The Global Warming Heretic

[macdoc]

No it just confirms you have no idea about climate change......of course then we knew that.

Tell us.....do we know when the next California earthquake is coming ???

Do you know when the next driver is going to hit your car??

Do you know when you are going to need a hospital or ambulance next??

When your house is going to burn down??

Do we all take action on these risks despite not knowing specifically what and when.......??

of course....sensible people do.......guess that makes you......useless.

 

[Pixel42]

Which makes them useless, scientifically and politically.

If the best available scientific evidence suggested that there is a 90% probability that Vesuvius will erupt in the next 20 years is that projection useless, scientifically and politically, to the inhabitants of Naples, just because it can't be proved wrong until 2029?

 

[Megalodon]

Their predictions have been shown wrong a year or two ago at the 90% confidence level. That's probably higher today. There isn't any reason to argue these points.

Link to the article? Or is it another one of your lies?

 

[mhaze]

Link to the article? Or is it another one of your lies?

Starting the day both dull eyed and vicious, eh?

Have you forgotten Gekko showed something very similar right on this forum?

Lucia's update did in fact go to the 95 % confidence level:

Looking at the data 12 possible ways, I get 9 results that say “reject the IPCC best estimate” to a confidence of 95%.
​

Now proceed to:

a)Warmer fallback arguments ad hom, misdirection, derail, insult, goal shift, pear review, consensus, authority-and confirm my bias of Warmer derangement syndrome

b) try to find honest errors in Lucia's work

Cheers.

 

[bobdroege7]

Starting the day both dull eyed and vicious, eh?

Have you forgotten Gekko showed something very similar right on this forum?

Lucia's update did in fact go to the 95 % confidence level:

Looking at the data 12 possible ways, I get 9 results that say “reject the IPCC best estimate” to a confidence of 95%.
​

Now proceed to:

a)Warmer fallback arguments ad hom, misdirection, derail, insult, goal shift, pear review, consensus, authority-and confirm my bias of Warmer derangement syndrome

b) try to find honest errors in Lucia's work

Cheers.

Why oh why do you put an adhom or two in nearly every one of your posts?

 

[bobdroege7]

Starting the day both dull eyed and vicious, eh?

Have you forgotten Gekko showed something very similar right on this forum?

Lucia's update did in fact go to the 95 % confidence level:

Looking at the data 12 possible ways, I get 9 results that say “reject the IPCC best estimate” to a confidence of 95%.
​

Now proceed to:

a)Warmer fallback arguments ad hom, misdirection, derail, insult, goal shift, pear review, consensus, authority-and confirm my bias of Warmer derangement syndrome

b) try to find honest errors in Lucia's work

Cheers.

She's only using 10 year time frames for her analysis.

 

[macdoc]

She conflates energy gain with temperature.....denidiot blindspot of lunar lacunae proportions.... comes to mind.

 

[Pipirr]

I was reading this paper recently: "Experiences of Modernity in the Greenhouse: A cultural analysis of a physicist ‘‘trio’’ supporting the backlash against global warming."

Here's the abstract:

This paper identifies cultural and historical dimensions that structure US climate science politics. It explores why a key subset of scientists—the physicist founders and leaders of the influential George C. Marshall Institute—chose to lend their scientific authority to this movement which continues to powerfully shape US climate policy. The paper suggests that these physicists joined the environmental backlash to stem changing tides in science and society, and to defend their preferred understandings of science, modernity, and of themselves as a physicist elite—understandings challenged by on-going transformations encapsulated by the widespread concern about human-induced climate change.

Bolding mine. Does that remind anyone of what Freeman Dyson was saying?

Chapter 4, 'Faith in techno-science' is especially germane.

the Marshall Institute physicists manifest a level of faith in science and technology not shared by their opponents on the issues of nuclear technology and climate change.

...

"Seitz and Nierenberg do not rule out the possibility that humans might be changing the global climate... However, they believe that we can afford to wait numerous decades to better diagnose the climate problem and develop solutions; in his interview with me, for instance, Nierenberg stated that ‘‘nothing serious’’ or ‘‘no big effects’’ in terms of climate change will happen for 150 years.

PDF available here.

 

[Herzblut]

of course....sensible people do.......guess that makes you......useless.

running Pascal's Wager again to promote your faith?

 

[TrueSceptic]

I was reading this paper recently: "Experiences of Modernity in the Greenhouse: A cultural analysis of a physicist ‘‘trio’’ supporting the backlash against global warming."

Here's the abstract:


Bolding mine. Does that remind anyone of what Freeman Dyson was saying?

Chapter 4, 'Faith in techno-science' is especially germane.




PDF available here.

Interesting stuff.

I imagine we'll see more along those lines in the years to come as the behaviour of contrarians is examined.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by macdoc
of course....sensible people do.......guess that makes you......useless.
running Pascal's Wager again to promote your faith?

oh spare us your puerile notions.....this is a science forum...you are wearisome in your ignorance.

 

[CapelDodger]

She's only using 10 year time frames for her analysis.

An example of how the denial movement has pinned itself into this last decade. They will be left thoroughly disarmed when the long-term trend re-emerges strongly. Their own chosen methodology only serves them when applied to this particular period, so they'll either have to argue against their own methods in future or concede.

It was pretty much inevitable that this would happen. A decade of slow (or even no) warming is not only possible but likely, given the noise in the system, and they were going to grasp at the straw.

 

[Megalodon]

Starting the day both dull eyed and vicious, eh?

Have you forgotten Gekko showed something very similar right on this forum?

AFAIR, Geckko proved no such thing. You can of course quote him.

Lucia's update did in fact go to the 95 % confidence level:

Lucia's work is irrelevant. She's analyzing 7 years of data... 7 years of monthly data, without checking for autocorrelation issues. Her work is tripe, and above all, it's not an article

b) try to find honest errors in Lucia's work

I did. At least I think it was a honest error. She does seem more clumsy than malicious.

As for you, no article... I thought so. If Lucia's work was any good, she would publish it. It's not, she doesn't.

So, let's not add this one to your lie list. The stupidity list it is...

Cheers

 

[CapelDodger]

IBolding mine. Does that remind anyone of what Freeman Dyson was saying?

Count me as one.

PDF available here.

Thanks for that. The behaviour of AGW denial is one of its more interesting aspects. The argument itself has long been lost - we need only compare the Heartland "Conference" and the upcoming Copenhagen Conference to see that.

Even the paper is out-of-date when it says denial "continues to powerfully shape US climate policy".

 

[Megalodon]

Thanks for that. The behaviour of AGW denial is one of its more interesting aspects. The argument itself has long been lost - we need only compare the Heartland "Conference" and the upcoming Copenhagen Conference to see that.

The fascinating part is the clinging to straws. It is mesmerizing to see them going through the same lies of years ago, although shooting them down is not as fun as it used to be. It becomes quite dull, actually...