The Great Green Con #1 GW Forecasts Wrong Again

scribblet · March 28, 2013

Your linked graph speaks for itself. Why include childish insults like calling "scribblet" scribbler?

It's his usual MO, the reason I have had him on ignore for a long time, I never read him because of his insults and so on.

BubberMiley · March 28, 2013

It's his usual MO, the reason I have had him on ignore for a long time, I never read him because of his insults and so on.

"Scribbler" is an insult? Are you sure it isn't a typo? What is a scriblet anyway, if not a typo?

I didn't catch any insults by Waldo myself. Just patient demonstrations of the intellectual dishonesty that the OP engages in. And when exposed, what does she do? Tries her best to make the debate personal.

scribblet · March 28, 2013

"Scribbler" is an insult? Are you sure it isn't a typo? What is a scriblet anyway, if not a typo?

I didn't catch any insults by Waldo myself. Just patient demonstrations of the intellectual dishonesty that the OP engages in. And when exposed, what does she do? Tries her best to make the debate personal.

pot - black

Michael Hardner · March 28, 2013

Yes - and that is simply a sign of deep rot within our scientific institutions.

This is just self-fulfilling. If you complain that the paper isn't scrutinized, then when it is - you don't agree with the result... what does that say ?

It is rather arrogant of you to presume that you know better than me why I adopt the positions I do.puhleeze. waldo is the most intellectually dishonest buffoon on this forum. He refuses the concede the even most basic points when they are spelled out for him.

No need to insult Waldo - he's already shown a degree of openness and honesty in this thread that you haven't.

As for the gist of the work: convincing about what? That it is likely to get warmer in the future? Sure. No disagreement from me. But anything else from the amount of warming to the likely consequences is largely nonsense. Some of it will end up being true because of pure random chance rather than scientific insight.

Random chance that it's getting warmer ? Huh ?

The fact that you accept the precepts of climate change and still have a virulent intolerance of those who developed the theory and did the research - it's just ... confusing. I don't know exactly what your inner workings are, indeed I'm against the idea of assuming you understand peoples' motivations. But I don't know what else it would be, other than a personal issue of some kind.

Bonam · March 28, 2013

"Scribbler" is an insult? Are you sure it isn't a typo? What is a scriblet anyway, if not a typo?

I didn't catch any insults by Waldo myself. Just patient demonstrations of the intellectual dishonesty that the OP engages in. And when exposed, what does she do? Tries her best to make the debate personal.

It was spelled that way multiple times, not a typo. Waldo has his disparaging little pet names for several of the people that he "debates" with here.

BubberMiley · March 28, 2013

pot - black

I understand now. Whatever floats your boat.

scribblet · March 28, 2013

I understand now. Whatever floats your boat.

Whatever turns you on - have fun in doing whatever makes your day./

TimG · March 28, 2013

This is just self-fulfilling. If you complain that the paper isn't scrutinized, then when it is - you don't agree with the result... what does that say?

I have read the paper and my university degree and 30 years of experience in engineering tell me McIntyre is right and Mann is full of crap. Since I get paid to provide engineering services that have to work or I get fired I have good reason to be confident in my knowledge. IOW - I am basing my opinion on personal knowledge - I am not relying on someone else's interpretation. So that means the only rational explanation is most scientists know it is crap too but because of peer pressure they will not say it publicly. That is the basis for my belief that climate science is rotten.

No need to insult Waldo - he's already shown a degree of openness and honesty in this thread that you haven't.

Waldo is on ignore. I don't know and don't care what he has to say now. I spent enough time arguing with that him playing nice on one thread is not going to change my opinion. (I note he is still using condescending names for other posters which leads me to believe that you only like waldo because he is your 'blue pill' that keeps feeding you what you need to keep believing in the illusion).

The fact that you accept the precepts of climate change and still have a virulent intolerance of those who developed the theory and did the research - it's just ... confusing.

What is so hard? If science is junk I expect it to be rejected by the scientific community. If it is good I expect it be accepted. What I see over and over is science being accepted or rejected based entirely on whether it supports or refutes the IPCC narrative. This is wrong. This is not how science is supposed to work.

Obviously that does not mean it is all wrong but if the only evidence I have is a climate scientist's opinion then I say that is not enough to persuade me. Show me real evidence that is not based on data which has been subjectively tweeked or modelled or adjusted and I will accept. That is why I have no issue with CO2 being a GHG that will result in warming - it follows from the basic physics and requires no subjective interpretation of data.

Edited March 28, 2013 by TimG

BubberMiley · March 28, 2013

It was spelled that way multiple times, not a typo. Waldo has his disparaging little pet names for several of the people that he "debates" with here.

