CERN: Climate Models will need to be revised

waldo · September 7, 2011

I know your position on these matters and I appreciate your sticking up for those who make contrary arguments.

if... only if... MLW was presented with actual arguments, rather than run&gun, ta-da style, drive-by's!!!

TimG · September 7, 2011

a real skeptic doesn't blindly accept anything... everything... simply because the denial echo-chamber fosters it upon them! A real skeptic doesn't have a narrow, restricted double-standard on evaluation...

Sounds like you are criticizing yourself! You blindly swallow any clap trap the "team" feeds you. You never actually try to understand the skeptical arguments by reading them yourself - you simply repeat the talking points you pulled off some alarmist blog. If the "team" presents an argument - you never question it. You never analyze it to see if it makes any sense. I often ignore what you post because you offer nothing new. I have read all of the alarmist talking points on the alarmist blogs (unlike you I actually read what the other side has to say - I don't blindly assume that skeptics are right).

since you mentioned, by name... TimG is the poster boy. He is certainly not, as you suggest, "defending skeptics". Has he ever presented an actual argument

I present plenty of arguments when I am having discussions will people like Micheal that show some willingness to discuss the issues. With you - I mostly ignore you or stop to snipe at you when I am bored.

waldo · September 7, 2011

put them up... the ones that, as I said, have standing and merit. Put them up.

The CERN and Spencer papers are two. Then your have the Linzden papers. Your opinion of these papers is irrelevant. Micheal was engaging in the rediculous exercise of judging science by counting the number of papers.

well... now we are getting somewhere. In keeping with this threads OP focus (CERN/CLOUD), let's forgo discussion on the woefully failed Spencer & Lindzen papers/premise. Let's examine your claim that the CERN results... those initial results now just recently released by CERN... are, as you say, presenting an attribution study - one that, as you say, presents an alternate premise/causal link for global warming, one other than anthropogenic based. Please support your claim that the recent CERN/CLOUD paper/results is an attribution study, one that presents a causal basis for global warming.

as for your criticism of whatever you interpret of MLW member Michael Hardner's post, it was you... you... who initiated a comparison reference in regards to, as you stated, "very few" and "few and far between".

We'll have to put CERN scientists on the maybe list unless you can convince them their "findings" are flawed, waldo. If not, it's waldohell for them. Somehow big oil is involved, I just know it.
What findings? Well, it appears climate models will need some revision but we aren't sure yet until waldo has gone through the research and has had a chance to thoroughly trivialize it and trash the scientists who raised their ugly heads on the matter. They have to be idiots to question something that has already been settled by the science. It is only the conversation that needs to be won now. No matter what comes up from science we'll just keep saying the same things.

Pliny, case in point of punching above one's own (knowledge) weight... of presuming upon the denial echo-chamber. Here, read it again:

this (and your thread title phrasing) showcases your misunderstanding and real intent behind this thread. I won't suggest you're distorting or fabricating... you're simply parroting. You've bought into the false premise propagated by the denialMachine, that CERN/CLOUD and "climate science" reflect upon competing paths/pursuits. You've also bought into the false premise that the initial experiment results are something that either diminish or negate aspects of the AGW theory... however wildly (and falsely) extrapolated upon by the denialMachine towards the next (of many) future CLOUD phases/undertakings.

Pliny, since you acknowledged reading, as you said, my reply to the "johnny-be-good" drive-by swipe where first reference to the recent CERN/CLOUD undertaking was made... here, read it again:

This article should be a good antidote to AGW buffoonery.

in fact... this is a most significant first release from CERN/CLOUD... one that's been anxiously waited upon these last few years by real legitimate scientists, particularly in regards to the science and modelling relative to atmospheric aerosols. Unfortunately for deniers, like you, jbg, this is being absolutely, and completely, incorrectly interpreted and spun wildly throughout denialTown! Equally, the heads of the most fervent hardcore deniers are exploding... because, for them, to presume to get any mileage out of this... they must first acknowledge actual warming... in order to presume to refute it!!! Heads exploding!!!

in any case, let's play! Since you're so hesitant to actually say anything... to actually put yourself out there... perhaps I can
offer-up an initial teaser
... now, I know
you're an expert on eyeballing trends
... tell me, what do you see in my lil' teaser... what can you eyeball, hey?

Pliny... you could pick up the torch for TimG... he most certainly is and will continue to bypass actually delivering an argument for the premise, for the foundation, he now states the CERN/CLOUD has, that of presenting a attribution study for an alternate link to global warming... an alternate other than one anthropogenic sourced. C'mon Pliny, pick up the torch..............

waldo · September 7, 2011

a real skeptic doesn't blindly accept anything... everything... simply because the denial echo-chamber fosters it upon them! A real skeptic doesn't have a narrow, restricted double-standard on evaluation... a real skeptic demands accountability across the board. A real skeptic accepts personal limitations and doesn't presume to punch above one's own knowledge weight... a real skeptic relies upon, but doesn't outright accept, the expertise of knowledgeable persons/outlets. A real skeptic doesn't ignore underlying motivations at play, particularly from the loudest barkers and howlers fostering the latest and greatest, every other week, silver bullet. A real skeptic doesn't search out tabloid journalism to project upon a preconceived position. A real skeptic demands accountability, completeness and substantive argument built upon sound practice, method and process... a real skeptic doesn't interpret developments based on the inherent deficiencies within today's mainstream media. A real skeptic actually puts some effort into attempting to interpret developments and their underlying foundations. And on, and on......
Sounds like you are criticizing yourself! You blindly swallow any clap trap the "team" feeds you. You never actually try to understand the skeptical arguments by reading them yourself - you simply repeat the talking points you pulled off some alarmist blog. If the "team" presents an argument - you never question it. You never analyze it to see if it makes any sense. I often ignore what you post because you offer nothing new. I have read all of the alarmist talking points on the alarmist blogs (unlike you I actually read what the other side has to say - I don't blindly assume that skeptics are right).

buddy, I keep asking... I'll keep asking... who is on the team? :lol: Clearly, you've already established, ad nauseam, that you view consensus science with disdain, as you say, "clap trap". I never ignore what you post... I am always on the prowl for comic relief, for shits&giggles... and any opportunity to showcase your selectively applied, so-called, skepticism... that of the blind following the blind and ideologically predisposed to cast doubt and uncertainty on the consensus at each and every opportunity. Manufactured doubt and uncertainty is thy name, TimG!

since you mentioned, by name... TimG is the poster boy. He is certainly not, as you suggest, "defending skeptics". Has he ever presented an actual argument... let alone been able to defend it? Purveyors of continued conspiracy themes are not knowledgeable... purveyors of attack by association are not knowledgeable. Purveyors of select and never-ending "auditing" are not knowledgeable, particularly when they can't, when they won't turn that audit inward.
I present plenty of arguments when I am having discussions will people like Micheal that show some willingness to discuss the issues. With you - I mostly ignore you or stop to snipe at you when I am bored.

ah yes, you do snipe... as in gutter! The day you actually put up a real argument, one that you carry through on the science alone, without drudging up your ongoing concern-troll charade, your fall-back to conspiracy and your ongoing victimization ploy... that, will be... the day!

Michael Hardner · September 7, 2011

since you mentioned, by name... TimG is the poster boy. He is certainly not, as you suggest, "defending skeptics". Has he ever presented an actual argument... let alone been able to defend it? Purveyors of continued conspiracy themes are not knowledgeable... purveyors of attack by association are not knowledgeable. Purveyors of select and never-ending "auditing" are not knowledgeable, particularly when they can't, when they won't turn that audit inward.

If TimG isn't a good representative of the skeptic side on MLW then who is ?

The rest of your post did make me think. It seems like many of these arguments have got away from facts, and been mostly based on 'identity'. This is a bad thing, because you can't argue, compromise or make progress on identity.

Identity is image or television-based... arguments are text based.

waldo · September 7, 2011

If TimG isn't a good representative of the skeptic side on MLW then who is ?
The rest of your post did make me think. It seems like many of these arguments have got away from facts, and been mostly based on 'identity'. This is a bad thing, because you can't argue, compromise or make progress on identity.

Identity is image or television-based... arguments are text based.

since you asked... in my time, this board hasn't reflected (much) true skeptical presentation in regards to climate change. Certainly there are appearances of it, though few and far between. If you've ever been on a board focused on broad skepticism, at large, you'll appreciate that it's true skeptics that are hard/demanding on each other... no one just gets to make wild-assed, unfounded and unsubstantiated assertion. As for names... here, within some of these climate change related threads... I would say MLW member dre reflects a good smattering of genuine skepticism, whether subject matter or approach related. At times, MLW member GostHacked as well, although he tends to, at times, just get lazy. Of course, you Michael, are certainly skeptical... obviously not of the consensus position... but of some aspects that reflect upon underlying failures of the "debate" and how they are influencing - however, again, since you asked, your position is somewhat clouded by your inherent like (as I interpret), for devils-advocacy and that you now wear the facilitator hat... there's no problem with this, of course; one simply needs to hold degrees of that in mind when reviewing some of your commentary. The nature of this subject is complex on so many levels; to discuss at a more technical level (even most generalized), requires some intellectual investment in time spent... to which, some of MLW's more conversant 'thinking' members either haven't the interest or inclination to do anything other than to, occasionally, if at all, poke their heads into these climate change related threads - particularly when they become ongoing barkfests, with the hounds repeating the same tired denierSpeak.

Michael Hardner · September 7, 2011

Of course, you Michael, are certainly skeptical... obviously not of the consensus position... but of some aspects that reflect upon underlying failures of the "debate" and how they are influencing - however, again, since you asked, your position is somewhat clouded by your inherent like (as I interpret), for devils-advocacy and that you now wear the facilitator hat... there's no problem with this, of course; one simply needs to hold degrees of that in mind when reviewing some of your commentary.

I wouldn't count myself as a skeptic. When I comment on the debate, it's mostly criticism of our lack of public forum for building consensus. It's nothing to do with the science, but about how the results are reported and discussed publicly.

I don't "like" devil's advocacy, but I like good discussion so maybe that's the same thing.

Wild Bill · September 8, 2011

I am... taken aback! I am noted for being a, "people person"... a, "man of the people"! Surely you have misjudged - I am inclined to perceive you have a bias... do you and I have any personal exchange history... anything recent?

perhaps you could offer some of your Dale Carnegie insight: in that one of the expressed MLW forum rules advises against someone putting up a "ta da" link, without offering any personal interpretation towards presenting some, "aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion", (notwithstanding the GostHacked (GH) "ta da" link was to a most questionable site, one that offered woefully incorrect/fabricated statements, one that only quoted noted prolific deniers)..... tell me, what would Dale Carnegie do when responding to the GH "ta da", particularly given the purposeful GH intent, particularly balanced against the historical expressed GH position? What would Dale do?

No, I have no bias and we have no bad history. Actually, your style has inclined me to avoid debating with you. I find your answers usually to be derogatory and condescending and sometimes downright shrill!

Maybe it's just me. I'm recently separated after 25 years living with a wife that constantly nagged and carped, constantly ignoring mountains of what you did do while able to spot even one trivial thing that you didn't and then making a federal case out of it. Your posts always remind me of her!

I may be overly sensitive. I prefer a civilized debate, preferably with a beer or two, where you can politely hammer things out with your opponent for hours with BOTH of you enjoying yourselves!

When I read your posts it seems to me that you view your opponent as simple fodder for your own amusement! I truly believe that you couldn't care less about working out an actual truth. As I've said before, you appear to enjoy the debate for itself, as it gives you an opportunity to mock those who attempt to debate with you.

Whatever. If people chose to engage with you then they must not be bothered the same way I am. As I said, I may be too sensitive. Still, I prefer to keep my distance. Watching you banter with others always reminds me of that old Monty Python skit, where the character pokes his head into a room only to be hit with a basketload of ridiculous insults - "Oh, sorry! This is Abuse! You want the next room!"

It's a pity, for I AM impressed with the extent of your knowledge and expertise in some areas! I might enjoy interacting with you. I just don't care to pay the price you demand for that interaction. As an old joke goes, "If I want abuse I'll pay for it!"

Edited September 8, 2011 by Wild Bill

TimG · September 8, 2011

I wouldn't count myself as a skeptic. When I comment on the debate, it's mostly criticism of our lack of public forum for building consensus. It's nothing to do with the science, but about how the results are reported and discussed publicly.

