Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I do believe people like you have distrust of mainstream science. You have to. Knee jerk reactionism demands itSay you as you use mainsream science as a source.So now it's "mainstream science" rather than "settled science?" You realize, of course, that "mainstream" is a term the demagogues and political propagandists use. It has no connection with actual science.
When have I ever used the term "mainstream science?" You, Abraham and PMS are the only ones I see using that term.
Headline: The deceased was not killed by three rounds of ammo, twas only two rounds and maybe the deceased expired before the second round hit them.
Oh and about the science that you follow, why not Curry's scientific work?
The concept of man made global warming is a religion. You gotta have faith in spite of what your senses tell you or what arguments you might hear. As soon as they get Al Gore canonized and the statues start going up everybody will be forced to believe.
Oh and about the science that you follow, why not Curry's scientific work?
Some of it is good, some isn't. It's more a problem that in her role as propagandist, she kind of ignores the actual science she's done.
For example, she coauthored with Muller on the BEST study. You know, the report that said yep, there's a hockey stick there. And after it came out, she spun about and basically accused Muller of fraud by "hiding the decline."
She depends heavily on the "Oceans? What oceans?" fallacy, which is a grade-school level error.
She's confused on the matter of uncertainties. She claims there are uncertainties in radiative forcing, but there aren't. If earth was a black body, with a uniform clear atmosphere, calculating the temperature change from CO2 changes would be fairly simple. No uncertainties at all there. It's the feedbacks, positive and negative, that throw all the uncertainties in.
Let's see. The Wegmen report, a congressional GOP hit piece that basically parroted McIntyre, and which was shredded into tiny bits by the AGW scientists. Curry declared how awful and unjustified such critiques were. Right before she admitted she hadn't actually read it. It's how she works now, knee-jerking based on tribal loyalty.
She tends to not understand the topic, get it wrong, and then declare that the people who got a different answer must doing something fraudulent. I bet she learned that from McIntyre. Criticize her science, and instead of addressing the criticism, she handwaves it away the criticism as "incorrect" (no further explanation given), and then claims persecution because she bucks the consensus. Again, something she must have picked up from denialists.
For an example of Curry in action, here's Gavin Schmidt and Curry going at it.
RealClimate: The Montford Delusion
The whole article illustrates what a crank McIntyre is, but I don't expect the acolytes to have the nerve to look at it.
Headline: The deceased was not killed by three rounds of ammo, twas only two rounds and maybe the deceased expired before the second round hit them.
Is that really what you think a .05° annualized rise vs. a predicted .2° annualized rise means?
The concept of man made global warming is a religion. You gotta have faith in spite of what your senses tell you or what arguments you might hear. As soon as they get Al Gore canonized and the statues start going up everybody will be forced to believe.
AGW is proven science. The opposite of the faith of deniers who have no science at all. Just politics.
Headline: The deceased was not killed by three rounds of ammo, twas only two rounds and maybe the deceased expired before the second round hit them.
Is that really what you think a .05° annualized rise vs. a predicted .2° annualized rise means?
What I think is the OP is disingenuous at best...
The IPCC report is expected to affirm the human link with greater certainty than ever, but the panel is under pressure to also address the recent lower rate of warming, which scientists say is likely due to heat going deep into the ocean and natural climate fluctuations. - Global warming slowing: What does that mean? - CSMonitor.com
Is the OP being disingenuous?
Oh and about the science that you follow, why not Curry's scientific work?
Some of it is good, some isn't. It's more a problem that in her role as propagandist, she kind of ignores the actual science she's done.
For example, she coauthored with Muller on the BEST study. You know, the report that said yep, there's a hockey stick there. And after it came out, she spun about and basically accused Muller of fraud by "hiding the decline."
She depends heavily on the "Oceans? What oceans?" fallacy, which is a grade-school level error.
