CERN: Climate Models will need to be revised

[waldo]

I guess name-calling is your bag.

no names called - really, are you simply padding your post count? If you have nothing substantive to offer, why bother to interject... other than to attempt to provoke and solicit a response - I guess that is, as you say, your bag - hey?

[GostHacked]

I guess name-calling is your bag. At least the other "Waldo" I knew didn't do that.

I agree, no matter if you agree with Waldo or not on the topic, he makes it very difficult to have civil discourse of a topic that is quickly loosing ground.

Whenever a group of scientists are finding evidence that contradicts the politicized movement that is AGW or CC, they are instantly sidelined, ridiculed, and on and on. They end up spending more time smearing the scientist than actually trying to prove that the new evidence is wrong using the science they are all agreeing upon.

Things are going to change when new evidence comes out, when others ignore the new evidence (if it is indeed solid, and that does not happen all the time) then that only hurts them in the long run and they stop becoming objective scientists, no matter what field they participate in.

Instead, we get name calling, ridicule, slander ect ect.

[GostHacked]

text book definitions are your friend here:

Global Warming: as attributed to rising levels of GHG gases, the increase in Earth's average surface temperature

Climate Change: long-term change in Earth’s or regional climates... certainly, Climate Change encompasses far more than surface temperature change

so... your first question, to yourself, should be whether you accept either/both are occurring.

Climate has been changing throughout history. That much is a fact. How much we as humans are currently affecting the climate have a hell of a lot more with how we are changing and polluting our environment in many other ways than just focusing on CO2. Which seems to be lost on most of the people who are buying into the AWG bit.

The cities we build, the forests we cut down, the seas we pollute, the ground we pollute, we always miss what is right in front of our eyes, and instead concentrate on the one single boogie man that is your AWG through CO2.

Only the fringe of the fringe deny Global Warming has/is occurring, enhanced and accelerated, in the relatively recent time frame.

While people may not be denying the planet is warming, they will disagree on what is the major and primary cause of the warming. But that does not fit your argument.

Only the fringe of the fringe deny Climate Change is occurring. Your second question, to yourself, should be whether you believe you live in an isolated enclave unaffected by the global community/environs; that your atmosphere is solely your atmosphere, that your oceans are solely your oceans, etc..

I know it's a global system. I know that one are will/can affect another. But hey, my carbon tax or carbon credit, is your carbon tax or carbon credit.

Your third question, to yourself, should be who/what do you believe is presenting you an accurate current and projected assessment of either/both; you know, expert scientific knowledge practitioners/policy wonks or wing-nut, mad-barking, ideological driven charlatans. Your fourth question, to yourself, should be what do you principally, and proportionally, attribute Climate Change to... what natural and/or anthropogenic forcing mechanisms. Your fifth question, to yourself, should be how can one mitigate/adapt/prevent either/both - and what are the impartial, unbiased experts advising/advocating. Depending on the answers you give yourself to the aforementioned questions, your sixth question, to yourself, might be are you, partially or wholly, within the fringe of the fringe - and why - and consequently, of course, your seventh question, to yourself, should be, since you appear preoccupied with worry, as you say, 'are you worried'... if so, why?... if not, why?

Here is a question I have for you, and it is a serious one. How much effect do these weather modification programs have an effect on the climate? And can that be an explanation for the data the scientists are looking at? Or are they even considering that into their models?

Edited September 28, 2011 by GostHacked

[waldo]

I agree, no matter if you agree with Waldo or not on the topic, he makes it very difficult to have civil discourse of a topic that is quickly loosing ground.

Whenever a group of scientists are finding evidence that contradicts the politicized movement that is AGW or CC, they are instantly sidelined, ridiculed, and on and on. They end up spending more time smearing the scientist than actually trying to prove that the new evidence is wrong using the science they are all agreeing upon.

Things are going to change when new evidence comes out, when others ignore the new evidence (if it is indeed solid, and that does not happen all the time) then that only hurts them in the long run and they stop becoming objective scientists, no matter what field they participate in.

