How To Be A Global Warming Sceptic

[TrueSceptic]

No, I only watch and observe as they come out.... of their closets.

Is your understanding of the Senator's stands and attitudes on issues as weak as your understanding of relevant terms? Likely.

He is (just one example relevant to AGW) a strong proponent of nuclear energy and building more nuclear power plants. His counterpart on the Democrat side, Boxer, is the opposite.... I'll only note that this factoid I've provided is relevant to the discussion, while your opinion about his religion is not. We have a system of government and elections where people can elect who they choose, and it would appear that the people in Oklahoma feel differently about religion than you do. Of course, as I've noted before, one direction this could lead is into a discussion of the weird and curious religious beliefs of AGW alarmists. I refuse to do that, again because I do not feel it has any relevance whatsoever to the discussion.

Side note on Bibles:
You might have meant to say bible thumper.

I know what I meant. "Bible basher" is a more common term over here. I think this is because we like alliteration.

Religion might not be directly relevant but there is a strong correlation between right-wing politics and GWS, as there is between right-wing politics and religious fundamentalism. In addition, some of us have noted the similarities between GWS and Creationist tactics.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Politics makes strange bedfellows, so they say.

In my opinion, though, if someone was a real Alarmist AGW type, wouldn't it make sense to include Inhofe as a supporter? Pro nuclear, and pro a reasonable approach to "corn ethanol" (but no one listened).

If they had listened to Inhofe, we wouldn't have the political/business mess of corn ethanol production with subsidies in the USA that we have now.

Are there specific bills that in your opinion, Inhofe has argued or voted against that clearly and unambiguously show that he is an enemy to a realistic environmentalism?

I certainly agree, he is an enemy to the likes of Greenpeace and Monbiot. We could use more that rebut or argue against such the likes of those.

I'm curious: how well known is Monbiot in the USA? He's not even very well known in the UK unless you are a broadsheet-reading, Radio 4-listening type.

 

[CapelDodger]

Nope, read it, now its your turn.

I did read it. It was only three words, after all : "Okay, your turn". Nothing else. Squat. Not a sausage. Bugger-all. Sweet Fanny Adams.

Did you even read the assignment (http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/house...ann31Aug06.pdf)?

 

[CapelDodger]

Radical environmentalists? You do come out with them, don't you?

Another GWScetpic trait : anybody not like them must be a radical, because GWSceptics are (by their own definition) moderates.

Inhofe and Barton are both ultra-conservatives. I'd be amazed if I shared much of their views, especially as Inhofe is a Bible-basher too.

It's embarrassing enough that we share so many of their genes, and a fair amount of their language.

Quite why science has to be so political in the USA, I don't know.

It's an interesting question. The US was founded as a far more political social order than, say, the UK. That's something which comes with a written Constitution.

 

[mhaze]

I did read it. It was only three words, after all : "Okay, your turn". Nothing else. Squat. Not a sausage. Bugger-all. Sweet Fanny Adams.

Did you even read the assignment (http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/house...ann31Aug06.pdf)?

Okay = yes I read it.

Your turn.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Another GWScetpic trait : anybody not like them must be a radical, because GWSceptics are (by their own definition) moderates.

A truism that applies to all extremists, does it not?

But why are they all right-wingers, as far as I can tell? Surely the ultra-lefties would have reasons to discredit AGW too (I'm not counting Durkin because he is one weird "Communist"/"Marxist")?

It's embarrassing enough that we share so many of their genes, and a fair amount of their language.

It's an interesting question. The US was founded as a far more political social order than, say, the UK. That's something which comes with a written Constitution.

I wish I knew why it doesn't work better than it does. We, of course, have the opposite situation: how can something so archaic and ridiculous work at all?

 

[CapelDodger]

A truism that applies to all extremists, does it not?

Absolutely. And I use that term advisedly .

