Death Spiral Watch: Arctic Sea Ice Takes A Nosedive
As for my being rude and not contributing to this thread, well you've set the bar awfully low. Don't complain when people settle for clearing such a low standard.
You're engaged in attention seeking at this point, nothing more.
The Truth about Judith Curry
The Truth about Richard MullerJudith Curry is not a skeptic but a hurricane alarmist who had an alleged epiphany after Climategate and now seeks to be some sort of arbiter of scientific integrity. Her history of trust building includes accusing world leading hurricane expert, Dr. William Gray of "brain fossilization" and that, "Nobody except a few groupies wants to hear what he has to say" for his objections to her alarmist position on hurricanes. Curry has derided skeptics as "deniers" in both a testimony to congress and in the peer-reviewed literature, apparently in attempts at building "trust". Not even the most moderate of skeptics, Bjorn Lomborg was safe, "he fails to appreciate the risks that global warming bring to us all". Regarding the corruption exposed by Climategate she incomprehensibly believes, "I don't think anybody’s come at this with bad motives". She even defended Michael Mann by claiming that Steve McIntyre only found, "relatively minor errors" in Mann's Hockey Stick papers. But when it comes to the alarmist English major Chris Mooney, author of such "amicable" titles as the "The Republican War on Science", she gave him a five star review on Amazon for "Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming" calling it, "Science writing at its best".
Your failures are building at a rapid pace.Richard Muller has never been a skeptic, at best he had a moment of intellectual honesty towards skeptics when he acknowledged Steve McIntyre's debunking of Mann's Hockey Stick, only to later dismiss this as irrelevant to the global warming debate, "This result should not affect any of our thinking on global warming". Hardly surprising, as Muller considers the carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels to be, "the greatest pollutant in human history" and likely to have, "severe and detrimental effects on global climate". The future outlook for global warming according to Muller is that, "it’s going to get much, much worse" and thus advocates that the United States immediately pay China and India hundreds of billions of dollars to cut back their carbon emissions or, "it'll be too late". No wonder he endorsed "The Earth is the Great Ship Titanic", Steven Chu as "perfect" for U.S. Energy Secretary and Al Gore's hypocritical alarmism,
"If Al Gore reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion - which he does, but he’s very effective at it - then let him fly any plane he wants."
- Richard Muller, 2008
1000+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm
List of RandomGuy's Logical Fallacies
The Truth about Skeptical Science
"If you take down your 'Truth' series and post an apology then I will not send the email. If you don't the email goes out tomorrow. If you put up any more 'Truth' articles then they get an email detailing what you are as well." - Alarmist Blackmailer FuzzyLumpkins
"I will admit that I smoke pot" - Alarmist Blackmailer FuzzyLumpkins
And, I didn't get "all excited;" the information was new to me and I was curious of your response.
I realize the idea that skeptics criticize current climate models, based on the failure of previous efforts, isn't new but, the German website raises it again and, in a way that I think calls on current AGCC proponents to demonstrate how current methodologies are different and more effective.
I posted the link from PopularTechnology.net because, I wasn't aware such a repository existed and -- wasn't sure you were either. The post on the 1000+ papers was put up in May; has it been discussed in here since then? I don't recall having seen it.
You're still having fun, right?
you people suckered into "arguing", actually pissing matches, against WC and PussyEater should admit it's not, in any way, about the climate science.
It's intentionally blind and willfully ignorant, right-wing/UCA ideology to deny science in order to protect their wealth and power.
I respond to attacks and you call it attention getting?
My problem is having a hard time not to respond to the childish personal attacks from people like you, and i should completely ignore thy cyber bullies like FuzzNutz.
As for what I say on the topic, i believe what I say.
Why are you deflecting this thread instead of adding something of value?
I miss the 1/2 hr News hour...
What mistakes have I made that warrant your attack?
Notice how nobody yet has shown any solid evidence H2O causes that much feedback? The heating curve is pretty large if his contention is the, and makes a bigger case for the skeptics.
"All Knowledge is built upon instinctive belief, failing that there is nothing left." -Bertrand Russell
"Honor is simply the morality of superior men." -Henry Mencken
Officially Noted By Agloco
Fuzzy Fan Club: Cosmic Cowboy, TSA, Wild Cobra, Viva Las Espuelas
And, if I'm not mistaken, at the PopularTechnology.org website, they've added a whole category where criticisms can be addressed and/or refuted. I don't know how new that is but, while the list may have existed in another form, this site specifically addresses the nonsense that passes for debate in this forum.