I see. I guess when I lose a debate, I should take issue with people calling me "Bubbles." It might make me feel better about not knowing what I'm talking about. :lol:

waldo · March 28, 2013

Steve McIntyre is a statistician by training and is more qualified than Mann to comment on the usefulness of Mann's various reconstructions (Mann is largely incompetent when it comes to statistics).

a BSc. math major doesn't make one a statistician. Speaking of incompetence, any news yet on when the formal McIntyre challenge to Mann will get published? How many years has it been now? Any news on when McIntyre, the "great never-ending auditor", will finally put out one of his own reconstructions?

.

Also, the Penn state investigations into Mann were by the same people who 'investigated' allegations against the pedophile Sandusky. Being cleared by 'Penn State' means nothing to anyone who understands the issues.

a flat out lie

.

Mann is basically fraud but he has successfully fooled many people who do not have to background to understand his garbage science into believing he is some sort of persecuted hero. It is rather pathetic and one of the reasons I hold climate science in contempt. I see better science in the weekly horoscopes.

and yet... all those people... those he, as you say, "hasn't fooled"... those with a background/understanding to, as you say, "recognize his garbage science" - somehow, all those people can't be bothered to actually formally publish and put the Mann in place! What are they, all those people, waiting for?

.

A lemon? Kyoto is dead and there is little chance of it being revived. Obama has no chance of passing any anti-CO laws. The Japanese are quietly abandoning any GHG commitments because they decided closing down nukes is a higher priority - same for the Germans. The UK is facing power blackouts because of idiotic GHGs regulations.

no - Kyoto 2 is not dead... talk to Obama's chances after the 2014 mid-terms... nothing quiet about Japanese intentions, short-term & longer-term... Germany is doing very well in continuing to meet it's most aggressive reduction targets... UK facing power blackouts? - no, just your hyperbole; see new gas plants coming on stream by 2016 timed to closure of coal and nuclear plants.

.

I would say the people calling for sanity are the winners over the anti-CO2 alarmists.

you can say whatever you want - your say holds no merit, has no standing

.

waldo · March 28, 2013

This is great....lots of folks are jumping on board the failed IPCC models and current average temps:

good to see you've found a new denier blog and your cut&paste works just fine! It's always insightful when a denier blog doesn't actually include anything about the blogger... not a name, not a bio, nuthin!

of course we both know you haven't a clue as to what you just cut&pasted... I looked for the true origination source of your linked graphic... your blog guy grabbed it from another blog which hosts it tied back to a some data point within a UK university. There's no available context to go along with that graphic you've linked to. Of course, the graphic itself, as is (minus the blogger add-ons), is wide-open to speculation/conjecture. The graphic says "20 models on it"... there are 67 models within the overall CMIP5 ensemble. The graphic includes nothing to suggest what ensemble makeup (what grouping of models) is associated with each of the 4 listed scenarios. The graphic includes nothing to suggest how many simulations were run for each model... or when it comes right down to it, how the models (the portion of them) were set-up... or what observational temperature dataset is being represented... or the associated timing - CMIP5 models have been progressing over the recent years... building towards the next IPCC AR5 iteration... who knows what state the respective models were in at the time they were supposedly run... etc., etc., etc. Who knows anything about the graphic... well, other than your denier blog guy!!! And... I guess you right?

perhaps the first clue is in the heading your denier blogger guy added to the graphic... what does it say when your guy can't even correctly spell the name of the CMIP5 model project/iteration? (/snarc)

Michael Hardner · March 28, 2013

a BSc. math major doesn't make one a statistician. Speaking of incompetence, any news yet on when the formal McIntyre challenge to Mann will get published?

This is news to me. It means that I have the same educational credentials as McIntyre and I wouldn't call myself a statistician. ( Nor should an engineer, IMO, but I digress. )

The famous "flipped sign" critique was ostensibly the coup-de-grace of his critique of Mann's paper and it fell flat. The way it was phrased seemed to me to indicate that McIntyre thought Mann personally made a math error, rather than what happened - which was that his model produced a different coefficient than another researcher. I suspect he may even have been trying to 'spin' this situation as unknowing incompetence.

scribblet · March 28, 2013

Note that back in 2000 the ‘experts’ predicted that the U.K. snow is starting to disappear, children would never see snow again and these ‘experts’ continually forecasted warm/milder winters and so, politicians prioritized accordingly.

Britain is struggling with one of coldest winters on record and is facing a gas supply crisis as storage is running out. The only chance they have now of keeping the lights on is to repeal the Climate Change Act 'the most expensive suicide note in history'. They should also stop pouring massive subsidies into the generation of electricity from wind turbines and use the reserve of shale until they can come up with something better that's doable.

