[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by njp

Name one.

Start here-

http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-A...ref=pd_sim_b_1

Which of the people who signed the recent letter were responsible for the (incorrectly deployed) Apollo 15 temperature sensors?

Err.. how am I supposed to know that? I thought rocket scientists didn't know which end of a thermometer to use. That's what Dana seems to think anyway.

I was happy with my question (and my answer to it).

So share your answer. Not much to ask is it?

We need to agree on a single question.

Nope. We first need to agree on a single answer. My answers were apparently wrong. But I guess you think Q&As are like government consultations. First decide the answer, then ask the question..

In which the mining buffoon drones on and on about something or other. It'll be crap, as usual.

S'quite good actually. More evidence showing just how bad your belief system is.

[elfcurry]

Originally Posted by davvers

hey guys, after 115 pages I don't think that any of you have won the debate. Maybe time to wrap it up. As far as the rest of the world is concerned most agree that our climate is changing. Unfortunately there are still a huge number who are unaware that it has been since the earth was created and will continue to do so.

I have not read all the pages so may have missed it but I have never received an answer to the question : Why have so many who warned of " global warming" now use the expression " climate change" instead.

You're right, no-one has been persuaded to change sides. One side is constrained to be truthful and honest, and explain the facts in painful detail while the deniers playfully make vague assertions, ask vague questions, change positions and say whatever is convenient to keep the thread going. It's still entertaining seeing them twist the facts and play word games claiming a 'conspiracy' exists to hide the truth and pretending they don't really know.

I've never understood why some people argue or claim significance about the name. To me climate change is the broader topic which makes no inherent assumptions about change or the direction, while global warming is assumes that it is indeed getting warmer. I forget which of the two they claim as an attempt to hide the truth but it makes no difference.

[bmillam]

Originally Posted by andykn

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/cru...land/from:1979

Why?

yup as I thought crutem is at least 0.25c warmer then UAH

[Abewest]

Originally Posted by elfcurry

You're right, no-one has been persuaded to change sides. One side is constrained to be truthful and honest, and explain the facts in painful detail while the deniers playfully ask vague questions, change positions and say whatever is convenient to keep the thread going. It's still entertaining seeing them twist the facts and play word games claiming a 'conspiracy' exists to hide the truth and pretending they don't really know.

For a "sentient" being, you don't half miss a lot of what goes on right under your nose.

Did you read Eel's link concerning the latest FOI debacle (or is that a silly question, seeing as you constantly refuse to even contemplate anything that might shake your belief), and yet you can sit there with a straight face (or should that be a glazed look) when typing out the words "truthful" and "honest".

BTW, and getting back on to one of your favourite old chestnuts about "big oil" funding the sceptics, guess who's two of East Anglia's CRU major sponsors? Here's a clue - one of these companies was even one of its founding sponsor.

[elfcurry]

Originally Posted by Abewest

Did you read Eel's link ...

No.

Why bother? It's always a waste of time and pixels.

I don't know whether it's surprising that you people seem not to have the slightest clue about science, truth & honesty or not.

What does it mean - that the lie machine at denier central demonstrates people to be pretty gullible and unthinking if they're ignorant about science with a susceptible personality? It's more than a little disappointing that so many people just can't see the difference and don't really care enough to find out.

[bmillam]

Originally Posted by davvers

hey guys, after 115 pages I don't think that any of you have won the debate. Maybe time to wrap it up. As far as the rest of the world is concerned most agree that our climate is changing. Unfortunately there are still a huge number who are unaware that it has been since the earth was created and will continue to do so.

I have not read all the pages so may have missed it but I have never received an answer to the question : Why have so many who warned of " global warming" now use the expression " climate change" instead.

this seems to answer you question.

Default Frank Luntz Coined "Climate Change"

I didn't know that until I heard it on a question on Cash Cab. Yet another reason to say, "Fu$k You, Frank!"

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tok...ange-quot.aspx

Climate spin: Who changed "global warming" to "climate change"?

Answer: It wasn't the enviros who changed the use of this term, but rather high-powered corporate lobbying interests and their allies in Bush government and the Republican party, spearheaded by leading Republican pollster/ spinmeister Frank Luntz, who in 2002 pushed Republicans to move the public discussion away from "global warming" to "climate change". http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen....climatechange.

Luntz wrote that :

“'Climate change' is less frightening than 'global warming.' ... While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge,


And here's something recent from Frank, still trying to push global warming climate change alarm.


Republican pollster Frank Luntz—the brains behind Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America" and the man who coined politically potent phrases like the "death tax"—wants to help environmentalists in their push for legislation to combat climate change. His advice? Stop talking about climate change.

