Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > A temperature timeline for the last 22,000 years

Thank you, Entropic man. I suppose that is as good an admission of error and accompanying apology that I am ever likely to get.

GC: the only proof that is required is proof that the theory is wrong – and that is something that will NEVER be countenanced! Hey! I’ve just realised that I am wrong (again) – science does “do” proof! It is just that it is accepted that theories can rarely, if ever, be proven right, but they can easily be proven wrong. So, Entropic man, do you still hold to your statement that science does not do proof? More proof that you really, really do not understand science, I suppose.

Oct 2, 2016 at 4:00 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent, I think I can see where this whole "Climate Science does not need to prove itself theory" is going. It will be Mann's Defence.

This could keep Law Courts in the USA occupied for years, if it is proven that offering no defence, is a sign of innocence. I thought that under US Law, "Pleading the Fifth Amendment" only applied to Criminal Law, but if Mann thinks it will work in a Libel Case, no one will dare tell him he does not what he is talking about, if he is just going to shut up and maintain his own innocence with psychic powers, believing in in his divine right to be right, no what what the evidence is to the contrary.

All Mann has to do next, is repeal the Laws of Gravity to reduce the impact of his fall from grace.

Oct 2, 2016 at 4:25 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

So true, Gwen. One reason I am getting so cantankerous, I suppose. It is all the wriggling that is going on, slipping past all the arguments offered, skilfully (in their own minds, perhaps) switching the subject when they have exhausted their own arguments. Perhaps I feel the most irritation with those like Entropic man, who exudes an egregious (or should that be “excretious”?) air of pompous arrogance. I wonder how many dental problems he created with the charges under his care in the classroom, as they ground their teeth down at his pretentious hauteur as he regaled them with his version of facts.

Oct 2, 2016 at 4:55 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent

Thank you, Entropic man. I suppose that is as good an admission of error and accompanying apology that I am ever likely to get.

Not at all. Your world view is mistaken and you will never admit it. You reject any scientific evidence I give you. You have no evidence .

Our conversation would be unproductive.

Oct 2, 2016 at 5:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

I will take as inaccurate any statement for which you cannot produce supporting evidence.

Oct 1, 2016 at 11:54 PM | Entropic man

Doesn't that apply to all climate science where the supporting evidence is peer reviewed? If climate science requires no proof, then the entire peer review process has now been confirmed as a waste of time and money, by climate science, and could have been done by monkeys paid and fed peanuts, with the occasional banana, to help keep slip-ups near to the 97% rate expected of climate science peer reviewers. Blindfolds might also be required for the monkeys if they could not be trusted to keep their eyes shut, and look at the supporting data as expert climate science peer reviewers are trained not to do.

Oct 2, 2016 at 5:06 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Heh, given enough time a roomful of monkeys could produce the climate alarmists' narrative, but who would believe it? Well, given enough roomsful, any old bunch of monkeys could. You can fool some of the monkeys all of the time, you can fool all of the monkeys some of the time, but you can't fool all of the monkeys all of the time.

What a zoo alarmist climate science has become. And we've not yet spoken of the liars, the tryers, and the bares.

Oct 2, 2016 at 5:27 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Golf Charlie

The problem here is in your perception of science. Read Popper and Kuhn.

A scientific theory starts as a hypothesis. Testing and iteration improve the hypothesis. A hypothesis which passes every test to date becomes a theory. A set of related theories becomes as paradigm.

None of this provides proof. You can achieve very high confidence in a theory, but you can never prove it.

You cannot prove climate science.You cannot prove relativity or quantum theory or evolution. You cannot prove anything using science.

Your continuing demands for proof demonstrate your lack of understanding. Better to keep your peace.

Oct 2, 2016 at 5:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

"It only takes one fact to prove me wrong."

Hmmm... I wonder who said that? Obviously no-one important, as he quite clearly stated that proof is possible in science.

Anyway, as you have never provided any evidence, Entropic man, I have had nothing to reject. What you have done is to provide guesses, assumptions and suppositions of other people – all of whom you seem to consider cannot be wrong – and seem to consider this as evidence. Sorry, but to me, evidence that there is a rock is the sight of a rock (which could also be considered “proof”, but, anyhoo…); desperate assertions from others, no matter how well-meaning they might be, that there is a rock is not sufficient evidence.

Oct 2, 2016 at 5:54 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Well I've seen enough proof that 'An Inconvenient Truth' was in fact 'A Convenient Untruth'.

Oct 2, 2016 at 5:58 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Radical Rodent

I have been bouncing evidence off your cognitive dissonance for years. I see no reason to continue a procedure which has become tedious.

Indeed, it has been known for a theory to be disproved. The theory is then modified, or discarded.

I have been hoping for someone to earn the Nobel Prize for Physics by disproving one of the core hypotheses of climate science, but there has been nothing so far.

Oct 2, 2016 at 6:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man


"I have been hoping for someone to earn the Nobel Prize for Physics by proving one of the core hypotheses of climate science, but there has been nothing so far."

Try this:-

Oct 2, 2016 at 6:25 PM | Unregistered CommenterSpectator

EM, you have proved Climate Science is not a science, but a faith. Climate Science can take it's begging bowls elsewhere. Society does not need to waste precious resources on it anymore.

Why should society have to pay for your unsubstantiated belief system, when the actual evidence is that you are wrong?

You need to concentrate your efforts on saving the good bits (3%?), that can be proved.

If Clinton is elected, is she going to say to the USA that economic output must be further stunted, and lives lost because of skientific reasons that can't be proved?

Oct 2, 2016 at 6:30 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Radical Rodent

Sorry, but to me, evidence that there is a rock is the sight of a rock

Afraid not.

