Hockey Stick Revisited in Brand New Context

[Keepitsimple]

It's not AGW anymore. It's climate change.

John Holdren has decided to start using the term "Global Climate Disruption".....watch for it playing at a theatre near you.

[jbg]

John Holdren has decided to start using the term "Global Climate Disruption".....watch for it playing at a theatre near you.

That's almost like using "mentally challenged" as opposed to "frickin' crazy". More politically correct lexicon.

[Shady]

That's almost like using "mentally challenged" as opposed to "frickin' crazy". More politically correct lexicon.

It also makes it easier for them to explain any type of climate activity as a result of so-called climate change. The term global warming had them boxed in.

[Michael Hardner]

It also makes it easier for them to explain any type of climate activity as a result of so-called climate change. The term global warming had them boxed in.

That's exactly right. If there are colder temperatures in some areas as a result of human-caused CO2 then people would make fun of that too. Hence, climate change.

[waldo]

If the Arctic is so warm let Waldo vacation in Tuktuyotok, in tennis clothes at Christmas time. Maybe he'll hug one of Santa's reindeer.

for full dramatic denier impact: learn how to spell... recognize that Tuk is really in the 'tropical south Beaufort Sea'... choose the more northerly Arctic territory (Nunavut) rather than NT... pick from the exotic locale of Ellesmere Island (perhaps 'Grise Fiord' might make for a nice respite).

of course, if you wanted to have a serious legitimate discussion on Arctic impacts... with you denying the AGW impact on the Arctic... then... go for it. That is, if your full time job and selective time management allows you to invest a few cycles in actual discourse rather than engaging the 'Shady one' - hey?

on edit: the just released 2010 NOAA Arctic Report Card... "Return to previous Arctic conditions is unlikely - Record temperatures across Canadian Arctic and Greenland, a reduced summer sea ice cover, record snow cover decreases and links to some Northern Hemisphere weather support this conclusion"

I thought of locales further north, but I figured that a place that's always buried under ice isn't a fair vacation destination, since it's never warm. By your logic at least Tuk could have tropical weather.

I guess you're not very "Alert" today, speaking of Ellesmere Island and Nunavut.

of course... you completely skirted over that U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) inconvenient truth - hey? Is there a problem? Is there a reason you're not inclined to take up the challenge to support your wisenheimer spout-off about 'Arctic warmth' - hey?

[bush_cheney2004]

FRom the NOAA web site disclaimer:

We recommend that NOAA data be acquired directly from a NOAA server and not through other sources that may change the data in some way. Similarly, hypertext links are provided here to other information resources available on the World Wide Web, and NOAA does not control and cannot guarantee the scope, accuracy or timeliness of this information. Changes in status of data may occur prior to updating this home page, thus OR&R cannot provide any warranty as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of furnished data. Links to non-Federal Government Web sites do not imply endorsement of any particular product, service, organization, company, information provider, or content.

[waldo]

John Holdren has decided to start using the term "Global Climate Disruption".....watch for it playing at a theatre near you.

buddies... sorry to interrupt your denialpalooza!

Simple ton, it was you, just a few days ago, floating the favoured CAGW denier taunt... you know, the acronym with no scientific credence/association... the acronym that originates completely within the denialsphere.

but really, we've already gone down this path on MLW previously... like I said, the only recycling deniers seem to engage in, is repeated failed discussion. How about another reminder on the confidential 2003 GOP strategy memo (re: Frank Luntz) to use 'climate change' over 'global warming'. Really, c'mon... you mean Republicans would purposely, on a strategic basis, intend to downplay the actual impacts in favour of a massaged 'more controlled, less emotional' language - I'm shocked, I tells ya... shocked!

1) "Climate change" is less frightening than "global warming". As one focus group participant noted, climate change 'sounds like you're going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.' While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.

2) We should be "conservationists", not "preservationists" or "environmentalists". The term "conservationist" has far more positive connotations than either of the other two terms. It conveys a moderate, reasoned, common sense position between replenishing the earth's natural resources and the human need to make use of those resources.

"Environmentalist" can have the connotation of extremism to many Americans, particularly those outside the Northeast. "Preservationists", suggests someone who believes nature should remain untouched - preserving exactly what we have. By comparison, Americans see a "conservationist" as someone who believes we should use our natural resources efficiently and replenish what we can when we can.

Republicans can redefine the environmental debate and make inroads on what conventional wisdom calls a traditionally Democratic constituency, because we offer better policy choices to the Washington-run bureaucracy. But we have to get the talk right to capture that segment of the public that is willing to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt on the environment -- and they are out there waiting.

so... of course, in iterative parlance, we have the next progression bringing forward the use of ACC versus AGW... as in 'Anthropogenic Climate Change' versus 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' climate change. So much cleaner - don't ya think? I'm sure you deniers will quickly adopt it - hey?

[GostHacked]

FRom the NOAA web site disclaimer:

We recommend that NOAA data be acquired directly from a NOAA server and not through other sources that may change the data in some way. Similarly, hypertext links are provided here to other information resources available on the World Wide Web, and NOAA does not control and cannot guarantee the scope, accuracy or timeliness of this information. Changes in status of data may occur prior to updating this home page, thus OR&R cannot provide any warranty as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of furnished data. Links to non-Federal Government Web sites do not imply endorsement of any particular product, service, organization, company, information provider, or content.

The site says everything you need to know about AGW, or climate change or whatever, then it's all practically negated by the disclaimer.

The devil is in the detail disclaimer.

Edited November 2, 2010 by GostHacked

[GostHacked]

so... of course, in iterative parlance, we have the next progression bringing forward the use of ACC versus AGW... as in 'Anthropogenic Climate Change' versus 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' climate change. So much cleaner - don't ya think? I'm sure you deniers will quickly adopt it - hey?

Actually it is the supporters of the notion of climate change that will use the term first and propagate it out to the masses. Usually that kind of terminology comes from the top down.

[bush_cheney2004]

The site says everything you need to know about AGW, or climate change or whatever, then it's all practically negated by the disclaimer....

Pretty much as you said....and no doubt a direct result of the AGW circus we have seen recently.

In God We Trust...all others bring data!

Edited November 2, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

FRom the NOAA web site disclaimer:

We recommend that NOAA data be acquired directly from a NOAA server and not through other sources that may change the data in some way. Similarly, hypertext links are provided here to other information resources available on the World Wide Web, and NOAA does not control and cannot guarantee the scope, accuracy or timeliness of this information. Changes in status of data may occur prior to updating this home page, thus OR&R cannot provide any warranty as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of furnished data. Links to non-Federal Government Web sites do not imply endorsement of any particular product, service, organization, company, information provider, or content.

The site says everything you need to know about AGW, or climate change or whatever, then it's all practically negated by the disclaimer.

The devil is in the detail disclaimer.

GostHacked, some of our recent exchanges suggest you process/analyze with a somewhat less than discriminating approach... aside from what you (and the tard that brought forward the disclaimer in the first place) think that disclaimer says... what practical limits, constraints or reservations you think it implies, you may pause to consider it's actually a disclaimer that associates with web-site particulars associated with the OR&R - NOAA's Ocean Service Organization, most particularly the Office of Response & Restoration... one of but many organizations within NOAA. Since you (and the tard that brought forward the disclaimer in the first place) haven't a clue about NOAA's climate organizational structure... which certainly didn't stop you (and the tard) from beaking off... let me point you to the relevant area within NOAA, it's NCDC (National Climatic Data Center) organization, and a particular NCDC website disclaimer you are certainly free to scrutinize. At least in this case, you'll be in the right organization and pointing your denier best at the appropriate disclaimer - hey? (of course, this disclaimer, like the initial one put forward by the tard, reflects on website data... how well the website reflects actual data/process/methods/etc. Obviously, that most significant point seemed to fly right over you... and the tard).

