Moderator Response: [DB] This thread is about Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water. Much of your challenge is beyond the scope of this thread - and thus off-topic. FYI. -
Albatross at 14:50 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Dana @76,
That has to be a new record for mental gymanstics to create a strawman argument by A Scott.
I knew that me posting that graph would throw those in denail into a tizzy. Scott did not read the figure properly, the final data in the graph (red line) are for the A1B scenario, not Marcott et al.. But that didn't stop him barking up the wrong tree again...
To be honest though I was being just a tad facetious ;) It is difficult to not toy with those in denial who take themselves way too seriously.
-
A. Scott at 14:38 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Albatross - do you really expect anyone to take that graph and author seriously? Did you bother to read his posting or just copy the pretty picture?
If you did could you perhaps apply spaerica's filter and tell us what scinece was addressed or discussed in that post?
(-snip-). The author replied to McIntyre and stated they had "clearly" noted the recent period findings were "not robust" - yet that hasn't stopped them and many others from touting them - as Albatross shows most excellently above.
You want to talk about the science of the Marcott paper sphaerica? I say heck ya - have at it. Lets see what you have to say about it. (-snip-).Moderator Response: [DB] Sloganeering and false claims of ad hominem snipped. -
dana1981 at 14:33 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Looks like a few comments got deleted - that should say Sphaerica @73.
I like Scott @ 75 talking about those 'science' posts on WUWT. I guess Bad Science might qualify as a type of science.
Moderator Response: [DB] Some comments were removed due to noncompliance with the Comments Policy. -
dana1981 at 14:31 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Ditto what Sphaerica said @75. Watts spews all sorts of blatantly false BS (Bad Science, of course), but A. Scott decides to give him a pass and rudely attack me because a statement I made – which he admits to knowing is correct – isn't sufficiently adequately supported for his taste.
Absolutely absurd. And on top of all that, he's attacking me for saying "Watts' graph" when Easterbrook created the figure, but Watts didn't attribute it to Easterbrook! In fact, Watts implies that it's Alley's graph.
If only A. Scott would hold Watts to one-hundreth of the standards he holds me to.
-
A. Scott at 14:26 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Spaerica - you claim Watt's and crew do not discuss the science regarding this recent paper. Please support that claim.
Working backward I see:
The most recent 4 posts discuss the work Steve McIntyre is doing - which most certainly is about the science.
A guest post from Fred Singer - that discusses the science.
An original post by Willis Eschenbauch that is directly about the science - fancy graphs and all.
A followup - Part 2 - guest post by Don Easterbrook - further discussing the science
Another guest post by David Middleton - again reviewing and discussion the science.
Then there's a guest post by Don Easterbrook - yep that too discussing the science.
A post by Anthiny Watts that compares the Marcott paper's work to the GISP 2 record. Gosh - sure looks like that one is about the science as well.
That leaves the original post from Anthiony at WUWT. Which was primarily posting the press release about the paper. Which he updated with a link to Revkin's story with additional information.
So again ... which story(s) at WUWT on the Marcott paper do you believe support your claim:Watts and his crew do not actually discuss the science. They play games.
-
Albatross at 14:26 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Sphaerica,
Sadly I think A Scott believes his comments to be quite serious ;)
-
Bob Lacatena at 14:08 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
A. Scott,
You're kidding, right? With all of the complete and total bullsh*t that Watts has spewed, and with what is spelled out here, your response is to attack Dana for failing to address a detail the way that you wish he had?
(snipped)
Moderator Response: (Rob P) - inflammatory snipped -
Albatross at 14:07 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Well, if Marcott et al gave Tony Watts and Steve McIntyre (aka Nigel Persaud) a hissy fit, goodness' knows what the graphic below by Jos Hagelaars is going to do to them (H/T Eli Rabett); it may very well give them brain aneurysms.
Forget nuances about how to splice these data together and qualms about the paleo reconstructions potentially missing high frequency noise, it is quite apparent that we humans are in the process in engaging in what has to be one of the stupidist experiments we could have possibly conceived. That stark reality has driven some who are driven by ideology (hello Tony and Nigel) into deep denial-- don't be duped by their fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) tactics.
[Source]
Moderator Response: [TD] Linked the Eli reference. -
Bob Lacatena at 14:04 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
Ray,
So you think that discussing a comparison between a peer-reviewed paper and a previous chapter of a doctoral thesis "would significantly enhance the discussion of climate change"?
I don't know how many ways I can say this. Let's be perfectly clear:
If someone has a specific reason why the Science paper is invalid, then it can be stated and argued. That's science.
Pointing to a chapter in the publishing scientist's doctoral thesis from several years ago, trying to draw false analogies, and trying to chip away at his integrity by doing so is not "discussing the science," it's playing games.
And that is the whole point of this post, the fact that Watts and his crew do not actually discuss the science. They play games. That is all that they do, although they do it under the pretense of discussing the science.
For anyone foolish enough to fall for that ploy... shame on you. Watts has been caught making enough hypocritical, false and misleading statements for people to be more wary about trusting him. The guy is pathetic.
You don't get a free pass. If you want to repeat his nonsense, then you're no better than he is.
There's discussing the science, and there's playing games.
I wonder what the difference is.
-
bill4344 at 13:53 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
How entertaining:
Stop playing silly games please. Your comment is nothing but an attempt to distract from the facts.
Which it clearly is, and equally clearly he didn't bother to properly read the post!
But admissions are for wimps; instead this is brazenly followed by an abrupt switch to new set of unsubtantiated chumming assertions!
-
A. Scott at 13:37 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
And since you brought it up and made some claims about what it says:
by has effectively extended the so-called and found that current temperatures are higher than they've been for 75% of the past 11,500 years, and the current rate of warming is faster than at any point during that timeframe.
In particular I'm interested in your claims that Marcott has "extended" the "hockey stick" and, further, shows "the current rate of warming is faster" than any point in the last [its 11,300 not 11,500] years.
I'm curious if you still stand behind theise claims, in light of the work that's been done by Steve McIntyre and a number of others showing the hockey stick portion of the Marcott paper is based on a very small number of proxy's and has other issues. And particularly in light of the fact the author seems to agree - stating they "clearly" indicated the recent portion of their work - the part containing the hockey stick - was "not robust." -
dana1981 at 13:34 PM on 18 March 2013Watts Interview – Denial and Reality Mix like Oil and Water
A. Scott - you should really read more carefully before launching rude attacks on others. If you had read the post I linked for the source of the GISP2 data, you would have seen that it says
"In order to make absolutely sure of my dates, I emailed Richard Alley, and he confirmed that the GISP2 “present” is 1950, and that the most recent temperature in the GISP2 series is therefore 1855."
As for your complaints about attributing Easterbrook's graphs to Watts, sorry, but cry me a river. I didn't build my shoes, or my bed, or my house, but they're still mine. Watts used the graph in one of his blog posts (and I don't think he even attributed it to Easterbrook).
Stop playing silly games please. Your comment is nothing but an attempt to distract from the facts.
Prev 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 Next