What is needed is better long term planning as the debate will continue long after we are gone. The science sure isn’t settled and as we are seeing now, current events don’t seem to be factored into current models. The earth has changed/cycled, warmed, cooled for eons and will continue to do so with or without the help of humans. We need to plan for the long term but not with hysterical alarmism. There is much indication that we are at the beginning of a mini ice age due to a decline in solar activity, so there you go, we need to be more open minded to all sides.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/9814618/Its-snowing-and-it-really-feels-like-the-start-of-a-mini-ice-age.html

As a species, we human beings have become so blind with conceit and self-love that we genuinely believe that the fate of the planet is in our hands — when the reality is that everything, or almost everything, depends on the behaviour and caprice of the gigantic thermonuclear fireball around which we revolve.

Have fun, have to love you and leave you for a few days.

Hold the flames please -

bush_cheney2004 · March 28, 2013

good to see you've found a new denier blog and your cut&paste works just fine! It's always insightful when a denier blog doesn't actually include anything about the blogger... not a name, not a bio, nuthin!

Thanks....and to be more accurate (unlike the IPCC modeling)....it's "copy and paste".....not "cut and paste". Got it ?

.....perhaps the first clue is in the heading your denier blogger guy added to the graphic... what does it say when your guy can't even correctly spell the name of the CMIP5 model project/iteration? (/snarc)

Not my guy....same way that NASA is not yours (/snark). The larger point (that must be deflected strenuously by the alarmists), is the degree to which the IPCC modeling to date has been wildly off/wrong about the rise in average global temperatures.

GostHacked · March 28, 2013

I'm glad you acknowledge that there are a few real flaws in the film - this conveys a level of intellectual honesty that your opponents would never acknowledge in you.

As you have said, it's easier to make fun of pop environmental figures than refute the weight of knowledge, or God forbid try to suggest solutions.

I've offered simple solutions but they were shot down. But at least someone else seems to have the same idea in which trees and such are being planted, knowing they are the best solution to scrub C02 from the air.

Bitsy · March 28, 2013

As a species, we human beings have become so blind with conceit and self-love that we genuinely believe that the fate of the planet is in our hands — when the reality is that everything, or almost everything, depends on the behaviour and caprice of the gigantic thermonuclear fireball around which we revolve.

Well if the major of London says it, it must be true, LOL.

A simple to understand explanation about snow

http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/the-vine/what-the-snowpocalypse-says-about-global-warming#

Edited March 28, 2013 by Bitsy

BubberMiley · March 28, 2013

As a species, we human beings have become so blind with conceit and self-love that we genuinely believe that the fate of the planet is in our hands — when the reality is that everything, or almost everything, depends on the behaviour and caprice of the gigantic thermonuclear

It's disturbing that there are grown adults who actually don't believe that human beings are capable of destroying their ability to survive on this planet. Fortunately their numbers are few, but it's bizarre that they exist at all. Edited March 28, 2013 by BubberMiley

GostHacked · March 28, 2013

It's disturbing that there are grown adults who actually don't believe that human beings are capable of destroying their ability to survive on this planet. Fortunately their numbers are few, but it's bizarre that they exist at all.

I don't think that is the case at all. But people are just not aware of the extent and how we are damaging the planet. Toxic and radioactive damage, overfishing, decline in major species, urban sprawl...... with all that more immediate on the horizon, the CO2 to me is a distraction from real problems.

BubberMiley · March 28, 2013

... with all that more immediate on the horizon, the CO2 to me is a distraction from real problems.

But once the ice is melted and the solar radiation is absorbed into the dark water rather than reflected back into space, you'll find these other real problems only compounded.

bush_cheney2004 · March 28, 2013

Human beings "infest" this planet, now resident on every continent in ways that make the term "survive on this planet" ludicrous. So called anthropogenic global warming is only a risk to the excesses of human development, not the underlying survival of human beings. There are far more credible risks have nothing to do with CO_{^{2 and Al Gore movies}}.

TimG · March 28, 2013

This is news to me. It means that I have the same educational credentials as McIntyre and I wouldn't call myself a statistician. ( Nor should an engineer, IMO, but I digress. )

Except he has spent his entire career using statistics to evaluate the potential of mining sites - something which makes him more qualified that any PhD in physics that dabbles in stats because if he got answers that turned out to be wrong he would no longer be able to work.

IOW - people who use mathematics to solve real world problems are often more qualified than their purely academic peers because they get feedback that tells them when they are wrong. i.e. the plane crashes or the bridge falls or investors lose millions because there was not actually any metal in the ground. This lack of self correcting feedback is why climate science is a field prone to group think.

The famous "flipped sign" critique was ostensibly the coup-de-grace of his critique of Mann's paper and it fell flat.