just a lil' heads up for ya... NCDC has published a wealth of papers that speak specifically to it's data quality, data processes, methods, etc. It's probably one of the more transparent organizations in existence. It has a strong contingent of well published scientists that have been, in recent years, pushing forcibly back against challenges to it's data integrity... published papers, some of which have been highlighted throughout assorted MLW threads, given Simple ton's preoccupation with his favourite weathermen's challenges to the U.S. surface temperature record. Suffice to say, Watts and his merry SPPI band of idgits have been bested numerous times over by NOAA/NCDC scientists... to the point that Watts has slinked away with promises of further work/analysis... ya, right! So GostHacked, we can have some fun here... why don't you (and the tard) bring forward your challenges to the integrity of NOAA's climate related data - as managed by it's NCDC organization... why don't you (and the tard) take up the challenge - hey?

[bush_cheney2004]

The "tard" is ROTFLHMFAO.....who knew that climate change could be so funny!

America! America!

God shed his data on thee

And crown thy good with federal agencies

For waldo to see to shining sea!

Edited November 3, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

The "tard" is ROTFLHMFAO.....who knew that climate change could be so funny!

special dispensation applied to converse with the normally muted:

hey laughing boy... your idiocy is on full display - what could be sweeter than a full frontal exposing of your brazen know-nothing pomposity. Genius boy - have you had a chance to look over that NCDC website I steered you towards? You know... NCDC... the actual organization within NOAA responsible for climate change/data management. Just what was it you wanted to say about NOAA, the OR&R organization within NOAA, climate change/data, and the OR&R disclaimer you felt so emboldened to quote from? You know... OR&R, the organization that has nothing to do with NOAA climate change/data management? As I pointed out, I also realized a special chuckle at your expense when you presumed to apply a website disclaimer to actual data integrity... failing to distinguish website presence from actual data integrity (outside of a website presence)... again, your pure genius on full frontal display!

(really... you should jump into these climate related threads more often... you're a hoot! If so, I may choose to apply an even more liberal dose of special dispensation in conversing with your normally muted self.)

[bush_cheney2004]

special dispensation applied to converse with the normally muted:

Haven't you learned yet that the ignore list is a losing strategy? Welcome back !

hey laughing boy... your idiocy is on full display - what could be sweeter than a full frontal exposing of your brazen know-nothing pomposity. Genius boy - have you had a chance to look over that NCDC website I steered you towards? You know... NCDC... the actual organization within NOAA responsible for climate change/data management.

You are "steering" without a rudder....do you really think I "look over" all the American content that you discover from across the frozen fence? Oh the irony!

Just what was it you wanted to say about NOAA, the OR&R organization within NOAA, climate change/data, and the OR&R disclaimer you felt so emboldened to quote from? You know... OR&R, the organization that has nothing to do with NOAA climate change/data management?

I think my rather straightforward quote from one of your favorite American web sites pretty much says it all. I added zero editorial content but still managed to snag me a big wriggling waldo from Lake Ignore!

As I pointed out, I also realized a special chuckle at your expense when you presumed to apply a website disclaimer to actual data integrity... failing to distinguish website presence from actual data integrity (outside of a website presence)... again, your pure genius on full frontal display!

The laugh is on you sir....evident to all. Even the NOAA wishes to distance itself from your ilk.

(really... you should jump into these climate related threads more often... you're a hoot! If so, I may choose to apply an even more liberal dose of special dispensation in conversing with your normally muted self.)

Not necessary....I have enough fresh waldo fillets from this single dance to feed a village. Hide the Decline!!!!

[waldo]

You are "steering" without a rudder....do you really think I "look over" all the American content that you discover from across the frozen fence? Oh the irony!

irony? Just keep on, keeping on... like I said, nothing sweeter than a full frontal exposing of your brazen know-nothing pomposity. Well done, sir - well done, indeed!

