APS and the Global Warming Scam

[BaalChatzaf]

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

It's a simple "yes or no" question.

Actually it is NOT a simple yes or no. It is a question based on an assumption.

The two simple questions are:

1. have you ever beaten your wife?

2. have you stopped beating your wife?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Wolf DeVoon]

This has already been addressed in the thread earlier. The Medieval Warm Period was restricted to parts of the north hemisphere, while the global temperature overall was lower than today.

You know this for a fact how? - does the Maunder Minimum mean anything to you?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

It's a simple "yes or no" question.

Ellen's questions were not loaded.

Nowhere near the stop beating your wife question.

Nice try again...

But here.

Let's do the AGW truther answer to a question like that--answers like you give:

Q: Have you stopped beating your wife?

A: There's a problem with what you mean by beat, which is definitely not the same as beet. I thought everyone knew that.

Besides, according to the latest statistics of the UN International Wife Beating Commission (the IWBC), the increase in Saudi Arabia... er... ooops... I meant, for the sake of simplicity, here, I mean here's something better, the Key Findings in the 2014 WOMEN’S LIVES AND CHALLENGES: Equality and Empowerment since 2000 report from the United States Agency for International Development.

key findings

While there have been improvements in some areas, overall

progress towards women’s empowerment and gender

equality is halting and inconsistent. Women worldwide

continue to face special challenges throughout their lives,

even though some countries—for example, Cambodia,

Nepal, and Rwanda—have made great strides toward

gender equality.

Resources for empowerment are distributed unequally

between women and men, but women have made gains

in education, employment, health care, and family life.

• Access to primary education is expanding

worldwide; in Cambodia and Nepal, which have made

the greatest progress, the proportion of young women

with primary education has more than doubled since

2000. Yet there are still 16 countries where less than half

of women age 15-24 have finished primary school. More

men than women can read and have completed primary

school in nearly every country surveyed.

• Over half of women are employed in 33 of 45

countries surveyed, but men are not only more likely to

be employed than women, but also more likely to be paid

in cash for the work they do.

• At least half of births take place in health facilities

in the majority of countries, and the proportion is also

rising in most countries. Cambodia, Egypt, Nepal, and

Rwanda have experienced the greatest improvements

across all maternal health indicators. Yet more than half

of women still face barriers to accessing health care in

most countries.

• Teenage pregnancy has declined modestly in many

countries. In 36 of 47 countries, less than 25% of women

begin childbearing before age 20. Yet child marriage—

that is, marriage before age 18—persists in many

countries. More than 40% of women marry before age

18 in 16 of 47 countries surveyed, including 3 countries

where more than 60% of women marry before age 18:

Bangladesh, Guinea, and Mali.

Women’s control over their own lives shows some

encouraging trends, but substantial gender gaps remain.

• Women generally do not play a major role in

household decision making although participation levels

have been rising, notably in Armenia, Kenya, Lesotho,

and Nepal. Only in 12 of 43 countries surveyed do more

than two-thirds of women participate in household

decision making.

• At least 90% of married employed women have

a say in how their own cash earnings are used in 29 of

44 countries. Far fewer women have a say in how their

husbands’ earnings are used.

• Less than half of currently married women use

modern contraception in 37 of 46 countries. Since 2000,

modern contraceptive use has plateaued or increased

modestly in most countries. Rwanda is an exception, with

an increase of 40 percentage points in 10 years.

• More than one-quarter of recent births are

unplanned in 26 of 46 countries. Change has been

minimal, except in Burkina Faso and Cambodia.

Violence in women’s lives remains disturbingly common,

and progress has been limited.

• More than one-third of married women have

experienced physical and/or sexual violence at the hands

of an intimate partner in 14 countries. While levels of

violence have fallen in some countries, they have risen in

others.

• Female genital cutting remains a problem for many

women in Africa. In 6 of 14 countries, more than 60% of

women were cut. Data on trends in eight countries show

only modest declines.

• Most women who experience violence do not

seek help, and there has been little change since 2000.