Solipsism is the philosophy which suggests that reality is an illusion generated in your own mind. You cannot prove that the rock is not an illusion, nor can you prove that the pain generated by stubbing your toe on it is real.

Similarly, you cannot disprove that you and the rock are software in a simulation.

If you cannot even prove that there is an external reality, how do you expect to prove a hypothesis?

Oct 2, 2016 at 6:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man


Not this time, I'm afraid.

The tropical hot spot has been detected. It was reported in Sherwood and Nishant (2015)

For the layman here this is the simple version.

Oct 2, 2016 at 7:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

And then things got even worse when the financiers and politicians saw opportunities for further corruption. They've been an extraordinarily costly and destructive mistake.

But you are a true believer; I'll not persuade you.

I am a sceptic, we are persuaded by evidence. Recently you've provided just a page of Ball's and a descent into playground name-calling.

Oct 2, 2016 at 8:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Sherwood and Nishant ( 2015)
The vertical profile of warming from these [temperature profiles] varies significantly however, especially in the tropics, depending on how artificial changes are identified and removed from the record (Thorne et al 2010, Seidel et al 2012) and has been shown to suffer from artificial drifts due to solar heating of sensors (Sherwood et al 2005). Early analyses of such data generally showed too little upper-level warming (CCSP 2006), although a couple of more recent records have come closer to the expected amplification albeit with somewhat less than expected warming. Satellite sounders available since 1979 can provide some constraint on the vertical variation of warming, but only in the form of broad weighted averages that span much of the troposphere and/or stratosphere. These data have been interpreted as indicating too little warming trend in the upper compared to the lower troposphere (Fu et al 2011, Po-Chedley and Fu 2012) and one satellite product shows less warming in the atmosphere than at the surface (Christy et al 2010).

Wallace ,Christyand D’Aleo (2016)
These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA’s claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world. Also critically important, even on an all-other-things- equal basis, this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series analyzed. Moreover, on an all-other-things-equal basis, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have caused the officially reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures. To validate their claim will require mathematically credible, publically available, simultaneous equation parameter estimation work.

It is of course all "settled science"

Oct 2, 2016 at 9:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterSpectator

"Solipsism is the philosophy which suggests that reality is an illusion generated in your own mind. You cannot prove that the rock is not an illusion, nor can you prove that the pain generated by stubbing your toe on it is real.

Similarly, you cannot disprove that you and the rock are software in a simulation."

Indeed, quite correct philosophical argument, but not scientific arguments, which we were discussing. A scientific argument should be capable of falsification. Your arguments can neither be proven nor falsified. Ergo they are not scientific statements and your overall statement fails.

Oct 2, 2016 at 9:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterACK

Link to the paper

I see Joe D'Aleo has followed in the footsteps of Richard Courtney and awarded himself a Doctorate ;-)

Submitted to which journal?

Oct 2, 2016 at 9:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Submitted to which journal?

Oct 2, 2016 at 9:24 PM | Phil Clarke

Provided it wasn't peer reviewed by representatives of 97% of climate scientists, who cares? It has a good chance of being reliable.

Oct 2, 2016 at 10:07 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Sorry, EM, but your sophistry is as empty as so many of you other arguments. You might have had a better chance if you had actually read what I wrote – that you can quote it, yet still manage to misinterpret it is a feat that is remarkable even by your standards; unless, that is, you genuinely do conflate evidence with proof. Should you read that phrase again, you will note that I stated “evidence that there is a rock…” NOT “proof”. A subtlety that seems to be lost on you.

Coincidentally, I have just watched a programme where a scientist actually said “…proof that the particle has been split…” Perhaps you should start directing your ire against the CERN laboratories, rather than we mere lay-persons.

Oct 2, 2016 at 10:16 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

I am a sceptic, we are persuaded by evidence.
Sadly, that is not a correct reference to yourself, Mr Clarke. All the evidence you have provided to us is that you are a full-on Believer. There is NO evidence that human activity is involved in any way with the global climate change; like Entropic man, you ignore that, and depend upon opinions, guesses, assumptions and presumptions of those in whom you have placed (or misplaced, perhaps?) your faith in providing answers with which you are in agreement. Any opinions, guesses, assumptions and presumptions that do NOT agree with your belief can be discarded and discounted on whatever tenuous reason you want to provide.

I am a sceptic, and eagerly await the evidence, one way or the other – and whichever it is, it is a truth, and opinion will not change it, so I will live with it. Until that evidence is presented, I – as a proper sceptic should – maintain the position of the null hypothesis: with no evidence of an occurrence, there was no occurrence; all swans are white, until a black swan is found. Note: this does not discount the possibility that there are black swans, but, to the present, climate “science” has metaphorically yet to find a single trace of one.

Oct 2, 2016 at 10:50 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical Rodent, do you have the right to think what you think, when it is clearly written in the unprovable laws of Climate Science that their experts know better than you what you were supposed to be thinking, when you didn't type what would have been more appropriate for their predetermined script?

Surely you must appreciate that the whole world has to revolve around climate scientists? It might be better to start drilling the hole at the South Pole, and lower the daisy chain of closely linked climate scientists, to form this new axis. If drilling started at the North Pole, the plague of Polar Bears would keep getting in the way.

Oct 2, 2016 at 11:04 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Ooohh... hadn't thought of that! Thank you for pointing that out, Gwen.

Oct 2, 2016 at 11:11 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Perhaps the quotations given here might be considered relevant.

Oct 2, 2016 at 11:17 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Phil Clarke, do you think that Journal of Climate should be held responsible for Peer Reviewing and publishing Gergis 2016? Or do you think "Yes" as opposed to "No" constitutes nothing more than a few typos that can be corrected in 4 years?

Oct 2, 2016 at 11:37 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie