UH OH Spaghetti Oh! Hansen says the temps have been flat!

[westwall]

Gotha. Sounds like a pretty good guy, having an undergrad degree in some technical, if unrealted subjects, from lil old Whitman in Southeast WA. Plus even came sorta close to a Rhodes Scolarship which is pretty good.

But you'll note that his Meteorology "Credentials" are of the sort that I mentioned when we veered onto this tanget, a coupla days back. It's a multiple choice test, along with an annual fee, so nice looking and chipper folks can be real live METEOROLOGISTS!!! with realtive ease, whether having some chemisty, communcations, theology or whatever background. The top qualification is looking good on TV.

And to suggest those folks are somehow better qualified than Climatologists at NOAA, etc, etc, is patently absurd.

Yeah, that's true. However someone with a METEOROLOGY degree actually does have a much stronger foundation in science than a climatologist. I actually took meteorology classes when I was getting my undergrad so am familiar with the science and it is quite exact, and difficult.

Shit, IFR and advanced glider pilots have a firmer grasp of atmospheric science than do climatologists.

You know, i was thinking about what you wrote and i think you're correct. The ground school is pretty extensive and touches a great deal on physics and fluid dynamics etc.

 

[Saigon]

However someone with a METEOROLOGY degree actually does have a much stronger foundation in science than a climatologist.

You have to laugh, don't you?

 

[ReallyMeow]

I smell vapid assertions, maybe you guys want to try the type of science that actually works?

 

[westwall]

However someone with a METEOROLOGY degree actually does have a much stronger foundation in science than a climatologist.

You have to laugh, don't you?

Not at all, the undergrad requirements for meteorology are quite extensive. Most climatologists are geography undergrads which is quite easy. I mean really, really easy.

 

[westwall]

I smell vapid assertions, maybe you guys want to try the type of science that actually works?

Yes, most other sciences actually have MEASURABLE tests and experiments. Climatology is the only science I can think of that relies almost entirely on computer models and actually views climate models as "data".

Simply extraordinary in their delusion....

 

[ReallyMeow]

However someone with a METEOROLOGY degree actually does have a much stronger foundation in science than a climatologist.

You have to laugh, don't you?

Not at all, the undergrad requirements for meteorology are quite extensive. Most climatologists are geography undergrads which is quite easy. I mean really, really easy.

cool story bro

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

As one would have thought you may be aware - a great many climatologits have a PhD, in many cases coming from a Masters in Physics. Anyone working with climate in this part of the world needs a Masters as an absolute minimum.

Many Meteorologists have only a Bachelors.

It's also worth keeping in mind that many people working on climate-relate research have PhD's in Physics, not Climatology as such.


So now as part of your ongoing campaign against science, you are actually saying the best qualifications someone has, the better source he is....why am I surprised?

 

[westwall]

Westwall -

As one would have thought you may be aware - a great many climatologits have a PhD, in many cases coming from a Masters in Physics. Anyone working with climate in this part of the world needs a Masters as an absolute minimum.

Many Meteorologists have only a Bachelors.

It's also worth keeping in mind that many people working on climate-relate research have PhD's in Physics, not Climatology as such.


So now as part of your ongoing campaign against science, you are actually saying the best qualifications someone has, the better source he is....why am I surprised?

Unlike you I am a scientist, I earned my PhD in geology from Caltech long before you were born. I can teach any graduate level climatology class with my eyes closed, no climatologist can teach even most of the 2nd year geology UNDERGRAD classes, they are too far beyond their ability to understand.

My campaign is against BAD science as exhibited by "scientists" who have turned climatology from a soft science into a pseudo-science. There are well over 50 peer reviewed papers where climatologists have taken both sides of a prediction. That makes it untestable, that makes it the equivalent of astrology.

Do you realise that the noted charlatan Sylvia Brown has a better prediction rate than your precious climatologists? Did you know that? That's pathetic.

 

[Saigon]

Westwall -

If your campaign is against bad science, it is surprising that not a single scientific organisation of any merit agrees with you.

It's rather odd, isn't it, that for you all science that disagrees with your positions is somehow "bad".

 

[SSDD]

Wow, idiot, just wow. Please dont test these insane hypothesis against reality, you will scald yourself right into the ER.[/quote]

Your lack of knowledge is really showing there. Try the experiment yourself. Grab yourself a pot of water, put it on they eye of your stove and turn it up to high. The water will reach 212 F and that's it. Hell you can put an oxyaceletine torch under it and 212 F is al you will get.

You do realize there are places that are cold, and dont have much moisture at the same time? You only have a meager understanding of the world, like a child with a picture book. The climate doesnt carry any humidity to the region, so the region has no water. Think about it, theres places where its hot and humid. Also, have you ever heard people say "its the humidity" or "at least its a dry heat"?

You, like most liberals are confusing feeling with reality. How the heat feels is irrelevant to how warm it actually is.

 

[SSDD]

However someone with a METEOROLOGY degree actually does have a much stronger foundation in science than a climatologist.

You have to laugh, don't you?

At climatologists and their claims to have a grasp on the way energy moves through the earth system, yes.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

We are so lucky we have you here, given you know so much more about science the US Physics Society.