Instead, we get name calling, ridicule, slander ect ect.

oh... a GH pity pot, hey? There were no names called in the previous post that jbg railed against. The real fallacy at play is that you and your band of denialist brothers aren't interested in any manner of, as you say, civil discourse. Clearly your selective recall seems quite willing to ignore the repeated and ongoing pattern of targeted abuse and denigration of proponents of AGW, of scientists and science itself... from being accused of fraud, of deceit, of data fabrication, of data manipulation, of lies, of self-serving advocacy, of on and on and on. Yes, your band of denialist brothers has a very select recall on what you say, on what you quote, on what you link to.

as for your wet dream 'new evidence', good on ya for acknowledging you have nothing today that can dispute the overwhelming scientific consensus, that can offer a viable alternative to the AGW theory. If new science, new understandings do come forward... that is exactly what science is about. Much to your consternation, scientists welcome new learning, new understanding - it's how scientific knowledge grows.

[GostHacked]

oh... a GH pity pot, hey? There were no names called in the previous post that jbg railed against. The real fallacy at play is that you and your band of denialist brothers aren't interested in any manner of, as you say, civil discourse. Clearly your selective recall seems quite willing to ignore the repeated and ongoing pattern of targeted abuse and denigration of proponents of AGW, of scientists and science itself... from being accused of fraud, of deceit, of data fabrication, of data manipulation, of lies, of self-serving advocacy, of on and on and on. Yes, your band of denialist brothers has a very select recall on what you say, on what you quote, on what you link to.

as for your wet dream 'new evidence', good on ya for acknowledging you have nothing today that can dispute the overwhelming scientific consensus, that can offer a viable alternative to the AGW theory. If new science, new understandings do come forward... that is exactly what science is about. Much to your consternation, scientists welcome new learning, new understanding - it's how scientific knowledge grows.

Overall when politics gets into science, you can no longer have objectivity in science. And that has been one problem most of the AWG deniers (like myself) have a real problem with. The evidence is tainted.

[waldo]

Overall when politics gets into science, you can no longer have objectivity in science. And that has been one problem most of the AWG deniers (like myself) have a real problem with. The evidence is tainted.

and there's just another of your continued display of misunderstandings... if it exists, to whatever level you prescribe, it's certainly not difficult, by any means, to separate out politicization from the science proper. To suggest "the scientific evidence" is tainted, under a presumptive political influence, is a misguided cop-out, one you clearly lean toward as, "the evidence", does not support your denialist bent. Perhaps you should spend less time on the many conspiratorial efforts you portray, and more time attempting to interpret the actual science.

[GostHacked]

and there's just another of your continued display of misunderstandings... if it exists, to whatever level you prescribe, it's certainly not difficult, by any means, to separate out politicization from the science proper. To suggest "the scientific evidence" is tainted, under a presumptive political influence, is a misguided cop-out, one you clearly lean toward as, "the evidence", does not support your denialist bent. Perhaps you should spend less time on the many conspiratorial efforts you portray, and more time attempting to interpret the actual science.

AWG was brought forth by a politician, who I might add is making a very nice living tell everyone that we are going to drown because the seas are supposedly rising.

I am a denier, and I won't deny that, so you throwing that back at me is quite humorous.

[waldo]

AWG was brought forth by a politician, who I might add is making a very nice living tell everyone that we are going to drown because the seas are supposedly rising.

oh please! Gore was/is simply a communicator. Should I be surprised you would confuse a movie with the underlying reality and scientific support infrastructure behind the theory... that which has nothing to do with the/your favourite target boogeyman, Gore?

I am a denier, and I won't deny that, so you throwing that back at me is quite humorous.

no throwing - statement of address/fact (that you acknowledge)... in any case, be proud... shout it boldly, loudly!

[lukin]

AWG was brought forth by a politician, who I might add is making a very nice living tell everyone that we are going to drown because the seas are supposedly rising.

I am a denier, and I won't deny that, so you throwing that back at me is quite humorous.

Gosthacked, it's time you learned that you cannot have a discussion with a person who has serious issues north of the neck.

[TimG]

I agree, no matter if you agree with Waldo or not on the topic, he makes it very difficult to have civil discourse of a topic that is quickly loosing ground.

Waldo is a symptom of the disease that infest climate science. I have not figured out whether he is too deluded to know that the crap he repeats is nonsense or he knows it is nonsense but figures a 'big lie' will fool a few scientifically illiterate people into believing there is some merit in his arguments.