But why are they all right-wingers, as far as I can tell? Surely the ultra-lefties would have reasons to discredit AGW too (I'm not counting Durkin because he is one weird "Communist"/"Marxist")?

There is a common theme, and it was evident back in the Soviet days. Libertarian Capitalism and Communism are entirely self-contained ideologies of human interactions. In neither case does the physical environment play any role, let alone a limiting one. Humans play the game; the physical environment is the board they play it on. Heaven forfend that the board might join in itself. If a problem arises the system (being perfect) will engineer a solution unless it's interfered with.

From much further back we have "go forth and multiply", not "go forth and multiply within the limits of the physical environment you're multiplying in".

Today's Marxists, such as Durkin and the old Living Marxism crowd he hangs with appear weird because they're the only ones left (so to speak). Back in the day, environmentalism had a harder time of it in the Soviet Bloc than it did in the West.

I wish I knew why it doesn't work better than it does. We, of course, have the opposite situation: how can something so archaic and ridiculous work at all?

Because it has evolved.

The US Constitution has actually performed remarkably well, but it did have a whole new continent to play itself out in. Now it's running up against the sort of limits that the Old World has had to contend with for centuries. Just how well it will adapt to the strain is yet to be seen.

 

[CapelDodger]

Okay = yes I read it.

Your turn.

It's not enough to read the assignment, you're supposed to report on it. What kind of "homework" are you used to in the US school system? I'd have been hauled-up for insolence if I'd tried your response back in my day.

 

[mhaze]

It's not enough to read the assignment, you're supposed to report on it. What kind of "homework" are you used to in the US school system? I'd have been hauled-up for insolence if I'd tried your response back in my day.

Okay, enough obfuscating on your part. My question -

It's not all about Mann. How does McIntyre measure up against the statisticians amongst the et al?
​

I leave it as your homework assignment to name them.

Unanswered, because there were no statisticians. As far as I am aware, still are not. But thanks for sparring a bit, it's always fun.

 

[CapelDodger]

Okay, enough obfuscating on your part. My question -

It's not all about Mann. How does McIntyre measure up against the statisticians amongst the et al?​

I leave it as your homework assignment to name them.

Unanswered, because there were no statisticians. As far as I am aware, still are not. But thanks for sparring a bit, it's always fun.

If you're basing that opinion on Wegman, see Question 2 in Mann's response. Wegman's contribution is a travesty, but it seems to have served its purpose.

 

[mhaze]

If you're basing that opinion on Wegman, see Question 2 in Mann's response. Wegman's contribution is a travesty, but it seems to have served its purpose.

No thanks. Silly words games.

 

[CapelDodger]

Time for a new post in the occasional series "CapelDodger's Advice To The Aspiring GWSceptic":


Never be too proud to seek refuge. There are many available. You can take refuge in the past, on other planets, in the Sun, Solar Cycles 24 and 25 (who knows, maybe 26 and 27 one day), in the stratosphere, the troposphere, the oceans, Antarctica, under a rock - at least one will always be available, and if not, another will be thought up for you by clever people who make their living and/or notoriety out of it. You can depend on that. What you can't depend on is events in the here-and-now where people actually live. You can venture into that terrain, but always remain aware of where your refuges are and be ready to bolt.

Fish can do it; so can you.

 

[CapelDodger]

No thanks.

I wasn't offering anything.

Silly words games.

It may seem that way to you because I'm merciless when presented with supercilious inarticulacy (yes, I also do consonance) but there's actually more to it than that.

Some words from http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/house06/HouseFollowupQuestionsMann31Aug06.pdf

"Dr. Wegman’s accusation could not be further from the truth. The participation of statisticians in climate science has become so routine that there is an entire field of climate research known as “statistical climatology,” which involves the collaboration of large numbers of statisticians and climate scientists. There are even textbooks dedicated
to the study of statistical climatology. In his testimony before the Committee, Dr. Hans Von Storch found it necessary to inform Dr. Wegman of this fact. And Dr. Von Storch should know; he and Dr. Francis Zwiers (a Ph.D. statistician specializing in climate applications) have written one widely used textbook on statistics and its applications to climate studies. Another statistician, Professor Dan Wilks of Cornell University, has
written an additional textbook on statistics and its applications to the atmospheric sciences."

