A probabilistic quantification of the anthropogenic component...

what the hell?!?!?

pointing out the flaws in climate science is not good enough for unfunded skeptics? they have to come up with a compelling alternative explanation for everything first before we should listen to their ideas?

Assertions are not evidences. Demonstrable flaws/errors in published science are routinely acknowledged and addressed in field peer-review and replication studies published in every major scientific journal in existence. When the validity and accuracy of their findings are established, they are incorporated into the scientific understandings of that field.

Purported flaws that do not rise to the standards of publication or survive the review and replication of the body of researchers in that field, do not refute or address the science and are what is commonly referred to (politely) as pseudoscience (or malarky)


can I give you an example? Mann07 or 08 was a reworking of the hockeystick. It used sediment cores that were known to be contaminated by agriculture in the 20th century. it actually gave a reversed hockeystick shape. Mann's algorithm then turned it upsidedown to match other data. when this preposterous mistake was exposed Mann not only refused to acknowledge it as a mistake but continued using it in further projects. this is the sort of 'rock solid' evidence that we are supposed to credibly accept.

Again assertions are not compelling evidences, can you present journal published references which support your contentions?





So, can we call you Bill O'Reilly now? Christianity is not a religion, it's a philosophy according to Bill. Bill, meet Trakar a fellow traveller....
 
what the hell?!?!?

pointing out the flaws in climate science is not good enough for unfunded skeptics? they have to come up with a compelling alternative explanation for everything first before we should listen to their ideas?

Assertions are not evidences. Demonstrable flaws/errors in published science are routinely acknowledged and addressed in field peer-review and replication studies published in every major scientific journal in existence. When the validity and accuracy of their findings are established, they are incorporated into the scientific understandings of that field.

Purported flaws that do not rise to the standards of publication or survive the review and replication of the body of researchers in that field, do not refute or address the science and are what is commonly referred to (politely) as pseudoscience (or malarky)


can I give you an example? Mann07 or 08 was a reworking of the hockeystick. It used sediment cores that were known to be contaminated by agriculture in the 20th century. it actually gave a reversed hockeystick shape. Mann's algorithm then turned it upsidedown to match other data. when this preposterous mistake was exposed Mann not only refused to acknowledge it as a mistake but continued using it in further projects. this is the sort of 'rock solid' evidence that we are supposed to credibly accept.

Again assertions are not compelling evidences, can you present journal published references which support your contentions?



ah, the old if it is not published in my set of acceptable peer reviewed journals then it never happened gambit.

Proxy inconsistency and other problems in millennial paleoclimate reconstructions

Reply to McIntyre and McKitrick: Proxy-based temperature reconstructions are robust

I am wondering if you are really unaware of the Tiljander controversy or if you are just trying to ride it out like Mann. google Tiljander sediment cores and you will find lots of links to climate audit that flesh the whole thing out. the PNAS policy for restricted length and citations make the M&M letter very condensed. basically they said that cherry picking hockey stick shaped proxies will result in hockey stick shaped reconstructions. oh, and the added tidbit that the Tiljander core was used upside down. Mann said that the orientation didnt matter, and that cherry picking was an acceptable method in climate science.





It should be patently obvious that Trakar is not intellectually honest by now.
 
Anyone who understands the term GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) can easily dismiss computer models for the fiction they are. It has nothing to do with feeling "threatened" by their preconceptions. One bogus "preconception" the global warming cult members all suffer from is the idea that computer models bare some semblance to reality.

Interesting, so you consider computer models that allow the design, control and operation of everything from aircraft and cars to cruise missiles and nuclear weapons, models that are integral to everything from MRI scanners to oil drilling seismology scans,...you consider these all to be "fictions?"

Or is it just some models that you feel are unreliable or disingenuous in their depictions?

Not at all. But there is one HUGE difference between a model like you described and climate models. Care to guess what it is?

Your subjective and politically biased perspective?
 
some of us dont find computer model simulations to be compelling. especially when they consistently predict warmer temperatures than reality provides.

Santer is very prone to casting about, looking for spurious coincidences, to find 'evidence' for his preformed conclusions.

I understand that those who dismiss entire regimes of mathematics, statistical analysis and validity modelling (the undepinnings of most modern science and the technologies of the modern world) with a wave of their hand while disparaging noted leaders in these fields without addressing the nature or specifics of their researches, are not ameniable to the consideration of any evidences or arguments that they feel threatens their ideological based preconceptions.