The environmental community is "fighting the wrong battle," Luntz announced on Thursday at an event to mark the release of a new report by his polling firm, The Word Doctors, outlining strategies to help marshal public support for a climate bill. "The least important component of climate change is climate change."

Luntz's report, "The Language of a Clean Energy Economy," finds that the majority of the public across the political spectrum is convinced that global warming is happening and caused at least in part by humans. But, Luntz says, talking about the problem won't win support for the legislation that would solve it. Among both Democrats and Republicans polled by his firm, addressing climate change was the least important reason to support a cap-and-trade policy.

So what should environmentalists say instead? Luntz suggests less talk of dying polar bears and more emphasis on how legislation will create jobs, make the planet healthier and decrease US dependence on foreign oil. Advocates should emphasize words like "cleaner," "healthier," and "safer"; scrap "green jobs" in favor of "American jobs," and ditch terms like "sustainability" and "carbon neutral" altogether. "It doesn't matter if there is or isn't climate change," he said. "It's still in America's best interest to develop new sources of energy that are clean, reliable, efficient and safe."

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/...alking-climate

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by elfcurry

No.

Why bother? It's always a waste of time and pixels.

.. It's more than a little disappointing that so many people just can't see the difference and don't really care enough to find out.

Yep, you got that right. Carry on believing what you're told, or be a sceptic and try following the old Royal Society's motto-

http://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/

The Royal Society's motto 'Nullius in verba' roughly translates as 'take nobody's word for it'. It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.

But hey ho, trust me I'm a climatologist and 97% of 79 climate scientists say their funding prefers ignorance.

Or you could read this-

http://climateaudit.org/2012/05/06/y...n-flawed-data/

to find out just how far some people will go to make hockey sticks. Andkyn and nlp still think there have been 'independent' reconstructions of Mikey's original.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by davvers

hey guys, after 115 pages I don't think that any of you have won the debate. Maybe time to wrap it up. As far as the rest of the world is concerned most agree that our climate is changing. Unfortunately there are still a huge number who are unaware that it has been since the earth was created and will continue to do so.

I have not read all the pages so may have missed it but I have never received an answer to the question : Why have so many who warned of " global warming" now use the expression " climate change" instead.

They don't.

Google each phrase and use the "More search tools" > "Custom range" to pick a year, say 2000 and you'll find more hits for "climate change" than "global warming".

Still, I look forward to your murder defence "look guv, people die naturally all the time, perhaps the bullet wound is natural"

[andykn]

Originally Posted by bmillam

yup as I thought crutem is at least 0.25c warmer then UAH p p

Sure?

[elfcurry]

Re: Eel .. Should I change my "always" to "nearly always"?

The RS motto "take nobody's word for it" is a good principle. But there's a big difference between not questioning an individual's conclusions just because of who they are and rejecting the considered view of virtually the whole of the world's climate scientists, which is based on very large amounts of evidence. To challenge that you need rather more than the opinions of non-scientists like Watts et al.

[Abewest]

Originally Posted by elfcurry

No.

Why bother? It's always a waste of time and pixels.

I don't know whether it's surprising that you people seem not to have the slightest clue about science, truth & honesty or not.

I know. Keep telling yourself that. Hear none. See none. Speak none.

And from time to time throw in big oil, and dismiss out of hand the fact that the link in question is actually about truth & honesty, or the lack of it.

But as I said before, why bother with anything that challenges your belief system when you can ignore any evidence to the contrary in order to continue displaying the very traits that you consistently project on to others.

Truth and honesty? I'm sure you'll forgive me if I take anything you say about truth and honesty with a very large bucket of salt. In my humble opinion you wouldn't know what that was if it jumped up and slapped you. If you did, you would surely recognise that there's a dire lack of it on display by climate science in the link that JE provided, and your very own side are more or less being forced to face up to this.

But don't let that get in the way of yet another superior than thou sermon with very little substance other than to prove yet again that you're a closed minded fundamentalist, and seemingly mighty proud of it too.

[njp]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Start here-

http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-A...ref=pd_sim_b_1

I see. You claim that "any decent astronomy text" will offer an explanation for recent warming (on the days when you acknowledge its reality) based on Earth/Moon orbital variations. I ask you to name one, and you produce (presumably by searching, rather than referring to something you have actually read) a book on astrodynamics written in 1971. A book that, according to the contents list, is concerned entirely with orbital dynamics. Nothing in there at all about warming on the Moon, let alone warming on the Earth, let alone recent warming on the Earth (which would have been remarkably prescient in 1971).

