Climate science denial being taught at Carleton University

[Corsair 115]

Subsidies? Nope. I argued in favor of using prizes, awarded after a private person or company succeeded in a difficult research or engineering task.

It's been awhile since I visited that thread, but last I recall the consensus had been that such solutions were wholly insufficient to generate the tens of billions of dollars necessary to accomplish Mr. Gingrich's (and by extension your) lunar base vision.

Also, a moon base built using Newt's concepts would not even be government owned or controlled - it would be private.

So which private company was going to offer up the billions to develop a man-rated booster rocket to get humans and cargo into Earth orbit and from there to the Moon? Within the timescale Mr. Gingrich had laid out?

I don't have any problem with fire codes. For one thing, fire codes and things of that nature tend to be styled upon a thousand or more years of experience that we have with fire, what causes it, what prevents and controls it in a urban environment.

What you are glossing over—and the point of me mentioning them—is that such codes are a form of government "control" (to use your word) that tells businesses what they can and cannot do. In which case one may ask how exactly do you draw the line, and by what criteria, as to what constitutes acceptable government control over persons and business and what does not? You were the one, after all, who decided to inject that bit of political ideology into the discussion. In which case it becomes fair ground to ask you to expand upon that in a coherent way.

 

[Trakar]

Us business owners can think quite well for ourselves without the help of anonymous Internet far left environmentalist inputs. But thanks. Oh, and whenever you guys figure out some of the basic principles of business, you won't need all those government subsidies and controls on peoples' behavior any more.

Cheers!

Unsupported noise does not contribute to any discussion.

 

[Trakar]

No, we all have perspectives and so forth, based on life experiences, on which our views are formed.

But if I'm simply going down the list of "claims and responses" and finding massive science and logical errors, in the "responses", then you are welcome to call me out on bias, because it's a bias in favor of logic and science. If on the other hand I rejected examination of the "claims and responses" in favor of a preexisting prejudice, as many here have, then that would be a different matter.

I reject THE ABSENCE of scientific and logical examination of the data, which in this case is the "Claims and Responses".

The OP is not about the skeptical organization report. The OP is about a political advocate teaching a university science class he is unqualified to teach. And in the course of teaching that class, misrepresented and distorted mainstream scientific understandings in the promotion of pseudoscience distortions and biased economic and political extremism.

You have yet to demonstrate any indiciation of successful or complete science, economic or business understanding. When you are prepared to support your positions with sound reasoning and credible reference, I will happily and eagerly join that discussion.

 

[mhaze]

It's been awhile since I visited that thread, but last I recall the consensus had been that such solutions were wholly insufficient to generate the tens of billions of dollars necessary to accomplish Mr. Gingrich's (and by extension your) lunar base vision.

So which private company was going to offer up the billions to develop a man-rated booster rocket to get humans and cargo into Earth orbit and from there to the Moon? Within the timescale Mr. Gingrich had laid out?

What you are glossing over—and the point of me mentioning them—is that such codes are a form of government "control" (to use your word) that tells businesses what they can and cannot do. In which case one may ask how exactly do you draw the line, and by what criteria, as to what constitutes acceptable government control over persons and business and what does not? You were the one, after all, who decided to inject that bit of political ideology into the discussion. In which case it becomes fair ground to ask you to expand upon that in a coherent way.

Respectfully, if you go back and examine that thread you'll find the only other one knowledgeable about space was Ben Burch. There's no reason, then, to pull in an argument from consensus. Your questions here indicate that you may not have read or understood the arguments there. The final numbers were in the neighborhood of $3B, using 3 interconnected "space hotel" modules and the SpaceX heavy booster.

So you are discussing a case in which all I did was go to the market, look for what products were there and what they cost, added them up and posted the numbers. The references were provided. Moreover, people were quoting a study that presumed ALL materials were brought from Earth. We know now that not only is there boatloads of ice on the poles of the moon, but most ares of the regolith can be simply heated to extract water - something like more than a liter per cubic meter. And that same regolith is 40% oxygen by weight.

The thread that you mention was largely driven by a left wing ideological and political bias to smear Gingrich regardless of the merits of his ideas. Unfortunately, this turns out to be a situation where the smear merchants look totally ignorant, and substantially arrogant in their pursuit of moronity.