I think my rather straightforward quote from one of your favorite American web sites pretty much says it all. I added zero editorial content but still managed to snag me a big wriggling waldo from Lake Ignore!

beauty... you spin your colossal screw-up into a... wait for it... failure to apply appropriate editorial review! Classic! Oh wait... along with your "apparent" forced failure to properly editorialize, you actually did it to lay out a scenario so enticing as to cause a lowering of the Ignore gate... this just keeps getting better! What... were you feeling a bit lonely... and ignored?

The laugh is on you sir....evident to all. Even the NOAA wishes to distance itself from your ilk.

now you're speaking in tongues... is there a translation in the house? Anyone... anyone... anyone...

Hide the Decline!!!!

oh no... no way... I prefer to keep your downward spiral on full frontal display - keep up your failed work/best!

[bush_cheney2004]

irony? Just keep on, keeping on... like I said, nothing sweeter than a full frontal exposing of your brazen know-nothing pomposity. Well done, sir - well done, indeed!

Worshipping at the feet of American web sites can only end badly for you....as in this case.

Oh wait... along with your "apparent" forced failure to properly editorialize, you actually did it to lay out a scenario so enticing as to cause a lowering of the Ignore gate...

Yea...we call that "bait". You took not only the bait with a loud splash, but leader and sinker as well. Gosh...that's one big waldo flopping around in my boat's live well.

Carry on...and....Hide the Decline!!!

[Sir Bandelot]

achh noo, I've naye got me boots on...

[waldo]

Worshipping at the feet of American web sites can only end badly for you....as in this case.

where upon... you fall back to your tried & true... your one-trick dog&pony show - which is why I threw you on ignore in the first place. Your absolute insecure self... in all its glory. Just imagine... someone would dare to reference an American organization - wow! Of course, in this particular case, it was me linking a reference to the NOAA 2010 Arctic Report Card... you know, that global cooperative undertaking involving some ~70 international scientists, representing some ~175 published scientific papers from world-wide journals/scientists, as endorsed by the international Arctic Council... you know... the council made up of Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russian Federation, Sweden, and the United States. Oh my! I linked to and referenced a report with international makeup, content and endorsement. Wow!

Yea...we call that "bait". You took not only the bait with a loud splash, but leader and sinker as well. Gosh...that's one big waldo flopping around in my boat's live well.

seems to me I caught a real big insecure yankee interloper... one with a brazillion MLW posts essentially dedicated to reminding everyone just how insecure he really is. Yes, indeed - you struck big and bold... you took heaping mouthfuls of the bait laid out... just for you... just to showcase your one-trick dog&pony show at your heightened most insecure best!

Carry on...and....Hide the Decline!!!

your pathetic dimness, grows ever dimmer. Should one even bother to link you to the previous thread exchanges... involving yourself, where you threw down this same idgit play. Nah, no point. PollyB_C needs his "hide the decline" squawking point to feel he's actually in the game!

[bush_cheney2004]

where upon... you fall back to your tried & true... in this particular case, it was me linking a reference to the NOAA

That's the beauty of it....it's always you linking to this or that without noticing the data disclaimers...priceless!

seems to me I caught a real big insecure yankee interloper... one with a brazillion MLW posts essentially dedicated to reminding everyone just how insecure he really is. Yes, indeed - you struck big and bold... you took heaping mouthfuls of the bait laid out... just for you... just to showcase your one-trick dog&pony show at your heightened most insecure best!

That's what all the Vicarious Americans say....how's about you give us some more NASA "data" too! America...America....

your pathetic dimness, grows ever dimmer. Should one even bother to link you to the previous thread exchanges... involving yourself, where you threw down this same idgit play. Nah, no point. PollyB_C needs his "hide the decline" squawking point to feel he's actually in the game!

The "Hide The Decline" YouTube video celebrates a very difficult but laughable year for your climate challenged heroes...in America and elsewhere.