So I think I'll call "bullshit" on your claim.

Err.. how am I supposed to know that? I thought rocket scientists didn't know which end of a thermometer to use. That's what Dana seems to think anyway.

So your claim that "the instruments were put their (sic) thanks to the rocket scientists Dana the scientologist happily denounced" was also bullshit, since you have no idea if any of the signatories were in fact involved in that deployment?

Furthermore, the "denouncement" concerned their willingness to comment on things about which they lacked expertise, not their competence in their former professions.

So share your answer. Not much to ask is it?

In a normal dialogue, no. But your capacity to slither appears to be unbounded, so we need to agree on the question we are both answering. Not much to ask, is it?

[njp]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Yep, you got that right. Carry on believing what you're told, or be a sceptic and try following the old Royal Society's motto-

http://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/

The Royal Society's motto 'Nullius in verba' roughly translates as 'take nobody's word for it'. It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.

I'm sorry? Where in there does it say "Reject all scientific authority in favour of whatever crap some crackpot has thought up that morning, even where it conflicts with the crap some other crackpot thought up the day before, which you previously endorsed."

Does the Royal Society on Planet Eel work to a different constitution? What does that look like in Latin? Perhaps we should ask Monckton.

Or you could read this-

http://climateaudit.org/2012/05/06/y...n-flawed-data/

In which the Captain Ahab of denialism continues to pursue the Moby Dick of climate science, although with considerably less literary merit.

to find out just how far some people will go to make hockey sticks. Andkyn and nlp still think there have been 'independent' reconstructions of Mikey's original.

We've seen what Ahab did in his earlier, hopelessly flawed work over a decade ago, which he still clings to with his remaining hand. He'll have done the same again, in even more tedious detail. I freely admit that I can't be arsed to read it (I prefer actual science), but I'm sure someone will get round to it eventually.

[elfcurry]

Originally Posted by Abewest

I know. Keep telling yourself that. Hear none. See none. Speak none.

And from time to time throw in big oil, and dismiss out of hand the fact that the link in question is actually about truth & honesty, or the lack of it.

But as I said before, why bother with anything that challenges your belief system when you can ignore any evidence to the contrary in order to continue displaying the very traits that you consistently project on to others.

Truth and honesty? I'm sure you'll forgive me if I take anything you say about truth and honesty with a very large bucket of salt. In my humble opinion you wouldn't know what that was if it jumped up and slapped you. If you did, you would surely recognise that there's a dire lack of it on display by climate science in the link that JE provided, and your very own side are more or less being forced to face up to this.

But don't let that get in the way of yet another superior than thou sermon with very little substance other than to prove yet again that you're a closed minded fundamentalist, and seemingly mighty proud of it too.

No, this isn't about ignoring real evidence which 'challenges my view'. It's more like a jury who's been told by the judge to ignore anything they may have read in the papers about the case and focus their attention on the actual evidence presented in court. Hearing the evidence from (expert) witnesses on both sides and conscientiously avoiding being swayed by loudmouth columnists, bloggers and lobbyists who try to mislead public opinion is the best chance of a fair hearing.

It bothers me not the least little bit that Delingpole, a blogger in the Telegraph, or Watts, or Monckton have opinions and some people read them and believe them. I am perfectly happy to ignore such people because they are non-scientists expressing a view and time after time they've been shown to be fools and deliberate liars and can't be trusted. If any of them ever let something truthful slip by, it wouldn't go unnoticed it because it would be reported elsewhere.

[Abewest]

Originally Posted by elfcurry

No, this isn't about ignoring real evidence which 'challenges my view'. It's more like a jury who's been told by the judge to ignore anything they may have read in the papers about the case and focus their attention on the actual evidence presented in court. Hearing the evidence from (expert) witnesses on both sides and conscientiously avoiding being swayed by loudmouth columnists, bloggers and lobbyists who try to mislead public opinion is the best chance of a fair hearing.

Your argument falls down right there.

Any judge worth his salt would take a balanced view, as is happening in the FOI cases, and in respect of the link that JE provided would most certainly instruct a jury to take those questionable actions into account when reaching a verdict.

And when selecting a jury, I'm quite sure they'd be looking for those who are familiar with both sides of the argument, and as you've freely admitted that you don't ever bother yourself with this little incidental, you wouldn't be regarded as someone who could fairly weigh both sides of the argument in reaching a conclusion. And quite rightly so.

So sorry. But massive fail in logic there. Once again.

It bothers me not the least little bit that Delingpole, a blogger in the Telegraph, or Watts, or Monckton have opinions and some people read them and believe them.