As the adage affirms, "you can lead a horse to water,..."
It's a pathetic paper by those who have made themselves pseudo-scientists. They ignore any forcing except anthropogenic.

How convenient and certainly far from scientific.

They soil themselves. And, I laughed reading it because I knew dilettantes would suck it up without any thought.
 
It's a pathetic paper by those who have made themselves pseudo-scientists. They ignore any forcing except anthropogenic...

The methodology described in the paper seems to refute your contention:

"...Our first analyses (Sect. 2) provide an initial look at the range of possible temperature changes resulting from uncertainties in the climate sensitivity and aerosol forcing. For the climate sensitivity (i.e., the equilibrium global mean warming for a CO2 doubling) we consider values of 1.5, 3.0 and 6.0C. The range 1.5–6.0 C corresponds approximately to the 90 % confidence interval (C.I.) based on the likely uncertainty range given in the AR4; see Wigley et al. (2009). For total aerosol forcing we provide
(in Appendix 1) a new analysis of the uncertainty leading to a 90 % C.I. of [FONT=AdvTir_symb][FONT=AdvTir_symb]±0.57 W/m2, with a central estimate (for the year 2005) of [FONT=AdvTir_symb][FONT=AdvTir_symb]-
1.10 W/m2. The aerosol sensitivity analysis gives an upper bound for indirect aerosol forcing that is substantially lower than the AR4 estimate...

...Some studies suggest that natural forcings (primarily solar) can explain most of this early twentieth century warming. However, results for natural forcing from three AOGCMs examined by Stott et al. (2006, their Fig. 5) show only modest warming over 1915–1945, ranging from 0.1 to 0.2 C. This is noticeably less than the estimated observed warming (Fig. 1). Furthermore, the models examined by Stott et al. used solar forcing estimates with an early twentieth century secular trend that is now thought to be too large (see below). Foukal et al. (2004, 2006) have also shown that solar forcing is highly unlikely to explain the early twentieth century warming.

A possible alternative explanation explored by Wigley and Raper (1987), following the suggestion of Bjerknes (1964), is that this warming was, at least partly, due to a change in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC)—specifically, an increase in the rate of formation of North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW). This explanation is supported by the pattern of early twentieth century temperature trends (Schlesinger and Ramankutty 1994, 1995), which show a strong focus of warming in the North Atlantic; by changes in the atmospheric Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which have been shown to be related to AMOC changes (e.g., Knight et al. 2005; Parker et al. 2007; Zhang et al. 2007; Medhaug et al. 2012); and by AOGCM simulations of internal variability (e.g., Delworth et al. 1993; Schaeffer et al. 2004; Zhang et al. 2007; Medhaug et al. 2012; Menary et al. 2012). The possible importance of AMOC changes in general, and over recent decades in particular, has also been noted by Swanson et al. (2009), Wu et al. (2007, 2011) and others.

Although future anthropogenic forcing may lead to noticeable AMOC changes (Gregory et al.2005; Schlesinger et al. 2006; Stouffer et al. 2006, Yin et al. 2006), AMOC changes prior to 1950 are most likely to be a component of internally generated variability..."



Additional such comparisons and considerations are throughout the study. These are compellingly indicative that the authors most certainly considered forcings other than, and in addition to, anthropogenic forcings in their analyses.




[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
 
It's a pathetic paper by those who have made themselves pseudo-scientists. They ignore any forcing except anthropogenic...

The methodology described in the paper seems to refute your contention:

"...Our first analyses (Sect. 2) provide an initial look at the range of possible temperature changes resulting from uncertainties in the climate sensitivity and aerosol forcing. For the climate sensitivity (i.e., the equilibrium global mean warming for a CO2 doubling) we consider values of 1.5, 3.0 and 6.0C. The range 1.5–6.0 C corresponds approximately to the 90 % confidence interval (C.I.) based on the likely uncertainty range given in the AR4; see Wigley et al. (2009). For total aerosol forcing we provide
(in Appendix 1) a new analysis of the uncertainty leading to a 90 % C.I. of [FONT=AdvTir_symb][FONT=AdvTir_symb]±0.57 W/m2, with a central estimate (for the year 2005) of [FONT=AdvTir_symb][FONT=AdvTir_symb]-
1.10 W/m2. The aerosol sensitivity analysis gives an upper bound for indirect aerosol forcing that is substantially lower than the AR4 estimate...