Instead, we get name calling, ridicule, slander ect ect.

To be fair, a lot of sceptics ridicule and slander "consensus" scientists. The difference is the "consensus" scientists are in positions of power and control what gets into the peer reviewed literature. For that reason, evidence of obvious bias on the part of "consensus" scientists undermines the integrity of the peer reviewed literature. Edited September 28, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

Waldo is a symptom of the disease that infest climate science. I have not figured out whether he is too deluded to know that the crap he repeats is nonsense or he knows it is nonsense but figures a 'big lie' will fool a few scientifically illiterate people into believing there is some merit in his arguments.

well... in all your glorified denaliti puffery, you make sure to advise just when you do have it figured out! Talking about scientific illiterate, you're showing yourself to be its poster boy lately - good on ya!

To be fair, a lot of sceptics ridicule and slander "consensus" scientists. The difference is the "consensus" scientists are in positions of power and control what gets into the peer reviewed literature. For that reason, evidence of obvious bias on the part of "consensus" scientists undermines the integrity of the peer reviewed literature.

ah yes, TimG the conspiracy hound! Would you like me to replay that Spencer related post where you turtled after I showed you just how your claimed gate-keeping didn't exist... bang, bang, bang, read the repeated quotes of the mainstream journals Spencer recently published in. So much for your claims of gate-keeping! You're nothing but a blowhard, a ridiculous know-nothing who, in the face of repeated trouncing, retreats bleating, "Climate Mafia", "The TEAM". You're an absolute disgrace to legitimate skeptics - shame!

[TimG]

Talking about scientific illiterate, you're showing yourself to be its poster boy lately

I take it from your response that you are choosing option 2) you know that your arguments are complete nonsense but you hope to confuse people with a 'big lie'.

Would you like me to replay that Spencer related post where you turtled after I showed you just how your claimed gate-keeping didn't exist

Do you really think that a few sceptical accepted means there is no bias? If so you are more delusional than I thought. The bias is there. It is obvious to any who pay attention. I see no point in discussing it with someone who has demonstrated a willingness to repeat stuff he knows is a falsehood in order to confuse people who are not scientifically inclined.

[waldo]

well... in all your glorified denaliti puffery, you make sure to advise just when you do have it figured out! Talking about scientific illiterate, you're showing yourself to be its poster boy lately - good on ya!

I take it from your response that you are choosing option 2) you know that your arguments are complete nonsense but you hope to confuse people with a 'big lie'.

like I said, you're a blowhard... but don't hesitate to try... to try... to put forward any semblance of an argument that doesn't see you devolve into conspiracy, into claims of fraud, into claims of data manipulation, data fabrication, into outright attempts to cast aspersion, to posture over the frivolous, to huff & puff over absolute nonsense... and, of course, to cast unfounded doubt and uncertainty every chance you get... you'll do it all, anything, anything but actually argue the science, because... you can't. You haven't the stones, the knowledge to actually formulate anything that you can't parrot directly from your hero, the never-ending charlatan auditor to his minions & lappers, McIntyre!

ah yes, TimG the conspiracy hound! Would you like me to replay that Spencer related post where you turtled after I showed you just how your claimed gate-keeping didn't exist... bang, bang, bang, read the repeated quotes of the mainstream journals Spencer recently published in. So much for your claims of gate-keeping! You're nothing but a blowhard, a ridiculous know-nothing who, in the face of repeated trouncing, retreats bleating, "Climate Mafia", "The TEAM". You're an absolute disgrace to legitimate skeptics - shame!

Do you really think that a few sceptical accepted means there is no bias? If so you are more delusional than I thought. The bias is there. It is obvious to any who pay attention. I see no point in discussing it with someone who has demonstrated a willingness to repeat stuff he knows is a falsehood in order to confuse people who are not scientifically inclined.

whaaa! That lil' ole Spencer charade of yours kinda blew up on ya, hey - big time! Speaking of people not scientifically inclined... are you confused yet! Rimshot!

