Here's the BBC report on the thickening of the Arctic ice cap and reading it does rather make it all look like people have entrenched positions. However to say 2013 was a one-off and then to say the trend continued in 2014 seems contrary and 2015 appears it will also be a cool summer.
The amusing and tbh unbelieveable line in there is "the scientists involved believe changes in summer temperatures have greater impacts on ice than thought".
Yes one would expect a warming trend there since your trend starts before the generally accepted starting point for the pause.
Tell me were you hoping I wouldn't noticed your little slight of hand in changing the data set?
You are odd. I quite specifically said "longer", that quite specifically implies change, it's a comparative word, it has to be longer THAN something, in this case longer than the interval you chose. I didn't hope you wouldn't notice, I specifically drew your attention to it.
When I changed the interval to make it shorter, showing the recent rise, you didn't like that either.
You are odd. I quite specifically said "longer", that quite specifically implies change, it's a comparative word, it has to be longer THAN something, in this case longer than the interval you chose. I didn't hope you wouldn't notice, I specifically drew your attention to it.
When I changed the interval to make it shorter, showing the recent rise, you didn't like that either.
I have explained it.
#483 is written to give the (false) impression that the two quotes are from different sources.
Indeed you have asserted that a number of times, but repeatedly been unable to provide any sort of rational explanation for the assertion that repeating two quotes, previously discussed as being from the same source, in any way can possibly imply they are from different sources.
So what do you make of Tilling's finding? I know Lewis Page (obviously an idiot in njp's handy book of ad-hominem insults) is quoting her, but what about what she actually said? Or does the fact that page used her quotes make them wrong?
I can't see any problem with Tilling's results. Can you?
Indeed you have asserted that a number of times, but repeatedly been unable to provide any sort of rational explanation for the assertion that repeating two quotes, previously discussed as being from the same source, in any way can possibly imply they are from different sources.
Read the last line.
"I'll bear that in mind when assessing any of your other claims about what scientific papers say."
"I'll bear that in mind when assessing any of your other claims about what scientific papers say."
How is that "deceptive"?
It's a statement of fact. I will bear in mind your peculiar belief that the two very different sentences under discussion, talking about the same paper, were in fact saying the same thing. Other people should do the same. All your claims need to be treated with the utmost suspicion, given your long history of misrepresentation, of which this is merely the most recent outbreak.
It's a statement of fact. I will bear in mind your peculiar belief that the two very different sentences under discussion, talking about the same paper, were in fact saying the same thing. Other people should do the same. All your claims need to be treated with the utmost suspicion, given your long history of misrepresentation, of which this is merely the most recent outbreak.
Let's look at the post
I see. So to a denier of the English language:
"This effect may actually slightly weaken the more dire forecasted aspects of an increasing warming of our climate"
is "roughly the same" as:
"New paper finds negative-feedback cooling from water vapor could almost completely offset warming from CO2"?
I'll bear that in mind when assessing any of your other claims about what scientific papers say.
"Roughly the same" is a reply to a question you asked me, namely that I considered that the report and the blog were saying roughly the same thing.
Taken in that context the last line implies that the two (contradictory) statements were from different sources.
"I'll bear that in mind when assessing any of your other claims about what scientific papers say."
I took that to mean that you have yet again looked at a headline, not read or not understood the text that follows and come away with the wrong idea, and so he and we should continue to treat your claims with appropriate caution.
I took that to mean that you have yet again looked at a headline, not read or not understood the text that follows and come away with the wrong idea, and so he and we should continue to treat your claims with appropriate caution.
"New paper finds negative-feedback cooling from water vapor could almost completely offset warming from CO2" was the headline of the crackpot blog you cited.
Your claim that this says "roughly the same thing" as the paper whose press release was quoted in the same blog saying "This effect may actually slightly weaken the more dire forecasted aspects of an increasing warming of our climate" is clearly delusional.
"New paper finds negative-feedback cooling from water vapor could almost completely offset warming from CO2" was the headline of the crackpot blog you cited.
Your claim that this says "roughly the same thing" as the paper whose press release was quoted in the same blog saying "This effect may actually slightly weaken the more dire forecasted aspects of an increasing warming of our climate" is clearly delusional.
Only to someone who clearly has serious comprehension difficulties.
No it doesn't, my claim was that the blog says roughly the same thing has the paper.
John Cook: Sorry about the Lubos thing. Was posting some Lubos comments for the UWA experiment and forgot to log back in as John Cook.
This is just unbelievable; “the UWA experiment”. Think about what this refers to: University of Western Australia. This is where Cook launched his career defaming climate skeptics by helping Stephan Lewandowsky in designing/running a gussied up poll that was never actually posted on climate skeptic websites, that purports to give answers by climate skeptics, to be used in a paper where it is claimed that climate skeptics are believers that “the moon landing was faked“. What sort of “experiment” was John Cook running by stealing the identity of Dr. Lubos Motl, and writing comments under his name?
