Sunday
Sep182011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Self-immolation
Sep 18, 2011 Climate: other Next time somebody mentions Skeptical Science as a reliable source of information on climate science, they should probably be asked about the antics that Shub Niggurath describes today.
It's pretty horrible stuff.
Reader Comments (65)
Don't know BBD - it's one of the Great Mysteries of Climatology. I guess most people don't want to be marked as unbelievers, and they just keep quiet.
MM
Indeed it is. So no evidence for:
BBD - I won't do the footwork for you. Any SS page will do, but of course not in your warmist eyes...
BBD, dana81 couldn't a been a contenduh. I want my money back.
====================
From http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/216223/20110919/deep-oceans-able-to-mask-global-warming-for-decades.htm
If anything, this, sounds like a crock to me
Well *IF* the oceans can transfer this heat down below 300m that is perhaps good news in the sense that it means that some of the effects of global warming will be literally "absorbed" by this enormous body of water and will therefore not impact global surface temperatures as much as predicted. So once again the models are wrong.
But that is a big IF.
MM
You're bluffing, as usual. There's no proof for this:
No scientists (not one) have protested at the misrepresentation of their work at SkS. Because SkS hasn't misrepresented any papers. You are making a false claim.
Why don't you just keep quiet instead of continuously drawing attention to the fact that you've made a false claim?
BBD - there really isn't any point to discuss with you. If the news were "Amundsen-Scott -70C in winter" I would say "cold!" like most reasonable people, and you would try to start a thread to demonstrate it is "warm" because Vostok reports -90C. No Sir I've got other things to do with my life that this pointless arguing about definitions.
MM
So, you are in the wrong, and you lack the good grace to admit it. And it's blindingly obvious for all to see.
Every time you do this, your credibility ebbs away. So keep up the good work!
BBD, once again I am puzzled at the hard time you get here from some posters - I enjoy reading your comments and appreciate you time you put in to giving us a well researched and alternative view.
However I do think Skeptical Science behaved appallingly towards RP Sr. I rarely look at the site because it cherry picks its science and does not often give a balanced view and reading it again via RP Sr I conclude that it is still a waste of time. I am afraid Lubos sums up the site brilliantly in the link given earlier.
Here is a topical example. SkS counter the skeptical argument "Al Gore got it wrong" by saying that "Al Gore book is quite accurate, and far more accurate than contrarian books."
Well it that may be interesting that he is "quite accurate" but actually by most normal measures he is horrendously inaccurate - his record is not worth defending and SkS make their arguments look weak by not admitting as much.
I guess that goes for all of us, eh ;-)
BBD you are wrong about what Maurizio said.
No climate scientist complains about misrepresentation, ever, as long as the conclusions are in sync with the IPCC consensus.
This is changing slowly though, and the latest Atlas fiasco is evidence. It may be surprising but the WG3 authors tried their bit to be beyond criticism, although they were sadly brought down by their own Greenpeace goof-up.
Moreover, your form of argument is weak - it is an argument from consequence. Do you mean to tell us that since no climate scientist complained Skeptical Science, they must have correctly interpreted the papers they quote?
The latest approach - that of opinionated arrogance - on display at the skepticalscience website has no precedent.
Pielke Sr asks the question: "what is your preferred diagnostic to monitor global warming?". skepticalscience writer dana1981 answers that question with a cartoon that has a peacock and lizard in it. And everything else in the world between it.
What is more - it has statements like
As in, 'SkS', the corporate climate entity, has certain preferred positions and stances ?? The self-unawareness is hilarious. You feel like you've waded into a bizarro madhouse. Where scientists have been rendered stupid and the students have become geniuses.
The only thing left now is for 'SkS' to have 'values'.
There is a clip by Stewart Lee on the "values of the Carphone Warehouse". Worth taking a look at this junction.
hengist
your "question" was a suggestion about how the sceptical scientists could better frame a response to a non-question...why is it warming on Pluto in the absence of human carbon- dioxide emissions? I have never seen this question asked apart from on Sceptical Science, and you suggested a response. If this is the best you can do, then we had better go to the pub and get drunk.
diogenes - Pluto is of course warming because in its sky next to the feeble Sun there is a new, powerful IR emitter (and absorber) called Earth.
So it is true, your SUV is warming up the whole Universe!
maurizio
please do not help them!
Bless 'em,the lads at Skeptical Science simply would not allow Dr Pielke to avoid the specific questions they posed...so there it all was,laid out for the record. Horrible stuff,but about time Dr [comments off] was called for obfuscation.