...Some studies suggest that natural forcings (primarily solar) can explain most of this early twentieth century warming. However, results for natural forcing from three AOGCMs examined by Stott et al. (2006, their Fig. 5) show only modest warming over 1915–1945, ranging from 0.1 to 0.2 C. This is noticeably less than the estimated observed warming (Fig. 1). Furthermore, the models examined by Stott et al. used solar forcing estimates with an early twentieth century secular trend that is now thought to be too large (see below). Foukal et al. (2004, 2006) have also shown that solar forcing is highly unlikely to explain the early twentieth century warming.

A possible alternative explanation explored by Wigley and Raper (1987), following the suggestion of Bjerknes (1964), is that this warming was, at least partly, due to a change in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC)—specifically, an increase in the rate of formation of North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW). This explanation is supported by the pattern of early twentieth century temperature trends (Schlesinger and Ramankutty 1994, 1995), which show a strong focus of warming in the North Atlantic; by changes in the atmospheric Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which have been shown to be related to AMOC changes (e.g., Knight et al. 2005; Parker et al. 2007; Zhang et al. 2007; Medhaug et al. 2012); and by AOGCM simulations of internal variability (e.g., Delworth et al. 1993; Schaeffer et al. 2004; Zhang et al. 2007; Medhaug et al. 2012; Menary et al. 2012). The possible importance of AMOC changes in general, and over recent decades in particular, has also been noted by Swanson et al. (2009), Wu et al. (2007, 2011) and others.

Although future anthropogenic forcing may lead to noticeable AMOC changes (Gregory et al.2005; Schlesinger et al. 2006; Stouffer et al. 2006, Yin et al. 2006), AMOC changes prior to 1950 are most likely to be a component of internally generated variability..."



Additional such comparisons and considerations are throughout the study. These are compellingly indicative that the authors most certainly considered forcings other than, and in addition to, anthropogenic forcings in their analyses.




[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]





Simple computer models for simple minds. Funny how you sycophants swoon at the most pathetic of papers and ignore all the problems inherent in them. then you call good scientists "deniers" because they have the temerity to challenge the BS foisted off on the public.

Here's a clue...."simple models" of an incredibly complex system like our atmosphere are kept simple for one reason and one reason alone...to give the desired results every time.

That's why Manns infamous algorithm gives warming no matter what numbers you punch into it.

That's not science buckwheat, that's fraud. But you allready knew that.
 
ipcc_ar5_draft_fig1-7_methane.png



here is a composite of IPCC predictions for methane. all wildly exaggerated compared to actual readings. does anyone doubt that people like Trakar still agree with the predictions, and are willing to call them scientific and 'consistent with'?
 
ipcc-ar5draft-fig-1-4.gif



or the various IPCC predictions for temperature. less exaggerated but still wrong.
 
RFtable_AR5-SOD_fig8-7_p8-39_zpsae4a0ecd.gif


notice the size of the methane forcing in computer climate models compared to solar. given the wildly exaggerated predictions for methane increase, what does that say for the accuracy of temperature predictions? hmmmm.......
 
what the hell?!?!?

pointing out the flaws in climate science is not good enough for unfunded skeptics? they have to come up with a compelling alternative explanation for everything first before we should listen to their ideas?

Assertions are not evidences. Demonstrable flaws/errors in published science are routinely acknowledged and addressed in field peer-review and replication studies published in every major scientific journal in existence. When the validity and accuracy of their findings are established, they are incorporated into the scientific understandings of that field.

Purported flaws that do not rise to the standards of publication or survive the review and replication of the body of researchers in that field, do not refute or address the science and are what is commonly referred to (politely) as pseudoscience (or malarky)


can I give you an example? Mann07 or 08 was a reworking of the hockeystick. It used sediment cores that were known to be contaminated by agriculture in the 20th century. it actually gave a reversed hockeystick shape. Mann's algorithm then turned it upsidedown to match other data. when this preposterous mistake was exposed Mann not only refused to acknowledge it as a mistake but continued using it in further projects. this is the sort of 'rock solid' evidence that we are supposed to credibly accept.