For me the science is secondary. What bothers me is what I see as pernicious group think within the scientific community and an unwillingness to discuss alternative views. The latest hoopla over the Spencer paper and the editor resignation is a good example. Spencer's paper may be right or wrong but it is no worse than many alarmists papers. It is certainly no worse than the alarmist papers which he is responding to or which are touted as 'rebuttals'. Yet alarmists are in a tizzy because they can't stand that anyone might challenge their 'consensus'. Their reaction is small minded and petty and leaves me wondering why I should trust anything that comes from such people.

TimG · September 8, 2011

Maybe it's just me. I'm recently separated after 25 years living with a wife that constantly nagged and carped, constantly ignoring mountains of what you did do while able to spot even one trivial thing that you didn't and then making a federal case out of it. Your posts always remind me of her!

You captured waldo perfectly. Harps on the irrelevant noise or inexact wording in posts while ignoring the point that is trying to be made. Edited September 8, 2011 by TimG

waldo · September 8, 2011

Of course, you Michael, are certainly skeptical... obviously not of the consensus position... but of some aspects that reflect upon underlying failures of the "debate" and how they are influencing - however, again, since you asked, your position is somewhat clouded by your inherent like (as I interpret), for devils-advocacy and that you now wear the facilitator hat... there's no problem with this, of course; one simply needs to hold degrees of that in mind when reviewing some of your commentary.

I wouldn't count myself as a skeptic. When I comment on the debate, it's mostly criticism of our lack of public forum for building consensus. It's nothing to do with the science, but about how the results are reported and discussed publicly.

I don't "like" devil's advocacy, but I like good discussion so maybe that's the same thing.

my wording was intended... skeptic vs. skeptical/showing skepticism. Being skeptical, showing skepticism is, of course, a laudable characteristic.

fostering grand conspiracy is not skepticism... parroting the denial echo-chamber is not skepticism... incessantly shrieking on about "the team" is not skepticism... an ad nauseam bleat on gate-keepers is not skepticism... projecting a narrow, selectively applied, one-way (only) critical eye is not skepticism... manufacturing doubt and uncertainty to align with predisposed ideology is not skepticism... continuing to beak-off about a restrictively applied and targeted group-think premise is not skepticism

waldo · September 8, 2011

I may be overly sensitive. As I said, I may be too sensitive. Still, I prefer to keep my distance.

yes... you are. I, 'don't suffer fools gladly'..... and no, I don't cast you as one of the fools.

waldo · September 8, 2011

For me the science is secondary.

clearly

What bothers me is what I see as pernicious group think within the scientific community and an unwillingness to discuss alternative views.

see peer-review/response... you know, the foundation vehicle to 'discuss alternative views'... you know, that self-regulating process that evaluates your described "alternative views" and those fostering them. Please, for the brazillionth time, let's hear you, once again, trumpet your grand conspiratorial gatekeeper meme! Of course, what can stand up to your ongoing, ever-present, continually highlighted, oft repeated, group think label... what could stand up to that? Uhhh, well... without accepting the group think premise, how about when you're continually reminded that you selectively apply your group think label... that there, apparently, is no group think in denialTown!

The latest hoopla over the Spencer paper and the editor resignation is a good example.

yes, it most certainly is. You revel in playing the victim card. Let's recap: Spencer purposely seeks out a fringe journal, one that has peripheral ties to climate science, proper.... a journal that has never published any prior climate science papers. The editor in question resigns when he recognizes he's been played by Spencer, by the reviewers Spencer nominated and on how that paper was manipulated on through the mainstream media. The editor releases a statement offering qualification behind the resignation; the editor clearly distinguishes the reason why the paper wasn't retracted. Deniers scream wildly and feverishly!!! Say what? The paper stands... is there a problem, deniers? The journal expresses an intent to solicit responses to the paper... is there a problem, deniers?

