the BEST view on the Paraguay scandal

[IanC]

Why do you hand wave away the fossil fuel industry's disinformation campaign? Why do you ignore the hundreds of millions of dollars they've spent to disseminate lies about global warming and climate science to the American public? Doesn't it occur to you that a hundred scientists doing precisely what Willie Soon has been doing does a lot more harm to science than anything you've all been able to come up with?

what damage has Soon done? have you read any of his papers? you are surprised that an astro physicist would lean towards solar influence being dominant? perhaps you didnt like the paper he did with Baliunas that presented evidence that the MWP and LIA really existed? (laughable now but at the time the Hockeystick team were claiming the opposite). or his poking holes in Polar Bear science claims of climate change imminent extinction? judging from polar bear numbers who was more correct? should we post up the abstracts to see if they are wild eyed screeds against climate science or just ordinary peer reviewed science papers?

if anything, Soon has been a boon to the 'attack the reputation of the deniers' club. an introverted ESL scientist with no friend in high places and no press agent, an easy target. why is his funding from oil interests any different than pro-AGW scientists getting oil money funding?

ask a hundred random people to name a Willie Soon paper. I bet none could, but more than a few would be able to associate him with 'dirty' funding. tell me again what influence he has had on climate science other than be a whipping boy for anti-skeptic slurs.

 

[Crick]

Do you actually find this a consistent position? You think Mann has destroyed the viability of the entire climate science field but that Soon has done nothing wrong?

I have read several of Soon's and Soon's and Bailunas' papers. I have agreed with almost nothing he's put out. Neither have the vast majority of climate scientists. But that doesn't seem to bother you because, though you won't admit it, you're position requires that they're all either in a grand, global conspiracy or they're all remarkably incompetent.

 

[IanC]

Do you actually find this a consistent position? You think Mann has destroyed the viability of the entire climate science field but that Soon has done nothing wrong?

I have read several of Soon's and Soon's and Bailunas' papers. I have agreed with almost nothing he's put out. Neither have the vast majority of climate scientists. But that doesn't seem to bother you because, though you won't admit it, you're position requires that they're all either in a grand, global conspiracy or they're all remarkably incompetent.

I have never said that Soon does outstanding work. personally I think the MWP and LIA existed, for many reasons.

Mann on the other hand basically said they didnt, and provided hockeystick graphs that became famous. literally the poster for AGW. it was featured what six times in AR3? prominently featured as proof.. it was even sent out to every household in Canada!

so yes, I think Mann has done much more damage to science than Soon. If Soon has done any damage at all.

 

[Crick]

Mann on the other hand basically said they didnt

Find us a written or spoken STATEMENT in which Mann says there was no MWP

 

[IanC]

bump for cnm. first page

 

[IanC]

I see cnm has failed to respond to any of the points about how global temp datasets veer away from reality. His appeal to authority on one side and the claim of 'conspiracy theory' one the other side don't explain the factual problems pointed out over and over again.

 

[mamooth]

CultOfMcIntyre conspiracy theories would not actually qualify as a "factual problem". It took DearLeader about 4 years to admit his Wegman-fiasco hockey stick algorithms were bogus. Given him about 4 years to come clean here.

You do understand the overall adjustments make the current warming look smaller, right? You are at least that familiar with the basics?

How does that fit into the conspiracy? How do the socialists gain more power by downplaying the warming? Wouldn't it be much easier for the socialists to just to not touch the data, which would make the warming look bigger?

 

[IanC]

CultOfMcIntyre conspiracy theories would not actually qualify as a "factual problem". It took DearLeader about 4 years to admit his Wegman-fiasco hockey stick algorithms were bogus. Given him about 4 years to come clean here.

You do understand the overall adjustments make the current warming look smaller, right? You are at least that familiar with the basics?

How does that fit into the conspiracy? How do the socialists gain more power by downplaying the warming? Wouldn't it be much easier for the socialists to just to not touch the data, which would make the warming look bigger?

Hahahaha. You call changing the guesses for pre-WWI sea surface temperatures adjustments?

Please, post up your details. I am actually impressed that they turned a guesstimate goof up into a little positive propaganda.

 

[jc456]

CultOfMcIntyre conspiracy theories would not actually qualify as a "factual problem". It took DearLeader about 4 years to admit his Wegman-fiasco hockey stick algorithms were bogus. Given him about 4 years to come clean here.

You do understand the overall adjustments make the current warming look smaller, right? You are at least that familiar with the basics?

How does that fit into the conspiracy? How do the socialists gain more power by downplaying the warming? Wouldn't it be much easier for the socialists to just to not touch the data, which would make the warming look bigger?

Well from another thread,"
People who don't believe in climate change, why don't you believe in it?"
here is my answer, you just confirm there is no raw data set available. They are all adjusted. All.... fact as pointed out to you.

 

[IanC]

We only have so much raw data, and we won't be getting a whole lot more in the way of actual measurements. The biggest problem I see right now is 'reanalysis'. Someone produces a model, uses the data that appears to support it and discards the rest. Trenberth did it with OHC. Before his reanalysis there was no clear volcanic signature, afterwards there was a strong one. Last year a paper came out suggesting OHC was increasing at a rate higher than in the last 10,000 years but no one bothered to point out that the proxy series had a time resolution of more than a hundred years. OR that the same series put MWP SSTs at 0.65C higher than today. Climate cafeteria, you pick and choose which pieces you want and leave the rest behind. The press runs with it and the scientists don't bother to correct them.

Edit- ocean heat content is measured with units that no one understands. If you replace it with actual temperature equivalents then the changes are so small that it is hard to believe we have the ability to measure and discern the differences.

 

[mamooth]

Hahahaha. You call changing the guesses for pre-WWI sea surface temperatures adjustments?

They are adjustments, obviously. What criteria do you use to decide that some adjustments aren't adjustments, and some are?

Please, post up your details. I am actually impressed that they turned a guesstimate goof up into a little positive propaganda.

If the goal is supposedly to make it look like there's much more warming, why did the scientists choose instead to make adjustments to show less warming? There's no point to engaging in massive amounts of work on adjustments that make the past land temperatures a little lower, if you then just adjust the past ocean temperatures much more in the opposite direction. From a conspiracy viewpoint, it makes no sense. If there was a conspiracy to create the illusion of more warming, the conspiracy would not have made those big adjustments on past ocean temperatures, because that makes it look like less warming.

Basically, you're positing a conspiracy that deliberately sabotages itself. Is there a conspiracy explanation for why the conspiracy sabotages itself?