Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

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

Powered by Squarespace

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

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/10/01/james-lovelock-godfather-green-climate-change-religion-totally-unscientific/

Apparently James Lovelock has now grown up, and doesn't believe in the unscientific Green Blob rubbish anymore. He made enough money out of it, so it is really good of him to admit it was a load of bullocks.

Phil Clarke won't believe it, unless it is in a Peer Reviewed Climate Science comic, and Entropic Man will argue that it proves nothing, because faith can not be disproved.

Bad news for those relying on Lovelock for Big Green Blob Cheques.

Oct 3, 2016 at 12:26 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Heehaw, Phil, you don't critique that 'page' of Tim Ball, and instead rely on your previous playing of that man.

You claim to be a skeptic, but your sources are from the disinformationist alarmists. Some skeptic to spout the party line.
==============

Oct 3, 2016 at 12:28 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

@ACK, Oct 2, 2016 at 9:16 PM

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.

Sounds spurious.

The scientific arguments you appear to prefer are those full of holes where predicted scientific statements often do not equate to empirical reality: Peter Wadhams, Cambridge on no more arctic ice in 2013, 2016...

A genuine scientific argument should be proven and not capable of falsification.

Stalker ;)

PS I heard Toys R Us are giving free toys to those with empty prams ;)

Oct 3, 2016 at 12:56 AM | Registered CommenterPcar

PCar. You misunderstand the statement, which isn't mine. "A scientific argument should be capable of falsification" simply means that the proposition being examined should be amenable to testing, with the test opening up the possibility of the proposition being proven false. Einstein's theory of relativity, for example, was scientific because it made predictions that could be tested. EM's proposition that the rock and everything might be part of a computer programme cannot be refuted by any test you might conceive (because the act of conceiving the test might be part of the programme) and therefore cannot be considered scientific. All this used to be taught at schools.

It may be of interest to realize that much of climate science is not scientific. Many of its predictions cannot be tested except by waiting decades, and other "predictions" are made after the event as when extreme weather events are attributed to climate change and then used as proof that climate science is real..

Oct 3, 2016 at 7:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterACK

Alan, I've long thought that Al Gore, who dropped out of Divinity School, stayed long enough to learn the lessons of how ancient shaman manipulated the masses with fear and guilt over weather events.

Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. I don't think he chose the meme, but he certainly has profited by it, and he is certainly aiding the training of the numerous flying monkeys who cluster at will and at volume at any breath of skepticism.
==============

Oct 3, 2016 at 9:00 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

ACK 7:18, it is interesting that as evidence continually fails to materialise in support of the theories, Climate Science has to revise down the original predictions, and call them projections, whilst simultaneously spending millions on new reports to support and "prove" the Hockey Stick.

EM is now relying on philosophical arguments to justify why CO2 is Gaia's Number One enemy, and The Guardian is now reporting that James Lovelock got the CO2 versus Gaia argument wrong, having spent the last few years reporting that 9 out of 7 Climate Scientists prefer taxpayer funding, as the maths works for their bank accounts

There is no evidence that can be found. As an experiment that can be tested, 97% of taxpayer funding for Climate Science should now be cut. The world can then observe for 20 years, to establish whether it makes the slightest difference.

Oct 3, 2016 at 9:04 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Al Gore didn't win his own state of Tennessee in the US Presidential election of 2000. Had he done so, the uproar in Florida would never have been necessary; he'd have beaten G. W. Bush.

They knew him well, and now, disastrously, so do you.
==================

Oct 3, 2016 at 9:05 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

"A genuine scientific argument should be proven and not capable of falsification." Oct 3, 2016 at 12:56 AM Pcar

Entropic Man - would you agree with that?

Oct 3, 2016 at 9:10 AM | Unregistered Commentersplitpin

Look to South Australia, where wind power has overpenetrance and where overdependence upon wind power has produced an unstable grid. Several commenters have predicted something similar for Great Britain this winter, but I'm not sure your wind power has overpenetrated so badly yet.

Australia, where a Prime Minister, somewhat skeptical of climate alarm, was deposed in a coup d'etat. Great Britain has temporarily somewhat reversed your rush to madness, but it may be too little, too late, at least for the near term.
==================

Oct 3, 2016 at 9:18 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Climate Science, and Climate Scientist, are terms that should be revised, as they are taken to mean something that they are by Entropic Man's definition incapable of fulfilling.

Perhaps Climate Projectionist would be more apt. A different scary projection, simply by changing the inputs, and it is all fiction anyway.

Oct 3, 2016 at 9:24 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

The climate alarmism of the first decade of this century has already been falsified, but the same old tired memes continue to be wrought upon huddled hoi polloi, yearning to be free, by the propagandists of alarm, particularly with any severe weather event.

