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 > Merry Christmas, Mr Steyn

Thank you. Just when I think that the vein of daftness at BH has ended, you come up in a new absurdity to entertain me

Dec 29, 2016 at 9:29 AM | Entropic man

Perhaps you could explain what your area of expertise actually is? Being able to recite, copy and paste the views of the Hockey Teamsters, seems to be about your limit, as you have never managed to come up with an independent view or opinion.

I do not claim to be a climate scientist, but can point at claims made by climate scientists and identify flaws, sometimes by simple observation. UK summers are not hotter or drier than before, and Sea Level rise is not accelerating. I just don't understand the motives of people who lie about it.

Dec 29, 2016 at 1:34 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Thank you. Just when I think that the vein of daftness at BH has ended, you come up in a new absurdity to entertain me
Dec 29, 2016 at 9:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM - We know that you are given to posting stuff "under the influence". But to be seriously hitting the bottle well before noon indicates a serious problem.

Dec 29, 2016 at 1:46 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

The climate believers have a problem that they refuse to acknowledge. The argument about the shape of the stick is only a small part of the issue. Fundamentally, the problem is knowing what the output represents. They claim, without any justification, that the squiggles represent temperature. That is just so laughable that you wonder how people can believe in it. After all this time, it seems astonishing to me that no one has performed an experiment in growing trees in carefully controlled environments and matching the results against temperature in Mannian style. But that would be proper science, wouldn't it

Dec 29, 2016 at 2:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterDiogenes

Diogenes - absolutely.

The "hide the decline" to-do was about hiding the fact that proxy estimates of twentieth century temperatures fell, while measured temperatures rose. The reaction of climate "science" was simply to disregard this conundrum and to carry on is if tree ring growth provided a measure of temperature (rather than some combination of other factors in addition - atmospheric CO2 concentration, annual hours of sunlight, rainfall,...).

As we have seen so often, in climate "science" if something seems to confirm the desired message, it is accepted, even if it fails basic sanity checks. Cargo cult science in action.

Dec 29, 2016 at 6:14 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

.....EM just.... curse tiny cell phone screens, lol

Dec 29, 2016 at 6:42 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Indeed Martín, but the supposed biologist-EM, is not worried. In other words he is no scientist. Just a shill

Dec 29, 2016 at 11:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterDiogenes

Martin A

Read "On the ’divergence problem’ in northern forests: A review of the tree-ring evidence and possible causes (D’Arrigo et al 2008) .

I have difficulty giving working links to PDFs, but a Google search should bring up several possible sources.

Dec 29, 2016 at 11:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

Diogenes

I would have asked you to read D'Arrigo et al 2008 too.

Unfortunately, since you are a shill and not a scientist, it would be beyond your understanding.

Dec 29, 2016 at 11:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

c'mon, Martin A, give him a break. It's Christmas.

Dec 29, 2016 at 11:39 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

EM, so are you admitting that trees are not thermometers? Why is it so hard for climate shills to admit the obvious?

Dec 30, 2016 at 9:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterDiogenes

Martin A
Read "On the ’divergence problem’ in northern forests: A review of the tree-ring evidence and possible causes (D’Arrigo et al 2008) .
Dec 29, 2016 at 11:14 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man

EM - as I said, tree ring growth, in periods where data is available to calibrate, does not seem to be a useable measure of temperature. From the abstract of the paper you cited:

....Herein we review the current literature published on the divergence problem to date, and assess its possible causes and implications. The causes, however, are not well understood and are difficult to test due to the existence of a number of covarying environmental factors that may potentially impact recent tree growth. These possible causes include temperature-induced drought stress, nonlinear thresholds or time-dependent responses to recent warming, delayed snowmelt and related changes in seasonality, and differential growth/climate relationships inferred for maximum, minimum and mean temperatures. Another possible cause of the divergence described briefly herein is global dimming, a phenomenon that has appeared, in recent decades, to decrease the amount of solar radiation available for photosynthesis and plant growth on a large scale. ...

Translation into English:

"We are buggered if we can explain why tree ring growth, in much of the period where accurate calibration is possible, does not provide a useable measure of average temperature".

So what Diogenes said: "Fundamentally, the problem is knowing what the output represents. They claim, without any justification, that the squiggles represent temperature. That is just so laughable that you wonder how people can believe in it" stands up.

________________________________________________________________________________________

A bit of history: One of the authors of the paper cited is Rob Wilson who, a while ago on BH, commented:

...some of the personal e-mails sent to me today would be rather embarrassing to some of you if I posted them on BH. So let’s please keep this civil. I can accept that some/many of you are rather sceptical, but insults will not help the discourse.
Rob
Jun 5, 2012 at 9:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterRob Wilson

Rob Wilson was asked to post the insulting emails on BH but none were posted. An FOI request to St Andrews University for the "insulting" emails sent to Rob Wilson was twice refused on specious grounds. A complaint was then made to the Scottish Information Commissioner, who found that the University had failed to deal with the request in accordance with both FOISA and the EIRs. She required the University to disclose the insulting emails. There were none.

Conclusion: a bullshitter.

Dec 30, 2016 at 10:08 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Conclusion: a bullshitter.

Ah, 2012, a Golden Age for BH, a time when actual scientists were willing to give guest posts, publish their emails and engage in what passes for debate hereabouts.

