The Daily Mail’s Latest Lie About Climate Change

Environment • Views: 8,289

The Daily Mail’s story by David Rose, claiming that climate scientist Phil Jones “admitted” there has been no global warming since 1995, is completely false.

Journalism at its most irresponsible. There really ought to be a law. At least there ought to be consequences.

The BBC interviews Phil Jones:

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

The Daily Mail headline:

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Right.

but the text is more reasonable, if also, well, wrong:

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

As is common, the most egregious behavior is by the anonymous headline writer. The journalist, Jonathan Petre, can claim innocence, except for the peculiar use of the word “blip” showing a mind boggling lack of understanding of statistics for someone reporting on science, but at least an attempt at fairness.

The Daily Mail is known as the “Daily Fail” for a reason, and this is the reason. They lie about and distort stories on climate change frequently. This is just the latest example.

UPDATE at 2/14/10 9:46:37 am:

Tim Lambert points out that the usual right wing bloggers swallowed the lie hook, line, and sinker, and are busily parroting it all over the Internet: Daily Mail caught in another lie.

A few of the bloggers who eagerly took the bait: Tim Blair (of course), Glenn Reynolds, and Ann Althouse.

Jump to bottom

336 comments
1 Vicious Babushka  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 9:43:12am

Who reads the Daily Mail for scientific information? Aren't they a gossip sheet?

2 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 9:45:49am

re: #1 Alouette

Yes. Nicknamed the Daily Fail.

3 Slim_Junior  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 9:47:18am

It's over. The AGW fraud seemed unstoppable a few short years ago. I doubt if it will ever gain serious traction again.

4 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 9:47:53am

re: #3 Slim_Junior

It's over. The AGW fraud seemed unstoppable a few short years ago. I doubt if it will ever gain serious traction again.

Did you even bother to read the post before spouting your idiocy?

5 MTF  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 9:47:55am

"B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Yes, but only just. "

Who lied here? Jones, or the BBC? Are we saying that the BBC overstated his point somehow, because in fact he seems to be agreeing with the headline, though "only just".

6 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 9:48:46am

The deniers are frisky today.

7 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 9:49:20am

AGW-denial is an endless procession of straw-grasping.

8 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 9:50:08am

And to repost from last thread:

It's amazing that somehow "I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity." is being used as though it shows doubt.

This is one of the double-pronged tactics of deniers, as shown in that article: They scoff whenever scientists say something is certain or settled, but whenever a scientist uses the more moderate statement saying that the available evidence shows something, they use it to say "Ah, so you're not certain!"

It's maddening.

9 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 9:50:41am

re: #2 Obdicut

Yes. Nicknamed the Daily Fail.

This is a major fail by the Daily Mail. Headlines are evil. The BBC article is enough to show that Dr. Phil Jones is suddenly "moderating" on some of the points that he has addressed in the past.

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

10 srjh  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 9:50:55am

Of course, the denial movement is going to ignore the false and inflammatory title, read the article, understand its context, and construct an informed argument around it, right? Right?

11 srjh  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 9:51:39am

Note to self: Read thread before posting.

12 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 9:53:52am

re: #9 Walter L. Newton

Please cite a point that he is now 'moderating' on.

13 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 9:55:04am

re: #9 Walter L. Newton

This is a major fail by the Daily Mail. Headlines are evil. The BBC article is enough to show that Dr. Phil Jones is suddenly "moderating" on some of the points that he has addressed in the past.

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

No, he is not. This denier's talking point has been addressed over and over and over at LGF, and still people come in distorting it and making claims about it that are not true.

I've concluded that this claim that there has been no warming for the past ten years is exactly like a creationist claim. People simply aren't interested in learning the truth about it.

14 SixDegrees  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 9:55:11am

Although the content of the interview has already been discussed extensively, downstairs, this is the first I've seen of the headline. It's been ignored in favor of more substantive criticism, here at least.

15 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 9:56:11am

re: #14 SixDegrees

Although the content of the interview has already been discussed extensively, downstairs, this is the first I've seen of the headline. It's been ignored in favor of more substantive criticism, here at least.

Phil Jones says absolutely nothing new in the interview. These are all points that have been well known for a very long time.

16 SixDegrees  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 9:56:30am

re: #10 srjh

Of course, the denial movement is going to ignore the false and inflammatory title, read the article, understand its context, and construct an informed argument around it, right? Right?

Well, that's what has taken place downstairs, anyway.

17 freetoken  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 9:56:33am

It should be noted, once again, that the American organizations which compile global temperature data do so differently than Hadley/CRU. The issue the Americans have had with the way the Brits have been doing the global temperature is how the Brits drop off the high arctic from the globe. The NOAA and NASA global temperature compilations are thus slightly different than that from Hadley, and show IMO a somewhat better picture of the globe's surface as a whole.

18 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 9:56:48am

re: #14 SixDegrees

What 'substantive' criticism would that be?

19 karmic_inquisitor  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 9:57:53am

On a different front -

The Catholic journal "First Things" rips into intelligent design with "The End of Intelligent Design?"

A damning paragraph:

But whereas the advance of science continually strengthens the broader and more traditional version of the design argument, the ID movement’s version is hostage to every advance in biological science. Science must fail for ID to succeed. In the famous “explanatory filter” of William A. Dembski, one finds “design” by eliminating “law” and “chance” as explanations. This, in effect, makes it a zero-sum game between God and nature. What nature does and science can explain is crossed off the list, and what remains is the evidence for God. This conception of design plays right into the hands of atheists, whose caricature of religion has always been that it is a substitute for the scientific understanding of nature.

The point? ID claims bolster atheism.

Brilliant.

20 SixDegrees  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 9:58:40am

re: #15 Charles

Phil Jones says absolutely nothing new in the interview. These are all points that have been well known for a very long time.

I'm content to let Dr. Jones speak for himself.

21 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 9:58:52am

re: #20 SixDegrees

I'm content to let Dr. Jones speak for himself.

So am I.

22 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 9:59:08am

re: #13 Charles

No, he is not. This denier's talking point has been addressed over and over and over at LGF, and still people come in distorting it and making claims about it that are not true.

I've concluded that this claim that there has been no warming for the past ten years is exactly like a creationist claim. People simply aren't interested in learning the truth about it.

Charles... his answers to questions such as "A, B, F, G" and his statement about the FOIA are "softer" than I have heard before, or at least different than the general stance taken by the CRU in the past.

23 Political Atheist  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 9:59:18am

I hate to repeat a post but this one from downstairs would have been much better to wait for this thread-So here I go again

Quibbles and echoes of quibbles.
I see most of the serious arguments are about effects of AGW, as in exaggerated claims such as the glaciers in 2025. A forecast of when they will disappear was a stupid thing to attempt. Lets say it will be 3035.Does that change the fact they are going away?

24 Buck  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 9:59:23am

Has anyone asked if the computer models developed in the 90's showed 15 years of no ‘statistically significant’ warming?

/running... ducking...wearing flameproof underwear...

25 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 9:59:39am

Meanwhile, white supremacist Robert Stacy McCain makes the connection between creationism and AGW denial even more obvious, with a blatantly anti-science post at his hate blog:

[Link: theothermccain.com...]

26 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 9:59:58am

re: #20 SixDegrees

Yes. Let's take him at his own words.

I - Would it be reasonable looking at the same scientific evidence to take the view that recent warming is not predominantly manmade?

No - see again my answer to D.

27 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:00:31am

re: #20 SixDegrees

I'm content to let Dr. Jones speak for himself.

Same here. His responses are certainly more nuanced.

28 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:00:55am

re: #22 Walter L. Newton

Can you please cite an actual difference?

29 lawhawk  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:00:57am
B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

If something is not at the 95% confidence level, Jones is saying that there's still a range of possibilities for the sample size that could be within the margin of error.

30 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:02:13am

re: #26 Obdicut

Yes. Let's take him at his own words.

In this interview, Phil Jones is simply repeating the exact same caveats that climate scientists ALWAYS state, when they talk about warming trends and the "medieval warm period." There is nothing new in this interview -- the hype by the denial industry is utterly dishonest.

31 Killgore Trout  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:02:30am

OT: Dud Ackbar!
*RAW* Suspect Suicide Bomber Killed

Liveleak Video


Not graphic but some may find it disturbing. I guess they don't make them like they used to.

32 Ojoe  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:02:38am

OT: Whig Party Update. From the Executive Committee of the Modern Whig Party:

To the members of the Modern Whig Party,

The Whig Party revival began as a series of political discussions among deployed American service members serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. When these men and women returned home, they realized that there is a substantial need for a mainstream, non-fringe political movement that caters to individuals that are not defined by ideology but rather common sense fiscal responsibility, strong national defense and a focus on education/scientific advancement over strict social issues among other items. After a brief stint as an advocacy organization on behalf of military families, the Modern Whig movement ultimately branched out to Americans from all walks of life. At one point, the party was deemed the "fastest growing mainstream political movement in the nation."

It has now been one year since the official and recognized revival of the national modern Whig movement (although the bricks were being laid and many of you joined prior to that date). In that time, this grassroots organization has been recognized by numerous outlets as a potentially viable mainstream voice for those described above. At the same time, fringe groups and elements from the entrenched parties recognized the threat that a moderate, non-fringe national political movement can become and ultimately incited numerous attacks and threats both internally and publicly. But on this Presidents Day 2010, we are here to let everyone know that the Modern Whig Party is still standing and on the move.

Over the past several months, state and national leadership have been busy solidifying the foundation and substance in order to compete as a viable and mainstream political movement. As we have always said to our thousands of members, we are not delusional as to the road ahead, but rather optimistic that a solid message, foundation and savvy will serve to continue getting the word out. The mission of this movement was always to operate methodically and gradually in order to ultimately sustain viability and longevity. What happened was that the party actually grew too fast as massive influxes of people flooded our systems at various times. The result was that this young, moderate revived movement did not have the infrastructure in place to handle the load. That is now changing.

(snip)

33 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:03:08am

re: #26 Obdicut

And to address a point, my essay is not about disproving climate change, it is about faulty process, procedure and policy that is related to the programming and data handling at CRU.

34 SixDegrees  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:03:19am

re: #19 karmic_inquisitor

On a different front -

The Catholic journal "First Things" rips into intelligent design with "The End of Intelligent Design?"

A damning paragraph:

The point? ID claims bolster atheism.

Brilliant.

As far as I know, the Catholic Church has never bought into Creationism, has never been opposed to evolutionary theory, and has actively sponsored research into evolution.

The Church has no difficulty reconciling it's own views with scientific findings, and tends to see the two realms as complementary rather than antagonistic.

35 Ojoe  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:03:21am

Rest of Whig Party note:

We are set to announce the addition of new state chapters and quality leaders that come from as diverse backgrounds as the recipients of this message. One such leader is even a direct descendant of a former President of the United States who was elected as a Whig, and serves as a bridge between the historic party and its national modern reincarnation. Moreover, Whig Associations are forming across the country. For example, the Virginia Whigs are pioneering a Health Care Association. A novel approach to party building and individual empowerment entitled "Methodology over Ideology" is currently being tested and spearheaded by the thriving Georgia Whig Party. Meanwhile, states such as California continue to seek ballot registration while Missouri and Texas plan statewide meetings.

We are working to build a lasting political movement that caters to moderate voters from all walks of life who find themselves supporting issues on all parts of the mainstream political spectrum rather than limiting themselves to the left or right ideologies. But in order to succeed, reality dictates that the process won't happen overnight. However, the best way to quicken the pace is to pass the word. Let others know that there is a thriving movement out there like this that continues to gain steam. Contact party leadership about assisting with the Associations. In other words, empower yourself to help craft this party. This is a bottom up movement rather than top down. All ideas and suggestions are welcome and encouraged.

Best regards,

Executive Committee

The Modern Whig Party
[Link: www.modernwhig.org...]

36 Slim_Junior  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:03:53am

Yep. One tree in Siberia.

37 jamesfirecat  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:03:57am

re: #19 karmic_inquisitor

On a different front -

The Catholic journal "First Things" rips into intelligent design with "The End of Intelligent Design?"

A damning paragraph:

The point? ID claims bolster atheism.

Brilliant.

You know, stuff like this almost makes me want to forgive the Catholic Church's remarkably foolish stance on birth control and a few other issues I could name...

38 jaunte  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:04:39am

re: #36 Slim_Junior

Yep. One tree in Siberia.

Must be a commie tree.

39 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:04:58am

re: #19 karmic_inquisitor

On a different front -

The Catholic journal "First Things" rips into intelligent design with "The End of Intelligent Design?"

The point? ID claims bolster atheism.

Brilliant.

And First Things has several creationist bloggers currently writing for them who are going to be very pissed off at that article.

40 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:05:08am

re: #30 Charles

The RSM article keeps hitting the same points that I see pop up over and over again by deniers and 'skeptics'-- science has been wrong before, those who support AGW act like it's a 'religion', it's a 'high temple'. Deniers are desperate to compare belief in AGW, or trust in scientists, with religion.

41 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:05:12am

re: #30 Charles

In this interview, Phil Jones is simply repeating the exact same caveats that climate scientists ALWAYS state, when they talk about warming trends and the "medieval warm period." There is nothing new in this interview -- the hype by the denial industry is utterly dishonest.

Anyone can see that the Daily Mail article is being very dishonest with this article. Really, the BBC article is straight forward and offers no editorial.