Again assertions are not compelling evidences, can you present journal published references which support your contentions?



ah, the old if it is not published in my set of acceptable peer reviewed journals then it never happened gambit.

Proxy inconsistency and other problems in millennial paleoclimate reconstructions

Reply to McIntyre and McKitrick: Proxy-based temperature reconstructions are robust

I am wondering if you are really unaware of the Tiljander controversy or if you are just trying to ride it out like Mann. google Tiljander sediment cores and you will find lots of links to climate audit that flesh the whole thing out. the PNAS policy for restricted length and citations make the M&M letter very condensed. basically they said that cherry picking hockey stick shaped proxies will result in hockey stick shaped reconstructions. oh, and the added tidbit that the Tiljander core was used upside down. Mann said that the orientation didnt matter, and that cherry picking was an acceptable method in climate science.



also for Trakar-

you seem to assume that peer reviewed journals are beyond criticism. that papers published there are fully formed fruit untainted by any political background subterfuge. please explain how this happened.

IPCC Cites an Unpublished Journal 39 Times « NoFrakkingConsensus

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had an experience like that. It was so impressed by one edition of the academic journal Climatic Change that it cited 16 of the 21 papers published that month. The journal editors should take a bow. When three-quarters of a single issue of your publication is relied on by a Nobel-winning report, you’re doing something right.
Except for one small problem. The issue in question – May 2007 – didn’t exist yet when the IPCC wrote its report. Moreover, none of the research papers eventually published in that issue had been finalized prior to the IPCC’s cutoff date.
As the IPCC chairman recently reminded us, that organization’s 2007 report:
…was based on scientific studies completed before January 2006, and did not include later studies…
That’s what the rules say. And that’s what was supposed to have happened. But according to the online abstracts for each of the 16 papers cited by the IPCC and published in the May 2007 issue of Climatic Change (see my working notes here):
15 of them weren’t accepted by the journal until Oct. 17, 2006
the other wasn’t accepted until May 18, 2006
The first date is highly significant. As the second box on this page makes clear, the IPCC expert review period ended on June 2, 2006 for Working Group 1 and on July 21, 2006 for Working Group 2. This means the expert reviewers had offered their comments on the second draft and had already exited the stage. It means the IPCC had reached the utmost end of a process that represented years of collective labour.

So how could 16 papers, accounting for 39 new citations across fours chapters and two working groups, have made it into this twice vetted, next-to-finalized IPCC report? Those citations don’t reference research papers the wider scientific community had already digested. They don’t even reference papers that were hot off the press. Instead, in 15 of 16 cases, no expert reviewer could possibly have evaluated these papers since they hadn’t yet been accepted for publication by the journal itself.
Where do these 39 citations of the May 2007 issue of Climatic Change turn up in the IPCC report? [working notes here]
Chapt. 11 by Working Group 1 references ten papers (20 citations in total)
Chapt. 12 by Working Group 2 references nine papers (15 citations in total)
Chapt. 2 by Working Group 2 references two papers (2 citations in total)
Chapt. 3 by Working Group 2 references two papers (2 citations in total)
Among the 10 papers cited in Chapter 11 three were co-authored by Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen. I’m sure it’s sheer coincidence that this gentleman served as one of two coordinating lead authors for that chapter.
see the first abstract here (cited twice as Jacob et al. 2007 on this page of the IPCC report)
second abstract is here (cited as Déqué et al. 2007 on this page)
third abstract is here (cited as Christensen et al. 2007 on this page)
I’m equally certain there’s no connection whatsoever between the fact that Jørgen E. Olesen was a lead author for the IPCC’s Chapter 12 and that a paper he co-authored in the May 2007 issue of Climatic Change got cited four times in that chapter. (That abstract is here. Cited as Olesen et al., 2007 four times on this page.)
Welcome to the strange world of the IPCC. Whenever one turns over a new rock there’s something shady beneath.



do you have any ethical explanations for this Trakar?


or how about the papers that the IPCC used to rebut McIntyre and McIttrick's demolishment of Mann 98,99? it never did get published! it is funny how something that the IPCC deems necessary gets to break the rules for inclusion in the report.
 
Assertions are not evidences. Demonstrable flaws/errors in published science are routinely acknowledged and addressed in field peer-review and replication studies published in every major scientific journal in existence. When the validity and accuracy of their findings are established, they are incorporated into the scientific understandings of that field.