[TimG]

to put forward any semblance of an argument that doesn't see you devolve into conspiracy, into claims of fraud, into claims of data manipulation, data fabrication, into outright attempts to cast aspersion, to posture over the frivolous, to huff & puff over absolute nonsense.

You seem to think that evidence of lies and incompentence should be ignored because it hurts the feelings of your oh-so-sensitive scientists. I made my arguments based on the data. It is clear to anyone that looks at the data that Mann is either a liar or incompentent. If you can't see that then you are part of the problem. You false bravado does not fool anyone.

whaaa! That lil' ole Spencer charade of yours kinda blew up on ya, hey - big time!

Are you having fun beating up on that strawman? As I said, In my opinion the bias exists. It is obvious to anyone who pays attention to myriad of incidents like the Remote Sensing editor resigning fiasco. You are obviously incapable of seeing that bias because what objective people see as 'bias' you see as 'standing up for the truth'. Edited September 29, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

like I said, you're a blowhard... but don't hesitate to try... to try... to put forward any semblance of an argument that doesn't see you devolve into conspiracy, into claims of fraud, into claims of data manipulation, data fabrication, into outright attempts to cast aspersion, to posture over the frivolous, to huff & puff over absolute nonsense... and, of course, to cast unfounded doubt and uncertainty every chance you get... you'll do it all, anything, anything but actually argue the science, because... you can't. You haven't the stones, the knowledge to actually formulate anything that you can't parrot directly from your hero, the never-ending charlatan auditor to his minions & lappers, McIntyre!

You seem to think that evidence of lies and incompentence should be ignored because it hurts the feelings of your oh-so-sensitive scientists. I made my arguments based on the data. It is clear to anyone that looks at the data that Mann is either a liar or incompentent. If you can't see that then you are part of the problem. You false bravado does not fool anyone.

oh... I was talking about your generalized self; certainly, if you want to talk specifics, we can again resurrect your complete drubbing over the Mann08/09 papers. You must be an absolute glutton for punishment to presume to flaunt your stumbling/bumbling again! I most certainly will run you into the ground... again - care to actually go where you dared not go? You know, beyond your silly McIntyre upsidedownyness, beyond your stupidity over multivariate regression, beyond your idiocy over a mystical shift in temperature correlation... beyond all that! Care to actually delve into the calibration, validation and sensitivity testing - you know, where you dared not go! Like I said, you keep thumping your chest over that picture... you of the Anthony Watts school of "picture analysis"!!! Who needs data, data processing and analysis when you've got a TimG 2D picture to publish from. As for lies and incompetence, your hero McIntyre leads the way... like I said, your argument in McIntyre abstentia, is the most profound point you continue to ignore; of course you do. The guy who just can't seem to get started... just can't seem to put it all together... just can't seem to actually formally publish anything to refute his arch-nemisis Mann. Of course he can't... it's the McIntyre incompetence factor - your guy, your go-to parroting source... the never-ending auditor extraordinaire!

whaaa! That lil' ole Spencer charade of yours kinda blew up on ya, hey - big time! Speaking of people not scientifically inclined... are you confused yet! Rimshot!

Are you having fun beating up on that strawman? As I said, In my opinion the bias exists. It is obvious to anyone who pays attention to myriad of incidents like the Remote Sensing editor resigning fiasco. You are obviously incapable of seeing that bias because what objective people see as 'bias' you see as 'standing up for the truth'.

what strawman! You trotted out, once again, your conspiracy theme, ala gate-keeping. Nothing says failed TimG like your claim of gate-keeping Spencer's papers... like I said, that blew up on you, big time! As for what you now, once again, claim as a "resigning fiasco" (another TimG flip-flop), I'm quite partial to the following quote-stream where both MLW member dre and I caught you back-peddling after taking it on the chin, once again - you know, where you previously had felt emboldened enough to start a separate thread, claimed the editor was forced out (by "The TEAM")... that, as you stated in your thread title, "The Climate Science Mafia is out for blood". Yes, indeedee, yours was quite a flip-flopping escapade!

There was no misrepresentation. The paper is perfectly acceptable.

This entire story is about an editor deciding that would be bad for his career to defend this paper so he did a very public resignation for reasons that make no sense if you read them literally

.