And how about a scientololigist who dabbles in climate science blogging as a hobby, and who is quoted on here as someone who should be listened to when it comes to the science?



How about those who read and believe him?

[elfcurry]

Originally Posted by Abewest

Your argument falls down right there.

Any judge worth his salt would take a balanced view, as is happening in the FOI cases, and in respect of the link that JE provided would most certainly instruct a jury to take those questionable actions into account when reaching a verdict.

A judge can rule potential evidence inadmissable. Independent witness acounts of an event would be accepted, as would expert interpretation of forensic evidence. The views of someone with no direct knowledge of the case and no relevant expertise would not be accepted. An opinion piece in the Sun or the Register? Inadmissable. Babble from Watts/Monckton/Delingpole etc? Not wanted.

I'm vaguely aware that there is some issue over FOI. Can you direct me to some *unbiased* account of it please?

FOI is intended to stop government types from hiding stuff, eg to prevent corruption etc. It's not meant as a tool to help people hostile to science to waste time and slow down scientific progress at public expense. It's too easy for a lazy hack who cares nothing for honest reporting to post a lot of hostile FOI requests (with the added bonus of wasting their time) and then write a biased story to please their ignorant readers. That may affect public opinion but I haven't yet heard of a case where it uncovered something hidden by a scientist. Feel free to point out a case.

And when selecting a jury, I'm quite sure they'd be looking for those who are familiar with both sides of the argument, and as you've freely admitted that you don't ever bother yourself with this little incidental, you wouldn't be regarded as someone who could fairly weigh both sides of the argument in reaching a conclusion. And quite rightly so.

So sorry. But massive fail in logic there. Once again.

No. Judges want jurors with an open mind and no preconceptions. That's why they tell them to ignore media and public opinion and concentrate on the evidence.

And how about a scientololigist who dabbles in climate science blogging as a hobby, and who is quoted on here as someone who should be listened to when it comes to the science?

How about those who read and believe him?

What's this about? I certainly reject scientology so I hope you not getting it mixed up with science.

[Abewest]

Originally Posted by elfcurry

A judge can rule potential evidence inadmissable. Independent witness acounts of an event would be accepted, as would expert interpretation of forensic evidence. The views of someone with no direct knowledge of the case and no relevant expertise would not be accepted. An opinion piece in the Sun or the Register? Inadmissable. Babble from Watts/Monckton/Delingpole etc? Not wanted.

Wrong again. Any judge in this instance would most likely rule that their actions gave rise to the reasonable assumption that they had something to hide. Balance of probabilities. Or are you totally unaware of how the law would operate in such a scenario, and therefore just make it up as you go along to suit your belief system?

I'm vaguely aware that there is some issue over FOI. Can you direct me to some *unbiased* account of it please?

I just did. JE's link.

FOI is intended to stop government types from hiding stuff, eg to prevent corruption etc. It's not meant as a tool to help people hostile to science to waste time and slow down scientific progress at public expense. It's too easy for a lazy hack who cares nothing for honest reporting to post a lot of hostile FOI requests (with the added bonus of wasting their time) and then write a biased story to please their ignorant readers. That may affect public opinion but I haven't yet heard of a case where it uncovered something hidden by a scientist.

That comes as no big surprise. You ignore it when it's pointed out to you, preferring instead to attack the source rather than consider the substance.

No. Judges want jurors with an open mind and no preconceptions.

Jesus. You couldn't make this up. By your own admission, that then rules you out, doesn't it?

What's this about? I certainly reject scientology so I hope you not getting it mixed up with science.

No. I'm not. But there's a blogger on here who's been quoted as an authority on AGW, and who's also a scientologist. Given that sceptics are often equated with creationists, I was just wondering what your thoughts are on him. Have you actually being following this thread?

[njp]

Originally Posted by Abewest

I just did. JE's link.

On what planet could Steve McIntyre, the Captain Ahab of denialism, be considered an "unbiased source"?

On Planet Eel, that's where.

[Abewest]

Originally Posted by njp

On what planet could Steve McIntyre, the Captain Ahab of denialism, be considered an "unbiased source"?

On Planet Eel, that's where.

Then argue the substance of what he's saying.

Or, alternatively, just ignore that.

Do you consider the IPCC to be an unbiased source?

[elfcurry]

Originally Posted by Abewest

Wrong again. Any judge in this instance would most likely rule that their actions gave rise to the reasonable assumption that they had something to hide. Balance of probabilities. Or are you totally unaware of how the law would operate in such a scenario, and therefore just make it up as you go along to suit your belief system?


I just did. JE's link.