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

42 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:06:38am

re: #33 Walter L. Newton

Isn't it about showing a problem in the code that led to an actual inaccuracy in the output?

43 jamesfirecat  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:07:13am

re: #36 Slim_Junior

Yep. One tree in Siberia.

I don't get it....

44 freetoken  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:07:23am

re: #13 Charles


I've concluded that this claim that there has been no warming for the past ten years is exactly like a creationist claim.


The analogy I think would be to the "missing link" ruse creationists use.

Just as each new fossil, in the creationists' mind, does not show descent but just opens two new gaps of "missing links", in the minds of the AGW science deniers each restatement of some statistical reanalysis of temperature data doesn't inform but rather only proves that there is some missing (measurement %P% statistical "trick" %P% undisclosed conspiracy of scientists) about temperatures, and thus AGW is false.

45 Killgore Trout  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:09:01am

re: #31 Killgore Trout

I wonder if that's another failed underwear bomb. Looks like it might be from the location of the explosion. The black thing that flies out appears to be his shoe.

46 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:09:03am

re: #34 SixDegrees

As far as I know, the Catholic Church has never bought into Creationism, has never been opposed to evolutionary theory, and has actively sponsored research into evolution.

The Church has no difficulty reconciling it's own views with scientific findings, and tends to see the two realms as complementary rather than antagonistic.

My father was told by the nuns who taught his elementary school, back in the 50s, that evolution appears, by the evidence, to be the means that God chose to use to create.

Three years ago, when I was teaching at a Catholic elementary/middle school, the science teacher down the hall was teaching the kids the same thing.

47 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:09:15am

re: #42 Obdicut

Isn't it about showing a problem in the code that led to an actual inaccuracy in the output?

What part of TOMORROW NIGHT didn't you understand

TOMORROW ,,,, Monday 2/15 2010,,,,the day after today ,,,,,,,
NIGHT ,,,,, post morning/ afternoon ,,,,, dark early this time of year

Got it!?!?!

48 freetoken  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:09:56am

re: #24 Buck

Believe it or not, the large physical system models of the Earth's climate do indeed show many periods (multiple years) of variations in temperatures.

This is because they include they try to model the chaotic nature of Earth's climate.

Multiple runs are made and then can be graphed, and one can see the distribution of possibilities.

49 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:09:57am

re: #45 Killgore Trout

I wonder if that's another failed underwear bomb. Looks like it might be from the location of the explosion. The black thing that flies out appears to be his shoe.

he kept his underwear in his shoe !?!?!?!
/

50 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:10:43am

re: #48 freetoken

And, I might add, there are at least four high-quality climate models that accurately model historical climate. They demonstrably work.

51 karmic_inquisitor  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:10:45am

re: #29 lawhawk

If something is not at the 95% confidence level, Jones is saying that there's still a range of possibilities for the sample size that could be within the margin of error.

FWIW, there is general misconception about what a 95% (or any other) confidence interval is.

Many come away with the idea that it means "we are 95% sure the actual value is in this range". That is a common but incorrect interpretation.

The only thing that a confidence interval can ever describe is the set of data used in the calculation. That is definitional and inescapable. So more accurate description of what it represents is this - "were we to take the same number of samples in a number of separate efforts using the same methods, we could expect to arrive at a predicted value that would fall in that range 95% of the time."

So when you see a very wide 95% confidence interval, that is telling you that the number of samples are smaller and/or the variability in their values is greater than a set of samples that would produce a smaller confidence interval.

Again - a confidence interval only describes the sample - if it could describe the accuracy of the prediction with any precision, then there'd be no need for it - we'd simply "correct" the prediction.

52 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:10:45am

re: #33 Walter L. Newton

And to address a point, my essay is not about disproving climate change, it is about faulty process, procedure and policy that is related to the programming and data handling at CRU.

And you've promised that you're going to show that actual inaccurate results were produced, not simply that the "process, procedure, and policy" were deficient.

53 Ojoe  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:11:07am

re: #46 SanFranciscoZionist

The Catholic Church "gets it."

They have had several millenia to figure things out.

54 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:11:56am

re: #42 Obdicut

Isn't it about showing a problem in the code that led to an actual inaccuracy in the output?

I owe you no explanation as to what is contained in my monograph. Read it tomorrow.

55 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:12:11am

re: #53 Ojoe

The Catholic Church "gets it."

They have had several millenia to figure things out.

And after the embarrassment with the heliocentrism thing, have determined not to get caught lagging on the scientific acceptance again...

//

56 jamesfirecat  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:12:17am

re: #34 SixDegrees

As far as I know, the Catholic Church has never bought into Creationism, has never been opposed to evolutionary theory, and has actively sponsored research into evolution.

The Church has no difficulty reconciling it's own views with scientific findings, and tends to see the two realms as complementary rather than antagonistic.

Well the Catholic Church has a black mark on the science issue in many people's minds because of the entire Galileo thing, though from what I understand he mainly got in such hot water (and it was only house arrest) for making claims that he couldn't properly support/prove at the time, and because he'd stepped on the wrong toes politically....

57 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:13:10am

re: #50 Obdicut

And, I might add, there are at least four high-quality climate models that accurately model historical climate. They demonstrably work.

And do these four models rely on any shared data?

58 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:13:24am

re: #56 jamesfirecat

What people forget is that the Catholic Church was the main astrological researcher during that time period. A lot of the flack with Galileo was because he was an ass to Church researchers.

He did not in any way deserve what was done, and the Church deserves the black mark, but they actually did a bunch of good astronomy back then as well.

59 jamesfirecat  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:14:26am

re: #58 Obdicut

What people forget is that the Catholic Church was the main astrological researcher during that time period. A lot of the flack with Galileo was because he was an ass to Church researchers.

He did not in any way deserve what was done, and the Church deserves the black mark, but they actually did a bunch of good astronomy back then as well.

Well of course they did it was "the study of the heavens" after all, so makes perfect sense that the Church would be interested in it.

60 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:14:26am

re: #52 Charles

And you've promised that you're going to show that actual inaccurate results were produced, not simply that the "process, procedure, and policy" were deficient.

Both...

61 SixDegrees  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:14:50am

re: #46 SanFranciscoZionist

My father was told by the nuns who taught his elementary school, back in the 50s, that evolution appears, by the evidence, to be the means that God chose to use to create.

Three years ago, when I was teaching at a Catholic elementary/middle school, the science teacher down the hall was teaching the kids the same thing.

That's been my understanding of the Catholic position, as well. They have, in fact, taken positions rather stridently opposed to Creationism in recent years, rescinding invitations to Creationists to attend conferences sponsored by the Church on modern evolutionary thinking. Catholicism seems quite comfortable with the notion that God may have created a rather complex Creation, whose details take time to tease out with the tools we've been given.

62 karmic_inquisitor  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:15:14am

re: #56 jamesfirecat

Well the Catholic Church has a black mark on the science issue in many people's minds because of the entire Galileo thing, though from what I understand he mainly got in such hot water (and it was only house arrest) for making claims that he couldn't properly support/prove at the time, and because he'd stepped on the wrong toes politically...

That was a very long time ago. The Church is a very conservative organization and is slow to change but it does have a track record of correcting itself, although often well after the harm is done.

63 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:16:14am

re: #58 Obdicut

What people forget is that the Catholic Church was the main astrological researcher during that time period. A lot of the flack with Galileo was because he was an ass to Church researchers.

He did not in any way deserve what was done, and the Church deserves the black mark, but they actually did a bunch of good astronomy back then as well.

So, he should have been more polite in his Ptolemy denial? And I think you meant "astronomical."

64 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:16:37am

re: #57 Walter L. Newton

Any? Yes, of course. I'm not sure what relevance you feel that question has.

Given that we have so many vast domains of overlapping data on modern temperatures, the temperature record for this past century, at any rate, is really not in dispute.

Here's the ever-ready skepticalscience on the temperature record:

[Link: www.skepticalscience.com...]

65 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:16:49am

re: #46 SanFranciscoZionist

My father was told by the nuns who taught his elementary school, back in the 50s, that evolution appears, by the evidence, to be the means that God chose to use to create.

Three years ago, when I was teaching at a Catholic elementary/middle school, the science teacher down the hall was teaching the kids the same thing.

I was in Catholic Elementary School in the 50's and 60s, followed by Catholic High School and we were consistantly taught that

66 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:17:33am

re: #64 Obdicut

Any? Yes, of course. I'm not sure what relevance you feel that question has.

Given that we have so many vast domains of overlapping data on modern temperatures, the temperature record for this past century, at any rate, is really not in dispute.

Here's the ever-ready skepticalscience on the temperature record:

[Link: www.skepticalscience.com...]

You'll see on Monday.

67 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:18:00am
68 freetoken  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:18:21am

re: #45 Killgore Trout

When I see something like that I never know what to think. How could anyone (the local bomber-wanna-be in this case) think that by carrying a small, ineffective explosive device he is going to take on a platoon of trained soldiers with multiple weapons at their disposal?

69 Gus  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:18:26am

re: #43 jamesfirecat

I don't get it...

Based on a story by Christopher Booker in the Telegraph UK claiming that one tree in Siberia was the basis for "distorting" climate data. He came to this conspiracy based on the CRU emails.

Some notes on Christopher Booker:

Booker has also claimed that "scientific evidence to support [the] belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist"[9] and that there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans". He has also been critical of BBC Radio 4's Today Programme, claiming that they had "crudely distorted" the debate between defenders of the the theory of Intelligent Design and Darwinians and that the BBC "went out of their way to ignore the fact that the proponents of "intelligent design" are scientists". Darwinists, claimed Booker, "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions".

70 Achilles Tang  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:18:36am

Snowing like crazy here now, but it is at least 10 degrees warmer than yesterday, so there Daily Mail!

71 jamesfirecat  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:18:46am

re: #62 karmic_inquisitor

That was a very long time ago. The Church is a very conservative organization and is slow to change but it does have a track record of correcting itself, although often well after the harm is done.

359 Years after the harm is done in the case of how long it took them to pardon Galileo, but yes their "heart" does seem to be the right place....

72 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:18:53am

re: #60 Walter L. Newton

Both...

I'm only interested in your claim that the code produced actual inaccurate results, and the offer I made to you was contingent on you being able to prove that.

73 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:19:25am

re: #63 Walter L. Newton

Ugh. I did mean astronomical. Thank you for the correction.

I'm just pointing out that, as well as cursing the church for their persecution of Galileo, we should also thank them for the amount of astrological researcher they did. They're kind of like that one creationist dude who does good temperature record work, even though he denies global warming.

74 jamesfirecat  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:20:45am

re: #73 Obdicut

Ugh. I did mean astronomical. Thank you for the correction.

I'm just pointing out that, as well as cursing the church for their persecution of Galileo, we should also thank them for the amount of astrological researcher they did. They're kind of like that one creationist dude who does good temperature record work, even though he denies global warming.

God Bless the idiots who work so hard to disprove their own claims, even if they never realize it....

75 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:21:03am

re: #73 Obdicut

Astronomical! Astronomical!

I need more coffee.

76 Killgore Trout  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:21:55am

re: #68 freetoken

When I see something like that I never know what to think. How could anyone (the local bomber-wanna-be in this case) think that by carrying a small, ineffective explosive device he is going to take on a platoon of trained soldiers with multiple weapons at their disposal?

I suspect that He had a fairly deadly bomb strapped to him that only partially exploded. Looks like only the detonator went off. He was probably waiting to be arrested before blowing himself up when the soldiers came closer. After he got shot he figured the gig was up and teir to detonate. The dud explosion wasn't even enough to kill himself much less anyone else.

77 freetoken  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:22:02am

re: #50 Obdicut

Yes, "hindcasting" is a technique used to show that physical climate models do indeed reasonably represent the world as measured.

78 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:22:58am

re: #72 Charles

I'm only interested in your claim that the code produced actual inaccurate results, and the offer I made to you was contingent on you being able to prove that.

It will... and to show that there has been inaccuracies in the code and data there is no way to eliminate a discussion on the bad procedures that lead to those mistakes.

Are you changing your mind?

79 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:23:21am

re: #74 jamesfirecat

Well, they're not always idiots. The paths to discovery are not clear. Lavoisier was one of the most brilliant chemists to ever live, but he got enormous amounts of things about oxygen wrong. It's hard for one scientist to get everything right-- that's why the scientific community having free interaction is so important. It's a reason why the US beat the pants of the USSR in scientific research.

80 exelwood  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:23:25am

How does this; "yes, but only just", square with; "the last ten years are the warmest in recorded history", sooo confusing! :)

81 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:24:01am

re: #76 Killgore Trout

Entropy falls on terrorist and civilian alike.

82 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:24:08am

OT, BTW, skimming around the internet on this bright Sunday morning, I note that the Blog That Shall Not Be Named here had a thread yesterday about how 'Latino' is a racist term, yadda yadda. Illustrated with that famous bronze of Romulus and Remus nursing from the wolf. Their caption?

Below is a statue in Rome of the She wolf God sent to take care of Romulus and Remus. The Twins founded Rome and the Latin Culture.

Am I alone in finding the Christianization, and hence implicit endorsement of Rome's founding myth deeply funny?

83 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:24:14am

re: #78 Walter L. Newton

It will... and to show that there has been inaccuracies in the code and data there is no way to eliminate a discussion on the bad procedures that lead to those mistakes.

Are you changing your mind?