Purported flaws that do not rise to the standards of publication or survive the review and replication of the body of researchers in that field, do not refute or address the science and are what is commonly referred to (politely) as pseudoscience (or malarky)




Again assertions are not compelling evidences, can you present journal published references which support your contentions?



ah, the old if it is not published in my set of acceptable peer reviewed journals then it never happened gambit.

Not what I stated or believe, please try to address the discussion at hand, not the strawman distractions and irrelevancies you seem to prefer to talk about.


also for Trakar-

you seem to assume that peer reviewed journals are beyond criticism. that papers published there are fully formed fruit untainted by any political background subterfuge. please explain how this happened.

Again, not what I've stated, and irrelevant to the issue at hand. Science is refuted or corrected by science, not political blogosphere ramblings, common-nonsense anecdotes or pseudoscience conspiracy mythos. Good science is always open-arm welcome in science journals provided it presents good evidences, solid methodology and repeatable results. If you cannot present such in support of your contentions there is a good reason for that lacking. You are welcome to resort to black helicopter and tin-foil hat conspiracies to explain away such, but this is not science, and is not compelling.
 
some of us dont find computer model simulations to be compelling. especially when they consistently predict warmer temperatures than reality provides.

Santer is very prone to casting about, looking for spurious coincidences, to find 'evidence' for his preformed conclusions.

I understand that those who dismiss entire regimes of mathematics, statistical analysis and validity modelling (the undepinnings of most modern science and the technologies of the modern world) with a wave of their hand while disparaging noted leaders in these fields without addressing the nature or specifics of their researches, are not ameniable to the consideration of any evidences or arguments that they feel threatens their ideological based preconceptions.

As the adage affirms, "you can lead a horse to water,..."
It's a pathetic paper by those who have made themselves pseudo-scientists. They ignore any forcing except anthropogenic.

How convenient and certainly far from scientific.

They soil themselves. And, I laughed reading it because I knew dilettantes would suck it up without any thought.

Thosewaghdh
 
Assertions are not evidences. Demonstrable flaws/errors in published science are routinely acknowledged and addressed in field peer-review and replication studies published in every major scientific journal in existence. When the validity and accuracy of their findings are established, they are incorporated into the scientific understandings of that field.

Purported flaws that do not rise to the standards of publication or survive the review and replication of the body of researchers in that field, do not refute or address the science and are what is commonly referred to (politely) as pseudoscience (or malarky)




Again assertions are not compelling evidences, can you present journal published references which support your contentions?



ah, the old if it is not published in my set of acceptable peer reviewed journals then it never happened gambit.

Not what I stated or believe, please try to address the discussion at hand, not the strawman distractions and irrelevancies you seem to prefer to talk about.


also for Trakar-

you seem to assume that peer reviewed journals are beyond criticism. that papers published there are fully formed fruit untainted by any political background subterfuge. please explain how this happened.

Again, not what I've stated, and irrelevant to the issue at hand. Science is refuted or corrected by science, not political blogosphere ramblings, common-nonsense anecdotes or pseudoscience conspiracy mythos. Good science is always open-arm welcome in science journals provided it presents good evidences, solid methodology and repeatable results. If you cannot present such in support of your contentions there is a good reason for that lacking. You are welcome to resort to black helicopter and tin-foil hat conspiracies to explain away such, but this is not science, and is not compelling.



why do you keep hand waving away my legitimate concerns?

it seems that when I ask you about a specific problem you just change the subject.

I brought up Mann08 and the use of upside down Tiljander. it also used one of the other famously corrupt tree ring series. without the inclusion of one or the other of these controversial proxies there is no significance that can be derived from the reconstruction. do you consider this 'good evidence, solid methodology and repeatable results'?

I brought up the suspicious inclusion of unpublished papers in the IPCC reports and you simply ignore it. if you dont want to discuss the weaknesses of GW 'science', why do you respond to my posts?
 
I understand that those who dismiss entire regimes of mathematics, statistical analysis and validity modelling (the undepinnings of most modern science and the technologies of the modern world) with a wave of their hand while disparaging noted leaders in these fields without addressing the nature or specifics of their researches, are not ameniable to the consideration of any evidences or arguments that they feel threatens their ideological based preconceptions.