Colombia has the highest rate of help-seeking while

Cambodia has made the greatest progres

Everything you want to know about your question is in there. It couldn't be clearer if you melted it into glass.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

One note: The link to the quote above is here. I don't want to copy/paste the damn thing without giving correct attribution.

I didn't put the link in the post because it is so rare people who resort to this kind of argument do.

Also, don't expect them to format the copy/paste, check for chop-offs, capital letters, etc. These are busy people cracking the intellectual barriers of mankind and they cannot be concerned with trifles.

And for the record, the proper response would have been to call it a loaded question. They never do, though. The craving to show off their intellectual copy/paste and obfuscation talents overwhelms them before they even grok what the question is.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

This has already been addressed in the thread earlier. The Medieval Warm Period was restricted to parts of the north hemisphere, while the global temperature overall was lower than today.

You know this for a fact how? - does the Maunder Minimum mean anything to you?

I suspect she has no idea of what sunspots are or do. I further suspect she has no notion of the variable energy output of our Sun.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Jonathan]

It's difficult to answer your questions because answering them would require me to give you an entire course on statistics, specifically with regard to regression analysis, and on top of that I'm using a simplified example to explain very complicated and subtle concepts. But I guess I can try anyway:

When climate scientists report that "greenhouse gasses explain at least 50% of the variation in temperatures with 95% certainty", what that means is that, we can expect that 95% of the time, if a model (that accounts for only ghgs) predicts that the temperature will go up by 1 degree, then the observed temperature increase will fall within at most a 50% range of that prediction , i.e. between 0.5 and 1.5 degrees.

If the observed temperatures in reality don't fall within that range, are you saying that the model which predicted temperatures within that range is therefore falsified, or is it still just a "minor discrepancy"?

See, it would be nice if you would actually answer my questions, rather than bluffing and blustering while avoiding them. I have to wonder why you refuse to answer the questions. Is it because you know that once you actually identify precisely what you mean by "minor discrepancies" versus observations which would falsify a given model, then we can begin to apply your own stated standards to the "consensus scientists'" models, at which point you'd have to try to explain why so many of them are outside of your own stated acceptable range?

So, once again, the unanswered questions are: What standards are you using to judge a "discrepancy" to be "minor" versus "major," and, more importantly, how large can a "discrepancy" be before it would count as falsifying an AGW model. How far off from reality could AGW models be in their predictions before you would classify the models as falsified? Yes or no, if a model fails to "explain at least 50% of the variation in temperatures with 95% certainty," has that model therefore been falsified? If your answer is "no," then which observations in reality would falsify the model?

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

I don't see why any of this is relevant. post #258 makes my position clearer than I ever could have by myself. If you disagree with any of the claims made there, then say which ones and why, and we can have a debate.

You've twice changed what your "position" supposedly is, the second time to endorsement of material you hadn't read when you confidently claimed that "AGW" has been proven, is subscribed to by every "reputable" climate scientist, is supported by thousands of peer-reviewed articles and countered by none. Do you even acknowledge yet that, no, your "position" - in any of its sequential versions - isn't subscribed to by every "reputable" climate scientist?

As to the IPCC Summary Report - I'll have to look through it again to double check, but I think there isn't anything in it with which I agree.

I have no interest in a debate with you, however, just in correcting some of the things you say.

I want to address a particular statement you made in the beginning part of post #258, the part which you wrote yourself, and I might address some other issues later. Meanwhile, I have a quarrel with something Mr. Kolker said.

Back in a bit.

Ellen

[Jonathan]

But here.

Let's do the AGW truther answer to a question like that--answers like you give:

Q: Have you stopped beating your wife?

A: There's a problem with what you mean by beat, which is definitely not the same as beet. I thought everyone knew that.

Besides, according to the latest statistics of the UN International Wife Beating Commission (the IWBC), the increase in Saudi Arabia... er... ooops... I meant, for the sake of simplicity, here, I mean here's something better, the Key Findings in the 2014 WOMEN’S LIVES AND CHALLENGES: Equality and Empowerment since 2000 report from the United States Agency for International Development.

key findings

While there have been improvements in some areas, overall

progress towards women’s empowerment and gender...

equality is halting and inconsistent. Women worldwide

continue to face special challenges throughout their lives,

even though some countries—for example, Cambodia,

Nepal, and Rwanda—have made great strides toward

gender equality.