Now, posts are rare and the debate is a few regulars sat on their barstools telling each other the same old stories, and what appears to be a bot programmed with the phrases '97%' and 'hockey stick'.

I wonder why?

Dec 30, 2016 at 10:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke.
I can make an informed guess.

Dec 30, 2016 at 11:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

Phil Clarke, you forgot Gergis 2016. You wanted everyone to know how great that was. Except it was rubbish.

Climate Science is based on lies and corruption with Climate Scientists in full blown DENIAL. Your contribution to the propaganda war as a student of the William M Connolley school of further disinformation is acknowledged.

If you are keen to forget the lies of Mann's Hockey Stick and the 97% Consensus, shouldn't Climate Scientists admit that they should never have passed Peer Review, and be scrubbed from the record, like Gergis 2016?

All three papers still remain uncorrected, unamended and have not been withdrawn.. With less than 3 weeks to go to save Climate Science, what are you doing about it? Why do you keep expecting others to address the problems created by Climate Scientists, now that they are facing a Mass Extinction Event, having taken £billion$?

Your problem. Deal with it.

Dec 30, 2016 at 12:29 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

"Diogenes
I would have asked you to read D'Arrigo et al 2008 too.
Unfortunately, since you are a shill and not a scientist, it would be beyond your understanding.
Dec 29, 2016 at 11:31 PM | Entropic man"

https://climateaudit.org/2006/03/07/darrigo-making-cherry-pie/ Excellent read!

https://climateaudit.org/2016/01/29/cherry-picking-by-darrigo/ Even better, especially the comments!

From the thread, by Steve McIntyre:
"Unlike Briffa, D’Arrigo has candidly admitted to the selection of data to arrive at a preconceived result. At the 2006 NAS panel workshop, Rosanne D’Arrigo famously told the surprised panelists that you had to pick cherries if you want to make cherry pie.   Again in 2009 (though not noticed at the time), D’Arrigo et al 2009 stated that they could “partially circumvent” the divergence problem by only using data that went up:"

Only a shill and UNscientist like Entropic Man could give references to any work by D'Arrigo. Without corrupted dendrochronology, Mann would not have run tree rings around accepted methods of science.

Dec 30, 2016 at 1:01 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/29/scott-adams-dilbert-author-the-climate-science-challenge/

A wonderful opportunity for Climate Science to prove itself right prior to it's demise in 2017.

Dec 30, 2016 at 1:17 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I can make an informed guess.

Dec 30, 2016 at 11:23 AM | Supertroll

Supertroll, was your guess about right?

Dec 30, 2016 at 1:34 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

From an earlier discussion


Keep fiddling the experimental data until it fits the theory.

Sorry Rob. You are going to have to try alot harder to convince me.

Likewise with proxy reconstructions"

1) we looked at a whole bunch of natural things that can conceivably be affected by temperature.
2) we ignored the fact that many other environmental variables also affect these things
3) by trawling through the data we found some that significantly correlated with "detrended" instrumental temperature
4) we junked the majority of the data that didn't show this "correlation".
5) We dismissed/ignored the possibility that this correlation could be spurious
6) On the basis of (3) and (5) We then made the assumption that the selected datasets would continue to show this correlation for the 850 years or so of preinstrumental temperatures.
7) Lo and behold we find a "hockey stick"
8) Paper pal-reviewed and straight into the headlines and AR5.

Puh-leeze!
Jun 5, 2012 at 9:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

Dec 30, 2016 at 2:03 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Martin, it isn't simply that the HS has been shown to be silly and contrived. It is that multiple lines of evidence point to the same conclusion: nothing significant is happening to climate.

Dec 30, 2016 at 3:30 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Climate Science Epitaph 2017

Climate Science lies buried with the Hockey Stick.
They died in vain, at vast cost in money and to human life, trying to save Mann.

Dec 30, 2016 at 3:34 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Which Wahl and Ammann paper are you talking about Phil Clarke.

Dec 30, 2016 at 4:02 PM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo

golfCharlie. A guess remains a guess with no additional factual input.

Dec 30, 2016 at 4:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

https://climateaudit.org/2007/03/28/accessing-hegerl-data/

This is a good one. Steve McIntyre was invited to be an IPCC Reviewer, and asked for original data.

d'Arrigo was not the only Cherry Picking expert, who thought she was entitled to Cherry Pick her IPCC reviewers.

Is that the way Peer Review works in Climate Science? It would explain Phil Clarkes beloved "Hockey Stick", "97% Consensus" and "Gergis 2016".

At least Phil Clarke is finally beginning to understand how much embarrassment has been caused for years, by some of Climate Science's most revered attrocities against science and humanity. Shame Climate Science didn't discard them all after ClimateGate, rather than go into full blown "Cover-Up" mode.

Failed "Cover-Ups" normally end up causing more damage, and to more people, than the original errors, whether fraudulent or not.

Dec 30, 2016 at 4:44 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-006-9105-7

Dec 30, 2016 at 4:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

This is a good one. Steve McIntyre was invited to be an IPCC Reviewer, and asked for original data.

Disgraceful. McIntyre attempting to abuse his position as IPCC reviewer to bully his betters. I'd have sacked him.

Dec 30, 2016 at 5:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke