Unthreaded
Whoa, Gwen! Please, don’t hold back! Give it to them with both barrels – they have certainly asked for it! I – and, I suspect, many others – understand the frustration you feel as you try and knit the fog of minds locked into the mantra.
Entropic man – if you read the abstract carefully, in the first sentence you will find this: “…calculated as the difference between estimates of the Earth’s radiation field from pre-industrial and present-day concentrations of these gases." [my bolding] Do note: the word “estimates” does not make it a measurement, and it thus invalidates much of the rest of the paper as anything like evidence for what you adhere to.
In your second link: “They attributed this upward trend to rising CO2 levels from fossil fuel emissions.” So, rising CO2 levels from sources other than fossil fuel emissions don’t count? Eh-oh… As it is acknowledged that the human contribution to the rising CO2 is small, this is yet another assumption that should cast doubt upon the paper’s credibility. (The very next sentence is also highly contentious, but let’s not bother.)
You obviously continue to fail to understand that correlation does NOT necessarily mean causation; also, a closer correlation would be required to even consider any causation – while fossil-fuel consumption has soared away exponentially, CO2 rise plods along at much the same rate as it was, nearly 200 years ago; while CO2 has risen at a reasonably constant rate, temperatures have risen, fallen, risen and flat-lined, totally out of sync, one would have thought. Now, temperatures look to be on the verge of plummeting; what will be your argument should that be the case? (I would wager it you would still blame (western) man-made CO2, and fret about your grandchildren enduring a human-induced ice age.)
Anyway… here are two links for you to peruse:
https://principia-scientific.org/r-i-p-greenhouse-gas-theory-1980-2018/
https://principia-scientific.org/whats-really-going-on-with-venus-two-gas-planets-comparison/
I doubt you will bother, of course, but others will.
Radical Rodent
Feb 11, 2018 at 7:33 PM | Unregistered Commenter golf charlie
None of them have moved on. They are still following the advice of Steven Schneider from way back in 1978. Still stuck in the groove of the bullshit advice he gave then. Weeping like that F**K.W weepy Bill McKibben
here
Kleinefeldmaus
Ross lea
Enlighten me. What do you think evidence linking increasing CO2 and increasing global temperature would look like?
Entropic man
Feb 11, 2018 at 7:09 PM | tomo
Greenpeace will want funding to teach sharks political correctness
golf charlie
Feb 11, 2018 at 5:07 PM | Supertroll
The IPCC have not Ditched The Stick! Phil Clarke has previously tried to deflect, by claiming that Climate Science has "moved on" from the Hockey Stick. That is what the Hockey Team have privately agreed to, without admission of any guilt or responsibility. Who can forget the publicity that the Hockey Stick was fabricated to produce for the IPCC?
The IPCC has parked "The Hockey Stick", wheels removed, on bricks, covered with a tarpaulin, in a derelict locked shed without a key. But Climate Science has not publicly Ditched The Stick, as it is one of the Key Dominoes that Harvey et al 2017 was fabricated to preserve.
michael hart summed it up better!
"You repeat yourself. All my points (and Gavin's) refer to the entire reconstruction.
But I am completely uninterested in rehashing the HS. We've moved on.
Dec 8, 2016 at 2:00 PM | Phil Clarke"
"We've moved on.
Dec 8, 2016 at 2:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke
Then please don't let us stop you, go !!!
Dec 8, 2016 at 2:55 PM | Breath of Fresh Air"
"Time to dump the Hockey Stick, but I think Trump has lined up all the Hockey Teamsters.
If the Hockey Teamsters had dumped Mann's Hockey Stick years ago, Climate Science might have evolved into something useful.
Now, about that 97% Consensus nonscience ......
Dec 8, 2016 at 3:58 PM | golf charlie"
"But I am completely uninterested in rehashing the HS. We've moved on.
Dec 8, 2016 at 2:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke
No, Phil Clarke, you haven't moved on. You are still here trying to defend the hockey stick and associated papers, long after the original perpetrators have tried to move on. They hope that the tides of time will wash away the stains of their own personal involvement in the greatest scientific deception since Piltdown Man, but you are not helping them. That's OK here, Phil, but you wouldn't be allowed such extensive truthfulness at the "Real Climate" blog.