That's all that was going on there.

As for "government control" I believe that my previous response on this was adequate to explain the difference between fire regulations and climate schemes.

 

[mhaze]

Unsupported noise does not contribute to any discussion.

Attempting to shrug off arguments contrary to your prejudice and beliefs seems to be a constant trait with you. But it won't work. Let the windfarm and the solar operators learn how to make it in the open, free market. Oh wait....they can't? They need to be on the government dole, both in the building phase and the operations phase? Let's look again at my statement which you call "unsupported noise".

Oh, and whenever you guys figure out some of the basic principles of business, you won't need all those government subsidies and controls on peoples' behavior any more.

If you can't stand the heat, don't try to walk over the fire. I notice you've now moved away from asserting Tom Harris was a "shill". That's nice.


No, the CARTOONIST JOHN COOK is not a shill. And he's made a boatload of scientific errors and logic errors in his website, as per the link I noted.

And neither is Tom Harris. Using the same standards, and same definitions, and applying those equally.


Let's look back to the OP:

The Committee for the Advancement of Scientific Skepticism, part of the Centre for Inquiry Canada, has just released a report exposing a course being taught at Carleton University that's little more than a cover for pushing every long-debunked global warming canard on to students.

And you claim:

The OP is not about the report.

Really? I think what you mean is that you don't want to discuss this rather embarrasing anti-scientific and illogical "Report". Is that correct?

 

[mhaze]

Let's knock a couple more home runs. Shall we?

Claim 33. The rate of retreat of glaciers has stayed about the same since around 1850.... There hasn't been an acceleration in glacier retreat worldwide...Glacier retreat does not always correspond with a warming temperature.

Response: There has been an acceleration in the loss of global glacier volume....​

Let's see. "Rate of retreat" is a one dimensional measure, units of distance per time unit. The response concerns "acceleration", which is not "rate", and "volume", which is not "distance".

Well, these guys just can't keep the subject matter straight, or they don't understand basic units. The claims not inconsistent. Hence, the claim by Harris is not rebutted by the response.

Claim 34. It may be more than a coincidence that the 18th century, which was getting slightly warmer...than previously, they saw a more cheerful social and political mood.

RESPONSE: See table 19 in [28] for a list of projected impacts associated with climate change.​

Apparently apples to oranges is popular. "Projected impacts" has nothing to due with a note as to what was going on in the 19th century.

Claim 37. ‚And just based on this one paper [referring to the Mann et al. "hockey stick graph"], and their research, the UN did a complete u-turn... they had decades of reports and scientific papers that showed there was a little ice age, there was a medieval warm period, they could see it in the historical climatology, they could see it in the paintings that were done at that time, things like height of people, all sorts of evidence. But this particular graph threw that all away. And this was considered the smoking gun of human impact on climate.?

RESPONSE: Michael Mann and colleagues published the hockey stick paper in 1998 [55], which aggregated Northern Hemisphere historical temperature reconstructions. This presentation revealed a distinct uptick in global temperatures, in multiple data sets, in the second half of the 20th Century. Rather than a u-turn, the graph further supported mainstream climate science opinion that recent temperature increases were unusual. In other words, Mann et al. focused on climate change detection, not attribution as Harris suggests....​

Harris does not state or imply that Mann attributed the hockey stick to human causation, but simply that it has came to be considered such.

Harris notes the "UN did a complete u-turn", in this he refers to the UN's previous resentations of historical climate, where they published charts that did show the little ice age and the medievel warm period. The authors of the "Report" deliberately misdirect and reframe the "CLAIM" so as to assert Harris is wrong, but .... Harris is correct.

However, and more interestingly, the "Report" authors are wrong on the basic science. Mann 1998 certainly did ascribe the hockey stick to man's activities in producing greenhouse gases.