Oh thats funny! I was sure someone claimed more than a half dozen times he was "forced out", and even started a thread with that as the title.

bloody hell... dre, you beat me to it! I was partial to TimG's earlier implication that "the climate mafia (aka, the "TEAM"), had reached in and threatened to never publish in the journal... the journal "they've" never published in... the journal that, prior to Spencer's end-around, had never published a climate change related paper.

[Pliny]

and that you have the hopelessly failed Morano denier web-site too, hey!

so, again, another old geezer raises his hand... this time, the long retired octogenarian, a non-practicing emeritus, Giaever, an avowed denialist... cause, apparently, he didn't like the American Physical Society's official National Policy on Climate Change - that reads:

This is not name calling? This is what you do with every rebuke to your theory - it gets quite tiring.

Giaever could not support the APS's official statement. He and one hundred scientists presented their disagreement with it. Giaever is the one that resigned. It will be getting lonelier for you, waldo. There are more immediate concerns than a .8 degree increase in temperature over the last century and a half.

Unfortunately, the concern is turning to the economy and for all science it means less money for research. In foggy areas like CAGW or climate change that are demanding massive economic shifts there is a decreasing will to accept the proposed political direction. Only in times of great excess wealth would such frivolous spending and mal-investment of resources be even considered let alone tolerated. We are seeing our great excess wealth now disappearing because politicians actually turned it into an illusion of excess wealth in the form of paper money and electronic credits. Most of us enjoyed the comforts it gave western society and believed in the system these politicians, lawyers and bankers created but it is time to pay the piper. That means pet theories about our self-destructive existence, horrible history and dire future will have to be set on a shelf for the interim until we can once again afford to waste our time and resources on frivolous politically correct issues - for which you seem to have plenty of time, waldo.

The facts are, whether it is CAGW you are promoting, you know, the .8 degree centigrade increase in global temperature, or catastrophic climate change, weather is not something we haven't been challenged with in the past. It is a minor challenge.

You yawn at things like Solyndra, where $500 million dollars disappears, and don't link it at all to losses of resources that could have gone to more respectable enterprises or scientific research. Or the loss of appetite to further support more political waste for your cause. You should be very concerned about such political posturing and it's tainting of what you consider real science. But you are not. It's business as usual to you and the loss of half a billion dollars is insignificant. We'll see how insignificant it really is when people refuse to have their tax money being thrown around to these causes and special interests, be they scientifically deserving or not. Funding will be left to your favourite sector the oil companies and corporations. If you had any concern for science you would be severely critical of the wastrel Obama - squandering valuable resources on his pet projects.

Now go clean off your desk! It is starting to look pretty cluttered.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Pliny

[waldo]

that's right Pliny, Giaever (the old geezer, the long retired octogenarian, the non-practicing emeritus, the self-avowed denialist), the one of ~50,000 APS members, took that formal stand against the APS statement - sorry to read your sensitivities were inflamed... that you consider 'geezer, octogenarian, non-practicing emeritus, self-avowed denialist' as... "name calling"

I am heartened to read you continually, from thread-to-thread, within multiple posts, readily recognize the actual amount of 20th century warming - although, ya know... sometimes Pliny, I get the impression you're purposely repeating that temperature warming number, presuming to belittle its increase level/significance. Tell me you wouldn't do that, right Pliny? But really Pliny, I am totally taken aback over your falling back to, once again, conflating climate and weather... after all we've been through Pliny... just how could you go (back) there... again?

[waldo]

You yawn at things like Solyndra, where $500 million dollars disappears, and don't link it at all to losses of resources that could have gone to more respectable enterprises or scientific research. Or the loss of appetite to further support more political waste for your cause. You should be very concerned about such political posturing and it's tainting of what you consider real science. But you are not. It's business as usual to you and the loss of half a billion dollars is insignificant. We'll see how insignificant it really is when people refuse to have their tax money being thrown around to these causes and special interests, be they scientifically deserving or not. Funding will be left to your favourite sector the oil companies and corporations. If you had any concern for science you would be severely critical of the wastrel Obama - squandering valuable resources on his pet projects.

other than as symbolic reference to China's forceful efforts to embrace renewable energy and capture world market share, I'm not particularly phased by a U.S. bankruptcy Pliny... especially one that's being politicized for partisan gain, especially one that represents a mere 1.3% of the overall U.S. DOE loan portfolio, especially one that stands as the, to-date, single bankruptcy failure within that expansive DOE portfolio. Yes, from the other Solyndra/Obama bashing thread, I appreciate your fake libertarian self just can't fathom the concept of government, "taking risks where the private sector won't".