We have been over this many times and issue remains the same: you do not understand the issues involved but you seem to think you do. Part of the problem is you think it is some mathematical exercise and you don't understand that proxies are real world physical processes and that places constraints on what "coefficients" can be considered correct. Claiming Mann got a different coefficient is like saying he calculated the gravitational constant to be -9.8 instead of +9.8 (a sentence may sound reasonable until you realize that it implies that we should all be floating into space...).

In any case, the fact that people like you that can look at this simple black and white issue and *still* not understand the mistake Mann made simply re-enforces my view that climate science is rotten to the core. It is clear that your ideological desire to defend the climate science establishment has made you willing to twist information in any way you need to in order to preserve your faith. The real trouble is there are many many more people like you sitting in universities.

Edited March 28, 2013 by TimG

waldo · March 28, 2013

oh yes, you're on a roll ... your denier site... your denier blogger has let you down, yet again! You're 2 for 2!!!

before we even get to the data, what you're puffing up about is your denier bloggers manual addition of 6 data points (6 years)... 6 annual anomaly points added to extend your linked graphic from it's IPCC AR4 origin (extending it from 2005 to 2011). That's 6 years, another short time frame... a weather time frame (not a climate time frame)... to presume to cast aspersion and denigrate the related models abilities in performance-to-observational comparison. And, of course, from there to, as you did earlier in your first big-time fail post, to raise it to the level of "placing economic faith in failed models".

it's a shame you haven't any actual knowledge or understanding... any ability to interpret... any ability to actually step beyond your cut&paste from denier blogs! If you did... if you had any of that... you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself - embarrassing yourself further. Here's another cut&paste for you - I'll let you re-work your graphic and apply the Hadcrut4 data points... while you're at it, you can add the respective NCDC and GISS dataset anomaly points as well. You'll also see the Hadcrut3 data points that allows you to directly compare your linked graphics manual extension of the Hadcrut3 data. Of course, you haven't a clue about Hadcrut3 vs. Hadcrut4 - but why should that ever stop a cut&paste connoisseur like you, hey?

Another version of the colossal IPCC climate change model FAILS.....I would like to thank member scribblet for highlighting these recent analyses and departures from the "guaranteed" "95% confidence interval" predictions from Team AGW.

Edited March 28, 2013 by waldo

bush_cheney2004 · March 28, 2013

Seems like old times, as Team AGW twists and squirms under the hot spotlights. Charts and data at ten paces ! Meanwhile, back at the hydrocarbon ranch, Ma and Pa review their plans for more mining, drilling, fracking, and pipelines to move it all to market.

Get along little doggies....get along !!

waldo · March 28, 2013

good to see you've found a new denier blog and your cut&paste works just fine! It's always insightful when a denier blog doesn't actually include anything about the blogger... not a name, not a bio, nuthin!

of course we both know you haven't a clue as to what you just cut&pasted... I looked for the true origination source of your linked graphic... your blog guy grabbed it from another blog which hosts it tied back to a some data point within a UK university. There's no available context to go along with that graphic you've linked to. Of course, the graphic itself, as is (minus the blogger add-ons), is wide-open to speculation/conjecture. The graphic says "20 models on it"... there are 67 models within the overall CMIP5 ensemble. The graphic includes nothing to suggest what ensemble makeup (what grouping of models) is associated with each of the 4 listed scenarios. The graphic includes nothing to suggest how many simulations were run for each model... or when it comes right down to it, how the models (the portion of them) were set-up... or what observational temperature dataset is being represented... or the associated timing - CMIP5 models have been progressing over the recent years... building towards the next IPCC AR5 iteration... who knows what state the respective models were in at the time they were supposedly run... etc., etc., etc. Who knows anything about the graphic... well, other than your denier blog guy!!! And... I guess you right?

perhaps the first clue is in the heading your denier blogger guy added to the graphic... what does it say when your guy can't even correctly spell the name of the CMIP5 model project/iteration? (/snarc)

Not my guy....same way that NASA is not yours (/snark). The larger point (that must be deflected strenuously by the alarmists), is the degree to which the IPCC modeling to date has been wildly off/wrong about the rise in average global temperatures.

see my preceding post... it addresses your puffery, your larger point! :lol:

waldo · March 28, 2013

Seems like old times, as Team AGW twists and squirms under the hot spotlights. Charts and data at ten paces ! Meanwhile, back at the hydrocarbon ranch, Ma and Pa review their plans for more mining, drilling, fracking, and pipelines to move it all to market.

Get along little doggies....get along !!

is this your best comeback for wildly failing in the two posts of yours I've just addressed? This is gold, Jerry... real gold!

of course, your cut&paste magic from denier blogs is simply a grander extension on scribblet's nonsense within this thread. Denier blog science rules! :lol: