New “evidence” for global cooling?

The climate change pseudo-sceptics/deniers/contrarians are at it again – claiming the earth is cooling. This time their “evidence” is the extent of ice in the Arctic ice cap. Of course they have to cherry pick the data. The MailOnLine (see Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions ) declares:

“A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.”

And

“Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.”

You can “prove” anything with statistics, can’t you? Suitably cherry picked of course.

To save you the trouble of searching out the real situation for yourself Skeptical Science provides us with Arctic Escalator. This puts the MailOnLine “evidence” into context. (Animated gif – if it doesn’t work for you click to show the graphic.)

ArcticEscalator2012_med

Don’t believe everything you read on these climate pseudo-sceptic/denier/contrarian web sites.

Similar articles

About these ads

134 responses to “New “evidence” for global cooling?

  1. psuedo-sceptics/deniers/contrarians

    1) “psuedo”. It is spelled “pseudo”. (Ouch, and that in your first sentence! Tip: Compose in Word and use Spell Checker if it’s a problem.)

    2) “psuedo-sceptics/deniers/contrarians” : The function of the scientific method is to question everything. If you cannot handle evidence that is not supportive of your belief, you’re better off in Church. Calling people names demotes you from being a scientist to a religious zealot defending a religion. Real scientists respect their “opponents” and take the evidence they present, into account to test their own theories.

    (In fact, the best scientists second-guess their favourite theories daily.)

    Just saying. Remember your own slogan: “The mind doesn’t work if it’s closed.”

    Like

  2. Always appreciate my mistakes being picked up, gipsika. I will correct the spelling tomorrow when I get back on my PC.

    Can’t understand your point 2. Surely the escalator graph shows what is wrong with cherry picking one or 2 annual points. It has nothing to do with my specific “beliefs” – except of course in the scientific ethos of honesty.

    Lately I have been using the collection “pseudo-sceptics/denied/contrarians” because I am aware people do not like to have a single label which may be inappropriate attached to them. It is not name calling – just an attempt to cover the sort of people who do this sort of cherry picking.

    Perhaps you are offended I did not use the word sceptic? I don’t use that because all scientists are sceptics and the fact that some people who oppose the science for political reasons appropriate the word for themselves is offensive in itself. I am a sceptic – but I don’t cherry pick.

    I agree with you about testing ones own hypotheses and second-guessing favourite ideas. Quite used to that thanks.

    Now, if you think I have been scientifically wrong in this post please let me know the specifics. Should I not have referred to the data in the escalator? Should I have only used the newspaper data? What was wrong scientifically?

    Or are you offended that I did use the whole data set rather than cherry picking?

    Always frustrating when I get criticised without the critic giving any specifics.

    Like

  3. LOL, Ken – sorry man, I have to apologize. I fell into a trap – attacking the wrong subject! We agree on a lot of things, and in fact I believe the larger the amount of evidence one looks at, the more one has that one can work with. I was actually following a link to your blog, by someone who attacked me (calling me all the same names that are designed to wipe questioners off the table instead of investigating their questions), so, yes, I guess I reacted to your calling people who question, “pseudo-sceptics/denied/contrarians” by throwing you in the same pot of people who name-call instead of presenting evidence.

    I’m not sure where you sourced that graph? I’ve seen others that show no significant “trend” since 2500 BC. Ups and downs aplenty, but no specific “trend”. However, that doesn’t mean that there is no trend, only that the evidence to both sides is to be examined and questioned carefully.

    I find it a bit weird though that the first thing I encounter on a blog representing open-mindedness, is name-calling. Wouldn’t it be better to use a phrase such as “those who question current scientific theories”, if you really don’t want to use the word “sceptic”? Because “pseudo”-anything is in fact name-calling. ;-)

    Like

  4. … also remember: Galileo Galilei was a “denialist” of the flat-earth theory.

    Like

  5. Gipsika, denialism is a recognised phenomena – one we all are prone to. Denial of unpleasant or unacceptable science is also a common feature of today’s politics. Sure, it is calling a spade a spade, and some people don’t like it. But so what?

    By the way, you have Galileo back to front. He was the one with the evidence.. The church was in denial for ideological reasons. I think that parallels the situation with those people today who oppose the science of evolution and climate change. They are in denial about the science. It is also true, I am finding out, of those who attack fluoridation. They are denying the science..

    The term of course does not apply to scientists who have evidence in biologic or climate issues which is different to that obtained by the majority. These people can play a very important role in moving science forward – sometimes. They are not deniers.

    Like

  6. Well I’m relieved you’re not calling those with actual contrasting evidence “deniers” (that would be the general trend indeed).

    But: You still have me backwards. I’m not denying; I’m questioning. If a scientific theory cannot stand up to questioning, there’s something wrong, right? If it does have answers, questioning should result in evidence presented.

    So calling a questioner a denier, is placing oneself in the category of “defender” (or zealot).

    Konrad Lorenz, who was a respected biologist in Germany, said that his “PT” in the mornings consisted of throwing his favourite theory overboard and then trying to find enough valid arguments to actually allow himself to entertain it again.

    As for denying actual evidence, …

    I don’t understand Climate Gate. Why would there have been a need for falsifying data if the data are overwhelming evidence of the climate change in the first place?

    Like

  7. and btw the establishment of his day would have disagreed with you about Galilei. “Scientific consensus”, you see.

    Like

  8. I am not calling a questioner a denier – you have it arse about face. Questioning is fundamental to scientific progress.

    Interesting you call the “establishment” in Galileo’s time “scientific”. I don’t agree

    Like

  9. I somehow doubt they’ll be calling our scientific establishment “scientific” in 200 years from now, either… ;-)

    Like

  10. Well, as long as you’re not relying on old and factually wrong opinion pieces in the Telegraph on which to base your conclusions gipsika…

    Like

  11. Nah, I’m not. I looked at 2 satellite pics in the “Daily Mail UK”. Mainstream, I must admit; who knows where they sourced these pics and if they were deceived. Could even be DTP generated, if one looks at it from that angle. Which throws a question on all images and other “evidence” available online… (have you watched “The Truman Show”?)

    Like

  12. You may be right, gipsika, but I hope it is because we have made progress, not gone back to a religious establishment as some people desire.

    Like

  13. I agree. And you do need to admit (or maybe you don’t need to) that a lot of today’s “science” is more profit-based than anything else. There are always economic interests behind this result or that, interpretations get twisted in many different ways (which does indeed complicate matters), all I can say is, remember Guayak Wood.

    Like

  14. … There is in fact a contingent that asserts (vehemently) that the moon landing in ’69 was a hoax.

    This is not impossible (improbably, but not impossible). By what evidence can we actually prove the moon landing did take place? Who attended, along with the astronauts? What if it was a good Hollywood production?

    (It would presuppose greater skills and less incompetence than was the standard… improbable, not impossible)

    Like

  15. No, don’t remember Gauyak Wood. Of course science operates in a social and economic environment. But it also uses an approach which goes some way to resist such pressures. Not perfect of course.

    Trouble is that argument gets used by ideologically motivated people who wish to deny or reject good science. I don’t have much respect for it, for that reason. Having said that I have experienced some of the legal and economic pressure which prevented me, for a time anyway, from publishing findings – so I understand the problem.

    Like

  16. “who knows where they sourced these pics and if they were deceived.”