No, I've been extremely clear about this from the start. The deal is that you are going to PROVE that inaccurate data was actually produced, not simply that the processes were flawed, or that inaccurate data COULD have been produced. I've stated this over and over.

84 jamesfirecat  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:24:18am

re: #79 Obdicut

Well, they're not always idiots. The paths to discovery are not clear. Lavoisier was one of the most brilliant chemists to ever live, but he got enormous amounts of things about oxygen wrong. It's hard for one scientist to get everything right-- that's why the scientific community having free interaction is so important. It's a reason why the US beat the pants of the USSR in scientific research.

You're right sorry.

Let me revise.

G-d bless all those who work to help lift the veil of ignorance from others, even if they remain covered in it themselves....

85 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:24:23am

re: #75 Obdicut

Astronomical! Astronomical!

I need more coffee.

Cream, sugar?

86 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:24:44am

re: #80 exelwood

Acceleration vs. velocity.

It has been warming unprecedentedly, which means it is now unprecedentedly warm. The rate of warming now doesn't change that.

87 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:25:09am

re: #83 Charles

No, I've been extremely clear about this from the start. The deal is that you are going to PROVE that inaccurate data was produced, not simply that the processes were flawed, or that inaccurate data COULD have been produced. I've stated this over and over.

re: #723 Charles

OK, then go ahead and post whatever you think makes your case. I seriously doubt that you're going to be able to show an "inaccuracy," which is what you claimed. And quibbling over quick and dirty methods used to parse a flat file is not the same thing as demonstrating that the code produced inaccurate results.

88 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:25:32am

re: #23 Rightwingconspirator

I hate to repeat a post but this one from downstairs would have been much better to wait for this thread-So here I go again

Quibbles and echoes of quibbles.
I see most of the serious arguments are about effects of AGW, as in exaggerated claims such as the glaciers in 2025. A forecast of when they will disappear was a stupid thing to attempt. Lets say it will be 3035.Does that change the fact they are going away?

Except these...

Argentine glacier advances despite warming

Glaciers in Norway Growing Again

Stubborn glaciers fail to retreat, awkward polar bears continue to multiply

Himalayan Glaciers Seem to Be Growing

There are many more stories like these. I fail to see reasons for the alarmism about melting glaciers. There are plenty of them growing.

89 SixDegrees  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:26:03am

re: #55 SanFranciscoZionist

re: #55 SanFranciscoZionist

And after the embarrassment with the heliocentrism thing, have determined not to get caught lagging on the scientific acceptance again...

//

Well, even the Galileo affair is something of a red herring. In fact, the Church was ambivalent over heliocentrism at the time. Their disagreement with Galileo was over his unflattering portrayal of the Pope in his Two New Sciences, where he was cast as a stereotypical fool, and his violation of the terms of his imprimatur, the license to publish issued by the Church, which plainly allowed him to publish evidence supporting heliocentrism but which forbade him to favor one side - or the other - in the argument over which was correct, a restriction which Galileo rather flagrantly ignored.

For more details on this fascinating episode, see Dava Sobel's excellent Galileo's Daughter, which examines historical documents concerning Galileo's persecution in detail, and which has an especially heartwarming "surprise" ending.

90 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:26:11am

re: #87 Walter L. Newton

It sounds like you're beginning to back away from your claim that you're going to prove an actual case of inaccurate data.

91 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:27:02am

re: #90 Charles

It sounds like you're beginning to back away from your claim that you're going to prove an actual case of inaccurate data.

Nope... I asked you, do you want to change your mind? You said I could post whatever I wanted to prove my case... it will be proved... with whatever material I want... right?

re: #723 Charles

OK, then go ahead and post whatever you think makes your case. I seriously doubt that you're going to be able to show an "inaccuracy," which is what you claimed. And quibbling over quick and dirty methods used to parse a flat file is not the same thing as demonstrating that the code produced inaccurate results.

92 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:27:47am

re: #89 SixDegrees

This is an excellent textual research site for the trial itself.

[Link: www.law.umkc.edu...]

93 Gus  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:27:51am

re: #25 Charles

Meanwhile, white supremacist Robert Stacy McCain makes the connection between creationism and AGW denial even more obvious, with a blatantly anti-science post at his hate blog:

[Link: theothermccain.com...]

What a pathetic screed:

The assertion that Science has all the answers to every important question, and that no answers are to be found in any ”unscientific” source, is arrogant in the extreme. This assertion is offensive to anyone who has studied the history of science, for that history is littered with once-fashioable [sic] theories that have been discarded as not merely false, but dangerous. It is not hyperbole to say that the infamous dictators of the 20th century — Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot — all believed their tyrranies [sic] were justified by Science. Nor is it irrelevant to point out that all of these murderous madmen shared a contempt for religion and traditional morality.

Notice the typos and the capitalization of science as if though it was an ideology. According to Robert S. McCain, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, et al, promoted their ideologies based on science therefore science must be feared. Ergo, he is calling them men of science thus they also "shared a contempt for religion and traditional morality" which he equates with their "murderous" history.

94 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:28:30am

8 laps into Daytona ,,,

BOOM ,,,,,

Non of the top drivers were involved (Sam Hornish ,, brad Kesolowski(sp?) the biggest names)

95 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:28:39am

re: #88 NJDhockeyfan

Except these...

Argentine glacier advances despite warming

Glaciers in Norway Growing Again

Stubborn glaciers fail to retreat, awkward polar bears continue to multiply

Himalayan Glaciers Seem to Be Growing

There are many more stories like these. I fail to see reasons for the alarmism about melting glaciers. There are plenty of them growing.

This tedious propaganda really gets old.

Here are some scientific facts about the earth's glaciers:

An overview of glacier trends.

The bottom line is very simple, and no amount of propaganda will change it -- glaciers ARE melting at a rapid pace, and global warming is responsible for it.

96 SixDegrees  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:29:22am

re: #63 Walter L. Newton

So, he should have been more polite in his Ptolemy denial?

Actually, he should have striven to be less of an ass than he was. See my post, above, for an excellent book on the topic.

97 zora  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:30:05am

[Link: nashvillecitypaper.com...]

Commmunity reaches out to local islamic center after hate crime. I saw this on Sullivan's blog and thought it was worth sharing.

98 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:30:08am

re: #96 SixDegrees

Actually, he should have striven to be less of an ass than he was. See my post, above, for an excellent book on the topic.

My comment was sarcasm.

99 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:30:25am

re: #91 Walter L. Newton

Walter, I'm increasingly convinced, based on your blustering about it, that you don't have the goods -- and you're not going to be able to prove that ACTUAL false results were produced. We'll see, but I seriously doubt you're going to prove what you said you would prove.

100 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:32:02am

re: #93 Gus 802

Notice the typos and the capitalization of science as if though it was an ideology. According to Robert S. McCain, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, et al, promoted their ideologies based on science therefore science must be feared. Ergo, he is calling them men of science thus they also "shared a contempt for religion and traditional morality" which he equates with their "murderous" history.

McCain is a complete idiot, and he proved it with that incredibly stupid post.

101 SixDegrees  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:32:19am

re: #98 Walter L. Newton

My comment was sarcasm.

Noted. I didn't really think otherwise

102 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:32:33am

re: #93 Gus 802

Notice the typos and the capitalization of science as if though it was an ideology. According to Robert S. McCain, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, et al, promoted their ideologies based on science therefore science must be feared. Ergo, he is calling them men of science thus they also "shared a contempt for religion and traditional morality" which he equates with their "murderous" history.

So, ergo, he should like the modern Islamic terrorist. They're all down with religion and traditional morality, right?

/

103 The Sanity Inspector  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:33:12am

...except for the peculiar use of the word “blip” showing a mind boggling lack of understanding of statistics for someone reporting on science...

Science reporters misunderstanding a scientific matter is a dog bites man story if there ever was one.

104 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:33:20am

re: #102 SanFranciscoZionist

So, ergo, he should like the modern Islamic terrorist. They're all down with religion and traditional morality, right?

/

Yeah ,, but do they make TYPOS!?!?!

/

105 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:33:36am

re: #104 sattv4u2

Yeah ,, but do they make TYPOS!?!?!

/

Only in Arabic.

106 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:33:54am

re: #99 Charles

Walter, I'm increasingly convinced, based on your blustering about it, that you don't have the goods -- and you're not going to be able to prove that ACTUAL false results were produced. We'll see, but I seriously doubt you're going to prove what you said you would prove.

And all I am asking you is... are you changing your mind? The way you are tacking on this, as soon as I post the monograph, you can claim that it doesn't meet your "peer review" and simply delete it.

I would rather have the Lizard community look it over and see if my points are addressed. If they are not, then I am the one who is going to look stupid.

But, it's your blog, if you don't want me to post it, I won't, if you want to delete it as soon as I post it, you will.

I'm the only one who has anything to loose.

107 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:34:10am

re: #105 SanFranciscoZionist

Only in Arabic.

How does one mispell KA BLOOMERS!!?!?!

108 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:34:59am

Well pardon me if I agree with Mr. Jones that 95% "statistical significance" is a reasonable precondition to maintaining that a statistical fact is settled.

109 Gus  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:35:03am

re: #102 SanFranciscoZionist

So, ergo, he should like the modern Islamic terrorist. They're all down with religion and traditional morality, right?

/

And they fought against the occupying Soviet (Stalinesque) forces in Afghanistan.

/

110 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:35:40am

re: #106 Walter L. Newton

I'm the only one who has anything to loose.

I always knew you were a loose man

Anyone that would have Cato and his blow up Sara Palin doll as quests , ,,, welll

111 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:36:01am

re: #106 Walter L. Newton

And all I am asking you is... are you changing your mind? The way you are tacking on this, as soon as I post the monograph, you can claim that it doesn't meet your "peer review" and simply delete it.

I would rather have the Lizard community look it over and see if my points are addressed. If they are not, then I am the one who is going to look stupid.

But, it's your blog, if you don't want me to post it, I won't, if you want to delete it as soon as I post it, you will.

I'm the only one who has anything to loose.

The way you're tacking on this, I see someone laying the groundwork for backing away from his exaggerated claims, and setting it up so that you can be a victim when you fail to prove what you promised you were going to prove.

112 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:37:36am

re: #109 Gus 802

And they fought against the occupying Soviet (Stalinesque) forces in Afghanistan.

/

They did that...

It was sort of funny, for those of us who remembered, watching the same people who'd spoken of the 'mujahedeen' in such approving terms begin to use the term 'jihadist' with contempt. What a difference a language, and about fifteen years, makes.

Afghanistan has been through the goddamn wringer.

113 freetoken  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:37:43am

re: #103 The Sanity Inspector

One of the more depressing things I can do is to wander the world wide web, come across a "science" article written by a supposed "science journalist"... and find it full of inaccurate or misleading language.

Science journalism has become a bit of a hot topic in the science blogging circles. There is lament over how the end of the traditional journalism industry is causing a large cut in the $ put into science journalism.

This gets me back to my latest bug-a-boo - the harmful side effects of the WW Web. It's like every idiot now has a nuclear powered megaphone, and by simply screaming the loudest and longest truth can be determined.

114 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:39:09am

re: #113 freetoken

The state of science reporting is terrible. Even honest, earnest reporters tend to lack the basic grounding the subjects that they need.

It's part of what fuels the general public's distrust of science; every week, it seems like, there's a headline about how we cured cancer.

115 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:39:19am

HERE'S AN IDEA

Why don't we all wait till Walter posts his "paper" and at that time we can be critical of or praise it?

And WALTER ,,, on YOUR end, perhaps you could ignore any calls to address it until that time

116 exelwood  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:39:26am

re: #83 Charles

No, I've been extremely clear about this from the start. The deal is that you are going to PROVE that inaccurate data was actually produced, not simply that the processes were flawed, or that inaccurate data COULD have been produced. I've stated this over and over.

Here's an interesting site for denier wonks that has some fascinating analysis of the code from actual programmers. Read the whole site but the comments of this section have responses from people who can actually code. There are about 100 comments, keep reading.

[Link: bishophill.squarespace.com...]

117 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:40:17am

re: #111 Charles

The way you're tacking on this, I see someone laying the groundwork for backing away from his exaggerated claims, and setting it up so that you can be a victim when you fail to prove what you promised you were going to prove.

Me a victim? Wow... I've said it many times before. I enjoy this place, you have a wonderful blog and I enjoy both the agreements and disagreements that you and I have, and the repartee that goes on here, but my life or my self worth does not revolve around it.

No... if it doesn't get deleted after I post it, I am certainly capable of handling the critiques that certainly will come, pro or con.

I don't think anyone on LGF would suggest that I have some sort of victim mentality. That's actually funny.

118 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:40:59am

re: #115 sattv4u2

HERE'S AN IDEA

Why don't we all wait till Walter posts his "paper" and at that time we can be critical of or praise it?

And WALTER ,,, on YOUR end, perhaps you could ignore any calls to address it until that time

The member is out of order and will kindly take his seat.

119 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:41:17am

re: #118 Spare O'Lake

The member is out of order and will kindly take his seat.

YOU LIE!
/

120 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:42:28am

OT:

God, l love Survivorman.

Get to see such beautiful areas, and really understand the challenges to survival in them.

121 Gus  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:42:32am

re: #112 SanFranciscoZionist

They did that...

It was sort of funny, for those of us who remembered, watching the same people who'd spoken of the 'mujahedeen' in such approving terms begin to use the term 'jihadist' with contempt. What a difference a language, and about fifteen years, makes.

