New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

[Animavore]

The alarm should've been raised for anyone with a bit of integrity when the provocative words "Global Warming Alarmist" were used multiple times.

It's a valid response to the term "denier" and long overdue.
And that realclimate site is just a notorious activist blog, loser !!

I thought you weren't a big fan of ad homs?

I simply repeated the accusation "you lose".
If you lose, you are a loser.

No. It just means that in this instance you have failed. As I've said, come back to me when you have something, I'll have a look at it.

[Eriku]

The alarm should've been raised for anyone with a bit of integrity when the provocative words "Global Warming Alarmist" were used multiple times.

It's a valid response to the term "denier" and long overdue.
And that realclimate site is just a notorious activist blog, loser !!

I thought you weren't a big fan of ad homs?

I simply repeated the accusation "you lose".
If you lose, you are a loser.

Ah...

Still... what a crass and childish way to put things.

edit: though obviously not if it's just a jokey quip... though, to me it's hard to see how it could be read as such.

[mistermack]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -feedback/

Also, the ad hominem is valid in this case because it shows that he is incapable of making sound judgement on scientific issues (being an ID proponent) and that he has admitting doing something like this before in 2005 (see my third link on previous page).

Kevin Trenberth could hardly be more biased. I've seen his name before, he's a prominent part of the IPCC, and nobody on earth has more to lose from the refuting of their models.
Like I said, realclimate.org is an activist blog. You will never get anything but biased blogging from that site.

Sorry about the "loser" quip by the way, it was meant as a jokey response, I was sure you'd see the connection.

[Animavore]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... -feedback/

Also, the ad hominem is valid in this case because it shows that he is incapable of making sound judgement on scientific issues (being an ID proponent) and that he has admitting doing something like this before in 2005 (see my third link on previous page).

Kevin Trenberth could hardly be more biased. I've seen his name before, he's a prominent part of the IPCC, and nobody on earth has more to lose from the refuting of their models.
Like I said, realclimate.org is an activist blog. You will never get anything but biased blogging from that site.

Sorry about the "loser" quip by the way, it was meant as a jokey response, I was sure you'd see the connection.

Biased blogging!? It was a sound rebuttal showing the glaring errors in Spencer's work. He didn't even factor in all the variables. And he published his paper in a journal called Remote sensing which is "which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science". So he failed on multiple accounts.

[mistermack]

edit: though obviously not if it's just a jokey quip... though, to me it's hard to see how it could be read as such.

Well, it was a poor piece of writing. I read the "you lose" quip, and immediately wrote the loser quip, and didn't realise the number of posts that would go between them.
We live and learn......

[Animavore]

I just looked up this Kevin Trenberth guy. To suggest he is merely an activist blogger is complete bullshit

[mistermack]

Biased blogging!? It was a sound rebuttal showing the glaring errors in Spencer's work. He didn't even factor in all the variables. And he published his paper in a journal called Remote sensing which is "which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science". So he failed on multiple accounts.

You really haven't read it with any critical approach at all.
Trenberth makes some frankly silly points, and it never ceases to amaze me what a PHD is capable of writing.

He contrasts ten years of DATA to a hundred years of MODELS !!!
Even though he knows full well that no model of climate has ever predicted ANYTHING.

And he says that if you choose a different data set, you get a more ambiguous result.
Surely that is pointing at UNCERTAINTY, which should be explained?
But they are so involved, they can admit to nothing other than one line of thought.

And what kind of criticism is it to complain about who published it?
It's the content that's important. It's a proper peer reviewed publication, not a blog in a biased website.

[Eriku]

edit: though obviously not if it's just a jokey quip... though, to me it's hard to see how it could be read as such.

Well, it was a poor piece of writing. I read the "you lose" quip, and immediately wrote the loser quip, and didn't realise the number of posts that would go between them.
We live and learn......

Well, we live, at any rate

[mistermack]

I just looked up this Kevin Trenberth guy. To suggest he is merely an activist blogger is complete bullshit

No, I said that he's an integral part of the IPCC.
It's the site that's an activist blog.

[Animavore]

Biased blogging!? It was a sound rebuttal showing the glaring errors in Spencer's work. He didn't even factor in all the variables. And he published his paper in a journal called Remote sensing which is "which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science". So he failed on multiple accounts.

You really haven't read it with any critical approach at all.
Trenberth makes some frankly silly points, and it never ceases to amaze me what a PHD is capable of writing.

He contrasts ten years of DATA to a hundred years of MODELS !!!
Even though he knows full well that no model of climate has ever predicted ANYTHING.

And he says that if you choose a different data set, you get a more ambiguous result.
Surely that is pointing at UNCERTAINTY, which should be explained?
But they are so involved, they can admit to nothing other than one line of thought.