We take an empirical approach to detecting the possible effects of external forcings on the climate. The reconstructed NH series is taken as a diagnostic of the global climate, and we examine its relationship with three candidate external forcings during the period 1610–1995 including (1) CO2 measurements39 as a proxy for total greenhouse-gas changes, (2) reconstructed solar irradiance variations2 and (3) the weighted historical ‘dust veil index’ (DVI) of explosive volcanism (see Fig. 31.1 in ref. 40) updated with recent data41. While we warn that historical series for these forcing agents are imperfectly known or measured, they do nonetheless represent our best estimates of the time-histories of the corresponding forcings.​

 

[Trakar]

Attempting to shrug off arguments contrary to your prejudice and beliefs seems to be a constant trait with you.

Ad Hom noted

But it won't work. Let the windfarm and the solar operators learn how to make it in the open, free market. Oh wait....they can't? They need to be on the government dole, both in the building phase and the operations phase?

When you start calling for an end to government subsidies for oil and coal, your rhetoric might gain a bit more substance, but with regards to your other unsupported assertions, they are simply that, "noise" without bearing or relevence to any discussion of issues.

If you can't stand the heat, don't try to walk over the fire. I notice you've now moved away from asserting Tom Harris was a "shill". That's nice.

"shill" is still appropriate.

Really? I think what you mean is that you don't want to discuss this rather embarrasing anti-scientific and illogical "Report". Is that correct?

I see nothing embarassing, anti-scientific or illogical in the Canadian skeptical society's report, and you certainly haven't offered any compelling, credibly supported argument indicating such is the case,...just a lot of noise (and a bit of blubbery bluster).

 

[mhaze]

Ad Hom noted ....

Hmm...Just curious, if you repeatedly ignore substantive arguments, then am i expected to consider that a closed argument? If not, then why is it an ad hom to bring the matter up? (RULE #1)

When you start calling for an end to government subsidies for oil and coal, your rhetoric might gain a bit more substance....

Actually, no. Oil and coal companies can operate without government subsidies. We can calculate this quite easily. We can also calculate that wind and solar cannot do so. "Calling for and end to subsidies" is a different thing, that involves ethics and morality and preferences. It has nothing to do with the fundamental profitability or business like nature of the enterprise.

I see nothing embarassing, anti-scientific or illogical in the Canadian skeptical society's report, and you certainly haven't offered any compelling, credibly supported argument indicating such is the case,...just a lot of noise (and a bit of blubbery bluster).

Then you've ignored several of my comments were I specifically pointed out scientific errors in "the Report" and all of the others where I pointed out obvious logical errors. Which is understandable and in accordance with RULE #1.

Then again, "simply wrong", or even "moronically stupid" is different than "anti-scientific".

Is the "Report" "anti-scientific"? I haven't made that claim. It could be made, yes, but that would be based on inference as to motive and belief of the writers, and a claim that AGW fanaticism was fundamentally anti-science. Interesting question (obviously there is some extent of fanaticism that of course would be anti-scientific.), but I think I'll just stick to going through the "claims" one by one.

If I claimed the report was "anti-scientific" it seems I'd be making the same errors that people make in considering "Harris a Denier".

 

[Trakar]

Let's knock a couple more home runs. Shall we?

The ball falling off the tee as you miss it does not count as a "home run" even if you do manage to run a round the bases because no one is there to pick it up and tag you out.

Claim 33. The rate of retreat of glaciers has stayed about the same since around 1850.... There hasn't been an acceleration in glacier retreat worldwide...Glacier retreat does not always correspond with a warming temperature.

Response: There has been an acceleration in the loss of global glacier volume....​

Let's see. "Rate of retreat" is a one dimensional measure, units of distance per time unit. The response concerns "acceleration", which is not "rate", and "volume", which is not "distance".

Both rates have accelerated since the 1980.

http://www.nichols.edu/departments/glacier/glacier_retreat.htm

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/questions/climate.html

http://nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/glacier_retreat.htm

Claim 34. It may be more than a coincidence that the 18th century, which was getting slightly warmer...than previously, they saw a more cheerful social and political mood.

RESPONSE: See table 19 in [28] for a list of projected impacts associated with climate change.​

Apparently apples to oranges is popular. "Projected impacts" has nothing to due with a note as to what was going on in the 19th century.