As the adage affirms, "you can lead a horse to water,..."
It's a pathetic paper by those who have made themselves pseudo-scientists. They ignore any forcing except anthropogenic.

How convenient and certainly far from scientific.

They soil themselves. And, I laughed reading it because I knew dilettantes would suck it up without any thought.

Thosewaghdh

Sorry about that. A full cup of coffee into the keyboard. Now replaced:redface:
 
ah, the old if it is not published in my set of acceptable peer reviewed journals then it never happened gambit.

Not what I stated or believe, please try to address the discussion at hand, not the strawman distractions and irrelevancies you seem to prefer to talk about.


also for Trakar-

you seem to assume that peer reviewed journals are beyond criticism. that papers published there are fully formed fruit untainted by any political background subterfuge. please explain how this happened.

Again, not what I've stated, and irrelevant to the issue at hand. Science is refuted or corrected by science, not political blogosphere ramblings, common-nonsense anecdotes or pseudoscience conspiracy mythos. Good science is always open-arm welcome in science journals provided it presents good evidences, solid methodology and repeatable results. If you cannot present such in support of your contentions there is a good reason for that lacking. You are welcome to resort to black helicopter and tin-foil hat conspiracies to explain away such, but this is not science, and is not compelling.



why do you keep hand waving away my legitimate concerns?

it seems that when I ask you about a specific problem you just change the subject.

I brought up Mann08 and the use of upside down Tiljander. it also used one of the other famously corrupt tree ring series. without the inclusion of one or the other of these controversial proxies there is no significance that can be derived from the reconstruction. do you consider this 'good evidence, solid methodology and repeatable results'?

I brought up the suspicious inclusion of unpublished papers in the IPCC reports and you simply ignore it. if you dont want to discuss the weaknesses of GW 'science', why do you respond to my posts?

Ian, there have been many, many studies done since the original Mann study. Using many, many differant proxies. All have confirmed his original study and refined it. Mistakes were made along the way and corrected. None of the mistakes changed the basic shape of the graph, and all confirmed that it is now warmer than it has been in at least 1600 years, and probably longer than that.

This has been linked to many times by myself and others. You don't like what the scientists have to say, your problem. Just don't try that gambit of stating that they are not saying it, or that most scientists disagree with the conclusions that Mann stated, when the truth is exactly the opposite.
 
why do you keep hand waving away my legitimate concerns?

it seems that when I ask you about a specific problem you just change the subject.

Unfortunately, the concerns you raise are irrelevent to the issues the thread is discussing. If you wish to discuss science relevant to this thread I will be happy to address and discuss them. If you simply want to continue to try and derail this thread into a discussion of irrelevent blog pseudoscience distortions and politicized confabulations, it shouldn't surprise you that your "problems" are acknowleged for what they are and dismissed.

...if you dont want to discuss the weaknesses of GW 'science', why do you respond to my posts?

I am more than willing to discuss any properly identified and recognized climate science 'weaknesses.' Merely stating that "science is the problem" is not an appropriately identified weakness in mainstream AGW evidences, theories or understandings. IOW, I've no problem discussing scientific interpretation, perspective, or error within and through the accepted and generally understood mainstream framework of scientific principle, theory and history. But I'm not interested in exploring the potential implications of every uncompellingly supported conspiraboggle-distraction that politically oriented extremist blogs dream up, at least not in threads that I create to discuss other issues.

If there are specific issues that you wish to discuss with me, start a thread on those issues. If you demonstrate the desire and capacity to maintain a mature level of considered discussion, I will, as my history affirms, be happy to enjoin that discussion.
 
Assertions are not evidences. Demonstrable flaws/errors in published science are routinely acknowledged and addressed in field peer-review and replication studies published in every major scientific journal in existence. When the validity and accuracy of their findings are established, they are incorporated into the scientific understandings of that field.

Purported flaws that do not rise to the standards of publication or survive the review and replication of the body of researchers in that field, do not refute or address the science and are what is commonly referred to (politely) as pseudoscience (or malarky)




Again assertions are not compelling evidences, can you present journal published references which support your contentions?



ah, the old if it is not published in my set of acceptable peer reviewed journals then it never happened gambit.

Not what I stated or believe, please try to address the discussion at hand, not the strawman distractions and irrelevancies you seem to prefer to talk about.


also for Trakar-

you seem to assume that peer reviewed journals are beyond criticism. that papers published there are fully formed fruit untainted by any political background subterfuge. please explain how this happened.

