EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2014 8:50 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 498 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 34  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 9:30 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 360
Snowy123 wrote:
A few questions for Milton.

One, how do you explain studies like Kinnard et al. which show an unprecedented decline in Arctic Sea Ice relative to the last 1,450 years?

How do explain how the Earth continues to remain in a positive energy imbalance despite the very low solar activity, as evidenced by continued heat content increase and sea level rise? Heat Content increase has been well documented by Levitus et al. and Murphy et al. The continued rise in Sea Level while solar activity has been in a slump has been documented by Church et al.

I'm also assuming that you believe the ECS to be below typical accepted values of 1.5-4.5 K? If so, how do you explain the large fluctuations in paleoclimate? Such large fluctuations with that low of a sensitivity would need a huge forcing, much larger than known orbital forcing, a forcing that has not been documented.

Lastly, how do you explain the pattern of warming, such as the stratosphere cooling in response to the troposphere warming? In all of the studies I've seen that try and attribute stratospheric cooling, they nearly all attribute it to some combination of primarily stratospheric ozone depletion and greenhouse gases, and a secondary role for stratospheric water vapor changes.


Snowy I'm not a scientist as I've stated many times in the past. I'm just a guy trying to provide an alternate opinion on this one sided board to let the fence sitter know there is another point of view on this subject. If you are who I think you are being presented as, and you very well may not be I'm not convinced you are Snowlover. Snowlover as I remember complained bitterly about the treatment suffered at the hands of these people. Human nature being what it is I highly doubt anyone would return to the same basic group that abused him without mercy. Even though that person did his level headed best to remain nice though out that whole ordeal. Color me very suspicious.

I have been involved with this debate for many years. I no long have the will or the patience or time for a give and take regarding the esoteric points of the debate. And, I'm certainly not going to take the time to look up and read any et al study whatever it might be. I just participate on some weekends. That's it. I've got a whole quiver full of et al studies too, but peoples eyes glaze over at the mention of them anyway. I’ve long since abandoned the contest of seeing who’s hard drive is the biggest filled with this link or that link. What does that prove? It doesn’t convince anyone. It doesn’t get me anywhere. I’m probably not going to convince anyone who’s mind is already made up, and you’re not going to convince me.

Now if you are who you say you are I have visited your very skeptical blog a few times. Which has now been emptied out. Once again color me suspicious to the appearance of a sudden and complete change of heart and mind. I think there is more afoot here than meets the eye. Perhaps your questions will be better served if you offer them to Derek. I'll be watching.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Last edited by Milton Banana on Sun Mar 16, 2014 4:50 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:07 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 360
Sorry fence sitters about that last post. No need for you to worry about the inside baseball going on.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2014/03/clim ... swers.html

Quote:
The IPCC's old "consensus' has proclaimed that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would likely result in global temperatures increasing from 3.5 to 6+ degrees Celsius.

The last 15 years of actual climate records and empirical measurements have shattered that consensus. Publication after publication has written about the "Pause" or the "Hiatus" that's been used to describe AWOL global warming.

"Consensus" scientists have responded by producing multiple speculative reasons as to why the disappearance of global warming has occurred, without any convincing success.

In contrast, objective researchers have chosen to reexamine the actual empirical measurement evidence to determine if the "consensus" estimate was realistic, and if not, what a more accurate estimate would be for climate sensitivity.


Exactly what I have been doing here. Reexamining empirical measurement stations. How many stations improperly set up will damage the data set?

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 4:52 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
A few questions for Milton.

One, how do you explain studies like Kinnard et al. which show an unprecedented decline in Arctic Sea Ice relative to the last 1,450 years?

How do explain how the Earth continues to remain in a positive energy imbalance despite the very low solar activity, as evidenced by continued heat content increase and sea level rise? Heat Content increase has been well documented by Levitus et al. and Murphy et al. The continued rise in Sea Level while solar activity has been in a slump has been documented by Church et al.

I'm also assuming that you believe the ECS to be below typical accepted values of 1.5-4.5 K? If so, how do you explain the large fluctuations in paleoclimate? Such large fluctuations with that low of a sensitivity would need a huge forcing, much larger than known orbital forcing, a forcing that has not been documented.