[Pliny]

other than as symbolic reference to China's forceful efforts to embrace renewable energy and capture world market share, I'm not particularly phased by a U.S. bankruptcy Pliny... especially one that's being politicized for partisan gain, especially one that represents a mere 1.3% of the overall U.S. DOE loan portfolio, especially one that stands as the, to-date, single bankruptcy failure within that expansive DOE portfolio. Yes, from the other Solyndra/Obama bashing thread, I appreciate your fake libertarian self just can't fathom the concept of government, "taking risks where the private sector won't".

Is it taking risks where the private sector won't? Or is it pushing an agenda? Perception is reality, as the saying goes, and the perception is that government...er...Obama...is losing billions on an agenda where risk is not considered. He wants nearly another half a trillion to create jobs when his first 800 billion to create shovel ready jobs proved his dog was more effective.

But let's get back to the CERN findings and climate models needing revision. It seems that Giaever, you know that, "old geezer, the long retired octogenarian, the non-practicing emeritus, the self-avowed denialist" that sonehow you feel you haven't slighted in the least. Well, CERN has presented information that rquires the "consensus" be reviewed. Just a credible agency of science that joions a growing list of scientists that care not for the politics in science that you promote. They went ahead and published their findings without your consultation and despite what you claim politicians need to think and do regarding climate change.

You are gradually making yourself irrelevant. You and Gore will have to form a schism. Too bad he is not alive, but your best alliance would have been Stalin. Today....umm...let's see...Oba...no..Chavez...no...Ahmadinejad...ummmm...I had to think about that one....but no...ummmm...

...you know.. I think Obama is best. He is on board and is trying the hardest for you, doncha think?

[waldo]

Well, CERN has presented information that requires the "consensus" be reviewed.

cite please

[Oleg Bach]

no - in the absence of a 'spare Earth hanging around' for experimentation, climate models are a necessary means to, with qualified uncertainty, quantitatively simulate atmospheric, oceanic, land, etc., interactions... to study the dynamics of the climate system to project future climate.

Yah I understand - but have you ever tried to figure out smoke patterns in a room with a fan blowing? You have some many complex variations that you only get a small glimpse of how the sytem works...a drop in temperature - moisture - sun flares ---- a cow farting that sets up a chain reaction ---that might effect the jet stream - I hope they never figure out how planetary systems work - If they do they will just wreck the place a little more.

[Pliny]

cite please

Already done.

New data should not be ignored as much as you would like to dismiss/make irrelevant/minimize/or deny it's existence or the existence of political tampering in effecting it's concerted socio/economic engineering agenda - an agenda, which fundamentally and undeniably deserves some attention regarding our environ and our stewardship of it but not as a prime purpose the forwarding of a further centralization of power and an aggrandizement of the State at price that means the loss of freedom and liberty to the responsible individual and a transfer of his contribution to the social benefit of western society to emerging economies that suffer under the repression of their own governments who need to get out of the lives of their citizens in a more immediate respect than we ourselves do for any improvement to their standard of living. But that means an intolerable level of economic growth and development - which, in your eyes, may perhaps be "balanced" with a decimation and subsequent shrinking of western economies in growth and development - a more socially just and equitable distribution of wealth.

[waldo]

Well, CERN has presented information that requires the "consensus" be reviewed.

cite please

Already done.

cite the, 'already done', cite please

[lukin]

Hole in ozone over Arctic caused by extremely cold weather.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/record-ozone-loss-over-the-arctic-caused-by-extremely-cold-weather-scientists--130944043.html

[jbg]

Hole in ozone over Arctic caused by extremely cold weather.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/record-ozone-loss-over-the-arctic-caused-by-extremely-cold-weather-scientists--130944043.html

Maybe some AGW alarmists should take a swim off Kugluktuk if they think it's so warm.