Which would make it more than odd if it was Steve McIntyre that spotted devastating statistical flaws in Mann et al 1998, not statistical climatologists.

More words from Mann

"Moreover, the American Meteorological Society --- the leading professional organization of atmospheric scientists --- has a Committee on Probability and Statistics, and members of the committee are drawn from both atmospheric/ocean/climate scientists and statisticians. I was a member of that committee for a 3-year term (2003-2005) that recently ended. The committee’s website can be found here: http://www.isse.ucar.edu/ams/ams_ps.html, and the committee members’ biographies are available here:"

Wegman could have discovered that had he cared to find out, but he was there to do a job, and he certainly seems to have done a job on you.

 

[mhaze]

I wasn't offering anything.
It may seem that way to you because I'm merciless when presented with supercilious inarticulacy (yes, I also do consonance) but there's actually more to it than that.
Some words from http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/house06/HouseFollowupQuestionsMann31Aug06.pdf
Which would make it more than odd if it was Steve McIntyre that spotted devastating statistical flaws in Mann et al 1998, not statistical climatologists.
More words from Mann
Wegman could have discovered that had he cared to find out, but he was there to do a job, and he certainly seems to have done a job on you.

CD, is there a reason to make all this so needless complicated? You were simply asked to name the statisticians in the et al. And that, only because you said there were some....

 

[mhaze]

I wasn't offering anything.
It may seem that way to you because I'm merciless when presented with supercilious inarticulacy (yes, I also do consonance) but there's actually more to it than that.
Some words from http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/house06/HouseFollowupQuestionsMann31Aug06.pdf
Which would make it more than odd if it was Steve McIntyre that spotted devastating statistical flaws in Mann et al 1998, not statistical climatologists.
More words from Mann
Wegman could have discovered that had he cared to find out, but he was there to do a job, and he certainly seems to have done a job on you.

CD, is there a reason to make all this so needless complicated? You were simply asked to name the statisticians in the et al. And that, only because you said there were some....

 

[a_unique_person]

Wegman could have discovered that had he cared to find out, but he was there to do a job, and he certainly seems to have done a job on you.

But then no one would have ever heard of Mr Wegman.

 

[CapelDodger]

But then no one would have ever heard of Mr Wegman.

Indeed. Cheap and fleeting fame is better than none at all, to some. Who'd have ever heard of Wegman, or Steve McIntyre, or the late unlamented John Daly, or Senator Frickin' Inhofe, if CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas? Only a very select few; family, friends, and colleagues. But in this Universe they're big fish (in a very shallow pond).

We would have heard of Fred Singer, though, because he's not a one-trick guy.

 

[CapelDodger]

CD, is there a reason to make all this so needless complicated? You were simply asked to name the statisticians in the et al. And that, only because you said there were some....

It started when I asked you how McIntyre measured up against the et al. Something which you haven't addressed. I didn't say "the et al in Mann et al 1998", just et al. The others. Statistical climatologists, for instance. I even provided a link.

So, winding back, how does Steve McIntyre measure up to the likes of Dr. Von Storch or Dr. Francis Zwiers? Has he found something they didn't, or is he perhaps thrashing around in a shrinking pool, and impressing the likes of you no end in the process?

 

[mhaze]

Ah, the fine art of nonansweraba.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Ah, the fine art of nonansweraba.

You made the claim

Unanswered, because there were no statisticians. As far as I am aware, still are not. But thanks for sparring a bit, it's always fun

which CD has answered and refuted. It seems that you are unable to recognise this simple fact, but then denialism is part of your essential makeup, isn't it?