Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
1) The famous hockey stick was not produced by Phil Jones nor his data. Try Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes.
2) The data from which it was produced has been available ever since it was published and it has not been in the custody of Dr Jones.
3) Jones' specialty is the instrumented record. The hockey stick, as you know, it primarily a reconstruction from proxy data.
4) There is not the slightest indication that any of Jones' lost or missing data would have overturned current conclusions regarding climate trends.
So, Ms Aster, are you going to ignore the fire alarms because you can't find your personal thermometer?
asterism was simply quoting the article.
how many examples of shoddy, deceptive, or just plain wrong climate science are needed before you start losing confidence in the whole global warming doomsday scenario?
my math and physics teachers told me that even if you get the right answer by the wrong method, you are still wrong! climate science uses bad data, bad methodology and gets the wrong answers to boot.
My math and science teachers were fanatics about notebooks and observations and reproducibility of experiments.. Was Jones educated differently?
NOBODY IN PURE AND OPEN SCIENCE gets a pass for "not showing their work".
I'm spend most time in the slightly diff. world of science for industry where proprietary info is a reality. Our conferences are not generally "peer reviewed" except in the liquor lounge. But in the world of pure science --- Abraham cannot make the statement that "there are no indications that presenting the data would make a diff".. OF COURSE it makes a diff if you asserting a result as fact..
asterism was simply quoting the article.
how many examples of shoddy, deceptive, or just plain wrong climate science are needed before you start losing confidence in the whole global warming doomsday scenario?
my math and physics teachers told me that even if you get the right answer by the wrong method, you are still wrong! climate science uses bad data, bad methodology and gets the wrong answers to boot.
My math and science teachers were fanatics about notebooks and observations and reproducibility of experiments.. Was Jones educated differently?
NOBODY IN PURE AND OPEN SCIENCE gets a pass for "not showing their work".
I'm spend most time in the slightly diff. world of science for industry where proprietary info is a reality. Our conferences are not generally "peer reviewed" except in the liquor lounge. But in the world of pure science --- Abraham cannot make the statement that "there are no indications that presenting the data would make a diff".. OF COURSE it makes a diff if you asserting a result as fact..
You're not going to be successful in industry if you can't distinguish those with educated opinions from those with sales pitches.
Conspiracy theories are always sales pitches. Politics. Here's why what's best for me is also, trust me, what's also best for you.
My math and science teachers were fanatics about notebooks and observations and reproducibility of experiments.. Was Jones educated differently?
NOBODY IN PURE AND OPEN SCIENCE gets a pass for "not showing their work".
I'm spend most time in the slightly diff. world of science for industry where proprietary info is a reality. Our conferences are not generally "peer reviewed" except in the liquor lounge. But in the world of pure science --- Abraham cannot make the statement that "there are no indications that presenting the data would make a diff".. OF COURSE it makes a diff if you asserting a result as fact..
You're not going to be successful in industry if you can't distinguish those with educated opinions from those with sales pitches.
Conspiracy theories are always sales pitches. Politics. Here's why what's best for me is also, trust me, what's also best for you.
Don't worry pal.. There is no doubt whether YOUR POSTS are educated opinion or a sales pitch..
I aint buying your elitist progressive conspiracies or whatever else you THINK you are selling..
1) The famous hockey stick was not produced by Phil Jones nor his data. Try Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes.
2) The data from which it was produced has been available ever since it was published and it has not been in the custody of Dr Jones.
3) Jones' specialty is the instrumented record. The hockey stick, as you know, it primarily a reconstruction from proxy data.
4) There is not the slightest indication that any of Jones' lost or missing data would have overturned current conclusions regarding climate trends.
So, Ms Aster, are you going to ignore the fire alarms because you can't find your personal thermometer?
asterism was simply quoting the article.
how many examples of shoddy, deceptive, or just plain wrong climate science are needed before you start losing confidence in the whole global warming doomsday scenario?
my math and physics teachers told me that even if you get the right answer by the wrong method, you are still wrong! climate science uses bad data, bad methodology and gets the wrong answers to boot.
I think that what it will take to discredit the IPCC is more than conspiracy theory. It will take science, and so far none, no exaggeration, has been forthcoming.
There is simply zero science based alternatives that have been offered by anyone that offer a plausible alternative to the connections that the IPCC has offered for fossil fuel consumption, atmospheric GHG concentrations, radiation energy imbalance, and therefore AGW.
Maybe someday you'll be the one to define that science. But with your total lack of resources, it's unlikely.
asterism was simply quoting the article.
how many examples of shoddy, deceptive, or just plain wrong climate science are needed before you start losing confidence in the whole global warming doomsday scenario?
my math and physics teachers told me that even if you get the right answer by the wrong method, you are still wrong! climate science uses bad data, bad methodology and gets the wrong answers to boot.