She's confused on the matter of uncertainties. She claims there are uncertainties in radiative forcing, but there aren't. If earth was a black body, with a uniform clear atmosphere, calculating the temperature change from CO2 changes would be fairly simple. No uncertainties at all there. It's the feedbacks, positive and negative, that throw all the uncertainties in.
Let's see. The Wegmen report, a congressional GOP hit piece that basically parroted McIntyre, and which was shredded into tiny bits by the AGW scientists. Curry declared how awful and unjustified such critiques were. Right before she admitted she hadn't actually read it. It's how she works now, knee-jerking based on tribal loyalty.
She tends to not understand the topic, get it wrong, and then declare that the people who got a different answer must doing something fraudulent. I bet she learned that from McIntyre. Criticize her science, and instead of addressing the criticism, she handwaves it away the criticism as "incorrect" (no further explanation given), and then claims persecution because she bucks the consensus. Again, something she must have picked up from denialists.
For an example of Curry in action, here's Gavin Schmidt and Curry going at it.
RealClimate: The Montford Delusion
The whole article illustrates what a crank McIntyre is, but I don't expect the acolytes to have the nerve to look at it.
McIntyre is a paid hit man.
Your reference is the best explanation that I've seen of the character assassination process the fossil fuel industry employed as a business strategy.
Headline: The deceased was not killed by three rounds of ammo, twas only two rounds and maybe the deceased expired before the second round hit them.
Is that really what you think a .05° annualized rise vs. a predicted .2° annualized rise means?
What I think is the OP is disingenuous at best...
The IPCC report is expected to affirm the human link with greater certainty than ever, but the panel is under pressure to also address the recent lower rate of warming, which scientists say is likely due to heat going deep into the ocean and natural climate fluctuations. - Global warming slowing: What does that mean? - CSMonitor.com
Is the OP being disingenuous?
Read more:
World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online
ml#ixzz2fOeKD6UW
One of the reports own authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford
Universitys Climate Research Network, last night said this should be the last IPCC
assessment accusing its cumbersome production process of misrepresenting how
science works.
Prof Allen said: The idea of producing a document of near-biblical infallibility
is a misrepresentation of how science works, and we need to look very carefully
about what the IPCC does in future
The Mail on Sunday has also seen an earlier draft of the report, dated October last year. There are many striking differences between it and the current, final version.
The 2012 draft makes no mention of the pause and, far from admitting that the
Middle Ages were unusually warm, it states that todays temperatures are the
highest for at least 1,300 years, as it did in 2007. Prof Allen said the change
reflects greater uncertainty about what was happening around the last millennium
but one.
A further change in the new version is the first-ever scaling down of a crucial
yardstick, the equilibrium climate sensitivity the extent to which the world is
meant to warm each time CO2 levels double.
As things stand, the atmosphere is expected to have twice as much CO2 as in
pre-industrial times by about 2050. In 2007, the IPCC said the likeliest figure
was 3C, with up to 4.5C still likely.
Now it does not give a likeliest value and admits it is likely it may be as
little as 1.5C so giving the world many more decades to work out how to reduce
carbon emissions before temperatures rise to dangerous levels.
Some of it is good, some isn't. It's more a problem that in her role as propagandist, she kind of ignores the actual science she's done.
For example, she coauthored with Muller on the BEST study. You know, the report that said yep, there's a hockey stick there. And after it came out, she spun about and basically accused Muller of fraud by "hiding the decline."
She depends heavily on the "Oceans? What oceans?" fallacy, which is a grade-school level error.
She's confused on the matter of uncertainties. She claims there are uncertainties in radiative forcing, but there aren't. If earth was a black body, with a uniform clear atmosphere, calculating the temperature change from CO2 changes would be fairly simple. No uncertainties at all there. It's the feedbacks, positive and negative, that throw all the uncertainties in.
Let's see. The Wegmen report, a congressional GOP hit piece that basically parroted McIntyre, and which was shredded into tiny bits by the AGW scientists. Curry declared how awful and unjustified such critiques were. Right before she admitted she hadn't actually read it. It's how she works now, knee-jerking based on tribal loyalty.