Resources for empowerment are distributed unequally

between women and men, but women have made gains

in education, employment, health care, and family life.

• Access to primary education is expanding

worldwide; in Cambodia and Nepal, which have made

the greatest progress, the proportion of young women

with primary education has more than doubled since

2000. Yet there are still 16 countries where less than half

of women age 15-24 have finished primary school. More

men than women can read and have completed primary

school in nearly every country surveyed.

• Over half of women are employed in 33 of 45

countries surveyed, but men are not only more likely to

be employed than women, but also more likely to be paid

in cash for the work they do.

• At least half of births take place in health facilities

in the majority of countries, and the proportion is also

rising in most countries. Cambodia, Egypt, Nepal, and

Rwanda have experienced the greatest improvements

across all maternal health indicators. Yet more than half

of women still face barriers to accessing health care in

most countries.

• Teenage pregnancy has declined modestly in many

countries. In 36 of 47 countries, less than 25% of women

begin childbearing before age 20. Yet child marriage—

that is, marriage before age 18—persists in many

countries. More than 40% of women marry before age

18 in 16 of 47 countries surveyed, including 3 countries

where more than 60% of women marry before age 18:

Bangladesh, Guinea, and Mali.

Women’s control over their own lives shows some

encouraging trends, but substantial gender gaps remain.

• Women generally do not play a major role in

household decision making although participation levels

have been rising, notably in Armenia, Kenya, Lesotho,

and Nepal. Only in 12 of 43 countries surveyed do more

than two-thirds of women participate in household

decision making.

• At least 90% of married employed women have

a say in how their own cash earnings are used in 29 of

44 countries. Far fewer women have a say in how their

husbands’ earnings are used.

• Less than half of currently married women use

modern contraception in 37 of 46 countries. Since 2000,

modern contraceptive use has plateaued or increased

modestly in most countries. Rwanda is an exception, with

an increase of 40 percentage points in 10 years.

• More than one-quarter of recent births are

unplanned in 26 of 46 countries. Change has been

minimal, except in Burkina Faso and Cambodia.

Violence in women’s lives remains disturbingly common,

and progress has been limited.

• More than one-third of married women have

experienced physical and/or sexual violence at the hands

of an intimate partner in 14 countries. While levels of

violence have fallen in some countries, they have risen in

others.

• Female genital cutting remains a problem for many

women in Africa. In 6 of 14 countries, more than 60% of

women were cut. Data on trends in eight countries show

only modest declines.

• Most women who experience violence do not

seek help, and there has been little change since 2000.

Colombia has the highest rate of help-seeking while

Cambodia has made the greatest progres

Everything you want to know about your question is in there. It couldn't be clearer if you melted it into glass.

Heh. That is exactly the method that the Frantic Tard uses. Hilarious!

:-)

J

[Jonathan]

Where's Frantic Tard?!!

J

[Wolf DeVoon]

So, once again, the unanswered questions are: What standards are you using to judge a "discrepancy" to be "minor"...?

They're in a tough spot. Solar Cycle 24 wasn't in the model. I happened to be in Copenhagen on other business during the IPCC AR4 confab when a lot of current thinking (?) and expenses were negotiated. Militant AGW street protestors had to be treated for frostbite.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

This has already been addressed in the thread earlier. The Medieval Warm Period was restricted to parts of the north hemisphere, while the global temperature overall was lower than today.

You know this for a fact how? - does the Maunder Minimum mean anything to you?

From reconstructions of global surface temperatures here.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

It's difficult to answer your questions because answering them would require me to give you an entire course on statistics, specifically with regard to regression analysis, and on top of that I'm using a simplified example to explain very complicated and subtle concepts. But I guess I can try anyway:

When climate scientists report that "greenhouse gasses explain at least 50% of the variation in temperatures with 95% certainty", what that means is that, we can expect that 95% of the time, if a model (that accounts for only ghgs) predicts that the temperature will go up by 1 degree, then the observed temperature increase will fall within at most a 50% range of that prediction , i.e. between 0.5 and 1.5 degrees.

