Some people get busy, some stay busy. A very busy examination of O'Sullivan's bona fides. From Andrew Skolnick here. (Numerous spelking errors, no doubt due to busyness.)

Skolnick v O'Sullivan in the court of blog comments and beyond. It seems clear O'Sullivan makes some shit up. 

From an affidavit filed with the BC Supreme Court in the endless war of the Mann suit. Fetched from this link.

Hi William. A quick and simple revision of GW some might like.

[ added image capture of video's attribution and text notes:

WSS ]

Hi Tony. John O'Sullivan's text-based storytelling left you cold. Here is a quick video of O'Sullivan on RT:

"Why would I want to offer commentary on Molyneux's 12-minute video-reduction of David Evan's 2012 article at Mises.org?"

Why offer comment at all?

"Graphs! -- this is from the Evans article. How is it holding up today?"

NB -- check the premises of the black line. "Do you understand the data-sourcing?"

16 hours ago, william.scherk said:

NB -- check the premises of the black line. "Do you understand the data-sourcing?"

No. Do you? I'm confused, since the lower note indicates a prediction and the note with an arrow indicates the subsequent reality.  

I don't think a US court would begin to entertain MM's lawsuit, hence Canada. These lawsuits get much better traction in British and Commonwealth countries than here.

In the broader sense it makes no difference what happens to MM and his phony science because the environmental left will never acknowledge how fraudulent he is without opening the door to its fraud about AGW aka CC.

--Brant

save the windmills!

save the solar panels!

save the Earth!

tax, tax, tax, tax, tax!

one head, one neck, one noose--modern environmentalism (courtesy of Ellsworth Toothey)

According to the Eco-Crazies the world as Perfect until humans came along.

Elsewhere, on the front porch, in the APS thread:

On 7/9/2017 at 0:41 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

On 7/8/2017 at 9:08 AM, merjet said:

Seconds ago I found only two more websites that have reported this. #1. #2. 

The author of #1 is the same as MSK's link.

The main-stream media's response has been the sounds of silence.

Merlin,

It looks like this triggered our dear William Scherk to post on his OL blog (see here).

The gist of his objection to this article (other than he and the people he likes believe that John O'Sullivan and Tim Ball are Looney-Tunes level for serious argumentation ) is that a person made a comment to the article on the Principia Scientific site asking why nothing was cited in the article from the British Columbia Supreme Court. 

The gist of my response above is "I think the lawsuit's progress is poorly reported by John O'Sullivan." Perhaps a problem of 'an unreliable narrator,' but for those who already know how the story ends. 

Incidentally, this is the nit of the dispute, from an interview with Tim Ball in early 2011:

On 7/11/2017 at 6:23 AM, Brant Gaede said:

I don't think a US court would begin to entertain MM's lawsuit, hence Canada. These lawsuits get much better traction in British and Commonwealth countries than here.

The British Columbia Supreme Court case involves a Canadian, Tim Ball. Hence, Canada.

The other Mann vs Truther suit is in the USA. It was based on the same notion that Mann was a proven fraud and belonged in prison. The defendants in that case have been whittled down but you may have seen it noted as Mann Vs Steyn.

On 7/11/2017 at 6:23 AM, Brant Gaede said:

In the broader sense it makes no difference what happens to MM and his phony science because the environmental left will never acknowledge how fraudulent he is without opening the door to its fraud about AGW aka CC.

This is spoken as if you were all-seeing arbiter of justice. That is fine and good and clairvoyant and I expect, just. Michael Mann belongs in prison for fraud, perhaps, but no charge has been laid (except by Ball and Steyn et al). It is that charge out of the mouth of Ball up for adjudication in BC. 

Your secondary clause "how fraudulent he is" puts the onus on you, here. The final implication is that AGW is fraud as well.  As with Michael pulling for Ball to prevail, this assigns to you the greater knowledge -- even though you are not able to articulate it. You can understand how that looks from an Objectivish point of view. 

My gist, again, is that Principia author and owner O'Sullivan is biased and untrustworthy as a narrator. 