She tends to not understand the topic, get it wrong, and then declare that the people who got a different answer must doing something fraudulent. I bet she learned that from McIntyre. Criticize her science, and instead of addressing the criticism, she handwaves it away the criticism as "incorrect" (no further explanation given), and then claims persecution because she bucks the consensus. Again, something she must have picked up from denialists.
For an example of Curry in action, here's Gavin Schmidt and Curry going at it.
RealClimate: The Montford Delusion
The whole article illustrates what a crank McIntyre is, but I don't expect the acolytes to have the nerve to look at it.
McIntyre is a paid hit man.
Who's paying him, asshole? Or is this another case where "bought and paid for" doesn't really mean "bought and paid for?"
It appears that Michael Mann and his cronies are the only ones in this whole affair who are getting paid. That is a fact that you just can't make go away.
Your reference is the best explanation that I've seen of the character assassination process the fossil fuel industry employed as a business strategy.
You and your sidekicks have yet to demonstrate any connection between McIntrye and the fossil fuel industry.
Is that really what you think a .05° annualized rise vs. a predicted .2° annualized rise means?
What I think is the OP is disingenuous at best...
The IPCC report is expected to affirm the human link with greater certainty than ever, but the panel is under pressure to also address the recent lower rate of warming, which scientists say is likely due to heat going deep into the ocean and natural climate fluctuations. - Global warming slowing: What does that mean? - CSMonitor.com
Is the OP being disingenuous?
No --- the OP is simply heralding the consequences of "perverting science in the public interest".. The payback starts now.. The players are starting to feud amongst themselves to avoid the humilation..
Read more:
World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online
ml#ixzz2fOeKD6UW
One of the reports own authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford
Universitys Climate Research Network, last night said this should be the last IPCC
assessment accusing its cumbersome production process of misrepresenting how
science works.
Prof Allen said: The idea of producing a document of near-biblical infallibility
is a misrepresentation of how science works, and we need to look very carefully
about what the IPCC does in future
Yep --- I've said that.. The skeptics have said that.. The arrogance and bullshit was stunning ------ whilst it lasted.
The Mail on Sunday has also seen an earlier draft of the report, dated October last year. There are many striking differences between it and the current, final version.
The 2012 draft makes no mention of the pause and, far from admitting that the
Middle Ages were unusually warm, it states that todays temperatures are the
highest for at least 1,300 years, as it did in 2007. Prof Allen said the change
reflects greater uncertainty about what was happening around the last millennium
but one.
A further change in the new version is the first-ever scaling down of a crucial
yardstick, the equilibrium climate sensitivity the extent to which the world is
meant to warm each time CO2 levels double.
As things stand, the atmosphere is expected to have twice as much CO2 as in
pre-industrial times by about 2050. In 2007, the IPCC said the likeliest figure
was 3C, with up to 4.5C still likely.
Now it does not give a likeliest value and admits it is likely it may be as
little as 1.5C so giving the world many more decades to work out how to reduce
carbon emissions before temperatures rise to dangerous levels.
Pretty much my principal objection to YOUR SETTLED SCIENCE all along. Now virtually retracted and fixed by the IPCC.. What more could a skeptic ask for heh???
Not only that but fixing the lies about the MWPeriod.. ALSO a major Skeptic point of argument.. Win win eh??
If you STILL want to diss this IPCC "come to Jesus" moment..
You still ignoring?? Keep it up.. The humiliation will just get more theraputic for ya.......
I disagree with the implication of the OP and the rag it came from. The phrase "warming exaggerated" implies that actual warming was known and that those making predictions knowingly and intentionally overstated it. That is unsupportable, paranoid bullshit.
I have an exercise for you. Compare global temperatures for the first 15 years following 1940 and for the period since 1998. Notice any difference? Anyone got any ideas what might have created such a difference?