If the observed temperatures in reality don't fall within that range, are you saying that the model which predicted temperatures within that range is therefore falsified, or is it still just a "minor discrepancy"?

See, it would be nice if you would actually answer my questions, rather than bluffing and blustering while avoiding them. I have to wonder why you refuse to answer the questions. Is it because you know that once you actually identify precisely what you mean by "minor discrepancies" versus observations which would falsify a given model, then we can begin to apply your own stated standards to the "consensus scientists'" models, at which point you'd have to try to explain why so many of them are outside of your own stated acceptable range?

So, once again, the unanswered questions are: What standards are you using to judge a "discrepancy" to be "minor" versus "major," and, more importantly, how large can a "discrepancy" be before it would count as falsifying an AGW model. How far off from reality could AGW models be in their predictions before you would classify the models as falsified? Yes or no, if a model fails to "explain at least 50% of the variation in temperatures with 95% certainty," has that model therefore been falsified? If your answer is "no," then which observations in reality would falsify the model?

J

Yes, at the 95% level.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

I don't see why any of this is relevant. post #258 makes my position clearer than I ever could have by myself. If you disagree with any of the claims made there, then say which ones and why, and we can have a debate.

You've twice changed what your "position" supposedly is, the second time to endorsement of material you hadn't read when you confidently claimed that "AGW" has been proven, is subscribed to by every "reputable" climate scientist, is supported by thousands of peer-reviewed articles and countered by none. Do you even acknowledge yet that, no, your "position" - in any of its sequential versions - isn't subscribed to by every "reputable" climate scientist?

As to the IPCC Summary Report - I'll have to look through it again to double check, but I think there isn't anything in it with which I agree.

I have no interest in a debate with you, however, just in correcting some of the things you say.

I want to address a particular statement you made in the beginning part of post #258, the part which you wrote yourself, and I might address some other issues later. Meanwhile, I have a quarrel with something Mr. Kolker said.

Back in a bit.

Ellen

I have not changed my position, just made it clearer. My position has always been that the mainstream climate scientists are right about AGW, any differences in wording merely reflect my own understanding and knowledge of that position (which definitely isn't perfect). That's why I made post #258.

[Wolf DeVoon]

This has already been addressed in the thread earlier. The Medieval Warm Period was restricted to parts of the north hemisphere, while the global temperature overall was lower than today.

You know this for a fact how? - does the Maunder Minimum mean anything to you?

From reconstructions of global surface temperatures here.

Pretty sad. Relied on East Anglia. Data caveats. Interpretation caveats.

Worse: they concede "Peak multidecadal warmth centered at A.D. 960 (representing average conditions over A.D. 940–980) in this case corresponds approximately to 1980 levels (representing average conditions over 1960–2000)."

Busted flush, honey.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

This has already been addressed in the thread earlier. The Medieval Warm Period was restricted to parts of the north hemisphere, while the global temperature overall was lower than today.

You know this for a fact how? - does the Maunder Minimum mean anything to you?

From reconstructions of global surface temperatures here.

Pretty sad. Relied on East Anglia. Data caveats. Interpretation caveats.

Worse: they concede "Peak multidecadal warmth centered at A.D. 960 (representing average conditions over A.D. 940–980) in this case corresponds approximately to 1980 levels (representing average conditions over 1960–2000)."

Busted flush, honey.

I suppose you have better data then?

[Ellen Stuttle]

Bob,

There are details in your posts which have had me wondering for some while if you're unaware that there's a current issue of "What happened to the warming?" You talk as if possibly you think that the "average global mean temperature" is still increasing.

Here are two examples from the current thread:

[....] The question is how much of the warming is due to natural drivers and how much to human activity. No one denies that CO2 has an effect [on] atmospheric temperature, but how much does CO2 concentration determine the average atmospheric temperature?

[....]