[waldo]

That's the beauty of it....it's always you linking to this or that without noticing the data disclaimers...priceless!

priceless? What's priceless is you presumed to link a presentation level disclaimer (website content) to actual integrity of data, without regard to website content/presentation... of course, your pipsqueak mind can't seem to comprehend that distinction..... wow! Imagine, a disclaimer to advise that the website may not be current! Of course, that's separate from your blustering, bumbling best screw-up - where you presumed to speak of climate data integrity based on a website disclaimer... from a website that has nothing to do with climate change/data management. Classic blunder - extraordinaire! One for the books! Bookmarked for future reference - good on ya, mate... uhhh... priceless!

That's what all the Vicarious Americans say....how's about you give us some more NASA "data" too! America...America....

your insecure self will need to cast your vicarious net elsewhere - I've traveled extensively throughout your country... there might be about 10 states or so I actually haven't been in - I've lived and worked in your country. Frankly, you couldn't pay me enough to live in your country... thank you very much. Well... ok, maybe Hawaii - but only for the diving!

The "Hide The Decline" YouTube video celebrates a very difficult but laughable year for your climate challenged heroes...in America and elsewhere.

not at all - for the few minutes I bothered with it, it simply plays out the denier talking points... the very same ones refuted many times over in previous MLW threads. "Hide the Decline" is just so passe - don't ya know? Of course, what's really comical is that same blustering confidence that had you just fail with your 'website disclaimer', is the same blustering confidence that you show with the "Hide the Decline" meme - but, of course, you don't even understand the related discussion and why it's a well refuted denier talking point. C'mon, no self-respecting semi-literate denier even attempts to trot that one out any more... oh right, semi-literate... your excuse - hey?

[bush_cheney2004]

priceless? What's priceless is you presumed to link a presentation level disclaimer (website content) to actual integrity of data, without regard to website content/presentation...

I guess we will have to slow it down for you:

1) You (waldo) bludgeoned us with yet another NOAA link

2) You (waldo) repeated the reference to said link

3) I (bush_cheney2004) simply provided data disclaimer content from the exact same American web site without comment.

4) You (waldo) bit hard and couldn't throw the hook

5) You (waldo) are trapped in my live well

your insecure self will need to cast your vicarious net elsewhere - I've traveled extensively throughout your country... there might be about 10 states or so I actually haven't been in - I've lived and worked in your country. Frankly, you couldn't pay me enough to live in your country... thank you very much. Well... ok, maybe Hawaii - but only for the diving!

Again..that is what all the Vicarious Americans say while they spout refereneces to all manner of American social, political, scientific, and economic content. In your case, it is a strong addiction to NASA and NOAA.

C'mon, no self-respecting semi-literate denier even attempts to trot that one out any more... oh right, semi-literate... your excuse - hey?

I'm much worse than a garden variety "denier"...I just don't give a rat's ass either way. It's more fun trolling for obnoxious wannabes like you who think you're gonna save the planet from pending climate change doom (mostly because Big Al [yet another American] told you so in a movie). What a goof!

Edited November 3, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

I guess we will have to slow it down for you:

1) You (waldo) bludgeoned us with yet another NOAA link

2) You (waldo) repeated the reference to said link

3) I (bush_cheney2004) simply provided data disclaimer content from the exact same American web site without comment.

4) You (waldo) bit hard and couldn't throw the hook

5) You (waldo) are trapped in my live well

whaaa! The expected blustering & bumbling B_C attempt to save face go-to... talk about priceless. Here, let me speed if up for you:

1) in response to a snarc about Arctic Warming I (wondrous waldo) linked to the NOAA 2010 Arctic Report Card

2) you (blustering & bumbling B_C) presumed to disparage NOAA climate data integrity/processing by quoting from a NOAA website disclaimer reference... from the OR&R organization within NOAA (one of many organizations within NOAA). Unfortunately, you didn't have the wherewithal to understand and recognize that:

2a) you (blustering & bumbling B_C) improperly conflated a website presentation level disclaimer with actual underlying data integrity; also

2b) you (blustering & bumbling B_C) failed to recognize the multitude of organizations within NOAA... you merrily fumbled your way through the website and found a disclaimer (any disclaimer will do you - hey) from the OR&R organization within NOAA... an organization that has nothing to do with NOAA climate change/data management. Say what?