Lastly, how do you explain the pattern of warming, such as the stratosphere cooling in response to the troposphere warming? In all of the studies I've seen that try and attribute stratospheric cooling, they nearly all attribute it to some combination of primarily stratospheric ozone depletion and greenhouse gases, and a secondary role for stratospheric water vapor changes.


Snowy I'm not a scientist as I've stated many times in the past. I'm just a guy trying to provide an alternate opinion on this one sided board to let the fence sitter know there is another point of view on this subject. If you are who I think you are being presented as, and you very well may not be I'm not convinced you are Snowlover. Snowlover as I remember complained bitterly about the treatment suffered at the hands of these people. Human nature being what it is I highly doubt anyone would return to the same basic group that abused him without mercy. Even though that person did his level headed best to remain nice though out that whole ordeal. Color me very suspicious.

I have been involved with this debate for many years. I no long have the will or the patience or time for a give and take regarding the esoteric points of the debate. And, I'm certainly not going to take the time to look up and read any et al study whatever it might be. I just participate on some weekends. That's it. I've got a whole quiver full of et al studies too, but peoples eyes glaze over at the mention of them anyway. I’ve long since abandoned the contest of seeing who’s hard drive is the biggest. That doesn’t convince anyone. It doesn’t get me anywhere. I’m probably not going to convince anyone who’s mind is already made up, and you’re not going to convince me.

Now if you are who you say you are I have visited your very skeptical blog a few times. Which has now been emptied out. Once again color me suspicious to the appearance of a sudden and complete change of heart and mind. I think there is more afoot here than meets the eye. Perhaps your questions will be better served if you offer them to Derek. I'll be watching.


Yes, it it the same Snowlover from TES, who joined just after TES was to be terminated. There is a clear trail of posts under this name from that point and there has been no indication of the account being hacked in any way. Snowy was and still is seeking the truth as he sees it presented by the evidence.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 4:56 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Sorry fence sitters about that last post. No need for you to worry about the inside baseball going on.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2014/03/clim ... swers.html

Quote:
The IPCC's old "consensus' has proclaimed that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would likely result in global temperatures increasing from 3.5 to 6+ degrees Celsius.

The last 15 years of actual climate records and empirical measurements have shattered that consensus. Publication after publication has written about the "Pause" or the "Hiatus" that's been used to describe AWOL global warming.

"Consensus" scientists have responded by producing multiple speculative reasons as to why the disappearance of global warming has occurred, without any convincing success.

In contrast, objective researchers have chosen to reexamine the actual empirical measurement evidence to determine if the "consensus" estimate was realistic, and if not, what a more accurate estimate would be for climate sensitivity.


Exactly what I have been doing here. Reexamining empirical measurement stations. How many stations improperly set up will damage the data set?


Of the established stations? it seems none at this point. The implication of any impact depends on the time frame during which the issue occured, but that is based on science and you say you are no scientist, so the answer to your question will not be understood by you.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 7:51 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 360
I used to be an environmentalist at heart fence sitters when I was in school. Then somebody I don't remember who called for Nuremberg style trails for "deniers." That woke me up. This should wake you up too.

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/ ... /page/full

Quote:
An assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology has proposed a bold plan to settle the debate on Global Warming. Lawrence Torcello wrote an essay suggesting that scientists who fail to fall in line with global warming alarmists should be charged with criminal negligence, and possibly even be thrown in jail. Nothing screams academic freedom like a little intellectual Fascism. Right?

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 9:34 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
As opposed to the front groups for the opposition offering $10,000.00 for any credible scientist to publish a paper sympathetic to them in any reputable journal? Or trying to tie up researchers time by trying to file multiple requests for information on their research, data, private emails, and anything else they can think to ask? One person's opinion, as opposed to the actions of an organized group or several organized groups, is supposed to paint onse side as being somehow "bad"?

Milton Banana wrote:
I used to be an environmentalist at heart fence sitters when I was in school. Then somebody I don't remember who called for Nuremberg style trails for "deniers." That woke me up. This should wake you up too.

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/ ... /page/full

Quote:
An assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology has proposed a bold plan to settle the debate on Global Warming. Lawrence Torcello wrote an essay suggesting that scientists who fail to fall in line with global warming alarmists should be charged with criminal negligence, and possibly even be thrown in jail. Nothing screams academic freedom like a little intellectual Fascism. Right?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 11:24 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 360
10,000 hits. :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Did someone bring up emails?