    Interesting point, one that I suspect Moon Landing conspiracy theorists and 9/11 Troofers will wholeheartedly agree.

    Like

  17. Which leaves my question dangling – why did they need to pull Climate Gate?

    Guayak Wood: In the 1600′s when syphilis was imported to Europe from America, a certain group of people started importing the Native American “remedy”, Guayak wood. This wood was considered the remedy for syphilis, by the medical profession.

    It was Paracelsus who commented (probably tongue-in-cheek anyway) that Guayak wood had only one purpose – to enrich the importers.

    For which they forbade him to publish anything further in his town – he had to move.

    It’s an incident that repeats all the time, through history (and sadly, also these days). People don’t like getting their profits curbed by questioning.

    Like

  18. LOL Andrew, my point exactly.

    If the Daily Mail uses tampered or fake pics to bring false evidence that the polar cap has recovered, that would be… fraud, right?

    We cannot rule it out.

    But presupposing it is somewhat… conspiracy theorist, would you agree?

    But wait – wait – I’m arguing for the wrong team now… :-D

    Like

  19. There was nothing in Climate Gate other than a couple of phrases taken out of context, and people acting defensively against a feared (actual) smear campaign.

    Like

  20. For those interested, Climategate was primarily about getting access to the raw data around the paleo climatic reconstructions around the so called Hockey Stick of Michael Mann,

    There were a few sub plots around temperature series based on surface stations, but the paleo stuff was the crux of the matter.

    Like

  21. I want to thank you both for a wonderful debate. :-D I have to let you in on something now, hope you won’t be too mad.
    I’m gipsika. I play devil’s advocate, arguing on all sides. This is in order to draw out debate. I am indeed passionate about the freedom of asking and doubting. But whatever comes up, is good, as long as it’s honest. I can see you both are quite honest and do try to see all sides of things. That is lovely and was the aim of the debate.

    And yes, I do change direction in mid-air – not to confuse people (that too); but to look at all angles. One cannot say that one has looked at all angles if one takes a viewpoint. Right? (Evidence is like a volcanic eruption: you never know on which side it will bubble up. The only thing that irks is people trying to twist the actual evidence.)

    Like

  22. @ Andy: Oh. I was wondering who’d be gaining from it! :-D

    Like

  23. With regard to the Arctic sea ice decline, this, I think, is the graph that most clearly shows the trend in recent decades:

    Like

  24. Didn’t see your reference to Climategate. Surely you aren’t taken in by that rubbish, are you?

    Like

  25. Well, if you consider that anything online might or might not be tampered, invented or photoshopped – why should one dismiss one piece of the puzzle over another?

    Like

  26. I didn’t read the Mail argument that the recent increase of sea ice was evidence of global cooling. As Ken wrote, the word “and” between the two quotes, not “therefore”

    David Rose was pointing out that the BBC were wrong in their earlier claim that the arctic would be ice free by 2013 , and that as a second point, that some scientists are predicting a cooling phase for several decades due to solar effects.

    This was quite clear to me, but might confuse others, perhaps.

    Like

  27. The climate change psuedo-sceptics/deniers/contrarians are at it again – claiming the earth is cooling. (…) The MailOnLine(…) declares:

    Gosh, that’s a shock. Not. Who could have predicted that the announcment that Earth is cooling (thereby overturning many decades of scientific research, covering all the Earth Sciences) came from…a newspaper?
    (…slow hand clap…)
    It’s always the same. Newpapers, blogs, pundits on TV, some aging nutter with a solitary paper in some obscure Journal, etc.
    The deniers never learn. They never slow down and go “Hang on, this didn’t work out so well last time. Am I really going to swallow this again? Maybe I should check out the NASA website before duitifully bleating on cue?”
    Halfwits.

    Climategate? That didn’t go so well for the deniers.
    All sizzle. No steak.

    6. Climate Change — Those hacked e-mails

    Like

  28. This has even made it to the European Parliament with Nigel Farage waving the NASA pictures at Mr Barosso

    (at about 2:30)

    To give him credit, he did use the primary source of information (NASA – they have a website too), and not the Daily Fail

    Like

  29. “…waving the NASA pictures at Mr Barosso…”

    It’s a shame he didn’t actually bother to read the NASA website.
    NASA can explain their own pictures quite well. No middle men are required.
    It’s still just you versus NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    Reality is not your friend.

    http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/arctic-sea-ice-update-unlikely-to-break-records-but-continuing-downward-trend/

    Like

  30. It’s still just you versus NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    Reality is not your friend.

    it’s not me making these claims. It is pseudo sceptic/contrarian/denier/eurosceptic/MEP/UKIP Leader/ Nigel Farage and Journalist/ pseudo sceptic/contrarian/denier David Rose who are making these claims

    Not me.

    Like

  31. Well, Andy, I find that when investigating a claim, it helps to go back to the original source material. There seem to be a few discrepancies between what the Mail says the BBC said and what the BBC actually said. Original article is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

    Like

  32. Well, Andy, I find that when investigating a claim, it helps to go back to the original source material

    So what actually was the original claim? Seems fairly clear to me.

    Like

  33. So what actually was the original claim? Seems fairly clear to me.

    Finding out what the original claim means going back to the original source. When you do that, then yes, it becomes very clear. NASA is usually very clear indeed.
    Reality is not your friend.

    NASA on Arctic Sea Ice

    Like

  34. Finding out what the original claim means going back to the original source.

    The original source in this case was the BBC. They made the claim,
    The BBC made the claim that the Arctic would be ice free by 2013.

    The BBC are the “Primary Source of Information”

    Is NASA involved in a secret conspiracy with the BBC to feed them lines? Does this involve Alex Jones and 9/11?

    Questions need to be asked

    Like

  35. Erm, no, Andy. The BBC relayed a claim by one team of scientists (as a possibility), and included other scientists’ views. Those other scientists took a more conservative view (though with some concern admitted).

    Not exactly “this will definitely happen” territory. I would be a tad curious what prediction Wadhams might have made at the time, since “much sooner than 2040″ is decidedly on the vague side. As of a year ago, he was saying by 2015-16, which certainly looks on the aggressive side to me.

    Like

  36. The BBC are the “Primary Source of Information”

    Andy? This will come as a shock to a gullible tool like you but the BBC is a media outlet. It doesn’t actually do any science itself. It just reports it. So, it can’t be the primary source of information about arctic ice unless it was just making it up by itself.
    Getting your science information from a blog or the TV or a newspaper is stupid. Very, very stupid.
    I never do that.
    My standards are much higher.
    That’s because I’m smart and well educated.
    I get my science information from the actual scientific communities that do the work. They have websites. On the Internet.
    NASA, Andy.
    Say it with me slowly…N…A…S…A.

    Arctic Sea Ice Update: Aug 2013

    Like

  37. The BBC are a primary source of information. They made the claim, on their website that the arctic would be ice free by 2013
    They were wrong.

    It’s no use trying to blame someone else. They are the publicly funded propaganda bureau of the British Goverment, and should know better.

    Climate alarmists should learn to make statements that are untestable and not falsifiable.
    You think they would have been briefed on this by the 28 non experts who advised them on their climate change media policy.