18th century? 19th century? Hard to say, from this snippet. Looks to me like they are commenting on the "...more cheerful social and political mood" Harris is apparently trying to associate "slightly warmer" climates, and they are simply pointing out that even the overly conservative estimates of the IPCC report indicate that there is little or nothing that reasonable people would consider as inspiring of a "...more cheerful social and political mood."

Only thing I'm not sure about, is which table in chapter 19 they are talking about, it could be 19-1 on page 929-930, 19-2 on pg 931, 19-3 on 932,19-4 on 940, 19-5 on 943, or 19-6 on 949, personally, they all appear rather sobering and concerning, especially knowing that they are conservative underestimations.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/pdf/wg2TARchap19.pdf

Claim 37. ‚And just based on this one paper [referring to the Mann et al. "hockey stick graph"], and their research, the UN did a complete u-turn... they had decades of reports and scientific papers that showed there was a little ice age, there was a medieval warm period, they could see it in the historical climatology, they could see it in the paintings that were done at that time, things like height of people, all sorts of evidence. But this particular graph threw that all away. And this was considered the smoking gun of human impact on climate.?

RESPONSE: Michael Mann and colleagues published the hockey stick paper in 1998 [55], which aggregated Northern Hemisphere historical temperature reconstructions. This presentation revealed a distinct uptick in global temperatures, in multiple data sets, in the second half of the 20th Century. Rather than a u-turn, the graph further supported mainstream climate science opinion that recent temperature increases were unusual. In other words, Mann et al. focused on climate change detection, not attribution as Harris suggests....​

Harris does not state or imply that Mann attributed the hockey stick to human causation, but simply that it has came to be considered such.

Harris notes the "UN did a complete u-turn", in this he refers to the UN's previous resentations of historical climate, where they published charts that did show the little ice age and the medievel warm period. The authors of the "Report" deliberately misdirect and reframe the "CLAIM" so as to assert Harris is wrong, but .... Harris is correct.

In the above quote of Harris, there is not a single scientificaly accurate statement:

"And just based on this one paper [referring to the Mann et al. "hockey stick graph"], and their research, the UN did a complete u-turn..."

-False-

There had been a steady adjustment to the fact that the LIA and the MO were largely N. Hemisphere, and predominantly N. Atlantic, phenomena since the 1970s. Largely due to a growing number of papers and studies indicating that the phenomena was predominately focussed in the N. Atlantic region.

"Evidence for post-glacial climatic changes in New Zealand"
B.P.J Molloy 1969
http://www.hydrologynz.org.nz/downloads/JoHNZ_1969_v8_2_Molloy.pdf

There was no sudden "u-turn," just a gradual accumulation of evidences that culminated in a gradual adjustment of understandings over a 20-30 year period.

However, and more interestingly, the "Report" authors are wrong on the basic science. Mann 1998 certainly did ascribe the hockey stick to man's activities in producing greenhouse gases.

We take an empirical approach to detecting the possible effects of external forcings on the climate. The reconstructed NH series is taken as a diagnostic of the global climate, and we examine its relationship with three candidate external forcings during the period 1610–1995 including (1) CO2 measurements39 as a proxy for total greenhouse-gas changes, (2) reconstructed solar irradiance variations2 and (3) the weighted historical ‘dust veil index’ (DVI) of explosive volcanism (see Fig. 31.1 in ref. 40) updated with recent data41. While we warn that historical series for these forcing agents are imperfectly known or measured, they do nonetheless represent our best estimates of the time-histories of the corresponding forcings.​

The authors state in the same paragraph, in the sentences following this bit above that you clipped out:

"...Industrial-aerosol forcing of the climate has also been suggested as an important forcing of recent climate42,43, but its physical basis is still controversial44, and difficult to estimate observationally. Noting that in any case, this forcing is not believed to be important before about 1940, its omission should be inconsequential in our long-term detection approach. Our empirical signal detection is complementary to that of model-based ‘‘fingerprint’’ signal detection studies42,43,45; while our empirical approach relies on the faithfulness of the reconstructed forcing series and on the assumption of a linear and contemporaneous response to forcings, it does not suffer the potential weaknesses of incomplete representations of internal feedback processes26, poorly constrained parametrizations of climatic responses44, and underestimated natural variability1 in model-based studies. To the extent that the response to forcing is not contemporaneous, but rather is delayed owing to the inertia of the slow-response components of the climate system (for example, the ocean and cryosphere), our detection approach will tend to underestimate the response to forcings, making the approach a relatively conservative one.

tisk, tisk, shame, shame.