Afghanistan has been through the goddamn wringer.

Yes, some say they were once our allies but others would say merely pawns in the Cold War. The latter of which was the cause for the eventual destruction of our relationships (whatever there was) with the mujahedeen and the subsequent transformation into jihadist.

122 reine.de.tout  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:42:43am

re: #75 Obdicut

Astronomical! Astronomical!

I need more coffee.

Or quit relying on astrology.
LOL

123 jamesfirecat  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:43:46am

re: #118 Spare O'Lake

The member is out of order and will kindly take his seat.

That's right, we want to see more pointless posturing!

;)

/////

(And any other symbols I should throw into make it clear that this is a joke...)

124 SixDegrees  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:43:47am

re: #115 sattv4u2

HERE'S AN IDEA

Why don't we all wait till Walter posts his "paper" and at that time we can be critical of or praise it?

And WALTER ,,, on YOUR end, perhaps you could ignore any calls to address it until that time

I agree. There's way too much predisposition taking place already, and way too many words being put in other's mouths that haven't even been uttered, let alone by the parties involved.

125 The Sanity Inspector  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:45:21am

re: #113 freetoken

One of the more depressing things I can do is to wander the world wide web, come across a "science" article written by a supposed "science journalist"... and find it full of inaccurate or misleading language.

Science journalism has become a bit of a hot topic in the science blogging circles. There is lament over how the end of the traditional journalism industry is causing a large cut in the $ put into science journalism.

This gets me back to my latest bug-a-boo - the harmful side effects of the WW Web. It's like every idiot now has a nuclear powered megaphone, and by simply screaming the loudest and longest truth can be determined.

Hard to be a gatekeeper when the walls are down, yes.

126 exelwood  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:45:43am

re: #86 Obdicut

Acceleration vs. velocity.

It has been warming unprecedentedly, which means it is now unprecedentedly warm. The rate of warming now doesn't change that.

IYCDTWBBTWBS :)

127 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:45:51am

re: #124 SixDegrees

I agree. There's way too much predisposition taking place already, and way too many words being put in other's mouths that haven't even been uttered, let alone by the parties involved.

Part of that may have to do with my shameless self promoting that I have been doing... which I will freely admit to.

128 Varek Raith  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:45:56am

re: #3 Slim_Junior

re: #5 MTF

Do you all have something akin to the Bat Signal, or some such???

129 Red Pencil  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:46:04am

re: #113 freetoken


This gets me back to my latest bug-a-boo - the harmful side effects of the WW Web. It's like every idiot now has a nuclear powered megaphone, and by simply screaming the loudest and longest truth can be determined.

The World Wide Web is like democracy, with the added craziness of "proportional representation". Everyone has an equal voice but the 5% craziest/most ideological/shrillest voices are the loudest.

It would be nice if all citizens (or netizens) actually had a feakin clue, but you imposing a netizenship test is even less of an option than a citizenship test... best hope is to educate those who may be educated.

130 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:47:37am

re: #127 Walter L. Newton

Part of that may have to do with my shameless self promoting that I have been doing... which I will freely admit to.

Don't get me wrong, Walter. Someone asks you about it, state (as you have) it will be posted tomorrow night

Beyond stating that however, nada until then, imho

131 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:47:52am

re: #120 Obdicut

Les or Bear?

To me? Bear seems a tad more of teh crazy.

132 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:48:01am

re: #128 Varek Raith

re: #5 MTF

Do you all have something akin to the Bat Signal, or some such???

Same tin foil brand!

133 jamesfirecat  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:48:36am

re: #128 Varek Raith

re: #5 MTF

Do you all have something akin to the Bat Signal, or some such???

Quick Cooling Lad, it looks like Lizard Lips is posting factual information about Global Warming with the intent!

Gee wilikers Denial man, how can we ever stop him?

I don't know old chum, but quick the to Denial Mobile!

134 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:48:46am

re: #130 sattv4u2

Will you come to my house and explain it to me?

135 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:48:47am

re: #131 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Bear's a faker. Les isn't. Les does it alone, and genuinely loves nature. Bear is entertaining, but he's not for real.

136 Decatur Deb  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:48:51am

re: #46 SanFranciscoZionist

My father was told by the nuns who taught his elementary school, back in the 50s, that evolution appears, by the evidence, to be the means that God chose to use to create.

Three years ago, when I was teaching at a Catholic elementary/middle school, the science teacher down the hall was teaching the kids the same thing.

All that is consistent with my '50s Baltimore Catechism drill. Note that individual catholic politicians, not theologians, drop happily into creationist ideas much like those of some protestants. Item: Jindal.

137 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:48:59am

Did someone mention velocity?


Youtube Video
138 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:49:06am

re: #131 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Les or Bear?

To me? Bear seems a tad more of teh crazy.

But Bear has a crew with him

Les (didn't know that was his name), not so much ,, he's alone out there

139 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:49:28am

re: #132 sattv4u2

Same tin foil brand!

Is the Safeway brand good enough to put me on the important signal lists? I could buy Reynolds, I think it's a little better, but it's more expensive...

Decisions, decisions.

140 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:49:45am

re: #123 jamesfirecat

That's right, we want to see more pointless posturing!

;)

///

(And any other symbols I should throw into make it clear that this is a joke...)

Why not think of it as a televised pre-fight weigh-in press conference.
Enjoy!

141 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:50:00am

re: #117 Walter L. Newton

You have to prove that ACTUAL inaccurate data was produced in the real world. Not simply that it could have been, with a certain combination of code and data. That's what I told you at the very beginning. That was the deal. Show proof of actual inaccurate data produced by the CRU code.

I've already read several of your very long comments about this, and in none of those comments have you ever demonstrated that inaccurate data was produced. Your criticisms have been about sloppy coding procedures, poor commenting, etc.

If you don't prove it after such a large amount of blustering, it's your credibility that will suffer. And I'm not going to be taken in by several thousand words about the bad procedures and processes.

Money where your mouth is.

142 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:50:44am

Deniers work on the principle of the "big lie." They tirelessly repeat lies and breathlessly talk as if they have discovered something "new" amidst continuously rehashed and debunked nonsense.

This works because the average person is unwilling to research for themselves. Rather than making the minimal effort it takes to understan basic science, they would rather read a "false dispute" and decide based on personality and propaganda.

The deniers exist based on a false legitimacy granted by false news reports which are of course funded by political and financial interests. It is hard for me to decide which I detest more.

The stupid one who frankly just parrot the party line and are incapable of looking at data if it would save their lives (and in this case it really would) or the propagandists who work tirelessly to persuade the gullible to drag down everyone. I don't know whether I detest the faithful, but stupid and arrogant, or the corrupt clergy of the denier faith.

Once again a plea, if you have any doubts at all about the science, ask a scientist. Read a science paper. Get the truth. IT is not hidden. Don't trust tabloids or politically motivated liars.

143 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:50:46am

re: #134 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Will you come to my house and explain it to me?

I'll send my 15 year old high school sophomore son who takes AP courses!

144 jamesfirecat  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:51:07am

re: #140 Spare O'Lake

Why not think of it as a televised pre-fight weigh-in press conference.
Enjoy!

Well first I plan to take a nip out of his ear bite off his ear and then I'm gonna help myself to some of his shoulder....

145 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:51:37am

re: #135 Obdicut

You'll get an ulcer if you keep holding back.

I base what I said on what Bear eats... And when he climbed inside the camel's carcass.

If that ain't "teh kwazy"...

146 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:51:52am

re: #143 sattv4u2

I'll send my 15 year old high school sophomore son who takes AP courses!

After he explains it to you?

147 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:52:21am

re: #136 Decatur Deb

All that is consistent with my '50s Baltimore Catechism drill. Note that individual catholic politicians, not theologians, drop happily into creationist ideas much like those of some protestants. Item: Jindal.

There's a whole group of Catholics out there who seem to flock to weird conservative Protestant ideas, and without being rude to Jindal, I note that there are a lot of converts who seem attracted to such things.

There's also the Latin mass people, the Pius X people, the anti-Vatican II people, the homeschooling because the local Catholic school isn't hardcore enough people, the alternative Pope people...it's quite a crowd out there.

148 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:52:34am

re: #146 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

After he explains it to you?

I ain't even gonna have him waste his time!

149 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:52:54am

re: #147 SanFranciscoZionist

And Mel Gibson.

150 jamesfirecat  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:53:13am

re: #147 SanFranciscoZionist

There's a whole group of Catholics out there who seem to flock to weird conservative Protestant ideas, and without being rude to Jindal, I note that there are a lot of converts who seem attracted to such things.

There's also the Latin mass people, the Pius X people, the anti-Vatican II people, the homeschooling because the local Catholic school isn't hardcore enough people, the alternative Pope people...it's quite a crowd out there.

Yeah you'd almost get the feeling they're diverse as Protestants!

;)

151 Decatur Deb  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:54:31am

re: #147 SanFranciscoZionist

There's a whole group of Catholics out there who seem to flock to weird conservative Protestant ideas, and without being rude to Jindal, I note that there are a lot of converts who seem attracted to such things.

There's also the Latin mass people, the Pius X people, the anti-Vatican II people, the homeschooling because the local Catholic school isn't hardcore enough people, the alternative Pope people...it's quite a crowd out there.

It's a "Big Baldecchino" church.

152 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:56:38am

re: #142 ludwigvanquixote

Does the fact that I don't believe my Jeep is causing global warming make me a bad person?

153 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:56:51am

re: #149 Obdicut

And Mel Gibson.

Yes. Also Mel Gibson.

Who is somehow despite his hardcore neo-Catholic beliefs, divorcing his wife of 28 years and having a baby with a younger woman.

What use is a hardcore, bigoted, fundamentalist take on religion if it actually prevents you from doing whatever you want?

Feh.

154 karmic_inquisitor  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:57:20am

The whole "climate debate" frustrates me immensely.

We can talk about how tree rings were measured, methods used to calibrate ice cores, how sediment samples are processed, or which glacier is doing what. We can "debate" just what the noon time temperature was on a beach bordering present day China 100,000 years ago to the date, and debate the accuracy of such a guess.

We can also debate how accurately models predict air flows over continents half the globe away from an ocean that is experiencing a change in water current due to convection.

I can also go down to a car dealership today, ask to see a white car and then argue with the salesman over how white the shade of white is that the factory selected for said car.

The car is essentially a white car to most reasonable people, even if the factory when with "peal metallic" and used a darker base this year than last. Yet, I could dig up an instrument to tell me that the "white" on the car is not as "white" as my reference "white".

So people can debate. They can debate the uncertainties. They can debate the claims and the qualifications of the people making them. They can debate motives. They can debate whatever they want.

What it won't change is this - CO2 is a greenhouse gas and industrial society using current technologies are pumping out more and more CO2 and other GHGs, and those GHGs don't precipitate out of the atmosphere at the speed they are being added. regardless of the complexity and variability intrinsic to the climate system, if you change the gas composition of the atmosphere you will change how it behaves. And if you trap more heat, it has no where to go but make the molecules all around you vibrate at a higher frequency than they would have otherwise.

The only worthwhile debate is policy, and I for one am conviced that we cannot and will not succeed in getting a global agreement on rationing carbon. The only path is to re-engineer our energy supply.

With the intermediate uncertainties accepted but the long term outcome assured (warmer planet and altered climate system), I don't know how anyone who could follow the reasoning for keeping Nukes out of Saddam's hands can't follow the reasoning for taking effective policy actions regarding this threat.

155 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:57:29am

re: #153 SanFranciscoZionist

Yeah. I have no idea how he can justify it to himself. No idea.

156 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:57:36am

re: #147 SanFranciscoZionist

There's a whole group of Catholics out there who seem to flock to weird conservative Protestant ideas, and without being rude to Jindal, I note that there are a lot of converts who seem attracted to such things.

There's also the Latin mass people, the Pius X people, the anti-Vatican II people, the homeschooling because the local Catholic school isn't hardcore enough people, the alternative Pope people...it's quite a crowd out there.

Angus Dei?

157 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:57:52am

re: #141 Charles

You have to prove that ACTUAL inaccurate data was produced in the real world. Not simply that it could have been, with a certain combination of code and data. That's what I told you at the very beginning. That was the deal. Show proof of actual inaccurate data produced by the CRU code.

I've already read several of your very long comments about this, and in none of those comments have you ever demonstrated that inaccurate data was produced. Your criticisms have been about sloppy coding procedures, poor commenting, etc.

If you don't prove it after such a large amount of blustering, it's your credibility that will suffer. And I'm not going to be taken in by several thousand words about the bad procedures and processes.

Money where your mouth is.

Thanks for pointing that out.

Yes, in my long comments in the past, I was not able to back up my assertions due to your "rule" about not posting any of the "hacked" material from the CRU servers.

But since you have now given me permission to post "whatever you think makes your case," I now have to opportunity to back up my statements with actual examples from CRU.

So, the "rules" have change, thanks to you, and I can finally take a stab at backing up my month and month of comments about this subject with some facts.

158 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:57:53am

re: #150 jamesfirecat

Yeah you'd almost get the feeling they're diverse as Protestants!

;)

You'd almost get the feeling some of them were Protestants.

./

159 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:58:20am

re: #141 Charles

You have to prove that ACTUAL inaccurate data was produced in the real world. Not simply that it could have been, with a certain combination of code and data. That's what I told you at the very beginning. That was the deal. Show proof of actual inaccurate data produced by the CRU code.

I've already read several of your very long comments about this, and in none of those comments have you ever demonstrated that inaccurate data was produced. Your criticisms have been about sloppy coding procedures, poor commenting, etc.

If you don't prove it after such a large amount of blustering, it's your credibility that will suffer. And I'm not going to be taken in by several thousand words about the bad procedures and processes.

Money where your mouth is.

Also, CRU does not produce th vast bulk of that data. They take many many different data sets that are themselves available on the web and collate them. Since that data and those data sets themselves are perr reviewd,it is hard to find anything unkosher.

What the people who want to bitch about CRU continuously fail to take into account is that the very data that they bitch about being hidden or distorted, was neither and is easily available.

In fact, I have even link the main temperature data set paper here multiple times, but bluster won out over reading. There comes a time when "la la la, I can't hear you gets desperately old.

If you want to see the data sets here it is:

[Link: hadobs.metoffice.com...]

In fact you can even download all the "hidden data."

Here is a paper based on it.

Abstract

The warming trend of the last decades is now so strong that it is discernible in local temperature observations. This opens the possibility to compare the trend to the warming predicted by comprehensive climate models (GCMs), which up to now could not be verified directly to observations on a local scale, because the signalto- noise ratio was too low. The observed temperature trend in western Europe over the last decades appears much stronger than simulated by state-of-the-art GCMs. The difference is very unlikely due to random fluctuations, either in fast weather processes or in decadal climate fluctuations. In winter and spring, changes in atmospheric circulation are important; in spring and summer changes in soil moisture and cloud cover. A misrepresentation of the North Atlantic Current affects trends along the coast. Many of these processes continue to affect trends in projections for the 21st century. This implies that climate predictions for western Europe probably underestimate the effects of anthropogenic climate change.

[Link: arxiv.org...]

160 albusteve  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:58:24am

re: #152 NJDhockeyfan

Does the fact that I don't believe my Jeep is causing global warming make me a bad person?

no worse than me, who doesn't care one way or the other

161 Varek Raith  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:58:24am

re: #158 SanFranciscoZionist

You'd almost get the feeling some of them were Protestants.

./

...I don't get it..
:P

162 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 10:58:59am

re: #156 MandyManners

Angus Dei?

Agnus. Angus Dei is a Vatican-themed steakhouse.

But yeah, they're out there too...

163 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:00:28am

re: #162 SanFranciscoZionist

Agnus. Angus Dei is a Vatican-themed steakhouse.

But yeah, they're out there too...

rare ,,, with A 1 steak sauce ,, and i'll have the rice pilaf and the mixed veggies!

164 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:00:28am

re: #157 Walter L. Newton

BTW, Walter.. I think it's cool you've found this outlet for your skills.

165 Decatur Deb  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:00:44am

re: #154 karmic_inquisitor

...snip...
The only worthwhile debate is policy, and I for one am conviced that we cannot and will not succeed in getting a global agreement on rationing carbon. The only path is to re-engineer our energy supply. .......

I've been waiting for the discussion to progress to that level for some time. Unfortunately, it collides with Valentine's Day plans.

166 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:00:57am

re: #164 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

BTW, Walter.. I think it's cool you've found this outlet for your skills.

It was either this, or carving bunnies out of ivory soap bars!

167 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:02:24am

re: #163 sattv4u2

rare ,,, with A 1 steak sauce ,, and i'll have the rice pilaf and the mixed veggies!

I have two HUGE pork chops in the refrigerator and I'm trying to figure out how to cook them.

168 Decatur Deb  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:02:27am

re: #156 MandyManners

Angus Dei?

That's a very common term, though it might be attached to some hard-core group(s). The scary bunch is Opus Dei.

169 The Shadow Do  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:02:33am

re: #141 Charles

You have to prove that ACTUAL inaccurate data was produced in the real world. Not simply that it could have been, with a certain combination of code and data. That's what I told you at the very beginning. That was the deal. Show proof of actual inaccurate data produced by the CRU code.

I've already read several of your very long comments about this, and in none of those comments have you ever demonstrated that inaccurate data was produced. Your criticisms have been about sloppy coding procedures, poor commenting, etc.

If you don't prove it after such a large amount of blustering, it's your credibility that will suffer. And I'm not going to be taken in by several thousand words about the bad procedures and processes.

Money where your mouth is.

Throwdown! My money is on Bobby Flay Charles!
/Food Channel Geek

170 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:03:27am

re: #167 NJDhockeyfan

I have two HUGE pork chops in the refrigerator and I'm trying to figure out how to cook them.

got ginger and a little orange juice!?!?!

171 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:03:35am

re: #157 Walter L. Newton

Your arrogance is astonishing. Do not hand me or anyone any of your foolishness about "changing the rules" so that you can now make a case.

I gave you the complete report on the dataset and where it came from weeks ago. But as always you plug your little ears and shout "la la la, I can't hear you." You refused to read that, but continue to spread your obnoxious lies.

I know that it is important for you to win and to be seen as clever, so you hold on to your delusions very dearly. However, it got old ages ago. If you can not look at proof when it is given to you - and proof that directly answers your slanders and other steaming piles of lies and nonsense, then there is no point in trying to educate you.

172 albusteve  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:03:55am

re: #167 NJDhockeyfan

I have two HUGE pork chops in the refrigerator and I'm trying to figure out how to cook them.

just apply heat...it takes care of itself

173 Varek Raith  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:04:17am

BBL, play nice!
;)

174 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:04:54am

re: #172 albusteve

just apply heat...it takes care of itself

Heh. That's good enough for me. I have to cook them special for the better half.

175 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:05:11am
176 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:05:12am
177 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:05:20am

re: #170 sattv4u2

got ginger and a little orange juice!?!?!

crap, neither

178 albusteve  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:05:52am

re: #174 NJDhockeyfan

Heh. That's good enough for me. I have to cook them special for the better half.

smother them in Beef-O-Roni then....works every time

179 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:05:57am

re: #175 sattv4u2

Your arrogance is astonishing.

Ggeeezz ,,, not here for even 5 minutes and you have to take a persoanl shot at someone!

SOP

180 zora  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:06:13am

re: #155 Obdicut

Yeah. I have no idea how he can justify it to himself. No idea.

He once said (years ago) in an article that his wife, who he says was a better person than him and believes in God would go to hell because she was a protestant, specifically episcopalian.

181 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:06:25am

re: #177 NJDhockeyfan

crap, neither

Got fire?

182 Unakite  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:06:26am

re: #177 NJDhockeyfan

crap, neither

Brine them, but may not have enough time now.

183 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:06:41am

re: #177 NJDhockeyfan

crap, neither

Well ,, I do ,, so send those puppies to me and i'll take care of em!

184 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:06:45am

re: #162 SanFranciscoZionist

Agnus. Angus Dei is a Vatican-themed steakhouse.

But yeah, they're out there too...

Funniest typo I've made in ages!

185 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:07:01am

re: #180 zora

So crazy. That kind of religion turns god into Jigsaw, from the Saw movies.

186 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:07:23am

re: #179 NJDhockeyfan

SOP

!?!?!?

187 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:07:38am

re: #168 Decatur Deb

That's a very common term, though it might be attached to some hard-core group(s). The scary bunch is Opus Dei.

Thanks, I just saw the typo and my brain went no further. Opus. Opus.

188 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:08:25am
189 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:08:30am

re: #187 SanFranciscoZionist

Thanks, I just saw the typo and my brain went no further. Opus. Opus.

So did mine.

190 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:08:31am

re: #187 SanFranciscoZionist

Thanks, I just saw the typo and my brain went no further. Opus. Opus.

Opus !?!?!

Image: opus_the_penguin_300.gif

191 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:08:36am

re: #178 albusteve

smother them in Beef-O-Roni then...works every time

Steve, I have to ask. Do you happen to have a lot of Beef-O-Roni lying around your house at the moment? You've mentioned it a few times in the last several threads.

192 jamesfirecat  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:08:50am

re: #186 sattv4u2

!?!?!?

Standard Operating Procedure, if I know my acronyms.

Fancy way of saying "that's par for the course for him...."

193 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:09:12am

re: #178 albusteve

smother them in Beef-O-Roni then...works every time

re: #186 sattv4u2

!?!?!?

Standard
Operating
Procedure

194 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:09:29am
195 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:09:32am
196 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:09:37am

re: #193 NJDhockeyfan

PIMF

197 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:09:44am

re: #193 NJDhockeyfan

Standard
Operating
Procedure

Oh ,,,, k ,, thanks

198 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:09:44am

re: #191 SanFranciscoZionist

He's quite the can opener.

199 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:09:45am

re: #171 ludwigvanquixote

Your arrogance is astonishing. Do not hand me or anyone any of your foolishness about "changing the rules" so that you can now make a case.

I gave you the complete report on the dataset and where it came from weeks ago. But as always you plug your little ears and shout "la la la, I can't hear you." You refused to read that, but continue to spread your obnoxious lies.

I know that it is important for you to win and to be seen as clever, so you hold on to your delusions very dearly. However, it got old ages ago. If you can not look at proof when it is given to you - and proof that directly answers your slanders and other steaming piles of lies and nonsense, then there is no point in trying to educate you.

Charles had stated in the past that he did not want any of the program code, datasets, documentation, email or misc. material that was "hacked" from the CRU servers posted on LGF.

Most of my comments in the past about the program code and datasets have been compiled from my review of this material I mention above.

But, since Charles didn't want any references to this material in any way, in an actual post or in a link, I was only able to make vague general references to what I saw as problematic.

But yes, the "rules have change," thanks to Charles. He gave me permission to both post this essay and the include any material I deem necessary to try to prove my point.

Other than that, I don't care about your opinions.

200 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:09:54am

re: #180 zora

He once said (years ago) in an article that his wife, who he says was a better person than him and believes in God would go to hell because she was a protestant, specifically episcopalian.

That's not the teaching of the Church!!!!! (she almost screamed)

201 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:10:09am
202 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:10:27am

re: #191 SanFranciscoZionist

Steve, I have to ask. Do you happen to have a lot of Beef-O-Roni lying around your house at the moment? You've mentioned it a few times in the last several threads.

Big Lots had a shipment!

203 albusteve  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:10:43am

re: #191 SanFranciscoZionist

Steve, I have to ask. Do you happen to have a lot of Beef-O-Roni lying around your house at the moment? You've mentioned it a few times in the last several threads.

the barn is half full of the stuff....can't have too much of a good thing

204 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:11:01am
205 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:11:37am
206 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:11:57am

re: #188 ludwigvanquixote

re: #195 sattv4u2

heh...

207 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:12:14am

Comments that consist of nothing but personal bickering will be deleted. I'm not going to let another thread turn into crap.

208 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:12:46am
209 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:13:17am

Ooops. Bad formatting.

210 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:14:45am

Nice. Take some deep breaths...

211 Decatur Deb  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:14:46am

re: #200 SanFranciscoZionist

That's not the teaching of the Church!!! (she almost screamed)

It almost was, pre-Vatican II. A virtuous prod/heathen/ancient philosopher could be saved, but was likely to be SOL.

212 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:15:05am

re: #200 SanFranciscoZionist

It's the teaching of his church. He made his own.

213 freetoken  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:15:29am

Now that the political ground has been plowed, the anti-science crowd is going to go for the jugular - cut off the funding for the research they don't like:

(From Fox News - who else?) Global Warming Skeptics Lambaste Plan to Increase Funding for Climate Change Research

Global warming skeptics are agog that President Obama is seeking to dramatically increase federal funding for global warming research in the wake of the Climate-gate scandals that have emerged during the last three months.

[...]

Some public policy experts are expressing outrage that the White House is seeking to boost global warming research funding. "Spending more money on research does not necessarily lead to concrete results," Norm Rogers, a senior policy adviser at the Chicago think-tank The Heartland Institute, told FoxNews.com.

He said tens of billions of dollars have been spent on climate research in the last 20 years, and there remains no consensus on the science.

Yep... so to whom does FoxNews turn first for comments on climate research? Heartland Institute. This is a classic strategy... first the FUD (in this case "climategate"), then the real motivation - to stop and real work from being done.

You can pretty much guess correctly what the comments to the article include.

214 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:16:00am

re: #211 Decatur Deb

And yeah. My first break with my childhood Catholicism was reading Dante's Inferno, and reading about the first level.

There's no logic to it.

215 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:16:22am

re: #153 SanFranciscoZionist

Yes. Also Mel Gibson.

Who is somehow despite his hardcore neo-Catholic beliefs, divorcing his wife of 28 years and having a baby with a younger woman.

What use is a hardcore, bigoted, fundamentalist take on religion if it actually prevents you from doing whatever you want?

Feh.

I've not noticed any new movies of his lately.

216 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:16:37am

re: #210 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Nice. Take some deep breaths...

Can't ,, i'm too busy eating NJDHockeys Pork Chops!

217 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:17:18am

re: #199 Walter L. Newton

But, since Charles didn't want any references to this material in any way, in an actual post or in a link, I was only able to make vague general references to what I saw as problematic.

And again, just so everyone is clear about this -- "problematic" is not going to cut it. You have to show that the code produced actual inaccurate data in the real world.

218 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:18:00am

re: #216 sattv4u2

Can't ,, i'm too busy eating NJDHockeys Pork Chops!

Gingerless... citrus-free... uncooked...

om nom nom?