    Like

  38. Actually quite a good video that Cedric posted. As he said at 5:14, the sea ice in Antarctica has been increasing in recent years, but it is “different” to the Arctic.

    Yes indeed

    Like

  39. The BBC are a primary source of information.

    They don’t do any science, Andy. They only report it.
    Stop being so thick.
    Primary sources, yeah? It’s not just a pretty phrase. Look it up.

    As he said at 5:14, the sea ice in Antarctica has been increasing in recent years, but it is “different” to the Arctic.

    Well, duh.
    They’re on opposite sides of the planet and operate under different conditions. They’re two different systems. It’s wrong to conflate the two.

    “The steady and dramatic decline in the sea ice cover of the Arctic Ocean over the last three decades has become a focus of media and public attention. At the opposite end of the Earth, however, something more complex is happening.

    A new NASA study shows that from 1978 to 2010 the total extent of sea ice surrounding Antarctica in the Southern Ocean grew by roughly 6,600 square miles every year, an area larger than the state of Connecticut. And previous research by the same authors indicates that this rate of increase has recently accelerated, up from an average rate of almost 4,300 square miles per year from 1978 to 2006.

    “There’s been an overall increase in the sea ice cover in the Antarctic, which is the opposite of what is happening in the Arctic,” said lead author Claire Parkinson, a climate scientist with NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. “However, this growth rate is not nearly as large as the decrease in the Arctic.”

    The Earth’s poles have very different geographies. The Arctic Ocean is surrounded by North America, Greenland and Eurasia. These large landmasses trap most of the sea ice, which builds up and retreats with each yearly freeze-and-melt cycle. But a large fraction of the older, thicker Arctic sea ice has disappeared over the last three decades. The shrinking summer ice cover has exposed dark ocean water that absorbs sunlight and warms up, leading to more ice loss.

    On the opposite side of the planet, Antarctica is a continent circled by open waters that let sea ice expand during the winter but also offer less shelter during the melt season. Most of the Southern Ocean’s frozen cover grows and retreats every year, leading to little perennial sea ice in Antarctica.”
    (From NASA of course)

    Like

  40. Imagine this phone call, (hypothetical of course)

    A: Hi Mum, it’s Andy
    M: Oh Andy, I just saw something on the BBC about climate change…

    (awkward silence)
    A: Mum, you are clearly a moron. The BBC are not a primary source of information. I don’t get my information from the no name TV channel called the BBC. I go straight to the source. I go to NASA.
    Everytime.

    M: Oh, that’s great advice Andy.How do I get this information?

    A: That’s a great question my moronic Mum! You just use this new fangled internet thing and log onto the NASA website. They have all the information laid out for you!

    M: But Andy, you know I am not that good at this internet thing. Do I have to make tweeting sounds?

    A: No Mum, tweeting is for Twits. Twitter is not a primary source of information. We can use a search engine to search for primary sources of information.

    For example, you type “google” into Google to find google, and then type “primary source of information” next, and then hit “I’m feeling lucky”, and you will find all about Arctic Sea Ice and Polar Bears. It is really that simple, even for old codgers like you!

    M: Oh thanks Andy, you are so smart, and I am so proud of you.

    Bzzzz…hangs up

    Like

  41. NASA Cheerleaders, they really exist

    Like

  42. Again, no, Andy. The BBC reported, in 2007, on the claim made by a particular team of scientists that the arctic might be ice-free by 2013. So far as I’m aware, they have never reported that claim since. By contrast, certain parties seem veritably obsessed with it, as if the fact that the BBC reported the claim, and it hasn’t happened, somehow invalidates the whole premise of global warming.

    Which, I have to say, does appear to be your position. Why else accuse the BBC of being a government-funded propaganda bureau? Do you have some ideological objection to the idea of public broadcasting? Or is it purely that the BBC does not seem to give much credence to your personal beliefs on this issue, and so must be vilified?

    Like

  43. There does seem to be a more in-depth criticism of the Mail article available, for peoples’ interest: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions

    Like

  44. Why else accuse the BBC of being a government-funded propaganda bureau? Do you have some ideological objection to the idea of public broadcasting?

    Yes, I object to public funded broadcasters taking a political position on a topic, as the BBC do on many issues.

    As you may know, they were advised by 28 “experts” on climate change to no longer present any other view other than the alarmist narrative.

    When blogger Tony Newbury asked for the names of these 28 “experts”, he was refused under Chatham House rules. The BBC employed 6 lawyers to defend themselves.
    Later, Mauriztio Maurabito (omnologos) uncovered then names of these 28 “experts”, and found that about 2 of them were actual climate scientists, of the alarmist persuation. The rest were Greenpeace people, members of various other NGOs, and people with interests in carbon trading.

    The BBC also take a biased view on the EU, on middle east politics, the NHS and other issues

    Like

  45. There does seem to be a more in-depth criticism of the Mail article available, for peoples’ interest: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/09/climate-change-arctic-sea-ice-delusions

    Oh, a no-name loss making newspaper called “The Guardian”, a hopelessly biased rag that is aligned very much with the BBC.

    Do we get our information from no name newspapers like the Guardian, with articles written by activists like Dana Nuticelli? No, we get our information from NASA

    I will say it slowly.

    N..A..S..A

    Primary Sources of Information

    Like

  46. Well then, Andy, considering your newfound regard for NASA, are you prepared to accept their research on the topic of global warming? Because if so, I think that constitutes a pretty solid victory for Cedric.

    Personally, I’d say that the Guardian article is pretty damning on journalistic grounds, even discounting the science. Misrepresentation of sources, fabrication of non-existent IPCC “crisis meetings,” that kind of thing. Decidedly unprofessional behaviour. At least there doesn’t seem to be any question about whether the people the BBC spoke to actually said the things they attributed to them.

    Additionally, no, Andy, I am not aware of your “28 scientists” claim. Would you care to provide a source for these statements, so that I can assess whether it is in fact true, and what the context is?

    Like

  47. Interesting that Dana Nutticelli, who is not a climate scientist and works for an environmental consultancy in the pay of a shale gas company, writes this of Prof Judith Curry, who is a climate scientist


    Finally, both articles quoted climate scientist Judith Curry claiming that the anticipated IPCC statement of 95 percent confidence that humans are the main cause of the current global warming is unjustified. However, Curry has no expertise in global warming attribution, and has a reputation for exaggerating climate uncertainties. In reality, the confident IPCC statement is based on recent global warming attribution research. More on this once the IPCC report is actually published – any current commentaries on the draft report are premature.

    So they smear an actual climate scientist (a reputation for…), and we are supposed to believe that we are more confident now, after 17 years of no surface warming, than we were 5 years ago, that humans are the main cause of the global warming of the late 20th C

    Even a person that was dropped on his head as a child can see that these claims are complete rubbish.

    Like

  48. Additionally, no, Andy, I am not aware of your “28 scientists” claim. Would you care to provide a source for these statements,

    yes I can, you can use Google to search for “28 gate”, but I am not sure if NASA wrote about it so I can’t vouch for any of the no name blogs

    There are 400,000,000 results on Google for “28 gate”. Not sure which are “primary sources of information” though.

    If you can’t find any PSI then we can safely assume that the 400,000,000 websites that mention 28 gate are just fake

    Like

  49. Actually, Andy, I expect something a bit more concrete than “Google it.” After all, you’re confident enough to repeat the claim. Surely you’ve got an unimpeachable source behind it?

    Calling it “28 gate” doesn’t exactly strengthen your case. Appending -gate to the end of something tells me only that whoever came up with it is looking to try and stir up sentiment by invoking Watergate. Generally, in my experience, such comparisons are not warranted. See, for instance, “Fluoridegate”.

    Like

  50. http://climateaudit.org/2012/11/13/bbcs-best-scientific-experts/

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100189491/28-gates-later-the-bbcs-nightmare-gets-worse-and-worse/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/12/breaking-the-secret-list-of-the-bbc-28-is-now-public/

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/11/25/28-gate-still-running.html

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/james-delingpole/8758121/heres-a-bbc-scandal-that-should-really-make-you-disgusted/

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/19/the_virus_that_ate_the_bbc/

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/11/bbc-secret-exposed-greenpeace-activists-bp-decide-what-sciencebrits-see-hello-twentyeightgate/

    As you can see, no “Primary Sources of Information”

    Therefore it doesn’t exist

    We only read information from Primary Sources of information

    Take NASA for example, they are a primary source of information.

    Do NASA know about “28 gate”?

    No, of course not

    Therefore, it doesn’t exist

    Do you exist Chris? Do you have a “primary source of information” to prove that you are not a script?

    Does NASA have a record that you exist?
    Primary Sources of Information

    Everytime

    Like

  51. Wow, Andy, bloggers. Including Watts, I see. What an excellent collection of unbiased information you’ve come out with. Sod-all chance of getting something resembling actual context behind the claims running wild, then.

    Looks more like sour grapes that the BBC has apparently come to the conclusion that your side doesn’t merit being taken seriously. Naturally, anyone who gave them advice to this effect is highly suspect and it’s all a grand conspiracy on somebody’s part.

    But hey, the BBC’s just a media outlet. As long as you’ve got scientific institutions and peer-reviewed research on your side, you can overcome this setback. Oh, wait, you don’t actually have that. Could be that was a factor in the BBC’s reasoning.

    Like

  52. Wow, Andy, bloggers. Including Watts, I see. What an excellent collection of unbiased information you’ve come out with. Sod-all chance of getting something resembling actual context behind the claims running wild, then.

    A fairly predicable response Chris.

    You could actually go back and check the records. Tony Newbury did actually fight a legal battle against the BBC. They actually did employ 6 lawyers (at taxpayers expense) to prevent Newbury getting that info.

    And Mauritizio did actually find the info on the wayback machine.

    So the BBC do not get all their info from “peer reviewed science” as you claim, they get it from activists like Greenpeace and other NGOs.

    But what is the point? You are just another useful idiot, dutifully supporting the government and the “consensus”, shaking your pom poms like those “science cheerleaders” in the video I posted.

    Primary Sources of Information

    NASA

    Everytime

    Like

  53. Here is one of Tony Newbury’s posts on the BBC affair.

    http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=607&doing_wp_cron

    Like

  54. Interesting that Dana Nutticelli (..) writes this of Prof Judith Curry, who …

    It may send a thrill up your leg.
    Personally, I don’t care.
    Nuttucelli or Curry are of no interest to me at all.
    Never once mentioned them.
    Science is not about personalities. It’s about the work. That’s all that matters.
    I don’t care about Duesberg or Wakefied or Bill Kaysing or Jim Berkland or Duane Gish either.

    NASA? Ah. Now you have my attention.
    The CSIRO? All ears.
    The British Antarcitic Survey? Bring it on.
    The Royal Society? Fine.
    They do the work.
    Any and every single scientific community on the planet. They are all good.

    As you can see, no “Primary Sources of Information”

    There’s your problem. Every single source of information you listed is second-hand. Blog, newspaper, blog, blog, newspaper, blog and yet another blog. Your methodology sucks.

    “The BBC reported blah, blah, blah…”

    I don’t care. The BBC (just like any media outlet) can get their science reporting hopelessly confused. It happens to the best of them.
    Primary sources of information is the only way to go.
    If climate deniers strictly used only primary sources of information, then their little dog-and-pony show would fade away very quickly.
    The no-name blogs have to somehow inject themselves into the story. Their spin, their framing. They act as middlemen and the gullible meekly accept it.
    The cigarette companies did the same thing to the medical community.
    The fluoride nutters do the same thing.
    Creationists? Same thing.
    (What kind of an idiot would let a creationist tell them about biology in the first place?)

    Skip the middlemen.
    Go straight to the source. That’s the smart thing to do.

    Identify Primary Sources

    Like

  55. Primary Sources of Information

    Quite Pavlovian responses from Cedric

    Like

  56. So just to remind ourselves, this is a blog post about a newspaper making a claim about a TV channel

    Not Primary Sources of Information

    Time to have a beer I think, it is that time of a Friday

    Like

  57. Not Primary Sources of Information

    Yes, exactly.
    Primary source. It’s not going to change any time soon.
    Any university student can tell you the same. Get thee hence to a local libriary.
    When I want to know about cancer, I’ll go direct to the medical community.
    I won’t use some blog.
    When I want to know about climate change, I’ll go directly to NASA.
    I won’t use some blog.
    Not even Ken’s.
    If Ken put up something scientific that ran counter to the vast body of peer-reviewed research, then he would have some explaining to do.
    That’s the way it should be.

    What is a primary source?

    Like

  58. It’s a cracker eh?
    Never gives up.

    Cedric the Duracell kid
    Got to admire the persistence

    Like

  59. Well, Andy, where primary sources of information are available, and you suspect a media outlet (whether traditional or social) might be getting things wrong, you’re really better off going to the primary source. Certainly if I see anything in the media which seems outlandish, I’ll do some checking.

    In regards to the BBC specifically, where you’re running into difficulties in this conversation is that you’ve started from the viewpoint that you don’t like the outcome. That is, the BBC having a pro-climate science editorial position. Consequently, you’re working your way backwards to try and justify your position.

    Whereas the people you’re talking to observe that, yet again, you’re banging the anti-climate change drum, trying to convince us of the rightness of your viewpoint by attacking the messenger. Which is, as Cedric has noted, a bit of a waste of time if our response to any potential issues with the BBC’s presentation of the science is simply to go back to primary sources and find nothing to challenge our understanding of the science.

    Like

  60. There are plenty of peer-reviewed papers out there that don’t support the dangerous AGW meme. It’s just that they never get reported.

    The media is hopelessly biased towards the alarmist position.

    Like

  61. Oh dear, Andy, you seem to be confused. You do grasp that papers which do not take a position on global warming one way or another do not constitute evidence against global warming, right?

    I believe you’ll find the situation is that there are lots of peer-reviewed papers providing supporting evidence for global warming, lots which do not take a position on the matter (ie no evidence one way or another), and sod all which take a position against global warming.

    Like

  62. Oh dear, Andy, you seem to be confused

    Yes, I am confused, I need help. I am psychologically damaged goods
    Er, so if a paper supports that mainly ENSO, or solar, or whatever, is the major driver of climate, not CO2, then this doesn’t change the position on CO2
    This is because 97% of scientists agree that CO2 is the problem

    We all agree with everyone else
    We all use Primary Sources of Information to agree with everyone else

    Primary Sources of Information
    Take NASA, for example, they are a Primary Source of Information

    9% of scientists agree that Primary Sources of Information are the only source of Primary Sources of Information. We all agree about this

    Everybody

    Primary Sources of Information

    Like

  63. and sod all which take a position against global warming.

    When you say “global warming” what exactly do you mean? Do you mean AGW with high climate sensitivity? (ECS/TCS)

    Please use Primary Sources of Information in your considered response

    Like

  64. It’s not going to help you, Andy.
    Chris is quite correct. His take works quite well with any mainstream position in science.
    Take Evolution for example…

    “You do grasp that papers which do not take a position on The Theory of Evolution one way or another do not constitute evidence against Evolution, right?
    I believe you’ll find the situation is that there are lots of peer-reviewed papers providing supporting evidence for Evolution, lots which do not take a position on the matter (ie no evidence one way or another), and sod all which take a position against Evolution.”

    Goodness me, it works perfectly.
    Let’s try another one.

    “You do grasp that papers which do not take a position on tobacco smoke and cancer one way or another do not constitute evidence against tobacco causing cancer, right?
    I believe you’ll find the situation is that there are lots of peer-reviewed papers providing supporting evidence for tobacco causing cancer, lots which do not take a position on the matter (ie no evidence one way or another), and sod all which take a position against tobacco causing cancer.”

    Yep, looks pretty good.

    This is because 97% of scientists agree that CO2 is the problem.

    Very true. Just ask NASA about that 97% number.

    When you say “global warming” what exactly do you mean?

    A better question would be to ask is what do the working scientists from all the scientific communities on the planet (including NASA) mean when they say “global warming”.

    Please use Primary Sources of Information in your considered response

    It’s not hard, Andy. Using primary sources of information to find out stuff about science is quite easy.
    It’s not some hippie trick made up to fool you.
    Educated people at universities do this all the time.
    Libraries, yeah? Actual research?

    Which bring us to NASA.
    NASA, Andy.
    They have a website. There’s no need to be deliberately thick.
    What’s in a Name? Global Warming vs. Climate Change (Yes, again it’s from….NASA)

    The media is hopelessly biased…

    No, Andy. Not “the media”. Only an idiot would get their science information from the media. Primary sources, remember?
    NASA, Andy, NASA.
    It’s you versus NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    It sucks to be you.

    Like

  65. No I agree Cedric, only suckers get their information from the media
    All those stupid people watching TV and reading newspapers and blogs and magazines. They waste their lives in train stations, airports, in offices and in homes.

    They should be in libraries reading primary sources of information, diligently combing through citation indexes, dutifully taking notes in the margin.

    We should all do this, but people watch perverted videos of Miley Cyrus making love to a piece of steel.

    They should cut loose from this decadence and spent more time with the most important part of life

    primary sources of information.

    In libraries

    Like

  66. No I agree Cedric, only suckers get their information from the media.

    Being thick, won’t help you Andy.
    Only an idiot would get their >>>science information<<< from the media. Primary sources, remember?
    The media makes mistakes all the time on science reporting.
    There are all sorts of basic reasons why.
    Smart people use primary sources of information wherever possible.
    There’s no good reason to rely on some blog or other when you’ve got scientific communities like NASA to go to.
    There no need to settle for second-hand scientific info.

    Why the media screw up science Part 1: Sources

    Like

  67. Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions )

    Yep, this P.R.A.T.T. will never go away.
    Never.
    It will be endlessly recycled. A continuous zombie echo throughout the blogosphere. No doubt some goober will show up weeks from now and breathlessly announce how Arctic blah, blah 60% blah, blah 2013 blah etc.
    I can practically guarantee it.
    Fact checking is a mystery to them.

    Fortunately, there’s a simple, no-nonsense demonstration on how to fact check this particular P.R.A.T.T.
    Even Andy should be able to grasp the methodology used.
    It’s not that hard and it’s useful for any other PRATT from any other scientific issue out there.

    Latest myth from the Mail on Sunday: Arctic ice has returned

    Like

  68. David Rose has another article on climate

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Global-warming-just-HALF-said-Worlds-climate-scientists-admit-computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html

    He mentions the IPCC, which he claims have admitted their projections are wrong.

    The IPCC are not a primary source of information and therefore should be ignored.

    In fact, some of the climate scientists mentioned in the article seem to agree with this.

    Like

  69. Some would say Rose should be ignored!

    Like

  70. according to the commenters at the Guardian, some think that Rose should be killed by his own children

    Like

  71. I wonder what his children think? They must at least be embarrassed.

    Like

  72. I wonder what his children think? They must at least be embarrassed.

    Embarrased for what? Telling the truth?

    Judith Curry, mentioned in the article, claims that he is basically sound.

    Like

  73. She would, wouldn’t she?

    Like

  74. She would, wouldn’t she?

    Yes, she is a climate scientist, unlike you, Ken

    Like

  75. And unlike the vast majority of climate scientists. I probably classy her as a contrarian.

    Like

  76. Ken, so you classy her as a contrarian because she dares to speak the truth against the “consensus”..
    It is interesting to ask how long this charade can continue.
    What will be your excuse when this great “Berlin Wall” of pseudo-science finally collapses Ken?

    Will you still be screeching “denier, denier” as the firing squad takes aim?

    Like

  77. You guys are into “firing squads” are you?

    Like

  78. By the way Ken, what does classy someone as a “contrarian”? What criteria are required to classy someone with this moniker?

    How does someone classied as a “contrarian” differ from someone classied as a “pseudo-sceptic”, or a “denier”?

    What do you classy yourself as Ken?

    Like

  79. You guys are into “firing squads” are you?

    It was a figure of speech Ken.
    Just as the 10-10 campaign showed schoolchildren being killed by explosion for not lowering their carbon footprint, this was a metaphor, not literal.
    Similarly, when the Guardian reader suggested that David Rose’s children should kill him, they were being subjective

    Like

  80. (* rolls eyes *)

    Like

  81. A metaphor for what?

    Like

  82. A metaphor for what?

    I don’t know Ken.
    If I make a video showing schoolchildren being executed by their teacher, by blowing them up, I assume it a metaphor.
    I assume that they are not literally suggesting that children should be murdered by their teacher.

    They are being subjective.
    They are saying “we need to take action now, otherwise we will all die, and if you don’t agree we will kill you”

    Metaphorically speaking, that is

    Like

  83. Okay, Andy, so what is your own ‘firing squad’ statement a metaphor for?

    Like

  84. Answering a question with a question.
    Just asking a question is a common form of trolling known as “JAQing off”.
    Just asking a question…..

    What is my “firing squad a metaphor for”?
    What is the 10-10 murder video a metaphor for?
    What did the commenter on the Guardian mean when he thought David Rose’s children should kill him?

    When the climategate emailer said “if it turns out to be just multi-decadal variability, they’ll probably kill us”, what did they mean?

    I am interested that those that follow the scriptures according to Lord Mann seem quite keen on killing people. I guess it is like any religious cult.

    Like

  85. Andy, if you’re going to rant about firing squads for your ideological opponents, people will call you on it. As the person who made the statement, it is up to you to justify it. Now, I don’t think you truly believe it’s going to happen, or that it’s a serious threat, but that doesn’t mean you’re using it as a metaphor by default.

    Rather, it looks like simply another instance of petty nastiness on your part, likening Ken to one of the undesirables who you would like to purge come the Revolution. Oh wait, that is a metaphor. Not exactly a flattering one, considering you’ve cast yourself in a Stalinist role, but objection withdrawn.

    Like

  86. Yes Chris, I am the bad guy.
    I was just thinking back to the time that my grandfather was facing a bullet in the back of his head. He was in a camp in Prague in WW2. A Russian soldier took pity on him and told him to run.

    You see Chris, my family have been subjected to the same kind of scum-sucking vermin that are pushing the eco-fascist agenda, so you’ll have to forgive my occasional lapses of politeness

    Like

  87. Of course, it is OK for genuine People ™ to frighten children and threaten to kill them.
    Genuine People ™ are trying to save the planet

    Genuine People ™ use Primary Sources of Information

    Like NASA

    They have a website

    Primary Sources of Information

    Everytime.
    N..A..S..A

    Like

  88. And yet, here you are, talking about firing squads for people you don’t like. Your grandfather would be so proud.

    Trying to palm off your behavior on the basis that other people say silly things or produce silly videos too isn’t an excuse, you know.

    Like

  89. I am really sorry Chris. I apologise unreservedly to Ken, a Genuine Person ™ who is honestly trying to represent the science using Primary Sources of Information ™, like NASA, for example.
    My lapse of judement is unforgiveable

    Like

  90. I accept your apology. Try not to do it again.

    Like

  91. Yes sir, *doffs cap*

    Like

  92. Andy, it’s not your conclusions that the problem.
    It’s the way you get there. Your methodology.

    There are all kinds of nutters out there promoting pseudo-science.
    It’s possible to objectively identify them because they fall into certain, predictable patterns. Their arguments are not just similar but, in many cases, exactly the same.
    If you want to paint us as the real deniers then then just saying “NU UH! YOU!!” won’t work. Feel free to take our methodology and apply it to to the fluoride people, for example. Only it won’t work.
    You could try the same thing with the creationists too.
    Again, it would fail.
    On the other hand, it works very well with…you.
    Only the labels are different.

    Yes, she is a climate scientist, unlike you, Ken

    Claim CA118:
    Many arguments may be discounted because they were put together by amateurs who are not scientifically qualified.

    Yes, Wakefield is a doctor, unlike you.
    Yes, Bill Kaysing is an engineer, unlike you.
    Yes, Dembski is a mathematician, unlike you.
    Yes, Duesberg is a medical researcher, unlike you.

    Hmm.

    You have to Ken, so you classy as a contrarian because she dares to speak the truth against the “consensus”..

    Wakefield, Kaysing, Dembski and many, many more are in opposition to the consensus. It’s the standard Galileo Gambit. Just because the world is against you, doesn’t mean you are doing something right. Just ask Charlie Manson.

    It is interesting to ask how long this charade can continue.

    The problem is that the conspiracy of maintaining this “charade” is gigantic.
    It’s everywhere. It’s been going on for decades. It’s led by NASA.
    Conspiracies don’t usually work like that.
    In fact, they never do.
    If you are going to convince smart people that they should ignore NASA and every single scientific community on the planet because they are all involved in some vast, all-powerful charade…then you have to demonstrate how it works at some minimal level.
    When did it start?
    That would be helpful information. Even a rough date would be better than nothing. If you could name the decade, at least, then that would be something to work with. The 30′s, the 50′s, the 70′s. the 90′s? Take your pick.
    Who’s running it? Is it NASA?
    Either they are the dupes or they are leading it. Perhaps NASA secretly controls the CSIRO, for example. Only they’d have to have a way of controlling them.
    Does NASA give the journal Nature their marching orders?
    Ok but again…how?
    And that’s just one other science community and just one science journal.
    You’ve got all the other ones on the planet to deal with.
    What about them?
    There’s no way it could work.

    What will be your excuse when this great “Berlin Wall” of pseudo-science finally collapses Ken?

    Claim CA110:
    Evolution is a theory in crisis; it will soon be widely rejected.

    Peering into your crystal ball and wishing hopefully for vindication is not very scientific. Creationists do that all the time. It doesn’t work for them either. In science, only the work counts.

    If you don’t wan’t be be treated as a kook, then stop acting like one.
    Lift your game. Change your methodology.

    Like

  93. Judith Curry is a climate scientist. She has written papers that have been included in IPCC reports. She has done widely cited work on hurricanes

    So how does this make me look like a kook, exactly?

    Like

  94. So how does this make me look like a kook, exactly?

    Because of what you are doing. Your methodology.
    You are choosing scientist “x”.
    A creationist chooses scientist “y”.
    A fluoride nutter chooses dentist “z”.
    Same dog. Same fleas.

    If you do it that way, then the nutters out there are justified in doing it that way too. If you don’t want to be put in the same box as them, then find out how they go about propping up their viewpoint and…do the opposite.
    Stop using their playbook.

    I don’t fixate stubbornly on single scientists. Ken doesn’t. Not even a small group of scientists. I leave that to the HIV deniers and the 9/11 Troofers.

    If you reject the scientific consensus, you have to have a rock-solid reason to do so. If you stand on one side and on the other side there’s NASA and every single scientific community on the planet…then you have to be really, really sure that you are not falling into the same trap as the creationsts and all the rest of ‘em.
    A scientific consensus doesn’t just happen. It’s the result of work. Lots and lots and lots of work.
    You can overturn a consensus but…that requires (again) more work.
    The payoff is not more blog hits.
    The payoff is a Nobel Prize.

    Vast, global, scientific conspiracies can’t physically work. They’d be impossible to set up and keep together.

    Think about how you go about arguing for your position. Look at the sources you use and ask youself why you chose those particular ones.
    It’s all about your methodology.
    There’s a better way.

    Science Works! How the Scientific Peer Review Process works

    Like

  95. If you bothered to read the article, and the response from the Met Office, then you might actually have some idea what it is about.

    Climate science isn’t a true/false assertion. It is a very complex topic and there are many different theories about different aspects of the climate system.

    There isn’t one right answer and one wrong answer

    Like

  96. You seem to be unwilling to look at your methodology.

    “Evolution isn’t a true/false assertion. It is a very complex topic and there are many different theories about different aspects of biological systems.
    There isn’t one right answer and one wrong answer.”
    “The possible link between lung cancer and tobacco isn’t a true/false assertion. It is a very complex topic and there are many different theories about different aspects of the cancer.There isn’t one right answer and one wrong answer.”
    “HIV research isn’t a true/false assertion. It is a very complex topic and there are many different theories about different aspects of the immune system.
    There isn’t one right answer and one wrong answer.”

    Again, I ask you to look at what you are doing.
    Why scientist “x”?
    If you choose “x” then the creationist gets to choose scientist “y”, right?

    Why article “A”?
    If you choose “A” then the Troofer gets to choose article “B”.

    You are making the same methodological mistakes as they do.
    Science doesn’t work that way.
    Science denialism, however, works that way all the time.

    Like

  97. As you may know, the key question is: “what is the sensitivity of the climate to external forcing”?, and more specifically, “what is the sensitivity of the climate to enhanced forcing due to CO2?”

    As you may know, there are many papers on this topic.

    Some estimate that the sensitivity of the earth’s climate to a doubling of CO2 is as low as 0.5 degrees C. Some estimate it to be much higher, perhaps 4-6 degrees. Many recent papers suggest low sensitivity <= 2 degrees

    According to the Mail article, the IPCC's leaked report has downgraded this key metric from its previous central estimate of three degrees, primarily responding to the "pause" in global warming for the last 15 years or so.

    Like

  98. I guess my response doesn’t fit with the standard denier/pseudo sceptic/contrarian storyline, therefore gets no response from the autoresponders.

    Interesting…

    Like

  99. “As you may know, the key question is: “How did we get here”?, and more specifically, “how does life evolve?”
    As you may know, there are many papers on this topic.
    Some estimate that something, something something. Some estimate it to be much higher, perhaps something, something else. Many recent papers suggest low something.
    According to the Mail article, something, something something.”

    This is your methodology. Can you see why it doesn’t work?

    Let’s try it with cancer.

    “As you may know, the key question is: “How do people get lung cancer”?, and more specifically, “Is there a link between smoking and lung cancer?”
    As you may know, there are many papers on this topic.
    Some estimate that something, something something. Some estimate it to be much higher, perhaps something, something else. Many recent papers suggest low something.
    According to the Mail article, something, something something.”

    It’s not your conclusions; it’s your methodology.
    If you are doing the same thing as the nutters out there, then a casual observer has no choice but to put you in the same box.

    Change your methodology. Lift your game. If you want to be treated differently then…be different. Don’t follow “their” playbook.
    To be a genuine skeptic, you have to behave like one.
    It’s all about methodology.

    Michael Shermer: Baloney Detection Kit

    Like

  100. 99% of scientists agree that 97 % of scientists agree that climate change is the biggest crisis facing humanity, other than dental decay in infants.

    We all agree that we need to do something, for Pity’s sake please think of the children.

    And the children’s children, and the children’s children’s children.

    We just can’t go on living like this

    (* wibbles upper lip *)

    Like

  101. You really need to get out more, Andy. You have spent too much time in Treadgold’s defunct ghetto with Richard Cummings. It’s an interesting world out there. Go for it.

    Like

  102. Yes Ken, I do get out a lot. I meet lots of interesting people.
    Not a single one of them is remotely interested in climate change.

    It s a dead subject, much like Latin and Greek

    Like

  103. Yes, I have noticed the deniers/contrarians/pseudosceptics don’t get much interest these days too.

    Like

  104. its probably because there isn’t much left to deny.

    Like denying that the sky is Green,

    Old world science, like Phlogiston theory, or Lysenkoism or Eugenics.

    Interesting times though, and definitely worth keeping a scrapbook,

    America’s cup is jolly exciting,, eh?

    Like

  105. …97 % of scientists…

    NASA has that number on their website too. Big, bold and beautiful.

    Consensus: 97% of climate scientists agree

    Like

  106. Yes but 99% of scientists agree that 97% of scientists agree. The one percent are 97% Consensus deniers,

    Like

  107. Also known as meta deniers, engaging in meta anti science, not to none confused with anti meta science, which is a whole different issue.

    Like

  108. Not to be confused with…… Sorry the iPad has a mind of its own.like a supermarket trolley

    Like

  109. If you don’t want to be lumped in with the nutters then you shouldn’t behave like them.
    It’s still just you versus NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/

    Like

  110. Yes I love NASA too.

    NASA

    NASA
    NASA
    I have al the badges and all the plastic models

    Hooray for NASA !

    Like

  111. The Science Cheerleaders–scientists and engineers who are also current and former professional cheerleaders for the NBA, NFL and other pro sports leagues– performed at NASA’s headquarters in Washington, D.C. as part of the White House’s celebration of Women in History Month in March! After their performance, they shared the stage with NASA education specialists and answered questions posed by some of the 200 young female students in the audience. Then, White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, NASA deputy director Lori Garver, and astronaut Tracy Caldwell Dyson (who just returned from six months in space in the International Space Station) inspired the audience (including me!) and even gave some shout-outs to the Science Cheerleaders. Hands up!

    http://www.sciencecheerleader.com/2011/05/watch-the-science-cheerleaders-appearance-at-nasa-hq/

    Hooray!
    Hooray, hip hip hooray!

    We love NASA and we love the NASA cheerleaders !

    Hooray!

    Like

  112. It’s really hard to make fun of NASA. It’s like trying to make fun of doing research in libraries. Not much material there.
    It’s even harder to make fun of NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.

    It’s like trying to make fun of the Surgeon General or the NIH and every single medical community on the issue of the risks of cancer from tobacco.

    “Yes I love the NIH too.
    NIH
    NIH
    NIH
    I have al the badges and all the plastic models
    Hooray for NIH !”

    Not a winning strategy.

    Of course, it looks far worse when you add all the other scientific communities too.

    “Yes I love NASA and every single scientific community on the planet too.
    NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    I have al the badges and all the plastic models
    Hooray for NASA and every single scientific community on the planet!”

    Hmm.

    If you reject the scientific consensus, you have to have a rock-solid reason to do so. If you stand on one side and on the other side there’s NASA and every single scientific community on the planet…then you have to be really, really sure that you are not falling into the same trap as the creationsts and all the rest of ‘em.
    A scientific consensus doesn’t just happen. It’s the result of work.

    tobacco_papers

    Like

  113. You like the NASA cheerleaders!
    yes I do too

    Like

  114. It’s NASA, Andy.
    NASA.
    NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    Reality is not your friend.

    Like

  115. And Primary Source of Imformation.

    In libraries

    Don’t forget them,

    Or it.

    primary sources of information.

    Every time
    NASA are a primary source of information.
    They have a website, jammed packed to the gunwhales with all sorts of Imformation

    Primary sources of it.

    Like

  116. Doesn’t really work.There’s nothing funny about people going to libraries to look for primary sources of information. Any university student can tell you the same. NASA really is a primary source of information.

    NASA | Projected U.S. Temperature Changes by 2100

    Like

  117. Projected temperature changes by 2100? excellent! A prediction too far out in the future that all of us will be dead by then.

    This NASA boys and girls are good, really good. Better than Al Beeb and their dumb arctic ice free by 2013 claim.

    Like

  118. A prediction too far out in the future that all of us will be dead by then.

    It’s not about us. It’s about the future. Your country. Your community. Your family.

    This NASA boys and girls are good, really good.

    Scientists, Don. They’re scientists. We’re talking about NASA.
    NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.

    NASA: Climate Change; A Warming World (HD)

    Like

  119. It’s not about us. It’s about the future. Your country. Your community. Your family.

    Stirring stuff.
    God Bless America

    Like

  120. So this video showing America getting redder with some interesting musical background is evidence of what, exactly?

    Like

  121. The video is specific to the U.S. That’s why it says ” U.S. Temperature Changes” in the title. Yet climate change is global, Andy. It doesn’t pay much attention to borders.
    It can be day in one part of the world and yet dark in another part.
    Reality is not your friend, Andy.

    Like

  122. I am quite scared now Cedric. Some day, some red ink will crawl over the landscape, and the sound of incidental music will emanate from the hills.

    This could happen at any moment. What can I do to protect my family?
    How will my dog react?
    Can I make it go away?

    Can I give money to Al Bore?

    If I promise to read Primary Sources of Information, will things get better?

    Like

  123. It’s all about NASA, Andy.
    I warned you that it would be a tad difficult to make fun of NASA. They’re just not that funny. Sane people take them seriously and for good reason. They’re the best.
    If you find yourself on one side and NASA and every single scientific community on the other side then…it looks bad. When you try and make fun of the situation, it only looks worse.

    Don’t want to be lumped in with the other mouth-breathers out there?
    Stop behaving like them.

    NASA | NASA’s Analysis of 2012 Global Temperature

    Like

  124. I could explain why I think this kind of presentation is wrong, or misleading.
    However, I will only get the boilerplate response back, so what’s the point?
    I hope that you get to see why, eventually

    Good luck

    Like

  125. I could explain why…

    I doubt it. You have never once engaged in a reasonable conversation.

    (Feel free to point out a thread where you really did, if you can)

    I have made multiple efforts to engage with you in a fair-minded manner to no avail.
    You probably only remember the times I’ve treated you like a kook.
    I can’t help that.
    You brought it on yourself repeatedly.
    Everybody around gets a fair chance until they become a clearly obvious troll/ sockpuppeter.

    There have been multiple times where I and others have given you space for you to explain your reasoning or your methodology in detail.
    You reject them.
    When it suits you, you can be very coy about what you personally believe.
    Perhaps because it would sound dopey out in the open in plain English.

    This very thread is typical.

    So how does this make me look like a kook, exactly?

    I gave you a detailed answer. Didn’t register with you at all. Might as well not have bothered.

    I asked you to look at what you were doing. To seriously look at your methodology. You refused. Not for the first time either.

    How does this “Charade” of yours work? Who’s in charge? What’s so terribly wrong with paying attention to NASA as opposed to some blog? We’re none the wiser.
    If you don’t want boiler-plate answers then…change.
    Try engaging for once.

    Don’t want to talk to me? Fine.
    I’ll stay out of it and you can have a dialogue with Ken. I don’t mind.
    Otherwise, you’re just going around and around in circles just like all the rest of ‘em.

    Like

  126. “I have given you….”

    No you haven’t.
    You are like an autoresplnding robot that rejects everything I say an compares me with a creationist, whatever I say.

    It is your little game.

    I am actually trying to see if you are, in fact a human and not a script.

    Like

  127. “I have made multiple efforts to engage with you in a fair-minded manner to no avail.”

    Primary ounces of information.
    NASA
    All the worlds science academies
    Shrugs
    Awkward silence.
    Kooks,
    Pratts
    Anti science
    Video from NASA marketing dept.
    Just the labels change.

    Mix and match. Works every time.

    Like

  128. Given that this post and subsequent thread is built around the untruth that the arctic sea ice rebound is evidence for global cooling, there is little point in having any discussion. No one made this claim, and I pointed this out early on in the thread.

    Like

  129. x has shown that …

    Whoa hold on buddy. We don’t need namedropping here. We don’t need to quote “no name” blogs.
    We use “Primary Sources of Information”

    The IPCC have backtracked on ….

    Hang on, are the IPCC a Primary Source of Information? We have higher standards here. We don’t use some no name organisation like the IPCC.

    Judith Curry has….

    Judith Curry is a “contrarian”. She is swimming against the tide of the consensus. 97% of scientists agree…with the consensus, as shown in Primary Sources of Information.

    There has been no warming for…

    Another PRATT. The oceans are absorbing the heat/the aerosols are masking the warming/it is natural variability/there is no pause/insert other theory here

    We use multiple Primary Sources of Information, all contradictory, to debunk your argument.

    Primary Sources of Information
    Everytime

    NASA are a Primary Source of Information.

    They have a website…

    .

    Like

  130. You are like an autoresplnding robot that rejects everything I say an compares me with a creationist, whatever I say.

    Nonsense. Grow up and look at what you write.
    All you have to do is not say what the creationists say.
    That’s reasonable.
    Anybody could do that.

    If you are going to copy their arguments then of course I’m going to compare you to them. What else would you expect? Do you want some special favour where I give you a free pass because it hurts your feelings?
    No.
    Anti-science arguments are well trodden paths. The P.R.A.T.T’s are collected. They’re routine.

    I can give you a fresh example from this very thread.

    What will be your excuse when this great “Berlin Wall” of pseudo-science finally collapses Ken?

    This is you. Nobody held a gun to your head and made you say this.

    It’s the same thing the creationists say all the time. It’s the crank, rejected by the mainstream, shaking their fist in the air going “You’ll see. One day!”
    The 9/11 Troofers, Moon landing denier, and various other assorted oddballs say the same thing. They haven’t got much else.

    However, I don’t use that argument. Neither does Ken. Neither do the scientific communities.
    We don’t need to.

    Claim CA110:
    Evolution is a theory in crisis; it will soon be widely rejected.

    You do this kind of thing all the time. Taking a page out of the creationist playbook. I’ve asked you repeatedly not to.
    Yet you insist on going around and around in circles.
    You can find out for yourself about how creationists etc. go about making their arguments.
    There are skeptical websites that examine their arguments in great detail.
    If I can do it then so can you.
    Then you can not do what they do.
    That way, it will be impossible for me or anyone else to compare you to the nutters out there.
    That’s about as fair and as simple as it gets.

    Either you can’t or you won’t examine your methodology. It’s, again, a very reasonable thing to ask but….it’s beyond you.
    I look at my methodology and, as far as I can see, it’s fairly mundane.
    I can use it for any scientific topic.
    Without changing a thing, I can apply it equally on the issue of the dangers of smoking, efficacy of vaccines, the theory of evolution, cold fusion, the moon landings or whatever.
    It works.
    What exactly is the problem with using NASA?
    I don’t get it.

    You are the one that deliberately sabotages the conversation every single time. Feel free to point out a thread where you really didn’t, if you can.

    (…crickets chirping…)

    I have made multiple efforts to engage with you in a fair-minded manner to no avail.
    You probably only remember the times I’ve treated you like a kook.
    I can’t help that.
    You brought it on yourself repeatedly.

    Like

  131. OK, Cedric, so the IPCC have downgraded their predictions of global warming since the last report, acknowledging the “pause” in Global Warming

    They also seem to be acknowledging the medieval warm period, as a global phenomenon. This sort of makes a bit of a mockery of Mann’s Hockey Stick, if it actually needed any further mocking

    Of course, we’ll have to wait and see what the actual report says in a few days.

    The actual real world data is what the “deniers” said it would be, not the IPCC and not NASA.

    Like

  132. Oh, and why do you keep posting videos showing warming in the 20th Century? We all know the world warmed by about 0.8 degrees over the 20th C

    There were two main periods of warming, early 20th C and about 1976-1998

    Both were approx the same rate and amount. The first period is largely attributable to natural causes (see the IPCC AR4), and the latter is, according the the IPCC, mostly anthropogenic, because “they can’t find anything else”, yet they can’t explain the lack of warming from 1998-2013

    You have to excuse me if I don’t find these arguments very convincing

    Like

  133. Look at what you are doing.
    It’s not your conclusions that matter, it’s your methodology.
    I’ve asked you repeatedly about this but you just blank me.
    You shouldn’t do that.

    Read what you just wrote and compare that to what I asked you before. They are two different things. If you want a real conversation then start behaving like it. Actually engage.

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s