Spencer's paper may be right or wrong but it is no worse than many alarmists papers. It is certainly no worse than the alarmist papers which he is responding to or which are touted as 'rebuttals'. Yet alarmists are in a tizzy because they can't stand that anyone might challenge their 'consensus'. Their reaction is small minded and petty and leaves me wondering why I should trust anything that comes from such people.

any raised concern reflects upon yet another example of the Spencer modus-operandi. This, his latest paper isn't anything new... he's been trumpeting this same premise now on through S&B08, S&B09, S&B11. Again, what sets this one out, in particular, is how Spencer purposely crafted the UAH new release, how the Heartland Institute was instrumental in manipulating additional false and distorted projections of the paper into the mainstream, and how Spencer aided and abetted those additional false and distorted projections within the mainstream.

as for your suggestions of challenging the consensus... has Spencer actually decided on what his paper means/intends/implies? Under the weight of the early review coming forward, Spencer seems to be now flapping wildly in the wind, although I expect he's buoyed by the mighty McIntyre weigh-in on Dressler :lol: (by the way, Timmay, what happened to the never-ending auditor's review of S&B11? /snarc)

waldo · September 8, 2011

You captured waldo perfectly. Harps on the irrelevant noise or inexact wording in posts while ignoring the point that is trying to be made.

now, now, Timmay... highlighting your noise and correcting your inexactness is only a secondary pursuit to reinforcing your ineptitude in, as you say, "trying" to make a point!

TimG · September 8, 2011

yes, it most certainly is. You revel in playing the victim card. Let's recap: Spencer purposely seeks out a fringe journal, one that has peripheral ties to climate science, proper.... a journal that has never published any prior climate science papers.

Because alarmists control all of the main journals and refuse to give his paper fair consideration. As I said - his paper is a perfectly legitimate paper that is no worse than the many alarmist papers that get published all of the time. There is no justification for keeping it out of the journals but that is exactly what happens. In any case, alarmists always say that if you can't get a paper in one jounrnal you should try another. So what exactly is the problem with Spencer submitting it to a Remote Sensing?

The editor in question resigns when he recognizes he's been played by Spencer

The editor resigns when faced with pressure from alarmists who likely threatened retribution of various kinds or he decided that he needed to curry favour with alarmists like alarmists Trembeth. His mealy mouthed apology to Trembeth exposes him for the sniveling coward he is.

any raised concern reflects upon yet another example of the Spencer modus-operandi.

What is wrong with trying to get one's idea published? You seem to think that Spencer should stop trying to publish his ideas because they don't meet the approval of the climate mafia. Your position is ignorant and anti-science.

as for your suggestions of challenging the consensus... has Spencer actually decided on what his paper means/intends/implies?

Tyr reading his paper. What it means and does not mean is explained there. Edited September 8, 2011 by TimG

Pliny · September 8, 2011

Maybe it's just me. I'm recently separated after 25 years living with a wife that constantly nagged and carped, constantly ignoring mountains of what you did do while able to spot even one trivial thing that you didn't and then making a federal case out of it. Your posts always remind me of her!

Thanks for this, Wild Bill.

I have tried pumping waldo for his true motive but he isn't giving it up. He prefers to uphold his image as a skeptic. It may be that he is "paid" to haunt public forums and present the case for climate change. He doesn't have to even believe it, and that may be the greatest bit of information he isn't telling us. In any respect, his conversation is telling. Al Gore's conversation is telling, Al is getting desperate and wishes to close the debate.

waldo isn't looking at any information he is looking at a motive he has and must propagandize the information.

The most telling aspect of his conversation is, if he believed what he said about me, he wouldn't even bother commenting on my posts or threads on this subject. It wouldn't be worth his time but for some reason he thinks it is.

waldo reminds me of PT Barnum selling his wares to those suckers born every minute or the master of PR and propaganda Edward Bernays, Father of Public Relations

Mr. Bernays of course, fooled the public on many occassions, he assumed, from somewhere, who knows where, the public were fools and needed to be manipulated. It may be the public is ignorant but that is no reason to conclude they are fools. When leaders become manipulators the public is in danger.

Climate change is a real concern if all things continue the same. They won't continue with the same progression which makes the argument almost entirely political. Scientists that think the planet is in danger of becoming over-populated or it's resources being depleted, which we have been teaching in our schools for decades now, sounding the warning bells of the dangers we present to the environment, are only too willing to help spread the message that if we continue on our present course we will all perish. That all things remaining the same we will perish couldn't be more than true and I think most people realize it but the truth is we won't continue on our present course. What the future holds techonlogically, who knows?? What it holds population wise, who knows??? What it holds politically is perhaps our greatest danger. There is a move to make governments smaller and we see the opposition is quite heavy against that but it may succeed, when and if liberals ever start to realize they are being manipulated.

So when someone is nagging and carping, as waldo does, it is designed to introvert. What's really behind it is only known to the person doing the nagging and carping.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Pliny

noahbody · September 8, 2011

There was a time when the average Joe realized his limitations and relied on science to do its work, and on the media to report it.

In 1922, The Washington Post ran an article about the warming of the Arctic Ocean, melting iceburgs and the disapearance of seals. If that fact was at the beginning of An Inconvenient Truth, the average Joe wouldn't have seen any reason to panic. It wouldn't have sold many tickets or papers.

Michael Hardner · September 8, 2011

In 1922, The Washington Post ran an article about the warming of the Arctic Ocean, melting iceburgs and the disapearance of seals. If that fact was at the beginning of An Inconvenient Truth, the average Joe wouldn't have seen any reason to panic. It wouldn't have sold many tickets or papers.

1922 ? Ok.

That would be as much as I would expect the average person to have to understand in any case. As long as there was an understanding of how these theories are put together, and a common understanding of the risks and risk levels.

GostHacked · September 8, 2011

Do our attempts at weather modification contribute to the problem at hand?

noahbody · September 8, 2011

1922 ? Ok.

That would be as much as I would expect the average person to have to understand in any case. As long as there was an understanding of how these theories are put together, and a common understanding of the risks and risk levels.

waldo · September 8, 2011

yes, it most certainly is. You revel in playing the victim card. Let's recap: Spencer purposely seeks out a fringe journal, one that has peripheral ties to climate science, proper.... a journal that has never published any prior climate science papers.
Because alarmists control all of the main journals and refuse to give his paper fair consideration. As I said - his paper is a perfectly legitimate paper that is no worse than the many alarmist papers that get published all of the time. There is no justification for keeping it out of the journals but that is exactly what happens. In any case, alarmists always say that if you can't get a paper in one jounrnal you should try another. So what exactly is the problem with Spencer submitting it to a Remote Sensing?

more, continued, TimG conspiracy hoopla! So... let's see about your supposed "gatekeeper" meme: just how bad is that supposed gate-keeping then... if:

- Spencer 2007 was published in the mainstream journal, Geophysical Research Letters... you know, the same journal Dressler2011 was just published in.

- Spencer 2008 was published in the mainstream journal, Journal of Climate

- Spencer 2009 was published in the mainstream American Geophysical Union

yikes! What does this failed gate-keeping do to your conspiracy theme, hey TimG? :lol:

you ask what was wrong with Spencer publishing in Remote Sensing? Well, you've already read it previously, but... once more with feeling: Remote Sensing is a fringe journal, a new 2-year old start-up that has no direct specialization with climate science, proper... until Spencer's paper, it had never published a climate change related paper. It doesn't have editors versed in climate science... it requests submitters recommend reviewers (and in this specific case, they went completely with Spencer's recommendations. It's a pay to publish style journal (Open Access)... a relatively new format that is coming under significant scrutiny in terms of standards, methods, procedures. So... Spencer paid to get his paper published! Essentially, he did an end-around a true peer-review. I've just shown you examples of where Spencer's most recent prior papers were all published in mainstream outlets - you tell me why he chose the fringe journal, Remote Sensing.

The editor in question resigns when he recognizes he's been played by Spencer, by the reviewers Spencer nominated and on how that paper was manipulated on through the mainstream media. The editor releases a statement offering qualification behind the resignation; the editor clearly distinguishes the reason why the paper wasn't retracted. Deniers scream wildly and feverishly!!! Say what? The paper stands... is there a problem, deniers? The journal expresses an intent to solicit responses to the paper... is there a problem, deniers?
The editor resigns when faced with pressure from alarmists who likely threatened retribution of various kinds or he decided that he needed to curry favour with alarmists like alarmists Trembeth. His mealy mouthed apology to Trembeth exposes him for the sniveling coward he is.

