Michael Hardner Posted January 7, 2011 Report Posted January 7, 2011 OK, both sides, feast on this: Joe wrote : "Clearly the US annual temperatures over the last century have correlated far better with cycles in the sun and oceans than carbon dioxide. The correlation with carbon dioxide seems to have vanished or even reversed in the last decade." There’s a new paper by Paulo Cesar Soares in the International Journal of Geosciences supporting Joe’s idea, and it is full and open access. See link below. Debate and discuss. Waldo, I'm talking to YOU. Climate Blog Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
waldo Posted January 7, 2011 Report Posted January 7, 2011 Waldo, I'm talking to YOU.[/url] not today... I have real work to do! Maybe tonight... Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 7, 2011 Author Report Posted January 7, 2011 not today... I have real work to do! Maybe tonight... I was kind of hoping to wear a denier hat, as devil's advocate... but ok... Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Guest TrueMetis Posted January 8, 2011 Report Posted January 8, 2011 It's not talking about global temperature so I don't care. Quote
lukin Posted January 8, 2011 Report Posted January 8, 2011 not today... I have real work to do! Maybe tonight... Lay off the fairy tales. Quote
jbg Posted January 8, 2011 Report Posted January 8, 2011 I was kind of hoping to wear a denier hat, as devil's advocate... but ok... It's not talking about global temperature so I don't care. I am perhaps placed in th "denier" camp by many but, let me make one thing perfectly clear; I am not in favor of poisoning the earth. I just favor of focusing on what I see as real pollutants. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
GostHacked Posted January 8, 2011 Report Posted January 8, 2011 (edited) I am perhaps placed in th "denier" camp by many but, let me make one thing perfectly clear; I am not in favor of poisoning the earth. I just favor of focusing on what I see as real pollutants. I got thrown into the denier camp as well for saying the same thing. But then again I am a holocaust AGW denier. Edited January 8, 2011 by GostHacked Quote
Guest TrueMetis Posted January 8, 2011 Report Posted January 8, 2011 I am perhaps placed in th "denier" camp by many but, let me make one thing perfectly clear; I am not in favor of poisoning the earth. I just favor of focusing on what I see as real pollutants. CO2 is poison in high enough doses just like anything else. Quote
waldo Posted January 8, 2011 Report Posted January 8, 2011 (edited) Michael, aside from now needing a shower after visiting your linked reference to WTFIUWT... the referenced paper doesn't warrant any real attention regardless how much the denialsphere is (again, per oft repeated pattern), claiming this paper as the "AGW killer"... quite literally, another silver bullet comes along every other week, or so. but let's start here: again, we find another paper showing up as published in the new startup SCIRP journal grouping... in a concurrently running MLW thread, we just encountered another SCIRP paper ala the lukinWay™: re: the lukinWay™ linked blog references the SI Akasofu paper as published in the 'SCIRP Journal - Natural Science'... I hadn't heard of the journal or referenced it previously. As it turns out, there is considerable controversy raised over the legitimacy of the grouping of "academic" journals associated with the new startup SCIRP... most of the journals are less than a year old and many haven't published anything at all. - a wiki reference to SCIRP: here - Naturenews article: here - blog article referencing SCIRP journals - "Strange Academic Journals - Scam"?: here yes, there are scientific journals... and then there are... scientific journals! ... the most immediate, 'general consensus response' to the paper sees it as, "correlating regional weather with solar variation, PDO etc, and then calling it climate". The author acknowledges warming, speaks to water vapour increases and potency (versus CO2), but does not attribute a causal link to the actual warming... causing water vapour increases. And again... this paper is being hyped throughout the denialsphere as the "AGW killer" (I'm particularly taken with this short curt response from a RC comment (Gavin Schmidt), in reply to a poster who dropped a linked reference to the paper: "[Response: Indeed. This is possibly the worst paper I've ever seen published. It hasn't even been proof read, so peer-review seems a little unlikely as well. There is one quotable line which pretty much says it all: "The volume of data and information is fantastic and one may unwarily select partial data and show bias results." Indeed.]") (on edit: sp) Edited January 8, 2011 by waldo Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 8, 2011 Author Report Posted January 8, 2011 I don't understand the significance of scrip.org. What is 'potency' and its significance ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