Perhaps even Manny would learn something about the debate over AGCC.
Lets use mistakes from 24 years ago to characterize the science of today.....
We also should not have bothered with HTTP, rDNA, nanotech, brain actuated prosthetics, or anything else for that matter.
Systems analysis and computational power compared to 24 years ago is an exponential increase in the order of at least 5 and with P2P notions its that much more.
In the 1970s was when oceanic and atmospheric modelling began in earnest using engineering principles. The issues arise in respect to the dynamics of the systems of variable and not to do with the variables themselves.
The systems are nonlinear and nonperiodic and as such the solutions to simultaneous phenomenon are not 'easy.' The Lorentz Attractor, nondeterminstic flow, chaos theory and the like became big talking points in the scientific community in the 1990s because of these difficulties.
In essence what you are doing is the same as taking the state of manmade flight from about the mid 1800s when scientists were beginning to understand dynamics and claiming that a failed flight test in 1880 shows that the science is a failure.
Reading what you say it is very indicative that you are regurgitating dumbed down explanations of what the scientists are attempting to do and then ridiculing it. I do not deign to know the specific state of climate science as I am not working in one of the plethora of Universities and Institutes working on the problem but I do know better than to characterize the state of the science in 2012 on the basis of the science in 1988.
Rebuttals have been on there for sometime (December 2009) but critics never could find them (or intentionally did not) so the table of contents has appeared to correct this problem.
You are correct though that the 1000+ version has not been discussed here. I completely agree that it addresses much of that nonsense, especially relating to skeptics making valid scientific arguments against alarmist claims.
BTW I sent Judith and Richard a copy of the email.
As for inspired, I didn't read the links because I am not going to your site but if it doesn't have communist flags, bookies, terrorists and El Salvadoran communist ties then your shit is weak.
Don't have time to address the Hansen thing fully other than to quickly point out that the article Yonivore linked is full of some quite horrendous data or out right lies. I'll explain why later.
Take your time, you're a busy man -- having fun, I hope.
Doesn't matter what he says. It'll be a waste of time. You can't fix stupid.
Easy example is celsius around freezing. If the reading is 1.6 degrees with a 2 degree margin of error then that is clearly a small margin of error. Additionally, said degree of error gives you a range of possibilities to apply risk management to.
One thing that is clear is that you have no conception of risk management or statisitics. That is expected as law enforcement does not require that you know it.
I found this article which would indicate the amount of co2 increase due to deforestation is probably higher than you think.
They discovered that the world’s forests currently remove 2.4 billion metric tons of carbon each year from the Earth’s atmosphere, which they believe to be equivalent to one-third of the planet’s annual fossil fuel emissions. They also discovered that deforestation for development, to generate fuel, or for other reasons emits roughly 2.9 billion metric tons of the greenhouse gas, or "more than a quarter of all emissions stemming from human activity" each year, according to AFP writer Marlowe Hood.
If you want to make a compelling argument then you are going to have to be more specific and detailed such as discussing the range, units of measurement etc.
In this particular case, your interpretation of the stats is very flawed.
a) the estimate given was 1.6 with a range of .8 to 2.4. Thats a margin of about +/- .7 not 1.6.
b) that figure was extrapolated from multiple sources each with it own degree of error. Soot has a margin of error as does CO2 etc. Each one compounds the error in the end calculations and has to be calculated in the final tally. Its similar to the notion of what the probability of winning the lottery is when you add ping pong balls.
c) Nothing in this life is certain. There is a degree of uncertainty in everything even the most exact of sciences.
FuzzyDumbDumb doesn't get it.
You are talking about that, right?
A total charted net anthropogenic radiative forcing given as 1.6 with a range of 0.6 to 2.4....
I guess in fuzzy math, 2.4 - 0.6 ≠ 1.8.
Looks like a span of 1.8 to me, but what do I know. Fuzzy disagrees, so we must be wrong.
Will someone please define what "span" means to FuzzNutz. He won't listen to me.
When determining error you evaluate from the expected value. Span is an arbitrary term indicating some length between two points. The span from the expected value to the limit of error is a span.
It's not my fault that you guys have no clue on the subjects you are talking about.
The idiot does know what span means. I'll bet he googled hard for it. Considering he said Yoni was wrong about the "span" of the range, I wonder whats moving through that pea sized brain to justify his cyber bullying now. Maybe worms?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)