more TimG conspiracy hoopla! What kind of retribution? You mean like threatening to never publish in the journal "they've" never published in before? Like that? :lol:

any raised concern reflects upon yet another example of the Spencer modus-operandi. This, his latest paper isn't anything new... he's been trumpeting this same premise now on through S&B08, S&B09, S&B11. Again, what sets this one out, in particular, is how Spencer purposely crafted the UAH new release, how the Heartland Institute was instrumental in manipulating additional false and distorted projections of the paper into the mainstream, and how Spencer aided and abetted those additional false and distorted projections within the mainstream.
What is wrong with trying to get one's idea published? You seem to think that Spencer should stop trying to publish his ideas because they don't meet the approval of the climate mafia. Your position is ignorant and anti-science.

your point is moot... you have no point - see above example list of the mainstream journals where Spencer's recent prior papers were published. Again, it would appear your described, "climate mafia" failed to keep up it's end of the TimG conspiracy meme!!! As you stated, your position is ignorant and has nothing whatsoever to do with science...

as for your suggestions of challenging the consensus... has Spencer actually decided on what his paper means/intends/implies? Under the weight of the early review coming forward, Spencer seems to be now flapping wildly in the wind, although I expect he's buoyed by the mighty McIntyre weigh-in on Dressler (by the way, Timmay, what happened to the never-ending auditor's review of S&B11? /snarc)
Tyr reading his paper. What it means and does not mean is explained there.

too funny! You're deluded. Since you seem so versed in Woy's paper, why not highlight just exactly what it does presume to show... and then, we'll compare that to Woy's press release and all the Heartland Institute influenced mainstream media headlines. That should be a hoot, hey?

hey now, with all the mainstream buzz Spencer's paper got... how come there's not been any mention of Dressler's? When do you expect FoxNews will have Dressler on? I believe you might have unintentionally skipped over my earlier question; again, why do you believe the never-ending auditor hasn't got around to the Spencer paper? :lol:

Keepitsimple · September 9, 2011

I see poor old Waldo is back - frantically trying to stamp out the cloud fires, I suppose. Old Waldo has to put up with the Chinese Water Torture.....drip, drip, drip......funny how the Alarmists have become the true Deniers. They deny that the climate has been warming naturally for centuries. They refuse to accept that warming has been non-existant for 15 years. They deny that the Sun and clouds could have any significant effect on climate. It's the CO2 that's causing the warming that's not occurring......Waldo and his ilk simply deny anything else.

Move all the hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies and grants from "human-caused" climate change to non-APG research and I think you'll see a different story coming from our Climate Science gurus.

Edited September 9, 2011 by Keepitsimple

Michael Hardner · September 9, 2011

KeepItSimple ... You're just wrong here.

TimG · September 9, 2011

KeepItSimple ... You're just wrong here.

Wrong about what exactly?

The facts are warming seems to have stalled for 10-15 years (whether there is statistically insignificant warming or cooling is irrelevant). It is possible that it is just a blip and warming will resume shortly but it is also possible that the alarmists are wrong and CO2 does not have the effect that they claim it has. It is unscientific to refuse to acknowledge that both possibilities are valid hypotheses.

It is also unscientific to refuse to acknowledge that CERN experiment could be the first step in establishing a physical mechanism that does explain the observations better than CO2. It is wrong to reject becasue they don't definitively disprove the current paradigm at this time. Paradigm shifts often start with such discoveries.

In a normal science field these discoveries would be celebrated - but in climate science many scientists believe they also have to be political activists so they work over time trying to debunk any contrary idea that pops up. This is why climate science, as a field, is sick.

Edited September 9, 2011 by TimG

waldo · September 9, 2011

They refuse to accept that warming has been non-existant for 15 years.
The facts are warming seems to have stalled for 10-15 years (whether there is statistically insignificant warming or cooling is irrelevant).

Simple, you're always in flip-flop mode... clearly some denierBlog has, once again, emboldened you to flop, once again. In any case, I am heartened to see both of you now stretching beyond your past favoured 6-10 year short-term reference interval periods, although TimG, the wily one, is still trying to cover his bases! Even though you've both been schooled in the past about the more appropriate longer-term periods that associate with climate temperature trending (~ 25-30 years), why not simply put up support for your stated "non-existent/stalled warming, 15/10-15 year periods".