wyly Posted January 8, 2011 Report Posted January 8, 2011 Michael, aside from now needing a shower after visiting your linked reference to WTFIUWT... the referenced paper doesn't warrant any real attention regardless how much the denialsphere is (again, per oft repeated pattern), claiming this paper as the "AGW killer"... quite literally, another silver bullet comes along every other week, or so. but let's start here: again, we find another paper showing up as published in the new startup SCIRP journal grouping... in a concurrently running MLW thread, we just encountered another SCIRP paper ala the lukinWay™: ... the most immediate, 'general consensus response' to the paper sees it as, "correlating regional weather with solar variation, PDO etc, and then calling it climate". The author acknowledges warming, speaks to water vapour increases and potency (versus CO2), but does not attribute a causal link to the actual warming... causing water vapour increases. And again... this paper is being hyped throughout the denialsphere as the "AGW killer" that's my impression as well, "hey look at this, see how well el Niño correlates with temp and not CO2", weather is not climate...then there was the bit about how how water vapor rises and falls with temp changes and CO2 does not, well H2O has an atmosphere lifespan measured in weeks while CO2 is measured in years, so again he's mixing short term with long... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
waldo Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 I don't understand the significance of scrip.org. a partial bow to your devils advocacy... because this is just too good to pass up! As I said, there are scientific journals... and there are scientific journals! As I detailed in another thread post, this recent startup SCIRP has been tarnished several times over through it's previously highlighted suspect practices - just in recent days we've had 2 examples of it's suspect published papers presented here on MLW... each paper has received rabid chest-thumping from within the denialsphere... quite literally being touted as silver bullets, as "AGW Killers". raised concerns on SCIRP have heightened in recent days; of course, coincident with the profile these two papers have brought to bear on SCIRP. In just a short span of a couple of days that I've become aware of SCIRP, I've noticed significant changes to it's website... the previous link detailing its list of 'advisors and editors' has been removed... other previous 'information' related working links have been disabled. in itself, the SCIRP business model is strictly 'open access', although no information seems available as to how the funding options to traditional open access are being applied by SCIRP. The minimal information available positions SCIRP as completely volunteer run, domain name registered within China... a U.S. mailing address and phone is listed. Attempts to reach anyone at that listed phone number are being described as futile, with no opportunity to leave messages. The SCIRP website offers no information in terms of such standard basics as editorial policies, publication ethics, peer-review policies (the review itself, the selection of reviewers, referee policies/guidelines, ethics/security, etc.), editorial decision making policies, publishing policies, availability of data/materials associated with the submission, supplementary information policies, referee report editing, response to publication policies, amendment policies, correction/retraction policies, etc., etc., etc. but it gets... better! While the links remain available, this guy (from the 'Gordon Life Science Institute') is described as 'editor-in-chief' of SCIRP... his 'SERVICES TO SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH COMMUNITY' web page also references 8 associations to "Bentham Science Publishers (www.bentham.org)... another 'open access' journals conglomerate. And a pattern seems established! - CRAP paper accepted by journal - Black sheep among Open Access Journals and Publishers - Open publishing, good. Bentham Open Journals, not so much - A new model for open access: the pyramid scheme - Bentham Editor In Chief Quits after Jones article - ... and quite easily, another dozen link references to the practices shenanigans of Bentham could be dropped here a publishers association for 'open access journals' exists - OASPA (Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association)... obviously intended to promote the open access model; equally intended to advocate standards, best practices and ethics within open access publishing. Neither SCIRP or Bentham are members of OASPA... in fact, the OASPA blog offers a biting commentary on Bentham while emphasizing the association's 'mission statement' - Publishing ethics, open access, and OASPA: ... The success of the open access publishing model has led to a profusion of new journals and publishers, which means that there is a particular need to ensure that authors and readers can have confidence in the editorial standards enforced by these new journals and publishers. This was one of the key drivers that led the foundation of the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA). Publishers which seek to become members of OASPA must demonstrate that their journals operate peer review, and that appropriate editorial processes are in place. The OASPA code of conduct also requires that members are responsible in their marketing practices. OASPA’s mission statement reflects this: “OASPA will… Promote a uniform definition of OA publishing, best practices for maintaining and disseminating OA scholarly communications, and ethical standards.” Bentham Science is not a member of OASPA. so... Michael, in your circumstance you openly initiated this thread as an attempt to play devils advocate... to assume the 'denier role' in a debate over a wildly denier trumpeted SCIRP published paper (currently #1 with a bullet on the denier hit parade). The other recent SCIRP published paper was mentioned in another concurrently running MLW thread, as referenced ala the lukinWay™; of course, in lukin's case, he simply blindly dropped another of his "ta da" links, while offering no comment, none whatsoever - denying parrot is as denying parrot does! (although this latest lukinWay™ example is quite memorable, it still doesn't reach to the level of his paramount denier idiocy... that pinnacle still rests with the lukinWay™ effort that had the denouncing of AGW attributed to the (unpublished) writings of a European low-level IT network operations manager... a non-scientist's, 'hobby-horse' effort; one that was also wildly trumpeted across the denialsphere as denouncing AGW!). as I said... there are scientific journals (ala the denier/lukinWay™)... and then... there are (legitimate) scientific journals! Quote