There is no doubt that there has been a warming of atmosphere and oceans as evidenced by the shrinking of the Greenland glacier and the decrease of floating ice in the arctic. No one is arguing these facts. The entire dispute is over the causes of these changes. Is the cause mostly human activity, in particular, man made effluence of CO2 or do other causes, in particular natural causes account for what we see. Clearly human activity has some influence on the warming, but -how- much-???

And see for an example from an earlier thread which you started and titled "How to deal with Global Warming."

On that thread you posted as "a solution to the problem" an idea for cloud seeding which could have the dangerous result of starting an ice age.

Plus you reference "the shrinking of the Greenland glacier and the decrease of floating ice in the arctic" as your evidence.

Where are you getting your Greenland and Arctic information?

Are you aware that local isn't global, and that there hasn't been evidence of "average global temperature" increase in some 15-17 years?

(Also, a minor point, but for the sake of accuracy: It isn't true that "No one denies that CO2 has [an] effect on atmospheric temperature." There are some few (percentagewise among the disputants) who claim that there's no such phenomenon as a "greenhouse effect," either the atmospheric misnamed effect or in an actual greenhouse.)

Ellen

[Wolf DeVoon]

This has already been addressed in the thread earlier. The Medieval Warm Period was restricted to parts of the north hemisphere, while the global temperature overall was lower than today.

You know this for a fact how? - does the Maunder Minimum mean anything to you?

From reconstructions of global surface temperatures here.

Pretty sad. Relied on East Anglia. Data caveats. Interpretation caveats.

Worse: they concede "Peak multidecadal warmth centered at A.D. 960 (representing average conditions over A.D. 940–980) in this case corresponds approximately to 1980 levels (representing average conditions over 1960–2000)."

Busted flush, honey.

I suppose you have better data then?

I defer to Judith Curry at Georgia Tech

[SoAMadDeathWish]

I defer to Judith Curry at Georgia Tech

Well then where's her data?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have not changed my position, just made it clearer. My position has always been that the mainstream climate scientists are right about AGW, any differences in wording merely reflect my own understanding and knowledge of that position (which definitely isn't perfect). That's why I made post #258.

THIS is so illustrative of the AGW truther mentality.

When called on specifics and contradictions in the AGW truther's own statements, they finally admit they believe whatever the "mainstream climate scientists" say (whatever the hell a mainstream climate scientist is), AND CALL THAT CLARITY.

They go from specific measurements and definitions to general mush for scientific reasoning.

"Whatever those dudes say is what I believe."

Is that science or faith?

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

Congressional testimony quoted on Judith Curry's blog

Richard Tol

The link to Tol’s testimony is [here]. Key points:

• Academics who research climate change out of curiosity but find less than alarming things are ignored, unless they rise to prominence in which case they are harassed and smeared.
• People volunteer to work for the IPCC because they worry about climate change.
• Governments nominate academics to the IPCC – but we should be clear that it is often the environment agencies that do the nominating.
• All this makes that the authors of the IPCC are selected on concern as well as competence.
• The IPCC should deploy the methods developed in business management and social psychology to guard against group think.
• Not all IPCC authors are equal. Some hold positions of power in key chapters, others subordinate positions in irrelevant chapters. The IPCC leadership has in the past been very adept at putting troublesome authors in positions where they cannot harm the cause. That practice must end. This is best done by making sure that the leaders of the IPCC –chairs, vice-chairs, heads of technical support units – are balanced and open-minded.
• A report that is rare should make a big splash – and an ambitious team wants to make a bigger splash than last time. It’s worse than we thought. We’re all gonna die an even more horrible death than we thought six years ago. Launching a big report in one go also means that IPCC authors will compete with one another on whose chapter foresees the most terrible things.
• In learned journals, the editor guarantees that every paper is reviewed by experts. IPCC editors do not approach referees. Rather, they hope that the right reviewers will show up. Large parts of the IPCC reports are, therefore, not reviewed at all, or not reviewed by field experts.
• We need an organization that is not beholden to any government or any party to anchor climate policy in reality as we understand it. A reformed IPCC can play that role.