 

[Trakar]

Hmm...Just curious, if you repeatedly ignore substantive arguments, then am i expected to consider that a closed argument? If not, then why is it an ad hom to bring the matter up? (RULE #1)

When and if you make a substantive argument we will be able to see how I react to it, so far that isn't an issue.

Actually, no. Oil and coal companies can operate without government subsidies.

so you are advocating that all government subsidization of the fossil fuel industry should be immediately ended?

We can calculate this quite easily. We can also calculate that wind and solar cannot do so. "Calling for and end to subsidies" is a different thing, that involves ethics and morality and preferences. It has nothing to do with the fundamental profitability or business like nature of the enterprise.

Demonstrate your calculations and the assumptions upon which they are based.

Then you've ignored several of my comments were I specifically pointed out scientific errors in "the Report" and all of the others where I pointed out obvious logical errors. Which is understandable and in accordance with RULE #1.

asserting errors and presenting compelling evidences of errors are two entirely different things. So far, I have seen "zero" compelling evidence supporting your assertions.

Then again, "simply wrong", or even "moronically stupid" is different than "anti-scientific".

in some cases this is probably accurate, but they certainly aren't mutually exclusive designations and are occassionaly complementary attributes as you obviously understand.

Is the "Report" "anti-scientific"? I haven't made that claim.

funny, these look like your words:

...Really? I think what you mean is that you don't want to discuss this rather embarrasing anti-scientific and illogical "Report". Is that correct?

 

[mhaze]

Both rates have accelerated since the 1980......

Quite Irrelevant. Does not dispute a statement that rates have been about the same since 1850 and in fact is consistent with said statement.

And does not refute or contest that the "Report writers" didn't even refute the "CLAIM" as is what I pointed out previously:

Response: There has been an acceleration in the loss of global glacier volume....

They responded to a statement about a one dimensional measure with a statement on a three dimensional measure of volume. Utter nonsense. As you've done, just change the time scale and make a DIFFERENT STATEMENT. This is the logical error of "reframing the question".

....18th century? 19th century? Hard to say, from this snippet. Looks to me like they are commenting on the "...more cheerful social and political mood" Harris is apparently trying to associate "slightly warmer" climates, and they are simply pointing out that even the overly conservative estimates of the IPCC report indicate that there is little or nothing that reasonable people would consider as inspiring of a "...more cheerful social and political mood."

Only thing I'm not sure about, is which table in chapter 19 they are talking about, it could be ....

I looked at it as an effort for the "Report writers" to take an offhad comment and read way, way too much into it. There certainly is historical evidence of expansionary eras being the warmer eras, but Harris did not in his comment correlate or suggest that 20/21st century warming had similar attributes. The Report writers, without any evidence, imputed that analogy to Harris. They flat out lied. Having said that, I certainly agree and we all will that a warmer climate is nicer than a colder climate. But that's a big subject with a lot of ramifications.

....In the above quote of Harris, there is not a single scientificaly accurate statement:

"And just based on this one paper [referring to the Mann et al. "hockey stick graph"], and their research, the UN did a complete u-turn..."

-False-

There had been a steady adjustment to the fact that the LIA and the MO were largely N. Hemisphere, and predo<<<unnecessary material snipped>>>.....

Apparently you didn't understand Harris's comment. it does not say the science did a U-turn. It says the UN did a complete U-turn. This refers to the report that came out right about the time of the hockey stick with the prior UN reports.


Just read the statement. That's what it says.

,,...The authors state in the same paragraph, in the sentences following this bit above that you clipped out:

"...... Noting that in any case, this forcing is not believed to be important before about 1940, its omission should be inconsequential in our long-term detection approach. Our empirical signal detection is complementary to that of model-based ‘‘fingerprint’’ signal detection studies42,43,45; while our empirical approach relies .....[/B]
.

??? So WHAT? They do ascribe the puck of the hockey stick to man's greenhouse gases. That's attribution. The phrase "empirical signal based detection" is used in opposition to the computer model based approach.