Celebrating the great job done by the fence sitters here in their quest for knowledge today I will offer another facet. I'm going to peel the onion a little more for our fence sitters. As I have mentioned before I view science with different levels of methodology. In order of value.

1. empirical measurement. (Thermometer measurements for example.)
2. Proxy studies. (Ice core, sediment, or tree ring studies.)
3. Computer simulations. (GIGO)

Now I am going to expose the inside baseball to 2 and 3. Now considering what is to come I certainly understand why the true believers, which I will refer to now as cultists. That is a more accurate description because they are so wedded to this religion they would certainly drink the cool aid if asked to do so. I would like to begin with one of the more explosive emails.

Quote:
To: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Straight to the Point
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 13:09:36 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Hi Phil,

SOrry that you have taken such a negative spin from this. I had hoped it was
all resolved pretty amicably, and emphasized to Keith and Tim that I was
being perhaps overly picky this time PRECISELY to avoid the misunderstanding
that happened last time around w/ Science.

Trust that I'm certainly on board w/ you that we're all working towards a common
goal. That is what is distressing about commentarys (yours from last year, and
potentially, without us having had approprimate input, Keith and Tim's now) that
appear to "divide and conquer". The skeptics happily took your commentary last
year as reason to doubt our results! In fact, your piece was references in several
commentaries (mostly on the WEB, not published) attacking our work. So THAT is
what this is all about. It is in the NAME of the common effort we're all engaged
in, that I have voiced concerns about language and details in this latest
commentary--so as to avoid precisely that scenario.

Please understand the above to be a complete and honest statement about the source
of my concerns. It really doesn't have anything to do about who did what first, etc.
I trust that history will give us all proper credit for what we're doing here.


"The skeptics happily took your commentary last year as reason to doubt our results!"

Here Mann is complaining that remarks by another scientist were used by skeptics. Not very professional. This next line is the most telling.

"It is in the NAME of the common effort we're all engaged in, that I have voiced concerns about language and details in this latest commentary--so as to avoid precisely that scenario."

Dr. Mann in this passage reveals a coordinated effort between like minded scientists to all arrive at a predetermined conclusion. Let me state this fact again. Dr. Mann reveals a coordinated effort between like minded scientists to all arrive at a predetermined conclusion.

Fence sitters does this sound like science? Does this sound like a scientist? Or does this sound like a politician?

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 4:52 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
10,000 hits. :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Did someone bring up emails?

Celebrating the great job done by the fence sitters here in their quest for knowledge today I will offer another facet. I'm going to peel the onion a little more for our fence sitters. As I have mentioned before I view science with different levels of methodology. In order of value.

1. empirical measurement. (Thermometer measurements for example.)
2. Proxy studies. (Ice core, sediment, or tree ring studies.)
3. Computer simulations. (GIGO)

Now I am going to expose the inside baseball to 2 and 3. Now considering what is to come I certainly understand why the true believers, which I will refer to now as cultists. That is a more accurate description because they are so wedded to this religion they would certainly drink the cool aid if asked to do so. I would like to begin with one of the more explosive emails.

Quote:
To: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Straight to the Point
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999 13:09:36 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Hi Phil,

SOrry that you have taken such a negative spin from this. I had hoped it was
all resolved pretty amicably, and emphasized to Keith and Tim that I was
being perhaps overly picky this time PRECISELY to avoid the misunderstanding
that happened last time around w/ Science.

Trust that I'm certainly on board w/ you that we're all working towards a common
goal. That is what is distressing about commentarys (yours from last year, and
potentially, without us having had approprimate input, Keith and Tim's now) that
appear to "divide and conquer". The skeptics happily took your commentary last
year as reason to doubt our results! In fact, your piece was references in several
commentaries (mostly on the WEB, not published) attacking our work. So THAT is
what this is all about. It is in the NAME of the common effort we're all engaged
in, that I have voiced concerns about language and details in this latest
commentary--so as to avoid precisely that scenario.

Please understand the above to be a complete and honest statement about the source
of my concerns. It really doesn't have anything to do about who did what first, etc.
I trust that history will give us all proper credit for what we're doing here.