*************

Tony dropped a video from Stephan Molyneux which was based on a 2012 article at Mises.org by David Evans. The graph is one of a set of three which make a comparison between James Hansen et al's forecasts and purported reality. The most noticeable thing about the map was the missing years post-2012 (the black line).  The video itself was published in 2013.

[I mark the gap]

On 7/10/2017 at 4:08 AM, merjet said:

On 7/9/2017 at 11:57 AM, william.scherk said:

"Graphs! -- this is from the Evans article. How is it holding up today?"

NB -- check the premises of the black line. "Do you understand the data-sourcing?"

No. Do you?

Yes. The black line source is as noted: "Data Source = UAH Monthly Mean Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomalies."

UAH stands for University of Alabama-Huntsville.  The 'Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomalies" are calculated estimates of temperature variance from a base-line, rendered from NASA/NOAA satellite measurements of radiance in the atmosphere (Wikipedia explanation). The latest version of the UAH product is 6.0 beta, explained in some technical detail at Roy Spencer's site.

Another temperature inference outfit is Remote Sensing Systems. You may occasionally see RSS products graphed, and sometimes graphed against UAH's output.

In any case, my imaginary quote was pointing to the comparison, and the excellence of fit. If you are familiar with Hansen et al (1988), or with Hansen's testimony to Congress, this graph will ring a bell:

What stood out for me were two things ...

Evans (2012) truncates the Hansen graph at roughly 1987. Evans compares "reality" as  UAH lower trophosphere anomalies rather than ground-temperature 'observed' temperatures.

[note 6 from Evans: Hansen's predictions were made in Hansen et al, Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 93, no. D8 (August 20, 1988), fig. 3a, p. 9,347: Global climate changes as forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies three-dimensional model. In the graph here, Hansen's three scenarios are graphed to start from the same point in mid-1987 — we are only interested in changes (anomalies).]

The thing is ...?  Why not compare 'observed' surface temperatures in the infamous 1988 projection graph  with observed surface temperatures since? I suspect that Evan's choice to use troposphere data (from UAH but not RSS) was designed to show a lack of fit. 

Finally, boringly, my quote implied that there was something missing -- the years of 'observed' temperatures since 2012. Would that Tony and then Molyneux and then Evans would update the graph and see how it works out. 

For a thorough shaking out of the varied Hansen Wuz Wrong arguments, see Skeptical Science, if interested:

What do we learn from James Hansen's 1988 prediction?

Here's a graph from the SkS article that may be a fairer illustration of the projection and observed reality. Of course this graph ended observations (HadCRUT, GISTEMP) early too!  

Ladies and gentlemen of OL can easily find the latest HadCRUT and GISTEMP graphs and fill in the blanks, for both the Evans and Schmidt offerings!

On 7/10/2017 at 4:08 AM, merjet said:

I'm confused, since the lower note indicates a prediction and the note with an arrow indicates the subsequent reality.  

I hope I have explained my comment sufficiently. Thanks for enabling discussion.

On 7/11/2017 at 8:43 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

According to the Eco-Crazies the world as Perfect until humans came along.

The 'Eco-crazies' is a weasel word, but in your usage means a whole lot of unnamed "Them." You will be pleased to know that there is some difference between Eco-crazy and Lukewarmer.  I give you a link to an alarming cover story from New York magazine. "Them" == Eco-crazy || "You" == Lukewarm.

You will be further pleased that the New York item was thoroughly rubbished as alarmist by, er, the man who "belongs behind bars for fraud," Mann, as well as the perhaps-also-deserves-jail Hansen, along with leading lights of climate change communication from John Cook to Eric Holthaus.

On 7/9/2017 at 11:57 AM, william.scherk said:

"Graphs! -- this is from the Evans article. How is it holding up today?"

NB -- check the premises of the black line. "Do you understand the data-sourcing?"

I noted the source of the "Subsequent Reality" data (the UAH lower trophosphere anomaly calculations from satellite radiosonde readings), and I noted that the "Reality" data ended with 2012.