Again, not what I've stated, and irrelevant to the issue at hand. Science is refuted or corrected by science, not political blogosphere ramblings, common-nonsense anecdotes or pseudoscience conspiracy mythos. Good science is always open-arm welcome in science journals provided it presents good evidences, solid methodology and repeatable results. If you cannot present such in support of your contentions there is a good reason for that lacking. You are welcome to resort to black helicopter and tin-foil hat conspiracies to explain away such, but this is not science, and is not compelling.






:lol::lol::lol: Typical response from a cultist who supports felonious behavior from one of your leading high priests.

"Ethics? What are those...those are for fools-we are trying to change the world so any scurrilous behavior is A-OK with us".
 
Not what I stated or believe, please try to address the discussion at hand, not the strawman distractions and irrelevancies you seem to prefer to talk about.




Again, not what I've stated, and irrelevant to the issue at hand. Science is refuted or corrected by science, not political blogosphere ramblings, common-nonsense anecdotes or pseudoscience conspiracy mythos. Good science is always open-arm welcome in science journals provided it presents good evidences, solid methodology and repeatable results. If you cannot present such in support of your contentions there is a good reason for that lacking. You are welcome to resort to black helicopter and tin-foil hat conspiracies to explain away such, but this is not science, and is not compelling.



why do you keep hand waving away my legitimate concerns?

it seems that when I ask you about a specific problem you just change the subject.

I brought up Mann08 and the use of upside down Tiljander. it also used one of the other famously corrupt tree ring series. without the inclusion of one or the other of these controversial proxies there is no significance that can be derived from the reconstruction. do you consider this 'good evidence, solid methodology and repeatable results'?

I brought up the suspicious inclusion of unpublished papers in the IPCC reports and you simply ignore it. if you dont want to discuss the weaknesses of GW 'science', why do you respond to my posts?

Ian, there have been many, many studies done since the original Mann study. Using many, many differant proxies. All have confirmed his original study and refined it. Mistakes were made along the way and corrected. None of the mistakes changed the basic shape of the graph, and all confirmed that it is now warmer than it has been in at least 1600 years, and probably longer than that.

This has been linked to many times by myself and others. You don't like what the scientists have to say, your problem. Just don't try that gambit of stating that they are not saying it, or that most scientists disagree with the conclusions that Mann stated, when the truth is exactly the opposite.





Of course they did. They used his methodologies so of course they reproduced his results. You could punch ANY numbers in and get the same result. That's the problem.

Manns paper is false and has been proven to be so.
 
why do you keep hand waving away my legitimate concerns?

it seems that when I ask you about a specific problem you just change the subject.

Unfortunately, the concerns you raise are irrelevent to the issues the thread is discussing. If you wish to discuss science relevant to this thread I will be happy to address and discuss them. If you simply want to continue to try and derail this thread into a discussion of irrelevent blog pseudoscience distortions and politicized confabulations, it shouldn't surprise you that your "problems" are acknowleged for what they are and dismissed.

...if you dont want to discuss the weaknesses of GW 'science', why do you respond to my posts?

I am more than willing to discuss any properly identified and recognized climate science 'weaknesses.' Merely stating that "science is the problem" is not an appropriately identified weakness in mainstream AGW evidences, theories or understandings. IOW, I've no problem discussing scientific interpretation, perspective, or error within and through the accepted and generally understood mainstream framework of scientific principle, theory and history. But I'm not interested in exploring the potential implications of every uncompellingly supported conspiraboggle-distraction that politically oriented extremist blogs dream up, at least not in threads that I create to discuss other issues.

If there are specific issues that you wish to discuss with me, start a thread on those issues. If you demonstrate the desire and capacity to maintain a mature level of considered discussion, I will, as my history affirms, be happy to enjoin that discussion.





They are only irrelevant when you are issuing forth propaganda. When you are pursuing scientific endeavors they are totally relevant.

That's why you ignore them, science isn't important to you...propaganda is.

I suggest you review Scientific Ethics.
 
They are only irrelevant when you are issuing forth propaganda. When you are pursuing scientific endeavors they are totally relevant.

That's why you ignore them, science isn't important to you...propaganda is.

I suggest you review Scientific Ethics.

Your assertions are without merit, support or relevance.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top