"The skeptics happily took your commentary last year as reason to doubt our results!"

Here Mann is complaining that remarks by another scientist were used by skeptics. Not very professional. This next line is the most telling.

"It is in the NAME of the common effort we're all engaged in, that I have voiced concerns about language and details in this latest commentary--so as to avoid precisely that scenario."

Dr. Mann in this passage reveals a coordinated effort between like minded scientists to all arrive at a predetermined conclusion. Let me state this fact again. Dr. Mann reveals a coordinated effort between like minded scientists to all arrive at a predetermined conclusion.

Fence sitters does this sound like science? Does this sound like a scientist? Or does this sound like a politician?


Or does it sound like a scientist trying to defend the science from those who would use the uncertainity all good science exhibits from being used to question all science by those like Milton Banana? Good science deals in probabilities and some like to use any uncertainty as being evidence of the science being bad. It is a nice Catch-22 for those with an agenda against what the evidence is telling us. It worked so well as a delaying tactic in the tobacco industries efforts and for the Creationsist attempt to attack evolution those opposing any climate action jumped on it from the beginning. That is because they have nothing else and they hope the general public is as gullible and in the dark on science as they have been in the past.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 2:47 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Milton Banana wrote:

Snowy I'm not a scientist as I've stated many times in the past. I'm just a guy trying to provide an alternate opinion on this one sided board to let the fence sitter know there is another point of view on this subject. If you are who I think you are being presented as, and you very well may not be I'm not convinced you are Snowlover. Snowlover as I remember complained bitterly about the treatment suffered at the hands of these people. Human nature being what it is I highly doubt anyone would return to the same basic group that abused him without mercy. Even though that person did his level headed best to remain nice though out that whole ordeal. Color me very suspicious.

I have been involved with this debate for many years. I no long have the will or the patience or time for a give and take regarding the esoteric points of the debate. And, I'm certainly not going to take the time to look up and read any et al study whatever it might be. I just participate on some weekends. That's it. I've got a whole quiver full of et al studies too, but peoples eyes glaze over at the mention of them anyway. I’ve long since abandoned the contest of seeing who’s hard drive is the biggest filled with this link or that link. What does that prove? It doesn’t convince anyone. It doesn’t get me anywhere. I’m probably not going to convince anyone who’s mind is already made up, and you’re not going to convince me.

Now if you are who you say you are I have visited your very skeptical blog a few times. Which has now been emptied out. Once again color me suspicious to the appearance of a sudden and complete change of heart and mind. I think there is more afoot here than meets the eye. Perhaps your questions will be better served if you offer them to Derek. I'll be watching.


I am the same Snowlover123 from The Environment Site. I was formerly a moderator at that site. I did get personal attacks from some of the people who participated at The Environment Site, quite frequently actually. However, that doesn't deter me from trying to see the truth about the causes of Climate Change.

My former hypothesis was that geomagnetic activity had a significant impact on Climate Change over the last 100 or so years. However, as time continued to go on, it became abundantly clear that Geomagnetic Activity no longer played a dominant role in the Climate system. There was absolutely zero response by Ocean Heat Content to the marked drop in geomagnetic activity, nor was there a significant change in the rate of sea level rise during this sharp decrease. Surface temperatures have flatlined, but this is likely not due to the sun, but due to changes in the way ocean heat is being sequestered into the oceans. We can see this fairly plainly with the continued rising sea level, and continued ocean heat content gain. I didn't suddenly change my mind in a day. One person on another board pointed out the continued energy imbalance as evidence that solar effects were not dominant. So far, that point continues to be very valid.

What I have generally found is that on the skeptical side, is that many of the papers don't say what the skeptics say they do. A great example of this is with Johannessen et al. 2005. Christopher Monckton used this as proof that Greenland was not melting. However, the authors of the study noted in the conclusions that low level melting could offset the interior gain in ice. This is exactly what we see with the GRACE measurements. We observe a net loss in ice, since the ablation at lower elevations far outweighs the gain at higher elevations.

Another great example of this is with Solanki et al. 2004. In Monckton's documentary Apocalypse? No! He reads the abstract from Solanki et al., but leaves out important conclusions like this:

"Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades."