Fair point. To me it's not entirely clear if the fake comments by 'SkepticalScience's chief cartoonist were actually used in the Lewandowsky paper(s), but it's rather questionable behaviour. But then this is climate 'science'.
Fair point. To me it's not entirely clear if the fake comments by 'SkepticalScience's chief cartoonist were actually used in the Lewandowsky paper(s), but it's rather questionable behaviour. But then this is climate 'science'.
Very few things are entirely clear to you. To me, it looks as though Cook was testing some blog comment scraping code on his own private blog, not meant for public view, and simply forgot to alter his user-id when making other posts on the same blog, an error which was duly pointed out by other subscribers, who found it amusing. Nothing remotely exciting or scandalous or "questionable".
And all this happened in 2011. Of course, by the time news of it reaches faux-statistical wunderkind Steve McIntyre, via well-known Internet crank Lubos Motl (who rambles even more incoherently than usual about it) and finally to Anthony "no scientific qualifications" Watts, it has morphed into a brand new conspiracy theory. Colour me shocked!
Oh, and contrary to your claim, this isn't climate science.
Very few things are entirely clear to you. To me, it looks as though Cook was testing some blog comment scraping code on his own private blog, not meant for public view, and simply forgot to alter his user-id when making other posts on the same blog, an error which was duly pointed out by other subscribers, who found it amusing. Nothing remotely exciting or scandalous or "questionable".
I.. see. So that's a nice theory you've invented. Sadly it's not compatible with the evidence. But then few of your theories are..
John Cook: Sorry about the Lubos thing. Was posting some Lubos comments for the UWA experiment and forgot to log back in as John Cook.
For the record, if just one or two of you SkSers jumped over to the Technical Forum and posted some comments to the 4 Experiment Conditions, I’d get my 10 comments and wouldn’t have to log in as Lubos anymore. Only one or two more comments required to get the quota. Just some incentive for you :-)
So 'blog scrapping code' could be posts by fake-Lubos with lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum etc. Instead, faker-Cook created fake sceptic comments attributed to Lubos for his 'UWA experiment'.
So the ethical issue would be whether UWA knew the 'sceptic' comments were faked. Then what the willingness to fake/sockpuppet in this manner says for the treehouse gang's ethics in general.
I.. see. So that's a nice theory you've invented. Sadly it's not compatible with the evidence. But then few of your theories are..
Once again you confirm your rejection of the mainstream science I espouse, and your preference for crackpot conspiracy theories:
John Cook: Sorry about the Lubos thing. Was posting some Lubos comments for the UWA experiment and forgot to log back in as John Cook.
That statement is entirely consistent with my interpretation. Did you Imagine they just ran the code without testing it first? If you want to test code, you construct test cases.
So 'blog scrapping code' could be posts by fake-Lubos with lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum etc. Instead, faker-Cook created fake sceptic comments attributed to Lubos for his 'UWA experiment'.
Why would any useful code be looking for blog posts consisting entirely of "lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum etc"? Don't you think there might be a bit more to it?
So the ethical issue would be whether UWA knew the 'sceptic' comments were faked. Then what the willingness to fake/sockpuppet in this manner says for the treehouse gang's ethics in general.
The ethical issue would be why you conspiracy theorists post the crap you do without any evidence of there being a conspiracy.
That statement is entirely consistent with my interpretation. Did you Imagine they just ran the code without testing it first?
Well, this is climate science..
Why would any useful code be looking for blog posts consisting entirely of "lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum etc"? Don't you think there might be a bit more to it?
You presumably do, which I guess is why you're letting your imagination run wild. So you start by saying it was a test of "blog comment scraping code". So trawl a blog looking for sceptic's comments and taking a copy. So pretty simple and really only needs a UID to test.
john@skepticalscience…
123.211.208.191
BUMP: am bumping this thread, just a reminder, need about 6 more comments per condition so just need a few SkSers to get in there and engage with each other. Links below:
I’ve been conducting a psychological experiment with UWA cognitive scientists testing for the effects of blog comments on readers’ comprehension. The first stage of the experiment was live on SkS and we’ve analysed the data and found that for a warmist blog post, there was no difference in reader comprehension when the reader was exposed to all warmist comments or no comments. However, when the reader was exposed to all skeptic comments, their comprehension dropped.
Except of course the 'skeptic comments' were written by the experimenter, John Cook. So did the UWA's cognitive scientists know they were evaluating fake sceptics?
Comments
The amusing and tbh unbelieveable line in there is "the scientists involved believe changes in summer temperatures have greater impacts on ice than thought".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33594654
Plus ca change.
You are odd. I quite specifically said "longer", that quite specifically implies change, it's a comparative word, it has to be longer THAN something, in this case longer than the interval you chose. I didn't hope you wouldn't notice, I specifically drew your attention to it.