Michael Oppenheimer

The link to Oppenheimer’s testimony is [here]. Excerpts:

IPCC has performed an important service to governments and the general public by assessing the scientific literature, determining the consensus and range of expert views on critical questions, collaborating with governments to state those findings clearly and succinctly in the Summaries for Policymakers, and aiming to widely disseminate its reports. By and large, IPCC has been a highly successful experiment in science-policy interaction. But the interface of science with the intergovernmental process presents pitfalls, including contentiousness over the final products of the process. The best solution to this difficulty is to further increase transparency, both procedural and substantive. Furthermore, IPCC needs to lighten the burden it creates for the scientific community and its author-experts in particular. At the same time, it can sharpen its products and target them at issues of immediate interest. Finally, IPCC’s procedures for carrying out the assessment process need a thorough study and review in order to assure that they are as effective as possible. The world needs an IPCC and IPCC needs to continually improve its performance to meet that need. Our ability to appropriately deal with the risk of climate change depends on it.

My own recommendations for changes to IPCC procedures are as follows:

• More frequent but briefer reports.
• Increase transparency.
• Make the intergovernmental part of the process more accessible.
• Experiment with more formal approaches to assessment.

Daniel Botkin

The link to Botkin’s testimony is [here]. Key points:

I regret to say that I was left with the impression that the reports overestimate the danger from human-induced climate change and do not contribute to our ability to solve major environmental problems. I am afraid that an “agenda” permeates the reports, an implication that humans and our activity are necessarily bad and ought to be curtailed.

My biggest concern about the reports is that they present a number of speculative, and sometimes incomplete, conclusions embedded in language that gives them more scientific heft than they deserve. The reports, in other words, are “scientificsounding,” rather than clearly settled and based on indisputable facts. Established facts about the global environment exist less often in science than laymen usually think.

THE REPORT GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT LIVING THINGS ARE FRAGILE AND RIGID, unable to deal with change. The opposite is to case. Life is persistent, adaptable, adjustable.

There is an overall assumption in the IPCC 2014 report and the Climate Change Assessment that all change is negative and undesirable; that it is ecologically and evolutionarily unnatural, bad for populations, species, ecosystems, for all life on planet Earth, including people. This is the opposite of the reality.

The extreme overemphasis on human-induced global warming has taken our attention away from many environmental issues that used to be front and center but have been pretty much ignored in the 21st century.

Roger Pielke Sr

The link to Pielke’s testimony is [here]. Summary of main points:

Summary of my Main Points

• The 2013 IPCC WG1 report and the 2014 US National Climate Assessment present a set of projections from global and downscaled regional climate models as the basis for projecting future societal and environmental impacts, offered as a guide to the future for decision makers.
• However, these projections may not be reliable guides to the future. In fact, we are unable to accurately quantify their reliability. The IPCC and NCA did not adequately discuss the skill run in hindcast predictions over the last several decades when fossil fuel emissions, and other climate forcings, are actually known.
• Except for limited exceptions the models cannot accurately represent over the last several decades the temporal evolution of major atmospheric circulation features over multi-decadal time periods such as El Niño and La Niña, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the North Atlantic Oscillation. These major factors determine which regions have drought, floods, tropical cyclone tracks, and other societally and environmentally important weather events.
• The models have an even greater challenge in accurately predicting changes in the statistics of these major atmospheric circulation features over multi-decadal time scales.
• The IPCC and NCA needs to more accurately report the importance of these model limitations, that were available to them in the peer reviewed literature. By not alerting them to these limitations, they are giving decision makers who face decisions at the regional and local level a false sense of certainty about the unfolding climate future.

RP Sr also appended his Minority Statement on the AGU Policy Statement on Climate Change (discussed previously at Climate Etc. here).

Press Release

The Press Release from the House Committee states:

A distinguished panel of experts involved in the IPCC and National Climate Assessment process unanimously stated that the science of climate change is “not settled,” as the President and others often state unequivocally.