There are other examples as well. Another thing that deterred me recently was the need for there to always be a conspiracy in order to counter literally every single scientific organization in the world. E-Mails don't disprove the basic science concerning anthropogenic forcing. Carbon Dioxide and other greenhouse gases have increased in concentration, and this has resulted in extra down-welling radiation, slowing the rate of heat loss. This too has also been observationally measured.

I know that Derek doesn't believe there is any sort of Greenhouse effect at all, and I find that viewpoint to not be scientifically backed up. I believe he is part of the "Slaying the Sky Dragon" folks. Anthony Watts did an excellent demonstration where he disproved one of the Slayer's claims observationally. He makes an excellent point at the end. He says, "And it makes you wonder, if they get something as simple as this wrong, what about the rest of their science?"

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 2:56 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Milton Banana wrote:
I used to be an environmentalist at heart fence sitters when I was in school. Then somebody I don't remember who called for Nuremberg style trails for "deniers." That woke me up. This should wake you up too.

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/ ... /page/full

Quote:
An assistant philosophy professor at Rochester Institute of Technology has proposed a bold plan to settle the debate on Global Warming. Lawrence Torcello wrote an essay suggesting that scientists who fail to fall in line with global warming alarmists should be charged with criminal negligence, and possibly even be thrown in jail. Nothing screams academic freedom like a little intellectual Fascism. Right?


Happens to both sides, which is extremely unfortunate. There was an incident a few years ago where a skeptic brandished a noose at a climate scientist. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWVFHJUYVcE

Phil Jones also got many disgusting e-mails like these right after Climategate:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... %20072.pdf

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 2:59 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
Milton Banana wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
A few questions for Milton.

One, how do you explain studies like Kinnard et al. which show an unprecedented decline in Arctic Sea Ice relative to the last 1,450 years?

How do explain how the Earth continues to remain in a positive energy imbalance despite the very low solar activity, as evidenced by continued heat content increase and sea level rise? Heat Content increase has been well documented by Levitus et al. and Murphy et al. The continued rise in Sea Level while solar activity has been in a slump has been documented by Church et al.

I'm also assuming that you believe the ECS to be below typical accepted values of 1.5-4.5 K? If so, how do you explain the large fluctuations in paleoclimate? Such large fluctuations with that low of a sensitivity would need a huge forcing, much larger than known orbital forcing, a forcing that has not been documented.

Lastly, how do you explain the pattern of warming, such as the stratosphere cooling in response to the troposphere warming? In all of the studies I've seen that try and attribute stratospheric cooling, they nearly all attribute it to some combination of primarily stratospheric ozone depletion and greenhouse gases, and a secondary role for stratospheric water vapor changes.


Snowy I'm not a scientist as I've stated many times in the past. I'm just a guy trying to provide an alternate opinion on this one sided board to let the fence sitter know there is another point of view on this subject. If you are who I think you are being presented as, and you very well may not be I'm not convinced you are Snowlover. Snowlover as I remember complained bitterly about the treatment suffered at the hands of these people. Human nature being what it is I highly doubt anyone would return to the same basic group that abused him without mercy. Even though that person did his level headed best to remain nice though out that whole ordeal. Color me very suspicious.

I have been involved with this debate for many years. I no long have the will or the patience or time for a give and take regarding the esoteric points of the debate. And, I'm certainly not going to take the time to look up and read any et al study whatever it might be. I just participate on some weekends. That's it. I've got a whole quiver full of et al studies too, but peoples eyes glaze over at the mention of them anyway. I’ve long since abandoned the contest of seeing who’s hard drive is the biggest. That doesn’t convince anyone. It doesn’t get me anywhere. I’m probably not going to convince anyone who’s mind is already made up, and you’re not going to convince me.

Now if you are who you say you are I have visited your very skeptical blog a few times. Which has now been emptied out. Once again color me suspicious to the appearance of a sudden and complete change of heart and mind. I think there is more afoot here than meets the eye. Perhaps your questions will be better served if you offer them to Derek. I'll be watching.


Yes, it it the same Snowlover from TES, who joined just after TES was to be terminated. There is a clear trail of posts under this name from that point and there has been no indication of the account being hacked in any way. Snowy was and still is seeking the truth as he sees it presented by the evidence.