....

Originally Posted by mhaze
...Really? I think what you mean is that you don't want to discuss this rather embarrasing anti-scientific and illogical "Report". Is that correct?

Okay, then, it's anti-scientific. Because anything strife with logical errors cannot be scientific. And that's ignoring the scientific errors, which are certainly existent.

 

[Trakar]

Quite Irrelevant. Does not dispute a statement that rates have been about the same since 1850 and in fact is consistent with said statement...

Your assertion that two mutually exclusive statements ("dramatically increased rates" and "rates about the same") are consistent and the same, speaks to issues beyond the substance of the OP or the reasoned discussion of any of the topics surrounding the OP. While I appreciate you making such noises in confirmation of developing suspicions it isn't a herring trail I'm terribly interested in pursuing.

Apparently you didn't understand Harris's comment. it does not say the science did a U-turn. It says the UN did a complete U-turn. This refers to the report that came out right about the time of the hockey stick with the prior UN reports.

He, and you, seemed to be talking about the larger climate science and IPCC reports, but if you have evidence that there exists an extensive record of the UN discussing historic climate states over the decades prior to the Hansen (et al) paper and that the UN then made a "u-turn" due solely to Hansen's paper, I will be happy to review those evidences. Until then, this is just more noise.

Just read the statement. That's what it says.
??? So WHAT? They do ascribe the puck of the hockey stick to man's greenhouse gases. That's attribution. The phrase "empirical signal based detection" is used in opposition to the computer model based approach.

amazing! And yet you still couldn't resist clipping out the most damning confirmation of the author's statement that exists in the same paragraph and includied in my original quote of the Hansen paper:

...while our empirical approach relies on the faithfulness of the reconstructed forcing series and on the assumption of a linear and contemporaneous response to forcings, it does not suffer the potential weaknesses of incomplete representations of internal feedback processes26, poorly constrained parametrizations of climatic responses44, and underestimated natural variability1 in model-based studies. To the extent that the response to forcing is not contemporaneous, but rather is delayed owing to the inertia of the slow-response components of the climate system (for example, the ocean and cryosphere), our detection approach will tend to underestimate the response to forcings, making the approach a relatively conservative one.

(http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/mbh98.pdf)

of course, rather than cherry picking quotes and distorting their out-of-context meanings to derive a personally satisfying and self-affirming meaning, we could simply look at the methodologies and conclusion section of the paper to find out how the paper is qualified.

(Btw the paper acknowledges the forcing elements and components as they are accepted and accredited by the mainstream scientific understandings of the time frame in which it was written and published, but this acknowledgement is not a matter of finding in the paper whose only research and purpose was a detection of the climate signal and temperature over the last several centuries, not a research investigation into the causal triggers and mechanisms of that change.)

of course, as any quick look at these sections reveal that it is a statistical comparison of patterns and trends of climate/temp. variation over time and global region, I seriously doubt that you are going to find any support for your contention that this paper involves any investigation or determination of finding with regards to climate forcing attributions.

Okay, then, it's anti-scientific. Because anything strife with logical errors cannot be scientific. And that's ignoring the scientific errors, which are certainly existent.

Speaking of signal detection and interesting patterns:

Really? I think what you mean is that you don't want to discuss this rather embarrasing anti-scientific and illogical "Report". Is that correct?

...Is the "Report" "anti-scientific"? I haven't made that claim...

...Okay, then, it's anti-scientific...

Looks rather like a tangled web, but I'm no expert. As an aside this is from a seperate comment, including it in a response to other comments without proper attribution, can confuse those who might wish to backtrack and investigate the veracity of claims and assertions and might well be considered, in itself, disingenuous.

Tsk, tsk

 

[OMGturt1es]

Speaking of signal detection and interesting patterns:

Really? I think what you mean is that you don't want to discuss this rather embarrasing anti-scientific and illogical "Report". Is that correct?

...Is the "Report" "anti-scientific"? I haven't made that claim...

...Okay, then, it's anti-scientific...