What I think is the OP is disingenuous at best...
The IPCC report is expected to affirm the human link with greater certainty than ever, but the panel is under pressure to also address the recent lower rate of warming, which scientists say is likely due to heat going deep into the ocean and natural climate fluctuations. - Global warming slowing: What does that mean? - CSMonitor.com
Is the OP being disingenuous?
No --- the OP is simply heralding the consequences of "perverting science in the public interest".. The payback starts now.. The players are starting to feud amongst themselves to avoid the humilation..
Yep --- I've said that.. The skeptics have said that.. The arrogance and bullshit was stunning ------ whilst it lasted.
The Mail on Sunday has also seen an earlier draft of the report, dated October last year. There are many striking differences between it and the current, final version.
The 2012 draft makes no mention of the pause and, far from admitting that the
Middle Ages were unusually warm, it states that todays temperatures are the
highest for at least 1,300 years, as it did in 2007. Prof Allen said the change
reflects greater uncertainty about what was happening around the last millennium
but one.
A further change in the new version is the first-ever scaling down of a crucial
yardstick, the equilibrium climate sensitivity the extent to which the world is
meant to warm each time CO2 levels double.
As things stand, the atmosphere is expected to have twice as much CO2 as in
pre-industrial times by about 2050. In 2007, the IPCC said the likeliest figure
was 3C, with up to 4.5C still likely.
Now it does not give a likeliest value and admits it is likely it may be as
little as 1.5C so giving the world many more decades to work out how to reduce
carbon emissions before temperatures rise to dangerous levels.
Pretty much my principal objection to YOUR SETTLED SCIENCE all along. Now virtually retracted and fixed by the IPCC.. What more could a skeptic ask for heh???
Not only that but fixing the lies about the MWPeriod.. ALSO a major Skeptic point of argument.. Win win eh??
If you STILL want to diss this IPCC "come to Jesus" moment..
You still ignoring?? Keep it up.. The humiliation will just get more theraputic for ya.......
I think that the graph that you posted would fool people who believe that surface temperature is the only indicator of global energy balance.
No --- the OP is simply heralding the consequences of "perverting science in the public interest".. The payback starts now.. The players are starting to feud amongst themselves to avoid the humilation..
Yep --- I've said that.. The skeptics have said that.. The arrogance and bullshit was stunning ------ whilst it lasted.
Pretty much my principal objection to YOUR SETTLED SCIENCE all along. Now virtually retracted and fixed by the IPCC.. What more could a skeptic ask for heh???
Not only that but fixing the lies about the MWPeriod.. ALSO a major Skeptic point of argument.. Win win eh??
If you STILL want to diss this IPCC "come to Jesus" moment..
You still ignoring?? Keep it up.. The humiliation will just get more theraputic for ya.......
I think that the graph that you posted would fool people who believe that surface temperature is the only indicator of global energy balance.
And yet that's exactly what the models were forecasting. Are you saying the scientists and the IPCC who used those forecasts were trying to fool people?
I disagree with the implication of the OP and the rag it came from. The phrase "warming exaggerated" implies that actual warming was known and that those making predictions knowingly and intentionally overstated it. That is unsupportable, paranoid bullshit.
I have an exercise for you. Compare global temperatures for the first 15 years following 1940 and for the period since 1998. Notice any difference? Anyone got any ideas what might have created such a difference?
It certainly wasn't only carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, otherwise it would be a near straight line trending up. That's the problem here, we're constantly being told of the direct correlation between carbon dioxide levels in the air and global average temperature.
So why are the annual and 5-year temperature anomaly means down recently while the carbon dioxide concentration is up?
the concept of man made global warming is a religion. You gotta have faith in spite of what your senses tell you or what arguments you might hear. As soon as they get al gore canonized and the statues start going up everybody will be forced to believe.
agw is proven science. The opposite of the faith of deniers who have no science at all. Just politics.