219 Vicious Babushka  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:18:06am

re: #215 MandyManners

I've not noticed any new movies of his lately.

Edge of Darkness

220 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:18:34am

re: #213 freetoken

If those people who are 'skeptical' on AGW would spend half the energy they do investigating those funding denial as they do paying attention to minor flaws on the part of scientists, they'd be a lot clearer on the state of the politics involved.

221 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:18:36am

re: #217 Charles

And again, just so everyone is clear about this -- "problematic" is not going to cut it. You have to show that the code produced actual inaccurate data in the real world.

I will.

222 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:18:45am

re: #219 Alouette

I love his revenge movies...

223 Decatur Deb  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:18:47am

re: #214 Obdicut

And yeah. My first break with my childhood Catholicism was reading Dante's Inferno, and reading about the first level.

There's no logic to it.

"We read no more that day". Remember, Dante was cool with the church, but went way into classical thought rather than someone like Aquinas.

224 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:19:08am

re: #216 sattv4u2

Can't ,, i'm too busy eating NJDHockeys Pork Chops!

Is that what you kids are calling it nowadays?

225 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:19:23am

re: #218 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Gingerless (IN THE VEGGIE BIN)... citrus-free(ON THE SHELF)... uncooked...(OVEN IN KITCHEN)

om nom nom?

soon!!!

226 zora  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:19:47am

re: #215 MandyManners

He has a new movie out. He was the premiere with his baby's mama and she looks just like octomom.

227 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:20:29am

re: #219 Alouette

Edge of Darkness

Chockablock full of conspiracy theories!

228 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:20:32am

re: #217 Charles

And again, just so everyone is clear about this -- "problematic" is not going to cut it. You have to show that the code produced actual inaccurate data in the real world.

And if you deemed it doesn't, what happens? You delete the whole essay or let me take my "licks?" Since the spirit of a blog is usually debate, I would hope that I could have to opportunity to back up my essay with further facts if needed... and I certainly can.

229 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:20:45am

great. biathalon.

lower case elation.

230 MandyManners  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:21:02am

re: #226 zora

He has a new movie out. He was the premiere with his baby's mama and she looks just like octomom.

Are you sure it's not she?

231 SixDegrees  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:21:06am

Oh, crap - I've been notified there's yet another linux kernel update available. As these often don't go well, I may be absent for a while until I sort through everything this "improvement" manages to break...

232 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:21:08am

re: #224 MandyManners

Is that what you kids are calling it nowadays?

Doh!

233 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:21:15am

re: #207 Charles

Comments that consist of nothing but personal bickering will be deleted. I'm not going to let another thread turn into crap.

Sorry Charles
my 175 (deleted) is still up in 188

234 Vicious Babushka  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:21:31am

re: #222 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

I love his revenge movies...

He's a nutbag, but he sure knows how to plot! (And his nipples hurt when you twist them)

235 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:21:49am

re: #221 Walter L. Newton

I will.

Wal Ter Wal Ter Wal Ter Wal Ter Wal Ter Wal Ter Wal Ter Wal Ter Wal Ter Wal Ter Wal Ter Wal Ter Wal Ter Wal Ter Wal Ter Wal Ter Wal Ter Wal Ter

236 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:22:10am

re: #217 Charles

And again, just so everyone is clear about this -- "problematic" is not going to cut it. You have to show that the code produced actual inaccurate data in the real world.

Maybe I should just take tomorrow off from LGF, and spend time with my husband...

237 freetoken  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:23:07am

re: #236 SanFranciscoZionist

Maybe I should just take tomorrow off from LGF, and spend time with my husband...

Hey... he deserves some of you too!

238 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:24:21am

re: #236 SanFranciscoZionist

Maybe I should just take tomorrow off from LGF, and spend time with my husband...

Is that what you kids are calling it nowadays...

Wait. That doesn't work.

239 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:24:38am

U of Georgia's womens basketball team is earing all pink uniforms. Didn't see anything about this, but i hope the gate reciepts or ad revenues are going to breast cancer awareness!

240 albusteve  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:24:38am

re: #220 Obdicut

If those people who are 'skeptical' on AGW would spend half the energy they do investigating those funding denial as they do paying attention to minor flaws on the part of scientists, they'd be a lot clearer on the state of the politics involved.

as for myself, I've moved past all the bickering and the details...I'm solution oriented, and my persona carbon foot print is almost microscopic....I'm not at all interested about the scientific details, only what the world plans to do about putting more carbon in the air...and so far all I see is alot of blather and simple minded green solutions that have little affect on the real problem...there are probably a few hundred billion people like me

241 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:24:57am

re: #236 SanFranciscoZionist

Maybe I should just take tomorrow off from LGF, and spend time with my husband...

Don't spoil him, just give him the usual five minutes.
;D

242 mich-again  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:25:24am
A few of the bloggers who eagerly took the bait: Tim Blair (of course), Glenn Reynolds, and Ann Althouse.

I really don't get the "rooting for the team" attitude I see by the doubt crowd. Its as if they consider the issue political instead of scientific. True, the proposed solutions for reducing carbon emissions ARE political and deserve all the scrutiny and criticism any political issue deserves, but the science should be above the hype, PR campaigns, and demagoguery.

I look at it like this. Every bit of fossil fuel burned for whatever reason releases some amount of waste heat and some amount of CO2 to the atmosphere. Hard to argue with that, right? We took material that was just sitting there buried in the Earth's crust and burned it for energy we needed for heat, electricity, transportation, industry, whatever. Any way you measure it, its more than zero. right?

So where is all that waste heat and the CO2 going? If the system is the Earth and the Earth's atmosphere, the heat and the CO2 are still right here with us. You might say that the Earth has self-correcting factors for any buildup of CO2 in the air, but I would add that we humans are also reducing the amount of forest land available to do that, so don't hang your hat on the trees saving us. As for all the waste heat released burning all the fossil fuels, the oceans are the eventual heat sink. So the two key pieces of data are the CO2 level in the atmosphere and ocean temperatures. And both of those trends clearly point out that the CO2 released in combustion and the waste heat generated are still here with us.

Is that a problem? Only if you think climate stability is a good thing I guess. Because as the ocean temperatures rise and ice caps melt salinity levels will change and ocean currents and weather patterns will change. Some regions may benefit from a more habitable climate, others will whither and die or even freeze. True, we can't affect all the other transients that might trigger changes in the climate (meteors, earthquakes, sunspots..) but we do have the ability, at least theoretically, to reduce how much waste heat and CO2 we create.

Here are my questions to the AGW deniers. 1) Where do you think all the waste heat and CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels is going? 2) In your opinion is there any point at which the continued buildup of waste heat or CO2 in the atmosphere could affect the climate and weather patterns? I would love to read the responses from any person who actively denies AGW.

243 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:25:49am

re: #239 sattv4u2

U of Georgia's womens basketball team is Wearing all pink uniforms. Didn't see anything about this, but i hope the gate reciepts or ad revenues are going to breast cancer awareness!

pimf

244 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:26:13am

re: #236 SanFranciscoZionist

Maybe I should just take tomorrow off from LGF, and spend time with my husband...

On my part, I'm not intending to scream and whine or argue and stomp around here. I will post the essay, if anyone wants to ask question, or challenge a point, I will try to respond, but I have no intention of turning this into a flame war.

It's evident that I am totally capable of being extremely cranky, but I reserve my crankiness for my brand of sarcasm and humor.

When I am discussing something serious, I rarely get upset, or start using foul language just to shut someone up.

245 moonflower  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:26:27am

re: #177 NJDhockeyfan

Do you have flour, wine or cognac, garlic, cream, mushrooms? Any of these?

You flour salt and pepper the chops, saute in olive oil, deglaze with the wine or cognac and add in cream or garlic or mushrooms or any combination of those. Applesauce would work, too.

246 jamesfirecat  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:26:58am

re: #240 albusteve

as for myself, I've moved past all the bickering and the details...I'm solution oriented, and my persona carbon foot print is almost microscopic...I'm not at all interested about the scientific details, only what the world plans to do about putting more carbon in the air...and so far all I see is alot of blather and simple minded green solutions that have little affect on the real problem...there are probably a few hundred billion people like me

If there are "a few hundred billion" people like you than you're either in touch with people on another planet or the Earth is far more heavily populated then any of suspect!

247 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:27:25am

re: #242 mich-again

Very well-stated, in very approachable terms. Kudos.

248 Buck  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:27:49am

re: #159 ludwigvanquixote


Also, CRU does not produce th vast bulk of that data. They take many many different data sets that are themselves available on the web and collate them. Since that data and those data sets themselves are perr reviewd,it is hard to find anything unkosher.

What the people who want to bitch about CRU continuously fail to take into account is that the very data that they bitch about being hidden or distorted, was neither and is easily available.

It seems to me that the CRU, and Phil Jones is being criticized for not providing data that was part of a FoI request. Multiple excuses have been put forward, including that too many requests set them back, and the untidyness of his office to explain that he couldn't lay his hands on it. If he really couldn't lay his hands on it, and as you point out all of it was available elsewhere, then you would have expected him to start trying to collate the data anew. OR reply to the FoI request that the data was available and simply provide the outside sources.

249 jamesfirecat  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:28:43am

re: #246 jamesfirecat

If there are "a few hundred billion" people like you than you're either in touch with people on another planet or the Earth is far more heavily populated then any of suspect!

Any of us suspect!

Damn it I hate when my typos ruin perfectly good snark!

250 albusteve  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:28:49am

re: #246 jamesfirecat

If there are "a few hundred billion" people like you than you're either in touch with people on another planet or the Earth is far more heavily populated then any of suspect!

that does seem like alot of people

251 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:29:09am

re: #220 Obdicut

If those people who are 'skeptical' on AGW would spend half the energy they do investigating those funding denial as they do paying attention to minor flaws on the part of scientists, they'd be a lot clearer on the state of the politics involved.

Interesting tie in. The BBC is generally positive to the AGW topic, rarely have they covered any of the skeptics claims.

Wonder why?

Maybe (I don't know for sure), but maybe because a large part of their pension fund is invested in companies who will benefit from the climate change economy...

[Link: www.iigcc.org...]

Possible?

252 SanFranciscoZionist  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:29:18am

re: #241 Spare O'Lake

Don't spoil him, just give him the usual five minutes.
;D

Well, Valentine's Day is something of a joke around here. He insists that it's a woman's holiday, and he doesn't care about it. One year I took that at face value, and went to a conference. Came back about ten at night, and he's on the floor of the living room, watching MTV's Best Love Songs of the Decade. He looks up and says "Don't ever leave me on Valentine's Day again."

This does not, however, mean that he wants to celebrate. He just wants me THERE.

We're going out to a nice brunch, tomorrow, though.

253 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:29:22am

re: #245 moonflower

Do you have flour, wine or cognac, garlic, cream, mushrooms? Any of these?

You flour salt and pepper the chops, saute in olive oil, deglaze with the wine or cognac and add in cream or garlic or mushrooms or any combination of those. Applesauce would work, too.

I don't have any cream handy. I think I'm going to try this one. It sounds so yummy.

Ingredients:
3/4 cup all-purpose flour
salt and pepper to taste
4 1/2-inch thick pork chops
2 tablespoons vegetable oil
1 1/4 cups chicken broth

5 tablespoons vinegar
1 1/4 cups sour cream
2 1/2 tablespoons sugar
3/4 teaspoon crushed dried summer savory
2 bay leaves

Directions:
1. Preheat oven to 350 degrees F (175 degrees C). Spray a baking dish with cooking spray.
2. Mix the flour, salt, and pepper in a shallow dish. Press pork chops in the mixture to coat.
3. Heat the vegetable oil in a skillet over medium-high heat, and brown the pork chops on both sides. In a saucepan over medium-low heat, whisk together the chicken broth, vinegar, sour cream, sugar, savory, and bay leaves. Arrange the pork chops in the prepared baking dish. Pour sauce over the pork chops.
4. Bake 1 hour in the preheated oven.

254 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:29:50am

re: #250 albusteve

that does seem like alot of people

I'll start counting ,,,,

255 freetoken  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:30:33am

re: #242 mich-again

Non-productive energy ("waste heat") is not really the problem, as the energy flow from the sun is so much larger than man's release of the chemical-bond energy in fossil fuels.

What matters is how we control the "spigots" that allow the sun's energy to be re-radiated back into space.

Just as with my kitchen sink, where a tiny faucet valve controls the flow of water into my sink from a vastly larger force (the weight of the water in my nearest water-stand up at the top of the hill), making small changes to the chemical composition of Earth's atmosphere can have much larger consequences than at first glance.

256 Decatur Deb  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:30:44am

Gotta go. Time to sharpen the bone saws and roll some bandages.

257 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:30:44am

re: #248 Buck

It seems to me that the CRU, and Phil Jones is being criticized for not providing data that was part of a FoI request. Multiple excuses have been put forward, including that too many requests set them back, and the untidyness of his office to explain that he couldn't lay his hands on it. If he really couldn't lay his hands on it, and as you point out all of it was available elsewhere, then you would have expected him to start trying to collate the data anew. OR reply to the FoI request that the data was available and simply provide the outside sources.

The dog ate his homework.

/Hey, worked for me in 4th grade!

258 hoyosmokin  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:31:56am

Polar "flip" = Climate Change

259 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:32:09am

re: #256 Decatur Deb

Gotta go. Time to sharpen the bone saws and roll some bandages.