3) I (wondrous waldo) highlighted your failures, pointed you to the appropriate organization within NOAA (NCDC - National Climatic Data Center)... and for good measure, even linked you to a like website disclaimer within the NCDC website. Of course, I also reacquainted you with the distinction between a website presentation level disclaimer and that of underlying data integrity (separate/outside of the actual website).

4) I (wondrous waldo) schooled you, big time, on particulars of NCDC data integrity measures, it's transparency and recent pursuits it's been involved in to ensure public awareness of the integrity of it's data/processing; in effect, to ensure public awareness and confidence in the surface temperature records (U.S. and global).

5) you (blustering & bumbling B_C) began your flailing and wailing attempt to save face act - standard fare for you... we've seen it all before. This latest blustering & bumbling B_C save face attempt... also another spectacular failure.

6) you (blustering & bumbling B_C) doubled-down by plying your insecurity into a rabid display of your one-trick dog&pony show. Waaaa! I (wondrous waldo) dared to reference an American organization, link to an American organizations website; more pointedly, a report with international makeup, international content and international endorsement. Wow! How dare I.

7) you (blustering & bumbling B_C) continued your failed save face act (I'm just now replying to it!)

Again..that is what all the Vicarious Americans say while they spout refereneces to all manner of American social, political, scientific, and economic content. In your case, it is a strong addiction to NASA and NOAA.

nope, sorry - like I said... try casting your vicarious net elsewhere. I certainly have no qualms in referencing any content from any country - I certainly have no reservations in using your country for all it's worth! I'm not sure why you mistake personal self-serving gratification for, uhhh... living vicariously - hey? I expect your personal insecurity has warped your perspective. Do you have a close friend that might be able to help you through this difficult quandary you find yourself in?

I'm much worse than a garden variety "denier"...I just don't give a rat's ass either way. It's more fun trolling for obnoxious wannabes like you who think you're gonna save the planet from pending climate change doom (mostly because Big Al told you so in a movie). What a goof!

you make a ton of noise for someone so "uncaring", either way - hey? Your posting history in climate change related threads is at ready reference... you've more than exposed your denier position, numerous times over - why deny it? Still working on your vulcan thesis? It is heartening to have you acknowledge your trolling presence/pattern - good on ya. Of course, it wouldn't be complete if we didn't have you make a numnut reference to Gore... yes, you are a goof - a spectacular, insecure... oh so predictable and rather boring goof. It's very close to pulling the ignore switch time, once again.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... It's very close to pulling the ignore switch time, once again.

Please do...your credibility on that count is already shot to hell. Time to drain the live well.

[GostHacked]

You got trolled hard Waldo. But if you have been here long enough, you'd know how BC posts. You can't fall for this kind of shtick, but then again, you do like to insult many in almost every post you do, tit for tat really. If you really want to get rid of him, just hit that report button. Trolling is considered against the rules here, but yet he blatantly says he is trolling. You can do something or keep whining.

----

But anyways because of the disclaimer on the NOAA site, they consider all other data useless, because if it screws or modifies their model at all, they may not get the results they are really looking for. That is not science at all. Scientists can't be biased with the results. If the tests and data are true and accurate and consistent, then you got something. But if they don't want to consider other valuable data, then they are not doing science anymore. They are not able to give us an accurate and real picture of this AWG.

And it is good to note that the terms have changed over the years.

Global Warming

Anthropogenic Global Warming

Climate change

Climate disruption

ect ect ect .............why has the term changed so many times? Soon it will be just another meaningless term thrown around for convenience, like the War on Terror, for example.

[Michael Hardner]

Hide the Decline!!!!

That phrase doesn't mean what people think it does.