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

Climate Change

Perhaps you should call them and ask them to come to one of your lectures so that they can get up to speed?

 

[SSDD]

Westwall -

If your campaign is against bad science, it is surprising that not a single scientific organisation of any merit agrees with you.

It's rather odd, isn't it, that for you all science that disagrees with your positions is somehow "bad".

Again, an inablity to differentiate between the political head of a scientific organization responsible for funding and the actual body of a scientific organization.

By the way, I could't help but notice that you ignored the statement by one of your Finnish professors....a particularly distinguieshed one at that who confirmed what westwall and I have been telling you about massaged data being the norm in climate science. When you get information that runs afoul of your faith, do you plug your ears, shut your eyes and scream no no no at the top of your lungs?

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

I know I have said this before, but the whole thing about funding is such a laughable myth....why are you still going on about it?

As I explained before, funding is not tied to any particular piece of research - at least not in Europe. Universities are funding by the Ministry of Education. It is not even tagged to faculties, let alone to particular pieces of research. Most units decide for themselves what they want to research, and how, based on the number of students, and on what other universities are doing.

It's always good to try and post things that have some kind of basis in reality, surely?


btw. I haven't seen anything from a Finnish professor - i'll go back and look for it. (OK, I can't see it anywhere - post it again and I'll take a look at it.)

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

We are so lucky we have you here, given you know so much more about science the US Physics Society.

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.[;quote]

So you say...and so climate science says...and yet, not a scrap of actual empirical evidence...You and they depend entirely on computer models which have an abject record.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.

The evidence that the climate is changing is incontrovertable...of course, it has been changing since the beginning of the earth....The evidnece that man is responsible is non existent. On that point, you are operating on faith, not actual science.

If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Again, catastrophic predictions based on not even the smallest scrap of actual, observable, empirical evidence.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

What that means is that poorly written computer models with a long documented record of failure are substituting for actual science in the field of climate science.

Perhaps you should call them and ask them to come to one of your lectures so that they can get up to speed?

No need as I can distinguish between a political head of an organization and the actual scientific body of an organization and you would be hard pressed to provide the names of very many actual scientists who do not depend on grant money who are on the AGW bandwagon.

How about the Finnish professor at oslow who confirms what westwall and I have been saying about altered surface temeprature records?

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

As I said, I suggest you call them and explain where they are going wrong.

I don't think it would be at all arrogant of you to suggest that you know far, far more about physics than any silly American Physics Society.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

I know I have said this before, but the whole thing about funding is such a laughable myth....why are you still going on about it?

Not a myth siagon and I believe deep down you know it but to acknowledge that the data has been tampered with is to acknowledge that there is no basis for your confidence and that takes a level of maturity that perhaps you don't posess. Here...this thread is for you.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/275442-siagon-this-ones-for-you.html#post6732454

I explained before, funding is not tied to any particular piece of research - at least not in Europe.

So scientists don't get grants to finance a particular bit of research? The government pays for all research? That is perhaps worse than the grant system as all science becomes governemnt science.

btw. I haven't seen anything from a Finnish professor - i'll go back and look for it.

Of course not. Don't bother looking.. here is a link.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/environment/275442-siagon-this-ones-for-you.html#post6732454

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

So scientists don't get grants to finance a particular bit of research? The government pays for all research?

It depends on the university, but yes, that's basically how European systems work.

Hence, the idea that scientists would produce particular results in order to win funding is just laughable. It doesn't make any logical sense.

Some research projects (nano-technology, pharmacology) are joint-funded by European agencies, the government and private companies because they focus on product development, but those are largely run through one university unit. It's a bit complicated to explain this, but it doesn't involve any climate work anyway. They have a website in English if you're interested.

So at least we've managed to put that myth to bed, anyway.

 

[Saigon]

I have had a look at that professor's statement.....

A University of Oslo professor

Um...what country is Oslo in, again?

I won't say a word!!

(Speaking of Norway - I hope you also read Katzndogz post from yesterday, in which Norwgian experts reviewed temperature rise predictions downwards from 3C by 2050, to 1.9C by 2050. It was great to see definitive proof that scientists will lower temperature secnarios downwards if the science supports it, and again drives another nail into the coffin of the global scientific conspiracy to make temperature rises seem higher than they actually are.)

 

[SSDD]

I have had a look at that professor's statement.....

A University of Oslo professor

Um...what country is Oslo in, again?

He is from Finland...but split all the hairs you like.

(Speaking of Norway - I hope you also read Katzndogz post from yesterday, in which Norwgian experts reviewed temperature rise predictions downwards from 3C by 2050, to 1.9C by 2050. It was great to see definitive proof that scientists will lower temperature secnarios downwards if the science supports it, and again drives another nail into the coffin of the global scientific conspiracy to make temperature rises seem higher than they actually are.)

On que from CRU. Interesting, don't you think that they are acknowledging that their models have been off by at least 60%...what you are seeing is the big rats on the sinking ship AGW positioning themselves for an exit...not evidence that all is well in climate science land.

See you guys next week. I am travelling on business for the rest of this week and doubt that I will have much time for reading or posting.