I think that what it will take to discredit the IPCC is more than conspiracy theory. It will take science, and so far none, no exaggeration, has been forthcoming.
There is simply zero science based alternatives that have been offered by anyone that offer a plausible alternative to the connections that the IPCC has offered for fossil fuel consumption, atmospheric GHG concentrations, radiation energy imbalance, and therefore AGW.
Maybe someday you'll be the one to define that science. But with your total lack of resources, it's unlikely.
?????
no contrary science? that would be laughable if you weren't so serious.
water, water vapour, and clouds are the main factor in atmospheric equilibriums including temperature. so much so that liquid water and similar temperatures were present on earth a few billion years ago when the sun's output was at least 15% weaker than today. even the IPCC admits that water driven systems are not well understood. a small change in location or amount of clouds makes a large difference yet you continue to proclaim CO2 as the thermostat of climate.
I am on record here as agreeing that doubling CO2 will cause a ~1C increase, given that everything else stays the same. but things do not stay the same. the extra energy returned as back radiation does not only go into heating the surface, it also flows through alternative routes and pathways that tend to weaken the disturbance in the overall equilibrium.
Climate science has devolved into a bad courtroom drama where an overzealous prosecutor has distorted and cherrypicked the evidence to lay blame at the feet of CO2 and the humans that produce it. it is a circumstantial case at best, with the accidental correlation in the 90's being seen as proof positive but the lack of correlation since then has been ignored. CO2 simply does not fit except as a trivial factor. a 1C rise is beneficial, the exaggerated claim of 3-6C is not only improbable but likely physically impossible.
you consider any criticism of the IPCC or climate science as conspiracy theory. yet they have been forced to back down on all of their major points, except CO2 increases in the atmosphere (those are escalating but not having the predicted effect). and every time they scale back a new excuse is presented that you gullibly accept and fortify your next stonewall position. the deep oceans ate my warming! without going through shallow water no less.
I really dont care what you think. unfortunately though, you are the type of person that accepts a simple explanation for a complex question and then endlessly repeats it. i realize there is no possibility of changing your mind but I feel as if I should at least speak up for my side occasionally.
"IPCC now believes that in the 21st Century, Atlantic Ocean circulation collapse is very unlikely, ice sheet collapse is exceptionally unlikely, and catastrophic release of methane hydrates from melting permafrost is very unlikely. You can read it for yourself in Chapter 12 Table 12.4 of the IPCCs forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report."
IPCC Calls Off Planetary Emergency? | Watts Up With That?
[/URL][/IMG]
"IPCC now believes that in the 21st Century, Atlantic Ocean circulation collapse is “very unlikely,” ice sheet collapse is “exceptionally unlikely,” and catastrophic release of methane hydrates from melting permafrost is “very unlikely.” You can read it for yourself in Chapter 12 Table 12.4 of the IPCC’s forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report."
IPCC Calls Off Planetary Emergency? | Watts Up With That?
[/URL][/IMG]
You're all happy that life on earth won't end in the next 87 years?
I guess that means that as long as you die of old age, the rest don't matter.
If you want to send that money over to some gay solar company, feel free to do so s0n!!
"IPCC now believes that in the 21st Century, Atlantic Ocean circulation collapse is very unlikely, ice sheet collapse is exceptionally unlikely, and catastrophic release of methane hydrates from melting permafrost is very unlikely. You can read it for yourself in Chapter 12 Table 12.4 of the IPCCs forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report."
IPCC Calls Off Planetary Emergency? | Watts Up With That?
[/URL][/IMG]
You're all happy that life on earth won't end in the next 87 years?
I guess that means that as long as you die of old age, the rest don't matter.
Nah s0n....what it means is that people like me and my kids and all the other folks wont have to pay 100% increase on their electric bills. Fuck that.
And nobody buys the whole bomb throwing doomsday shit anymore.......except the internet k00ks who do it as a fucking hobby. Nobody else cares.
You're all happy that life on earth won't end in the next 87 years?
I guess that means that as long as you die of old age, the rest don't matter.
Nah s0n....what it means is that people like me and my kids and all the other folks wont have to pay 100% increase on their electric bills. Fuck that.
And nobody buys the whole bomb throwing doomsday shit anymore.......except the internet k00ks who do it as a fucking hobby. Nobody else cares.
I wish there was a way to stick you with obsolete. While we are enjoying fuel and waste free energy you could be sucking on the big straw trying to get the oil dregs out.
How much do you think those last 42 gallons are going to sell for among the millions of bidders that you'll be competing against?
I'd get back to you on that Skooks, if only I could see what it was you wrote. All I get is "This message is hidden because skookerasbil is on your ignore list". Go figger.