And I presume that this Wahl and Ammann was the same Wahl and Ammann that was rejected by reviewers (McIntyre being one of them), but they still cited it anyway for the IPCC A4? And why wouldn't a corrupt scientist do that if they knew that the editor who had their back was Stephen-"we have to offer up scary scenarios"-Schneider, the same Stephen Schneider who gave public succour to those activist-scientists who felt any difficulty when confronted with the apparently difficult choice of either a) telling the truth or b) being 'effective communicators' and "getting loads of media coverage". I guess that particular question about a "balance between being effective and being honest" is one that he took to the grave with him: Steve McIntyre appears not to have received satisfactory answers to his questions on this matter regarding due process in Stephen Schneider's version of climate science peer-review.
Speaking only for myself, Phil Clarke, if you ever think your posts are being ignored at BH, it might well be because you give a good impression of being a technical troll, and I skip over many of them. Defending what appears to me as the completely-indefensible hockey stick, isn't going to get you taken any more seriously than sky dragons: I simply start switching off when I see the usual lame defences of the HS, which usually seem to involve appealing to the 'authority' of sycophants who are even less trustworthy and scientifically competent than Mann himself, if that is possible.
And, please, I don't need Steve McIntyre to point out BS when I see it. That applies to more readers at Bishop Hill than you seem to recognise. But you come here regularly making criticisms of him that you could have made, in more detail, at his blog without fear of censorship, if you wanted to. Censorship that I would certainly experience at the blogs you like to frequent/cite. If anything, I think he is way too polite. I still look forward to you or Entropic Man making some detailed pertinent criticisms at Climate Audit.
"Moving on" in the world of climate science often seems to involve no more than a cat "moving on" when it scratches a little sand over its business in the litter box. But at least a well trained cat seems to hit the sand in the box with a modicum of accuracy.
Dec 9, 2016 at 9:41 PM | michael hart"
Climate Science is heading for the ditch, being dragged down by The Hockey Stick. As Global Warming has not happened, Climate Scientists are going to find out that it is actually quite cold, but not infested with tropical reptiles and malaria as predicted.
golf charlie
Heartless, cruel....
I am struggling with this...
A few polar bear hugs next up then?
ps I guess confirmation bias made me splutter into my coffee before I considered the hoax angle....
tomo
GC. Out of date man, the IPCC already ditched the stick. EM hasn't noticed because he doesn't read subversive literature.
Supertroll
Entropic Man, For a man of science you have a very poor grasp of just what is evidence in the scientific sence. I am disappointed I thought you might have something new to contribute.
While I am on the subject let’s consider the viability of climate models. Mathematic models definitely have their place in science for example we have a model for the period of a pendulum. However the result depend on assumptions and the value assigned to constants such as pi and g. As g is not constant but has been assigned a value there is a range of uncertainty there. Now this is a very simple mathematical model. Now trying to model the climate with so many variables and arbitrarily assigned constants is clearly meaningless nonsense as is the concept of a Global Temperature. When you see the spaghetti map of 100 or so models it is quite clear that they are failing to model the same phenomena.
Ross Lea
Feb 11, 2018 at 2:28 PM | Entropic man
Just because something is Peer Reviewed in Climate Science, does not make it worth more than its own weight in loo paper.
Climate Science needs to Ditch The Stick
golf charlie
Feb 11, 2018 at 8:45 PM | Entropic man
Some kind of correlation between CO2 and temperature?
Proof that the Medievals burnt lots of coal, and then stopped would help.
Did the Industrial Revolution cause Arctic Ice to recede, allowing the Franklin Expedition in, never to be seen again, until their vessels were found in the last ten years?
The burden of proof lies with Climate Scientists, and all they have done is lie and cheat science and taxpayers. Try looking at Climate Science's imminent cash flow crisis from a different angle.
What proof will Trump now require, to continue to fund the UN's IPCC and US Climate Scientists, given the Democrats frauds and corruption since Climategate?
Without US Dollars, what will happen to Climate Science?
Will anyone notice, or even care?
The World does have genuine problems, that need cash to fix. Why waste money on non existent ones, that only emerge from flawed computer models being fed with dodgy dossiers of data?