When I changed the interval to make it shorter, showing the recent rise, you didn't like that either.
In other words you're showing me this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Skeptics10.gif
I can only repeat that If you can't see post #483 for the attempted deceit that it is then that is your problem not mine.
Which bit data set didn't you understand
Indeed and the more you repeat it without being able to offer any explanation the more obvious it gets that you are making it up.
I have explained it.
#483 is written to give the (false) impression that the two quotes are from different sources.
Indeed you have asserted that a number of times, but repeatedly been unable to provide any sort of rational explanation for the assertion that repeating two quotes, previously discussed as being from the same source, in any way can possibly imply they are from different sources.
Read the last line.
"I'll bear that in mind when assessing any of your other claims about what scientific papers say."
It's a statement of fact. I will bear in mind your peculiar belief that the two very different sentences under discussion, talking about the same paper, were in fact saying the same thing. Other people should do the same. All your claims need to be treated with the utmost suspicion, given your long history of misrepresentation, of which this is merely the most recent outbreak.
Let's look at the post
I see. So to a denier of the English language:
"This effect may actually slightly weaken the more dire forecasted aspects of an increasing warming of our climate"
is "roughly the same" as:
"New paper finds negative-feedback cooling from water vapor could almost completely offset warming from CO2"?
I'll bear that in mind when assessing any of your other claims about what scientific papers say.
"Roughly the same" is a reply to a question you asked me, namely that I considered that the report and the blog were saying roughly the same thing.
Taken in that context the last line implies that the two (contradictory) statements were from different sources.
And that's why your attempted deceit failed.
You could say that if you take it out of context.
Your claim that this says "roughly the same thing" as the paper whose press release was quoted in the same blog saying "This effect may actually slightly weaken the more dire forecasted aspects of an increasing warming of our climate" is clearly delusional.
Only to someone who clearly has serious comprehension difficulties.
No it doesn't, my claim was that the blog says roughly the same thing has the paper.
Now why would you think a silly thing like that?
Fair point. To me it's not entirely clear if the fake comments by 'SkepticalScience's chief cartoonist were actually used in the Lewandowsky paper(s), but it's rather questionable behaviour. But then this is climate 'science'.
And all this happened in 2011. Of course, by the time news of it reaches faux-statistical wunderkind Steve McIntyre, via well-known Internet crank Lubos Motl (who rambles even more incoherently than usual about it) and finally to Anthony "no scientific qualifications" Watts, it has morphed into a brand new conspiracy theory. Colour me shocked!
Oh, and contrary to your claim, this isn't climate science.
I.. see. So that's a nice theory you've invented. Sadly it's not compatible with the evidence. But then few of your theories are..
John Cook: Sorry about the Lubos thing. Was posting some Lubos comments for the UWA experiment and forgot to log back in as John Cook.
For the record, if just one or two of you SkSers jumped over to the Technical Forum and posted some comments to the 4 Experiment Conditions, I’d get my 10 comments and wouldn’t have to log in as Lubos anymore. Only one or two more comments required to get the quota. Just some incentive for you :-)
So 'blog scrapping code' could be posts by fake-Lubos with lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum etc. Instead, faker-Cook created fake sceptic comments attributed to Lubos for his 'UWA experiment'.
So the ethical issue would be whether UWA knew the 'sceptic' comments were faked. Then what the willingness to fake/sockpuppet in this manner says for the treehouse gang's ethics in general.
That statement is entirely consistent with my interpretation. Did you Imagine they just ran the code without testing it first? If you want to test code, you construct test cases. Why would any useful code be looking for blog posts consisting entirely of "lorem ipsum lorem ipsum lorem ipsum etc"? Don't you think there might be a bit more to it?
The ethical issue would be why you conspiracy theorists post the crap you do without any evidence of there being a conspiracy.
Well, this is climate science..
You presumably do, which I guess is why you're letting your imagination run wild. So you start by saying it was a test of "blog comment scraping code". So trawl a blog looking for sceptic's comments and taking a copy. So pretty simple and really only needs a UID to test.
But once again you prefer fantasy over evidence-
http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/General%20Chat/2011-09-21-Need%20a%20handful%20of%20comments%20from%20SkSers%20for%20our%20blogging%20experiment.html
john@skepticalscience…
123.211.208.191
BUMP: am bumping this thread, just a reminder, need about 6 more comments per condition so just need a few SkSers to get in there and engage with each other. Links below:
I’ve been conducting a psychological experiment with UWA cognitive scientists testing for the effects of blog comments on readers’ comprehension. The first stage of the experiment was live on SkS and we’ve analysed the data and found that for a warmist blog post, there was no difference in reader comprehension when the reader was exposed to all warmist comments or no comments. However, when the reader was exposed to all skeptic comments, their comprehension dropped.
Except of course the 'skeptic comments' were written by the experimenter, John Cook. So did the UWA's cognitive scientists know they were evaluating fake sceptics?