Spot on.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:56 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 360
Now fence sitters I don’t ordinarily do this but I’m going to have a look at another members post here because I think it instructive as to the kind of cultist mentality and how they view their elite. Wayne bless your little heart here goes.

Quote:
As opposed to the front groups for the opposition offering $10,000.00 for any credible scientist to publish a paper sympathetic to them in any reputable journal? Or trying to tie up researchers time by trying to file multiple requests for information on their research, data, private emails, and anything else they can think to ask? One person's opinion, as opposed to the actions of an organized group or several organized groups, is supposed to paint onse side as being somehow "bad"?



The cultist elite or their religious pastors are their scientists they agree with. Now the law of the land includes The Freedom of Information Act. The cultists don’t like this law and feel their scientists should not be subject to this law. As Wayne complains this law ties up the scientist and wastes their time. The quoted post argues their elite should not be subject to the laws that empower the little guy. You fence sitters. This post argues their elite should be above the law because what they are doing is so far above your puny understanding. They should not be bothered with questions from the masses about what they do, and how they spend your tax dollars. Your money. You questioning their work is not to be tolerated. Sound like freedom to you? Does it sound like these people are being honest?

Most of the scientific community relishes the opportunity to talk with the masses. They realize that is where they get their money from, and how they make their living. They understand the masses have to be on board if any policy changes are to be made as a result of their research. Most of the scientific community does not conspire with one another to achieve a predetermined outcome. Most of the scientific community complies with FOIA requests. Most of the scientific community does not privately threaten to destroy emails. Most of the scientific community shares their work, materials, and methodology with the scientific and civilian community without hesitation. Dr. Michael Mann does not. He is still involved in a court case suing others while refusing to share his work. You should be very suspicious of this man. You should question all of this man’s research, and fight like hell to have it removed from any policy decision. You should question all of this research because it all can one day effect your life in a very big way. That's all I'm asking of you fence sitters. Question.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:25 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Now fence sitters I don’t ordinarily do this but I’m going to have a look at another members post here because I think it instructive as to the kind of cultist mentality and how they view their elite. Wayne bless your little heart here goes.

Quote:
As opposed to the front groups for the opposition offering $10,000.00 for any credible scientist to publish a paper sympathetic to them in any reputable journal? Or trying to tie up researchers time by trying to file multiple requests for information on their research, data, private emails, and anything else they can think to ask? One person's opinion, as opposed to the actions of an organized group or several organized groups, is supposed to paint onse side as being somehow "bad"?



The cultist elite or their religious pastors are their scientists they agree with. Now the law of the land includes The Freedom of Information Act. The cultists don’t like this law and feel their scientists should not be subject to this law.


Actually, there is a lot of research which is not covered under FOIA. Litigation is supposedly a "right" yet we have the problem of frivolous litigation which has to be limited.

Quote:
As Wayne complains this law ties up the scientist and wastes their time. The quoted post argues their elite should not be subject to the laws that empower the little guy.


The "little guy" has no idea abut the data or how to use it, thus the main attraction for the use must be to try to impact the abiltiy to continue the research by tying up resources.

Quote:
You fence sitters. This post argues their elite should be above the law because what they are doing is so far above your puny understanding.


That would be a misrepresentation of the truth, which is another aspect of trying to get data. It can then be misrepresetented. There is no issue with the FOIA, but there is an issue with its abuse. This from someone you claerly states they are not a scientist and therefore do not really understand what is beign discussed well enough to discuss it on their own. How does that make such a person then able to review the raw data being requested? It is above the understanding of most of us without significant additional education.


Quote:
They should not be bothered with questions from the masses about what they do, and how they spend your tax dollars. Your money. You questioning their work is not to be tolerated. Sound like freedom to you? Does it sound like these people are being honest?


No, and you are clearly not being honest in this presentation of your strawman.

Quote:
Most of the scientific community relishes the opportunity to talk with the masses.


Really? You have some evidence tyo support this claim?

Quote:
They realize that is where they get their money from, and how they make their living.


No, they get the money from grants which are awarded by scientific committees.

Quote:
They understand the masses have to be on board if any policy changes are to be made as a result of their research.


Yes, and those who have already closed their minds to the science are not going to be a beneficial use of resources. Those seeking the raw data are generally in this group unless they are actual researchers and can get some of the available data provided.