Looks rather like a tangled web, but I'm no expert. As an aside this is from a seperate comment, including it in a response to other comments without proper attribution, can confuse those who might wish to backtrack and investigate the veracity of claims and assertions and might well be considered, in itself, disingenuous.

Tsk, tsk

/thread

 

[mike3]

No, we all have perspectives and so forth, based on life experiences, on which our views are formed.

But if I'm simply going down the list of "claims and responses" and finding massive science and logical errors, in the "responses", then you are welcome to call me out on bias, because it's a bias in favor of logic and science. If on the other hand I rejected examination of the "claims and responses" in favor of a preexisting prejudice, as many here have, then that would be a different matter.

I reject THE ABSENCE of scientific and logical examination of the data, which in this case is the "Claims and Responses".

So you'd claim the vast majority of climate scientists are in fact not scientists at all, but pseudoscientists only capable of producing stuff with "massive science and logical errors"?!

 

[mhaze]

So you'd claim the vast majority of climate scientists are in fact not scientists at all, but pseudoscientists only capable of producing stuff with "massive science and logical errors"?!

As it refers to the "Report", therein is one bug expert - and three non scientists.

I'm curious - do you reframe simply to ask an unrelated question, or do you think that people are so stupid they will not notice your reframing?

The hint is always the "So you'd...." for some reason.

Clearly I addressed my criticism to "The Report".

 

[mhaze]

Your assertion that two mutually exclusive statements ("dramatically increased rates" and "rates about the same") are consistent and the same....

Try to pay attention. That's not what I said.

• 2012 was pretty hot.
  
• Is consistent with "Jan of 2012 was pretty cold".

They are not mutually exclusive, and the second statement does not in the least refudiate the first.

....He, and you, seemed to be talking about the larger climate science and IPCC reports, but if you have evidence that there exists an extensive record of the UN discussing historic climate states over the decades prior to the Hansen (et al) paper and that the UN then made a "u-turn" due solely to Hansen's paper, I will be happy to review those evidences. Until then, this is just more noise.
....

Evidence? There's a summary of those issues in the Wikipedia entry, my knowledge of it was from reading the reports. The summary is in my opinion adequate to some extent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descri...arm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_in_IPCC_reports

And yes, I "seem to be talking about the UN" because the actual words of the statement involve the "UN doing a U turn". The misdirection by the Report writers from the actual words makes this necessary. My "job" is hence quite easy. The job of an unbiased observer should be quite easy. The job of someone attempting to support the misdirection, reframing and logical errors....well I hope nobody here is going down that road.

.....amazing! And yet you still couldn't resist clipping out the most damning confirmation of the author's statement that exists in the same paragraph and includied in my original quote of the Hansen paper:
....

You can argue this with me, and it seems basically to be how to interpret what he said (I assume you are on track NOT WITH A HANSEN PAPER BUT WITH MANN 1998).

However, as I noted in the prior post - Harris did not make this distiniction. I did. Harris just said that the Mann 1998 hockey stick graph blew away the prior UN representations of the historical warm and the little ice age. Which isn't disputable. That's simply a matter of going back and comparing the graphs in the reports. It's more or less a historical reality that that particular 1998 graph came to epitomize the AGW warmer position (which does argue against LIA and MWP).

....Looks rather like a tangled web, but I'm no expert. As an aside this is from a seperate comment, including it in a response to other comments without proper attribution, can confuse those who might wish to backtrack and investigate the veracity of claims and assertions and might well be considered, in itself, disingenuous.
...

I'm okay with calling the Report any of the following as a means of clarifying it's quality or lack of.

• slipshod scholarship
• chock full of logical errors
• pseudo scientific
• anti scientifc

 

[mike3]

As it refers to the "Report", therein is one bug expert - and three non scientists.

I'm curious - do you reframe simply to ask an unrelated question, or do you think that people are so stupid they will not notice your reframing?

The hint is always the "So you'd...." for some reason.

Clearly I addressed my criticism to "The Report".

I respond to whatever "drifts" I seem to perceive, but my perception of those drifts could be wrong. That is the reason for the "reframing". I answer and respond based on what drifts I seem to see.

 

[mhaze]

I respond to whatever "drifts" I seem to perceive, but my perception of those drifts could be wrong. That is the reason for the "reframing". I answer and respond based on what drifts I seem to see.