Witnesses also discussed how the Obama administration’s regulatory agenda will negatively impact the economy with little to no impact on global temperature. One analysis used IPCC assumptions and found that if the U.S. stopped all carbon dioxide emissions immediately, the ultimate impact on global temperature would only be 0.08 degrees Celsius by 2050.

JC comments

All four witnesses were excellent choices, and all did a very good job with their testimony. Readers of Climate Etc. are probably familiar with the views of Tol and Pielke (whose views have been featured at CE and who occasionally show up to comment). I am familiar with Oppenheimer’s views, and included some in my Uncertainty Monster paper. I was hitherto unfamiliar with Botkin, whose views I found particularly interesting. Of greatest significance, I view all 4 testimonies as non-normative, with none of the hysterical ideology about ‘urgent action needed’ that typically characterizes the testimony of witnesses for the Democrats. None of the 4 held extreme positions on the IPCC (and none were as negative on the IPCC as I am).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I defer to Judith Curry at Georgia Tech

Well then where's her data?

Here maybe?

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/onlinepapers.html

And the home page of her site:

http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/

All it takes is a little goodwill to search...

(My post crossed with Wolf's.)

Michael

[SoAMadDeathWish]

I have not changed my position, just made it clearer. My position has always been that the mainstream climate scientists are right about AGW, any differences in wording merely reflect my own understanding and knowledge of that position (which definitely isn't perfect). That's why I made post #258.

THIS is so illustrative of the AGW truther mentality.

When called on specifics and contradictions in the AGW truther's own statements, they finally admit they believe whatever the "mainstream climate scientists" say (whatever the hell a mainstream climate scientist is), AND CALL THAT CLARITY.

They go from specific measurements and definitions to general mush for scientific reasoning.

"Whatever those dudes say is what I believe."

Is that science or faith?

Michael

Michael,

You don't understand even the basics of the science involved. You don't even show any attempt to understand it. You don't contribute positively to the discussion in the slightest. You openly admit that you're doing nothing but trolling this thread. You adopt the least charitable interpretation of whatever I say just to get a dig at me. You plug your fingers into your ears and go "the reader can judge for himself!" when your misunderstandings are pointed out to you, and then you grasp at whatever even seems to remotely kind of sort of look like it supports your preconceived beliefs.

Honestly, you are the last person here who should be opining on whether or not something is science or faith.

PS: I never said that I believe whatever the "mainstream climate scientists" say, just that they're right about AGW.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You adopt the least charitable interpretation of whatever I say just to get a dig at me.

I don't agree with the rest of your characterizations (I've come up with some pretty good stuff on this thread), but I do agree with this.

I'm glad you noticed because, after watching you do this over and over to others, I told you this is exactly what I was going to do. I even had to repeat it a few times for you to understand it.

And I'm doing it.

Does that irritate your highness?

Michael

btw - I intend to keep doing it...

[Ellen Stuttle]

Congressional testimony quoted on Judith Curry's blog

Richard Tol

The link to Tol’s testimony is [here]. Key points:

• Academics who research climate change out of curiosity but find less than alarming things are ignored, unless they rise to prominence in which case they are harassed and smeared.

LOL. It does tend to be like that. Not invariably but often.

Ellen

[SoAMadDeathWish]

You adopt the least charitable interpretation of whatever I say just to get a dig at me.

I don't agree with the rest of your characterizations, but I do agree with this.

I'm glad you noticed because, after watching you do this over and over to others, I told you this is exactly what I was going to do. I even had to repeat it a few times for you to understand it.

And I'm doing it.

Does that irritate your highness?

Michael

Really, when have I ever done that except in your imagination?

Before you said you got tired of these types of discussions because they degenerated into mudslinging, and that you would prefer for the forum to not degenerate into "kindergarten level" discussion. There's a lot of good arguments made by both sides here, even if the discussion gets a little pointed at times, but what you're doing is counterproductive, not only to others, but to everything you said you wanted.

If you want to express your opinion on how terrible and stupid and deluded "AGW truthers" are, why not make your own thread about it? This is the Science and Mathematics subforum, I assume it's called that because it's for people who want to discuss math and science. If you wanna piss on people you don't like, then the politics subforum is for you.