Quote:
Most of the scientific community does not conspire with one another to achieve a predetermined outcome.


True, but neither do the climatologists, but that is part of you misrepresentation of the truth.

Quote:
Most of the scientific community complies with FOIA requests.


Only for the data covered, which is not as much as you seem to think.


Quote:
Most of the scientific community does not privately threaten to destroy emails. Most of the scientific community shares their work, materials, and methodology with the scientific and civilian community without hesitation.


Again, you have evidence of this claim? Especially the community who is actively trying to derail any such research.

Quote:
Dr. Michael Mann does not. He is still involved in a court case suing others while refusing to share his work. You should be very suspicious of this man. You should question all of this man’s research, and fight like hell to have it removed from any policy decision. You should question all of this research because it all can one day effect your life in a very big way. That's all I'm asking of you fence sitters. Question.


And especially question the person who tells you not to trust the experts when that person is clueless about the issues the experts are discussing.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:17 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Milton Banana wrote:
Sorry fence sitters about that last post. No need for you to worry about the inside baseball going on.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2014/03/clim ... swers.html

Quote:
The IPCC's old "consensus' has proclaimed that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would likely result in global temperatures increasing from 3.5 to 6+ degrees Celsius.

The last 15 years of actual climate records and empirical measurements have shattered that consensus. Publication after publication has written about the "Pause" or the "Hiatus" that's been used to describe AWOL global warming.

"Consensus" scientists have responded by producing multiple speculative reasons as to why the disappearance of global warming has occurred, without any convincing success.

In contrast, objective researchers have chosen to reexamine the actual empirical measurement evidence to determine if the "consensus" estimate was realistic, and if not, what a more accurate estimate would be for climate sensitivity.


Exactly what I have been doing here. Reexamining empirical measurement stations. How many stations improperly set up will damage the data set?


As I've noted, the slowdown in the warming rate at the surface can likely be traced to natural variability between the exchange of heat between the ocean and the atmosphere. There has been no such slowdown in the rate of ocean heat content increase over the last 15 years.There have been attempts made as well to try and document the cause of the slowdown. Schmidt et al. 2014 attribute natural variability as the principle cause.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 10:28 am 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 360
A government scientist is a government scientist fence sitters.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... an-resigns

Quote:
21 Mar 2014 255 post a comment


Science is rife with corruption, incompetence, dishonesty and fabrication--and now, thanks to a frank resignation letter by the US's top scientific misconduct official we have a better idea why.

David E. Wright, a respected science historian, has just quit his job as director of the Office of Research Integrity (ORI; part of the Department of Health and Human Services) and is scathing about his experiences there.

In his resignation letter, he accuses his boss HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Howard Koh of running an organization which is "secretive, autocratic and unaccountable."

He writes to Koh:


In one instance, by way of illustration, I urgently needed to fill a vacancy for an ORI division director. I asked the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Health (your deputy) when I could proceed. She said there was a priority list. I asked where ORI’s request was on that list. She said the list was secret and that we weren’t on the top, but we weren’t on the bottom either. Sixteen months later we still don’t have a division director on board.

His experiences at ORI, he adds, have confirmed all his worst suspicions about the workings of federal bureaucracy.


We spend exorbitant amounts of time in meetings and in generating repetitive and often meaningless data and reports to make our precinct of the bureaucracy look productive. None of this renders the slightest bit of assistance to ORI in handling allegations of misconduct or in promoting the responsible conduct of research. Instead, it sucks away time and resources that we might better use to meet our mission.

Wright's observations go some way towards explaining why so much of the corruption in US science goes either uninvestigated or unpunished.


Quote:
But few branches of science are immune, as this infographic from Clinicalpsychology.net makes clear.

Among its findings:


1 in 3 scientists admits to using questionable research practices


1 in 50 scientists admits to falsifying or fabricating data outright.


71 percent of scientists report that colleagues have used questionable methods


14 percent claim colleagues have falsified data

Among biomedical research trainees at the University of California, San Diego five percent admitted to modifying results and 81 percent said they would fabricate or modify results to win a grant or publish a paper.

And those are just the ones who'll admit it....


And, fence sitters some here will do their level headed best to defend this. Please research Plato, and "the noble lie."

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 498 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 ... 34  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group