My court analogy was about how the climate change evidence is assessed in the court of science. Worthless, ignorant opinions don't even get into the court, while science does. I can see that people desperate to be heard but with nothing useful to contribute would shout 'unfair'.

What would you like my analogy to be about?

Has Eel or have you posted a link to an honest neutral source? No. When you've done so I'll have a look.

That comes as no big surprise. You ignore it when it's pointed out to you, preferring instead to attack the source rather than consider the substance.

I'm not displaying bias just looking for proper evidence and discarding dross from people like Watts who believe they have something which should be heard (or he won't get his cheque from Heartland this month).

No. I'm not. But there's a blogger on here who's been quoted as an authority on AGW, and who's also a scientologist. Given that sceptics are often equated with creationists, I was just wondering what your thoughts are on him. Have you actually being following this thread?

I have a vague recollection of scientology as a blurred word while scrolling through Eel's tiresome verbiage but I never let it worry me. Which blogger? Is this like the one about the scientist who draws cartoons or plays the harmoniun? (ie anything to divert us from considering the actual science?)

[Abewest]

Originally Posted by elfcurry

My court analogy was about how the climate change evidence is assessed in the court of science. Worthless, ignorant opinions don't even get into the court, while science does. I can see that people desperate to be heard but with nothing useful to contribute would shout 'unfair'.

This gets even funnier from you. Deflection from the FOI issue we were previously discussing, a subject on which you've now donned the blinkers in order to ignore.

But no matter, it's par for the course. So similar question to you as to njp.Do you consider the IPCC an organisation that would pass your litmus test?

[Abewest]

Originally Posted by njp

We've seen what Ahab did in his earlier, hopelessly flawed work over a decade ago, which he still clings to with his remaining hand. He'll have done the same again, in even more tedious detail. I freely admit that I can't be arsed to read it (I prefer actual science), but I'm sure someone will get round to it eventually.

That's nice to know.

Here's someone else who prefers the "actual science".

"If you look in GeoRef, which is the bibliography for publications in geology, you will find 485 papers on the Medieval Warm Period and you'll find 1,413 on the Little Ice Age. So the total number of papers in the geologic literature is 1,900. And we're expected to believe that one curve [based on] tree rings is going to overturn all of those 1,900 papers? I don't think so."

Don Easterbrook

[njp]

Originally Posted by Abewest

Then argue the substance of what he's saying.

I'd have to be able to stay awake long enough. That man has been constructing huge mountains from tiny molehills and re-arranging angels on the heads of pins for many years. I long ago stopped taking anything he says seriously.

Do you consider the IPCC to be an unbiased source?

They are certainly biased against bad science, as they should be. If you are asking if I subscribe to the theory that they are part of a vast conspiracy to find anthropogenic influences where none exist then you will be unsurprised to learn that I don't.

Originally Posted by Abewest

Here's someone else who prefers the "actual science".

Don Easterbrook and "actual science" in the same sentence? We must be back on Planet Eel.

Why does the fool imagine that all those publications are contrary to the paleoclimate temperature reconstructions (of which of there are more than a dozen, not just one)?

[allaorta]

Originally Posted by elfcurry

My court analogy was about how the climate change evidence is assessed in the court of science. Worthless, ignorant opinions don't even get into the court, while science does. I can see that people desperate to be heard but with nothing useful to contribute would shout 'unfair'.

What would you like my analogy to be about?

Has Eel or have you posted a link to an honest neutral source? No. When you've done so I'll have a look.

I'm not displaying bias just looking for proper evidence and discarding dross from people like Watts who believe they have something which should be heard (or he won't get his cheque from Heartland this month).


I have a vague recollection of scientology as a blurred word while scrolling through Eel's tiresome verbiage but I never let it worry me. Which blogger? Is this like the one about the scientist who draws cartoons or plays the harmoniun? (ie anything to divert us from considering the actual science?)

The climate change evidence as expounded on here, would be asking a jury to accept that a rise in CO2 levels and a rise in temperature automatically assumed that the former caused the latter based on evidence put forward by a number of scientists but questioned by another group of scientists. No jury would be able to make a decision either way though a good lawyer might well question the IPCC motives.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by allaorta

The climate change evidence as expounded on here, would be asking a jury to accept that a rise in CO2 levels and a rise in temperature automatically assumed that the former caused the latter based on evidence put forward by a number of scientists but questioned by another group of scientists. No jury would be able to make a decision either way though a good lawyer might well question the IPCC motives.

No it wouldn't because that's not what it's about. The rise in temperature was predicted to follow a rise in CO2 long before it happened.