There is no cause for alarm, there is no evidence of harm. Keep calm, and carry on.
====================

Oct 3, 2016 at 9:30 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Heh, gc, they project from behind the green curtain.

Demonic wizards of Oz.
=====================

Oct 3, 2016 at 9:31 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Kim 9:31, brilliant!

Oct 3, 2016 at 9:36 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Heehaw, Phil, you don't critique that 'page' of Tim Ball, and instead rely on your previous playing of that man.

It is there in black and white. Central to Balls' thesis is the assertion that 'The average temperature for the Stonehenge active period is between 1.5 and 2.5 C warmer than at present.' which he claims based on a graph of GISP2 data sourced from Richard Alley. This is the same graph that pops up a lot, not least at WUWT. It was developed by Don Easterbrook and has been serially demolished. The x-axis is labelled 'before present (2000AD) when in fact the data is BP, which by convention is baseline of 1950, and it ends in 95 BP, or 1855, missing all of the modern warming and completely falsifying Balls' claim. Even if the dating were accurate, Alley who literally wrote the book on ice cores says this:-

no single temperature record from anywhere can prove or disprove global warming, because the temperature is a local record, and one site is not the whole world. […] So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible. And, using GISP2 data within the larger picture of climate science demonstrates that our scientific understanding is good, supports our expectation of global warming, but raises the small-chance-of-big-problem issue that in turn influences the discussion of optimal human response.

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/richard-alley-on-old-ice-climate-and-co2/

It is not 'playing the man' to point out that Ball's article is nonsense based on an incorrect interpretation of data by from another serial spouter of nonsense.

Oct 3, 2016 at 10:30 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

And a PS, it is apparently the GISP2 data that Josh used in his 'timeline' cartoon. What Javier used is anyone's guess.

Oct 3, 2016 at 10:35 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

It is patently unfair to blame EM of not understanding science or the scientific method - he did science at university and taught science in schools. What he is guilty of is trying to blindside RR with a philosophical argument in the guise of a scientific one. He has been caught.

Oct 3, 2016 at 10:40 AM | Unregistered CommenterACK

Phil Clarke, your "Demolition" includes references to Sceptical Skience, made by "Dana". Doesn't that reduce the credibility of the "Demolition" and your excuse of not making ad hom attacks?

Criticism by Phil Clarke is a great endorsement of Javier, and as for cartoonists at Skeptical Science criticising cartoons by Josh, well.....

Oct 3, 2016 at 11:07 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Hmmm, would Phil argue that the Holocene optimum was not warmer than now? If so, we've become miracle workers, reversing the steady temperature decline of this latter half of that short age, which will inevitably end in re-glaciation.

I'm alarmed.
========

Oct 3, 2016 at 11:09 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Javier has a very interesting thesis. I'm not thoroughly convinced, but it's clear the alarmists have no answer for him yet.
===================

Oct 3, 2016 at 11:20 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

kim Oct 3, 2016 at 11:09 AM
Cut the wire before you do yourself some harm.

Oct 3, 2016 at 11:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterACK

Phil Clarke, your "Demolition" includes references to Sceptical Skience, made by "Dana". Doesn't that reduce the credibility of the "Demolition" and your excuse of not making ad hom attacks?

(a) It did not.

(b) So what if it did? The idea that an argument is less or more credible because of the individual advancing it - what is that an example of?

Oct 3, 2016 at 11:24 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

I'm not thoroughly convinced about everything Tim Ball has to say, either, but his suit with Michael 'Piltdown' Mann is approaching closure. The flying monkeys are on the attack, and he must be destroyed.
===============

Oct 3, 2016 at 11:28 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Alan, what little man can do so far as warming the earth is merely storing up a little fat for the long hibernation ahead.
============

Oct 3, 2016 at 11:30 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Don’t worry, Minty, EM’s attempts to blindside failed abysmally; I had a similar discussion with a Cambridge don, a few years ago, as he fed me the line that the reality of the book on the table in front of us has to be questioned – was it there, or was it just a figment of my (our) imagination(s). It was a tortuous, convoluted argument, which really took us absolutely nowhere, but it was fun, playing loose with logic.

However, based on recent comments Entropic man has made, I do question his understanding of science, thus wonder what harm he has done to the thought processes of those he taught.

Oct 3, 2016 at 11:48 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

And please don't buy in to the fraudulent smoothing which produces the straight shaft of the hockey stick. Modern warming is not proven to be predominantly anthropogenic, but if it is it is a good.
=================

Oct 3, 2016 at 11:52 AM | Unregistered Commenterkim