There's likely a more accurate and respectful way to do that than to start a statement with "So you'd claim <<<< conclusion from inference or outright strawman >>>>. That becomes refuting the claim not made, which is a waste of time.

Let's as a target goal for discourse, to have a higher level of quality and logic than the writers of the "Report".

 

[eerok]

Mhaze, I have to wonder about the point of your participation in this thread. You've posted so much volume here, and yet the pertinent fact is undisturbed: Harris misrepresented the consensus opinion on climate science.

Now you may well disagree with the consensus opinion of climate scientists, in which case you are welcome to write a paper to inform them of their failings. In the meantime, the simple fact is that Harris misrepresented the consensus opinion on climate science.

So the OP is quite correct as it stands: "Climate science denial being taught at Carleton University" is a matter of fact. One might note further that it's no secret that Harris is a PR man for several anti-science and anti-environmentalist lobby groups; it's no secret that he's a mechanical engineer with no credentials as a scientist; and it's no secret that he cites no actual science in his course. Harris's is a fluff course from hell—an insignificant elective for non-science majors that's been usurped by a career FUD artist.

This is a travesty of Canadian education. And if there's any justice, fur should fly over it.

And in case you're confused about my point—the simple fact is that Harris misrepresented the consensus opinion on climate science. Niggling and poking at the report that exposed Harris's failings, or attacking the reporters themselves, will change nothing about what Harris is on record as presenting in his course.

I'll even rephrase this one more time. There is no question that Harris contradicts established climate science using rhetoric rather than science. This is called propaganda. He should be turfed from teaching at any university because he is not qualified to do so.

When science gets politicized, reasonable people provisionally accept the consensus of scientists. Big fat conspiracy theories about established science is quite contrarily not for reasonable people. What more need be said?

 

[Trakar]

Try to pay attention. That's not what I said.

• 2012 was pretty hot.
  
• Is consistent with "Jan of 2012 was pretty cold".

While the above may not be contradictory or mutually exclusive, it is not internally consistent. More importantly, it has nothing to do with the substance and content of what was being discussed which referred to evidences of increased and dramatically increasing rates and your assertion that this conforms to Harris's statements that rates have been about the same. What about "dramatically increasing" and "about the same" leads you to beleive that they refer to the same state?

They are not mutually exclusive, and the second statement does not in the least refudiate the first.

Perhaps not, but thus far your repudiation of the facts and word definitions which demonstrate the error of your and Harris's usages do not equate to reality.

Evidence? There's a summary of those issues in the Wikipedia entry, my knowledge of it was from reading the reports. The summary is in my opinion adequate to some extent.

Wiki is unacceptable as a compelling or authoritative reference of fact. Your opinion is unsupported by any objective and thorough reading of IPCC reports or the mainstream science which those reports survey and compile.

You can argue this with me, and it seems basically to be how to interpret what he said (I assume you are on track NOT WITH A HANSEN PAPER BUT WITH MANN 1998).

As I linked to the Mann et al paper and have stated "Mann et al" throughout the rest of the discussion, it should be obvious what was intended.

However, as I noted in the prior post - Harris did not make this distiniction. I did. Harris just said that the Mann 1998 hockey stick graph blew away the prior UN representations of the historical warm and the little ice age. Which isn't disputable.

sure it is disputable. Mann's paper merely acknowledged the general evidence driven change of opinions and understandings that were occurring throughout the mainstream scientific community over the previous 2-3 decades.

...It's more or less a historical reality that that particular 1998 graph came to epitomize the AGW warmer position (which does argue against LIA and MWP).

less a historic reality to any who review the science instead of the rants of the political blogosphere. The scientific/IPCC evidence does not argue against the existence of the LIA or the MWP, what they do argue for is the evidence supported position that these events where relatively minor and predominantly regional events.

I'm okay with calling the Report any of the following as a means of clarifying it's quality or lack of.

• slipshod scholarship
• chock full of logical errors
• pseudo scientific
• anti scientifc

As the report is not any of the above, you have merely demonstrated, once more the extent to which you are willing to deny objective reality in the support of your ideological preferences.