Got a date tonight?

260 Buck  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:33:58am

re: #255 freetoken

Non-productive energy ("waste heat") is not really the problem, as the energy flow from the sun is so much larger than man's release of the chemical-bond energy in fossil fuels.

What matters is how we control the "spigots" that allow the sun's energy to be re-radiated back into space.

Just as with my kitchen sink, where a tiny faucet valve controls the flow of water into my sink from a vastly larger force (the weight of the water in my nearest water-stand up at the top of the hill), making small changes to the chemical composition of Earth's atmosphere can have much larger consequences than at first glance.

Oh great now we need those Ozone holes in the atmosphere? When did I put those CFC spray cans??

261 Decatur Deb  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:34:13am

re: #259 NJDhockeyfan

Got a date tonight?

Same date since '66.

262 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:34:50am

>

re: #258 hoyoWHATYOUsmokin

ftfy!

263 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:35:59am

re: #261 Decatur Deb

Same date since '66.

Forty four Valentines dates. He must be doing something right!

264 Spare O'Lake  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:36:42am

re: #252 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, Valentine's Day is something of a joke around here. He insists that it's a woman's holiday, and he doesn't care about it. One year I took that at face value, and went to a conference. Came back about ten at night, and he's on the floor of the living room, watching MTV's Best Love Songs of the Decade. He looks up and says "Don't ever leave me on Valentine's Day again."

This does not, however, mean that he wants to celebrate. He just wants me THERE.

We're going out to a nice brunch, tomorrow, though.

Hahahahaha. I got swarmed last year for agreeing with an article that suggested that Valentine's Day is a holiday which celebrates the legal sale of sex for chocolate and flowers.

265 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:36:57am

re: #251 Walter L. Newton

God, Walter, seriously? You're really stretching for conspiracy theories.

I'd say that the BBC hasn't considered most of the 'skeptics' claims because they're not credible.

Can you point to as 'skeptic's' claim that you feel is worthy of more reportage by the BBC?

266 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:37:20am

re: #252 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, Valentine's Day is something of a joke around here. He insists that it's a woman's holiday, and he doesn't care about it. One year I took that at face value, and went to a conference. Came back about ten at night, and he's on the floor of the living room, watching MTV's Best Love Songs of the Decade. He looks up and says "Don't ever leave me on Valentine's Day again."

This does not, however, mean that he wants to celebrate. He just wants me THERE.

We're going out to a nice brunch, tomorrow, though.

Heh ,,, Mrs SATTY is THRILLED with me

Son has a 4 day (Friday thru Monday) school break and she wanted to go away this weekend

I had to work friday 10 a.m till 8 p.m, Saturday and today 10-10 and tomorrow from 4 p.m till !?!?!?!?(whenever)

267 SixDegrees  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:37:54am

re: #264 Spare O'Lake

Hahahahaha. I got swarmed last year for agreeing with an article that suggested that Valentine's Day is a holiday which celebrates the legal sale of sex for chocolate and flowers.

Wait - you mean it's not?

WTF am I supposed to do with all these stupid flowers and chocolates?

268 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:38:57am

re: #255 freetoken

Good point. Mich-again, your point would be stronger if you included the bit about the radiative properties of CO2; the greenhouse effect, in other words. I felt it was implied by the importance you placed on CO2, but you could be more explicit about it.

But your point is still excellent.

269 hoyosmokin  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:42:18am

re: #250 albusteve
That includes dead people.........

270 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:44:21am

re: #265 Obdicut

God, Walter, seriously? You're really stretching for conspiracy theories.

I'd say that the BBC hasn't considered most of the 'skeptics' claims because they're not credible.

Can you point to as 'skeptic's' claim that you feel is worthy of more reportage by the BBC?

What a silly question. You're asking me to make an editorial decision for the BBC, just so you can tell me my selection doesn't meet your standards. Can't answer a Catch 22 question, I'm not stupid.

And in regard to the BBC Pension Fund... I never stated it's a fact that it's a deciding factor, I only asked if it's possible. Why don't you do a little research for yourself and find out how entrenched their pension fund is in this investment firm?

271 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:46:09am

re: #269 hoyosmokin

That includes dead people...

Can they still vote?

272 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:46:44am

re: #270 Walter L. Newton

And in regard to the BBC Pension Fund... I never stated it's a fact that it's a deciding factor, I only asked if it's possible. Why don't you do a little research for yourself and find out how entrenched their pension fund is in this investment firm?

Why don't you spend an equal amount of time to that you've done investigating the CRU data to investigating who is funding climate denial?

And your weak-ass "I'm just asking quesetions" is Beck-level pathetic. I thought you were better than that.

273 mich-again  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:47:36am

re: #255 freetoken

Non-productive energy ("waste heat") is not really the problem, as the energy flow from the sun is so much larger than man's release of the chemical-bond energy in fossil fuels.

Its a delicate balance. Sure the sun bombards us with more heat than we need, but if not for the atmosphere holding some of that heat in the Earth would be as cold as the moon. I think that the cumulative effect of the waste heat from burning millions of barrels of fuel every day has to start to make a noticeable effect at some point. Like I said, where is all that heat and CO2 going? I'm not buying the "its a fart in a windstorm" excuse.

274 mich-again  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:50:13am

re: #268 Obdicut

your point would be stronger if you included the bit about the radiative properties of CO2; the greenhouse effect,

True, but I like to start at the bottom with the whole discussion. Those points are good ammo for round 2 though. If anyone can answer the easy questions first.

275 NJDhockeyfan  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:50:30am

re: #271 sattv4u2

Can they still vote?

Only in Chicago.

276 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:53:09am

re: #272 Obdicut

Why don't you spend an equal amount of time to that you've done investigating the CRU data to investigating who is funding climate denial?

Because I know who funds climate change denial, and that's wrong, and the climate change deniers are wrong. I'm not a AGW denier.

I'm someone who is concerned with the dishonest scientist and organizations that are sullying the science. Just as much as I am concerned about the racists and religious fanatics who are sullying the GOP.

So, no more than anyone is trying to deny Christianity, or no one is trying to deny conservative a place in the political process, I am just as concerned about the problems in climate science as you probably are about the problems with the religious right and the racist crazy wingnuts.


And your weak-ass "I'm just asking quesetions" is Beck-level pathetic. I thought you were better than that.

No you didn't... don't lie.

277 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:54:46am

re: #272 Obdicut

Why don't you spend an equal amount of time to that you've done investigating the CRU data to investigating who is funding climate denial?

And your weak-ass "I'm just asking quesetions" is Beck-level pathetic. I thought you were better than that.

wasn't this covered in #207!?!

278 mich-again  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:56:58am

re: #255 freetoken

..making small changes to the chemical composition of Earth's atmosphere can have much larger consequences than at first glance.

Great point.

279 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 11:57:45am

re: #272 Obdicut

Why don't you spend an equal amount of time to that you've done investigating the CRU data to investigating who is funding climate denial?

And your weak-ass "I'm just asking quesetions" is Beck-level pathetic. I thought you were better than that.

And since you won't do the "math," do you know who is the head of the investment firm The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change? Peter Dunscombe, who also the head of the BBC Pension Fund, which has 11 billion dollars invested in IIGCC.

Hmmmmm.

280 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 12:01:55pm

re: #272 Obdicut

re: #279 Walter L. Newton

IIGCC

did the ole' Google thing for you, OB

[Link: www.iigcc.org...]

281 zora  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 12:06:03pm

[Link: www.lasvegassun.com...]

There is now a tea party candidate in the race for the Nevada senate seat currently held by Harry Reid. I believe that this increases Reids chance for reelection.

282 Buck  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 12:06:16pm

re: #273 mich-again

Its a delicate balance. Sure the sun bombards us with more heat than we need, but if not for the atmosphere holding some of that heat in the Earth would be as cold as the moon. I think that the cumulative effect of the waste heat from burning millions of barrels of fuel every day has to start to make a noticeable effect at some point. Like I said, where is all that heat and CO2 going? I'm not buying the "its a fart in a windstorm" excuse.

Fine, then according to Phil Jones we don't know for sure if the Medieval Warming period was global... But we do know that there was a Medieval Warming period, and that it was not caused by burning millions of barrels of fuel. So it is clear that warming (and cooling) can occur and NOT be human caused.

283 hoyosmokin  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 12:07:24pm

re: #271 sattv4u2
the comings and going of mankind are insignificant in the grand scheme of things.......

284 freetoken  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 12:07:43pm

re: #273 mich-again

In that portion of the Earth in which the biosphere exists - from the stratosphere down to just under the surface of the rocks below us (and below the ocean), the atmosphere holds only a portion of the "heat" energy.

Water can hold an amazingly large amount of energy in its liquid state (at the pressures found on Earth's surface), compared to the gases of the atmosphere. The oceans of the world, by being in a liquid state and not frozen solid, is the great reservoir of energy available. This is one reason why the climate depends so greatly on the oceans, and why short-period changes in atmospheric temperature are not a good indication of the long term climate changes.

285 freetoken  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 12:08:44pm

re: #282 Buck

So it is clear that warming (and cooling) can occur and NOT be human caused.

I don't know why you find this statement to be so important. Tell me, where have climatologists stated otherwise?

286 Mich-again  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 12:09:13pm

re: #282 Buck

So it is clear that warming (and cooling) can occur and NOT be human caused.

Agreed. That is why I said this upthread in 242..

True, we can't affect all the other transients that might trigger changes in the climate (meteors, earthquakes, sunspots..) but we do have the ability, at least theoretically, to reduce how much waste heat and CO2 we create.
287 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 12:11:16pm

re: #283 hoyosmokin

the comings and going of mankind are insignificant in the grand scheme of things...

depends on who the MAN was,, and how KIND he was

288 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 12:12:33pm

re: #283 hoyosmokin

the comings and going of mankind are insignificant in the grand scheme of things...

re: #287 sattv4u2

depends on who the MAN was,, and how KIND he was


Another way to say it, is ,,,depends on what KIND of MAN he was !

289 Claire  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 12:15:42pm

re: #286 Mich-again

Earthquakes?
Did you mean volcanoes? ;-)

290 hoyosmokin  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 12:17:17pm

Lap 118 + (4) Heineken= Targeted Climate Change

291 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 12:18:54pm

re: #290 hoyosmokin

Lap 118 + (4) Heineken= Targeted Climate Change

TFK ,, is that YOU !?!?!?

292 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 12:19:39pm

re: #279 Walter L. Newton

The conspiracy theory stretch and Beck-level 'Coincidence?!' is asking "So does this influence their climate change reporting?"

What I'm asking from you, since you made a positive assertion that the BBC rarely gives time to the 'skeptic's' claims, of an example of a claim by a skeptic that was overlooked by the BBC.

You're saying you refuse to do because I'll just protest its legitimacy. It's true, if they haven't given credence to the 'maybe it's solar forcing' meme in a long time, it's because solar forcing has been ruled out as the cause.

However, here is a very good piece by the BBC giving air to the most common skeptic positions and their debunking.

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

So again: What claim have they not given coverage to?

293 hoyosmokin  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 12:20:04pm

re: #288 sattv4u2
Another good reason for why I'm greatful not to be smart.........

294 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 12:21:58pm

re: #292 Obdicut

And, to clear any nits, I am not quoting you. I am saying that you have definitely raised the question about whether the investments at the BBC have swayed their climate change reporting.

295 Mich-again  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 12:25:28pm

re: #284 freetoken

Water can hold an amazingly large amount of energy in its liquid state

The specific heat of water is 1 btu / lb*Deg F. There are 10^8 cubic miles of water in the oceans and 10^8 pounds of water in one cubic mile. So it takes an incredible amount of btu's to increase the average ocean temperature even 1 measley degree F. I'm not sure people have much perspective on how much energy that is. Hmm, your gas bill would have 12 zeroes at the end if you tried to heat up the oceans 1 degree. If there was that much gas available to buy.

296 Buck  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 12:28:15pm

re: #295 Mich-again

The specific heat of water is 1 btu / lb*Deg F. There are 10^8 cubic miles of water in the oceans and 10^8 pounds of water in one cubic mile. So it takes an incredible amount of btu's to increase the average ocean temperature even 1 measley degree F. I'm not sure people have much perspective on how much energy that is. Hmm, your gas bill would have 12 zeroes at the end if you tried to heat up the oceans 1 degree. If there was that much gas available to buy.

Probably not economical to use natural gas to heat of the oceans.... Maybe solar energy? How may BTUs in the Sun?

297 Mich-again  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 12:28:50pm

re: #289 Claire

Earthquakes?
Did you mean volcanoes? ;-)

Yeah, I was just thinking of all those cataclysmic biblical scale disaster transients.

298 Mich-again  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 12:30:17pm

re: #296 Buck

How may BTUs in the Sun?

Well, we get enough to keep the oceans from freezing but not so much that they boil. Pretty delicate balance.

299 sattv4u2  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 12:32:40pm

re: #296 Buck

Probably not economical to use natural gas to heat of the oceans... Maybe solar energy? How may BTUs in the Sun?

Daytime or nighttime?!?!?

300 hoyosmokin  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 12:42:25pm

Everybody hold on...time shift will occur shortly

301 b_sharp  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 12:54:51pm

re: #251 Walter L. Newton

Interesting tie in. The BBC is generally positive to the AGW topic, rarely have they covered any of the skeptics claims.

Wonder why?