And what kind of criticism is it to complain about who published it?
It's the content that's important. It's a proper peer reviewed publication, not a blog in a biased website.

What has anything you've just said got to do with the rebuttal of the article in the OP? He showed where Spencer fucked up. But you just go ahead and keep digging your heels in.

[mistermack]

Well, we live, at any rate

I'm glad you said we.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Biased blogging!? It was a sound rebuttal showing the glaring errors in Spencer's work. He didn't even factor in all the variables. And he published his paper in a journal called Remote sensing which is "which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science". So he failed on multiple accounts.

You really haven't read it with any critical approach at all.
Trenberth makes some frankly silly points, and it never ceases to amaze me what a PHD is capable of writing.

He contrasts ten years of DATA to a hundred years of MODELS !!!
Even though he knows full well that no model of climate has ever predicted ANYTHING.

And he says that if you choose a different data set, you get a more ambiguous result.
Surely that is pointing at UNCERTAINTY, which should be explained?
But they are so involved, they can admit to nothing other than one line of thought.

And what kind of criticism is it to complain about who published it?
It's the content that's important. It's a proper peer reviewed publication, not a blog in a biased website.

What has anything you've just said got to do with the rebuttal of the article in the OP? He showed where Spencer fucked up. But you just go ahead and keep digging your heels in.

Mistermack digging in his heels against all contrary evidence because he knows he's RIGHT? Surely you jest? How out of character...

[Animavore]

Biased blogging!? It was a sound rebuttal showing the glaring errors in Spencer's work. He didn't even factor in all the variables. And he published his paper in a journal called Remote sensing which is "which is a fine journal for geographers, but it does not deal with atmospheric and climate science". So he failed on multiple accounts.

You really haven't read it with any critical approach at all.
Trenberth makes some frankly silly points, and it never ceases to amaze me what a PHD is capable of writing.

He contrasts ten years of DATA to a hundred years of MODELS !!!
Even though he knows full well that no model of climate has ever predicted ANYTHING.

And he says that if you choose a different data set, you get a more ambiguous result.
Surely that is pointing at UNCERTAINTY, which should be explained?
But they are so involved, they can admit to nothing other than one line of thought.

And what kind of criticism is it to complain about who published it?
It's the content that's important. It's a proper peer reviewed publication, not a blog in a biased website.

What has anything you've just said got to do with the rebuttal of the article in the OP? He showed where Spencer fucked up. But you just go ahead and keep digging your heels in.

Mistermack digging in his heels against all contrary evidence because he knows he's RIGHT? Surely you jest? How out of character...

Well yes. I did read the recent altercation with GenesForLife.
I think it's been shown convincingly for to any by-stander that Spencer's model has been shown to be faulty (this is nothing to say about the whole issue of global warming, just this case) so I'll leave it at that.

[mistermack]

What has anything you've just said got to do with the rebuttal of the article in the OP? He showed where Spencer fucked up. But you just go ahead and keep digging your heels in.

He contrasts ten years of DATA to a hundred years of MODELS !!!
Even though he knows full well that no model of climate has ever predicted ANYTHING.
I really doubt his sincerity, if he can do that.
A thousand years of models would not stack up compared to ten years of real figures.
He's a desperate man, trying to swat away the unpleasant truth, that his work has been wrong and a huge waste of money.
He simply has too much invested to expect an unbiased "rebuttal" from.
I'll wait to see what less biased people say, and I'm still waiting for someone to find the "missing heat".

[Eriku]

Well, we live, at any rate

I'm glad you said we.

By all means, mate... I never aim to demonise those I disagree with, and I know I've tossed out the odd regrettable sentence in the heat of the moment.

Back to the subject, how come so many scientists have had the wool pulled over their eyes?

Of course, not all 12 million US scientists therefore agree with ‘The Consensus’. But this puts the PetitionProject’s 31,486 signatories in some kind of context.


Our maths here is somewhat coarse. Some better data suggests the ‘consensus’ figure is around 97.5% of publishing climatologists and around 90% of all publishing scientists supporting the human-induced climate theory. See this study for more details (PDF – Doran And Zimmerman 2009)

Actually, here’s how some of it looks:

Skeptical Field
Among the climate skeptic scientists, we wondered which fields of science were most represented. We expected climate and earth sciences. But we got…

In fact, when you adjust the PetitionProject’s odd categorisation – they filed ‘chemical engineers’ as chemists and physical engineers as ‘physicists’ – the total number of engineers who signed the petition, by our reckoning, jumps to 49%

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2 ... cientists/

And that's just scientists in the US, which is a country that is packed to the brim with climate change skepticism.