Michael Hardner Posted January 9, 2011 Author Report Posted January 9, 2011 Ok, why should we care about all of this about SCRIP if it just republishes scientific papers ? I think this paper was supposedly published in a journal ? Also, again, what is potency ? And where/when was the causal relationship (temperature increases CAUSE increased water vaporu) established ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Pliny Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 OK, both sides, feast on this: Debate and discuss. Waldo, I'm talking to YOU. Climate Blog Those darn deniers are just not going away. Waldo is going to have to ramp it up into overdrive. Every week it's some new paper that has to be debunked - Sheesh! No rest for the wicked, eh Waldo? Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
bloodyminded Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 Those darn deniers are just not going away. Waldo is going to have to ramp it up into overdrive. Every week it's some new paper that has to be debunked - Sheesh! No rest for the wicked, eh Waldo? He's already done a decent job on this paper...in this thread. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Michael Hardner Posted January 9, 2011 Author Report Posted January 9, 2011 (edited) Those darn deniers are just not going away. Waldo is going to have to ramp it up into overdrive. Every week it's some new paper that has to be debunked - Sheesh! No rest for the wicked, eh Waldo? Luckily Waldo has the energy to swat these flies. I'm thinking again of the 911 truth types who seem quieter than they did, and I'm hoping it was because people like us swatted their flies down too. Edited January 9, 2011 by Michael Hardner Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
bloodyminded Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 Luckily Waldo has the energy to swat these flies. I'm thinking again of the 911 truth types who seem quieter than they did, and I'm hoping it was because people like us swatted their flies down too. Exactly. Waldo's rhetorical style is not quite my own, but his energy and insights are damned useful, and I'm glad he's here. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Michael Hardner Posted January 9, 2011 Author Report Posted January 9, 2011 Further to that: Not that I was ever even skeptical of AGW, but Waldo has given me enough information to advocate the position to others. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
wyly Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 Further to that: Not that I was ever even skeptical of AGW, but Waldo has given me enough information to advocate the position to others. yup, he's really untouchable in climate change knowledge in this forum...I've only met three or four other posters in another forum that are at his level... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 Exactly. Waldo's rhetorical style is not quite my own, but his energy and insights are damned useful, and I'm glad he's here. sometimes when all else fails and playing nice doesn't work it's time to take the gloves off and be nasty... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
jbg Posted January 10, 2011 Report Posted January 10, 2011 The Waldo-Wyly admiration society? Let's pick this up in 2020, another ten years into the current cold cycle. Meanwhile I'll hunker down for our expected 35 cm. snowfall in about 48 hours, the second in two weeks. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Michael Hardner Posted January 10, 2011 Author Report Posted January 10, 2011 Meanwhile I'll hunker down for our expected 35 cm. snowfall in about 48 hours, the second in two weeks. Why do you talk about winter weather in the context of climate change ? Do you think it's clever to do so ? Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
wyly Posted January 10, 2011 Report Posted January 10, 2011 The Waldo-Wyly admiration society? Let's pick this up in 2020, another ten years into the current cold cycle. Meanwhile I'll hunker down for our expected 35 cm. snowfall in about 48 hours, the second in two weeks. JBG and Saipan both graduates from the school of scientific ignorance... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted January 10, 2011 Report Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) Why do you talk about winter weather in the context of climate change ? Do you think it's clever to do so ? Saipans mentor no doubt...trolls or ignorant by design? Edited January 10, 2011 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
jbg Posted January 10, 2011 Report Posted January 10, 2011 Why do you talk about winter weather in the context of climate change ? Weather makes up climate. I blend my own senses with knowledge of history, as well as read studies. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.