Maybe (I don't know for sure), but maybe because a large part of their pension fund is invested in companies who will benefit from the climate change economy...

[Link: www.iigcc.org...]

Possible?

You know, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

302 hoyosmokin  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 1:20:43pm

re: #301 b_sharp

EXCALIBUR #1 MADURO + Vo5 HAIR SPRAY = CLIMATE CHANGE

303 Achilles Tang  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 1:27:23pm

re: #302 hoyosmokin

EXCALIBUR #1 MADURO + Vo5 HAIR SPRAY = CLIMATE CHANGE

Coming back in here suddenly, I'm one who actually wishes you were smarter than you are happy with.

304 steroid  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 2:06:19pm

I have a question: If you are a denier, what evidence would convince you that global warming is occurring? If you are a believer, what evidence would convince you that global warming is not occurring?

I think we should know this before we evaluate each new piece of evidence.

305 hoyosmokin  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 2:06:54pm

re: #303 Naso Tang
Vo5 = (Gobal Cooling) CLIMATE CHANGE + I don't even know when I'm being called a dumb ass.
See? That's what I mean.

306 Our Precious Bodily Fluids  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 2:21:23pm

The Daily Mail is not exactly regarded as a bastion of serious, level-headed professional journalism. It's a couple of notches up from the National Enquirer.

Where journalism is concerned, the US has stupid TV and relatively respectable newspapers. The UK has stupid newspapers and relatively respectable TV.

307 JohninLondon  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 2:47:48pm

re: #306 negativ

The Daily Mail is not exactly regarded as a bastion of serious, level-headed professional journalism. It's a couple of notches up from the National Enquirer.

Where journalism is concerned, the US has stupid TV and relatively respectable newspapers. The UK has stupid newspapers and relatively respectable TV.

The UK has a spread of types of newspaper. Some are superficial. But some are the match of, or better than, the US press.

A lot of the UK TV output is trash.

The BBC has been overwhelmingly pro-AGW in its coverage. And not just in straight news or current affairs - I woulod be far richere if I had a pound for wevery time I have heard the words "global warming" or "climate change" on non-news BBC programmes.

The BBC has openly declared that its stance on AGW was a policy decision from the top. And the main "environmental" reporter at the BBC, Roger Harrabin - an arts graduate - is part of a Cambridge-based group that promotes AGW thinking. A week or so ago he was casting around for people who could put the sceptics' case or their questions - that is, after quite a few years of reporting on AGW he still did not have any contacts with the sceptics' side. He needed some input from them to phrase questions for his online interview with Phil Jones at UEA that this thread deals with. The full Q and A list is here :

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

This thread focusses on Jones' comments about whether there had been statistically significant warming in recent years. Over here, just as much attention has focussed on Jones' comments on the Medieval Warming Period, which appear to undercut or upend the famous/infamous hockey-stick that essentially eliminates the MWP. (I have always been worried about people who try to dismiss the MWP as largely based on sketchy anecdotes - each week I drive up a road called Vineyard Hill that leads to the ancient village of Wimbledon.)

308 hoyosmokin  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 2:49:26pm

re: #304 steroid
Crap....another caution.
Is the earth in natural state of change, or did I screw things up by the empty bottle of Heineken I just threw in the trash?

309 Achilles Tang  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 2:55:58pm

re: #308 hoyosmokin

Crap...another caution.
Is the earth in natural state of change, or did I screw things up by the empty bottle of Heineken I just threw in the trash?

No, only by drinking it while posting.

310 tradewind  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 3:21:18pm

Dana Milbank makes a good point in the WaPo... live by the anecdote, die by the anecdote. (NOT a denier post, btw)....
[Link: www.washingtonpost.com...]

311 hoyosmokin  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 3:21:32pm

OK................ I get it. Stupid damn UK news papers , I have to go clean out the porta potties anyway.

312 ryannon  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 3:28:28pm

re: #240 albusteve

as for myself, I've moved past all the bickering and the details...I'm solution oriented, and my persona carbon foot print is almost microscopic...I'm not at all interested about the scientific details, only what the world plans to do about putting more carbon in the air...and so far all I see is alot of blather and simple minded green solutions that have little affect on the real problem...there are probably a few hundred billion people like me

I just can't believe how much the earth's population has increased since I went to bed last night. It's definitely getting out of hand.

313 ryannon  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 3:31:00pm

re: #250 albusteve

that does seem like alot of people

And they're all heading for New Mexico.

314 ryannon  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 3:33:11pm

re: #269 hoyosmokin

That includes dead people...

Steve used to work for Acorn.

315 rjpv  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 4:17:23pm

Either the data is statistically significant or it isn't. Making claims based on non-significant "trends" in your data is dangerous - especially in media interviews.

Jones states that the current trend is +0.12 C per decade. You can see in the BBC article that the statistically significant historical warming periods had trends of +0.15 to +0.17 C per decade. How is that the data from the 1800's is good enough to reveal a +0.16 C per decade change, but that with our infinitely superior modern instruments and much stronger data sets, the current +0.12 C per decade trend is not significant? In my opinion, this makes it likely that the current trend is just random temperature variation.

At first I was flabbergasted that Jones could concede that the data is non-significant and yet claim that global warming is unequivocally occurring. But you'll notice he actually says that the he is confident the climate "has warmed" not that it *is* warming. Jones is threading some rhetorical needles, but in a way that leaves the public with the impression that there is no doubt the world is warming. Even if his research is good, I don't like his methods.

316 hoyosmokin  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 4:47:45pm

Congratulaions Jamie McMurray.........

317 SpaceJesus  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 5:07:43pm

drudge is running this shit front and center right now

318 Blue Fin  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 5:22:30pm

The CC scientists did a very poor fucking job with organization and presentation. Go back and collect the data and present it irrefutably and with better marketing (minus Al Gore). Otherwise expect more loss of confidence from the public and thus politicians.

319 Vambo  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 5:46:15pm

re: #2 Obdicut

Yes. Nicknamed the Daily Fail.

also the Daily Heil for their support of Nazis which has hardly mellowed over the years.

320 Elle Plater  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 5:48:48pm

I only read the BBC article and what was new was Jones's acknowledgment that the debate is not over on the medieval warm period being global - not enough is known. Now if that is true then the whole AGW debate is not over. Calling anyone says it's not over should not be called a denialist. That is a very offensive because it is a term that previously has only been used for Holocaust deniers. It is essential that there is scepticism in science and until the debate really is settled, scepticim should be embraced not denigrated - to do otherwise makes the denigrator also dishonest.

321 Joe in Australia  Sun, Feb 14, 2010 6:16:24pm

That was a surprisingly tricky question from the BBC. A politician or lawyer would have known to be very careful when answering a question that began with "Would you agree that ...." Perhaps the CRU ought to be headed by someone with more experience in contentious issues.

Jones' response was factually incorrect, too: the data doesn't show statistically-significant warming but it also doesn't show its absence. He ought to have said something like "we are measuring subtle changes that accumulate over long periods. The raw data does show an increase in temperature, and we hope that further measurements will tell us whether this is part of a warming trend."

322 Claire  Mon, Feb 15, 2010 12:12:49am

re: #315 rjpv

For Goddsakkes, look at the graph! It's so fucking obviously increasing in temp it's just ridiculous. It's gone fucking exponential in the 20th century. You don't need significance levels to tell you that. Unbelievable. You know, you need these tests to tell you that a trend is really happening when it's ambiguous at first glance. There's nothing ambiguous about the Goddamn temp going exponential.

323 kyros  Mon, Feb 15, 2010 10:04:13am

Professor Phil Jone said..."This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.

NOT SIGNIFICANT...which means the trend is worthless...means nothing...has no merit.

324 Charles Johnson  Mon, Feb 15, 2010 10:09:10am

re: #323 kyros

Professor Phil Jone said..."This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level.

NOT SIGNIFICANT...which means the trend is worthless...means nothing...has no merit.

Which part of "not significant at the 95% level" didn't you understand?

It's pathetic to say that because he won't claim 95% certainty, it means "the trend is worthless." This is the definition of "determined ignorance" -- you seize on two words he used to be as careful in a scientific sense as possible, and try to use them to smear his whole statement. Ludicrous, wrong, and stupid.

325 kyros  Mon, Feb 15, 2010 10:23:45am

Scre: #324 Charles

Scientifically speaking....if a trend is not statistically significant at 95% certainty then it's worthless to the researcher.

One cannot claim human activity is driving up global temperatures if there is no statistically significant data. Even if warming had been statistically significant, how much weight would one give to green house gases, natural variation, radiation from the sun?

To separate all the factors is very difficult especially considering that we don't know how the earth's climate works exactly. Just one look at the models shows that what we think is happening and is happening in reality are not the same.

There has been no man made global warming in the past 15 year or 150 years or ever.

326 Charles Johnson  Mon, Feb 15, 2010 10:29:04am

re: #325 kyros

Sc

Scientifically speaking...if a trend is not statistically significant at 95% certainty then it's worthless to the researcher.

Complete nonsense. You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

There has been no man made global warming in the past 15 year or 150 years or ever.

Yep. Not just clueless, determinedly clueless.

327 kyros  Mon, Feb 15, 2010 10:34:18am

The hypothesis of global warming caused by human activity is false. There is no statistically significant evident to state otherwise. Who is the determinedly clueless one?

328 Charles Johnson  Mon, Feb 15, 2010 10:35:44am

re: #327 kyros

The hypothesis of global warming caused by human activity is false. There is no statistically significant evident to state otherwise. Who is the determinedly clueless one?

It's almost funny. Polly want a cracker?

329 kyros  Mon, Feb 15, 2010 10:43:13am

I see there is no point in discussing this issue with you.

330 Jadespring  Mon, Feb 15, 2010 10:49:09am

re: #329 kyros

I see there is no point in discussing this issue with you.

I wholeheartedly agree. If you actually had something to offer based on some sort of reality instead of flinging out a whole lot of ignorant nothing then maybe there might be a point.

331 Charles Johnson  Mon, Feb 15, 2010 10:49:19am

re: #329 kyros

I see there is no point in discussing this issue with you.

"Discussing" doesn't mean parroting silly denier talking points.

332 claire  Mon, Feb 15, 2010 10:55:18am

re: #329 kyros

You've just taken the statement that Jones made about the last 15 years and expanded it to the last 100, as if none of the warming trend now is "significant." Think of the data like the stock market. Temps going up is a bull market. When there's a pullback, are we in a new bear market or just a temporary retreat from the long-term bull trend? Hard to say without more data, but the odds favor a continuation based on the fundamentals. Has the trend actually changed direction after 1998 is a completely different argument than whether or not there has been a 100 year temperature bull trend. There clearly has been. You can argue about man's contribution to this, but you cannot argue that this data set has not shown a trend.

333 acacia  Mon, Feb 15, 2010 12:07:21pm

This seems like the classic issue of editor headline failing to mirror the reporter's account. The article was interesting and in itself was newsworthy but the headline tried to make political points by misstating the body of the article. Looks like the editors are of the National Enquirer types who want to shock you into reading the article regardless of what the article may actually state. So shame on the editor but not the reporter.

334 rjpv  Mon, Feb 15, 2010 4:15:53pm

re: #324 Charles

Interpreting a non-significant difference (or "trend") is without merit. To be fair, a non-significant difference is not worthless - the data can be useful to the researcher in designing new experiments or studies. You can also tell if your analysis had sufficient power, which is a critical question when you are right on the borderline of statistical significance.

It is not unfair or arbitrary to expect "95% certainty". 95% confidence is the benchmark by which all scientific questions are judged. If there is a greater than 5% chance that the difference in your data sets is due to random variation, the difference is assumed to be meaningless.

For instance, suppose decade A had an average temperature of 24 C and decade B had an average temperature of 26 C. You would be tempted to conclude that decade B was warmer than decade A. However if your statistical test reveals a p-value of greater than 0.05 (ie, failing the 95% certainty standard), then the correct conclusion is that there is no difference between decades A and B. The numerical difference is meaningless. (It is also possible your analysis was not sufficiently powerful, which you could easily check.)

kyros was a little bombastic but in my opinion was essentially correct.

335 Charles Johnson  Mon, Feb 15, 2010 7:22:26pm

re: #334 rjpv

95% confidence is the benchmark by which all scientific questions are judged.

A totally bogus claim delivered with impressive pseudo-authority. Congrats.

336 rjpv  Mon, Feb 15, 2010 8:59:49pm

re: #335 Charles

You make a fair point, Charles. "By which all scientific questions are judged" is an exaggeration. I'd amend what I said to: "95% confidence is the benchmark by which the vast majority of scientific questions are judged".

P=0.05 as a benchmark was first proposed by Fisher in the 1920s. He selected the level somewhat arbitrarily, but it rapidly became the convention to set your alpha (significance standard) at P=0.05. I dug up a nice history on all this, written by a professor at Tufts:
[Link: www.jerrydallal.com...]
Since before I was born, statisticians have been arguing that P=0.05 is a bad convention and we should come up with something more nuanced. Naturally, no one listens to them.

I wasn't around in the 1920s. But I can tell you that today P=0.05 is the benchmark used in the vast majority of the peer-reviewed literature, and is the standard I was taught and have always used. I'm sure 99% of scientists would agree (the rare scientific consensus!). Not to mention, P=0.05 is the standard used by Jones himself. So I do think it is fair to hold Jones' feet to the fire over this BBC interview.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 86 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0