Here is a graph derived from UAH, with the data extended a bit (in the yellow box). 

A central problem with the David Evans graph combining 1988 predictions (of surface warming) with later UAH trophosphere reanalysis is that the baselines of both elements are subtly altered. In other words, on the vertical axis 0.0 reflects neither baseline.

This is the latest release from UAH ... 

I truncate it to the "window" provided by Evans. The area under the arrow is the area covered by his graph at Mises.org.

On 7/12/2017 at 11:29 AM, william.scherk said:

On 7/11/2017 at 8:43 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

According to the Eco-Crazies the world as Perfect until humans came along.

The 'Eco-crazies' is a weasel word, but in your usage means a whole lot of unnamed "Them." You will be pleased to know that there is some difference between Eco-crazy and Lukewarmer.  I give you a link to an alarming cover story from New York magazine. "Them" == Eco-crazy || "You" == Lukewarm.

I noted that the alarming New York magazine was critiqued by various "alarmist" climate scientists Some of the most pointed critiques were provided by Climate Feedback contributors. Here's a screenshot sample of the annotated article.

-- subsequent to the formal and informal feedback, the New York magazine mavens annotated the original article itself with over a hundred fresh footnotes. Apparently, either the doom-laden article alone, or the concerted attention, or both, brought millions of readers to the article. I'd like to see if our cool hand Lukewarmer would comment ...

It has been a sprint to put this together, but here is the fully annotated and footnoted version of my climate story https://t.co/o5q4dgbsW6

— David Wallace-Wells (@dwallacewells) July 14, 2017

Meanwhile in British Columbia, the firefighting effort continues. About 20,000 people are out of their homes. An expensive crisis ...

Looks like the back of a C-130 transport plane with the military (HALO [high altitude low opening]) skydivers already departed.

Cargo and paratroopers (static line) go out at about 1200' above ground level.

--Brant

8 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Looks like the back of a C-130 transport plane with the military (HALO [high altitude low opening]) skydivers already departed.

Cargo and paratroopers (static line) go out at about 1200' above ground level.

--Brant

That brings back memories.  Back in 1990 I was on a software contract out in Colorado where (1)  I learned how to fly a glider [I earned a solo licence] and (2)  I learned how to parachute jump (the lessons cost me a bundle).   Now why would I do that?  I wanted to see if Einstein was right.  After taking many lessons and training I did a jump from about 8000 feet. For somewhere between 5 and 10 seconds I felt nothing (no pull toward earth).  I was more like the ground was coming to me.  Then I began to feel air resistance  and then I opened the chute and air drag did its thing.  I am here to tell you about it.

I wanted to see if Einstein was right, that gravitation is NOT a force, like magnetism or electrical attraction.   Einstein was right.  I achieved my goal and I never jumped again.   The idea of jumping out of a perfectly functional airplane is insane. But curiosity is a strange thing....

From http://globalnews.ca/news/3598230/bc-wildfire-map-cities/

2 hours ago, william.scherk said:

From http://globalnews.ca/news/3598230/bc-wildfire-map-cities/

Fires have alway burned forests.  That is how we get new growth. 

21 hours ago, william.scherk said:

New York magazine mavens annotated the original article itself with over a hundred fresh footnotes. Apparently, either the doom-laden article alone, or the concerted attention, or both, brought millions of readers to the article. I'd like to see if our cool hand Lukewarmer would comment ...

Fail.

6 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Fires have alway burned forests.  That is how we get new growth. 

"Fires have always burned forests" in BC. That is true.  This wildfire season is the worst in ten years, in terms of destruction, worse in terms of getting control of them. 

As for new growth, the primary process is tree-planting, in BC. Regardless, the losses this year are already immense, the personal property destruction is not yet calculable as some evacuated areas are still under smoke cover.

-- I realize you have your own interests, but have you read the New York article or associated critiques, or both? I thought the story might give you a new hook to hang your hat on, in terms of eco-crazies ... if not an opportunity to comment.

Since photos bring up memories and/or axioms, here is another couple.