Material from Nuccitelli and Cook at Skeptical Science

[Abraham3]

Let's see if you whiz brains can refute what they've got to say. If they're "bottom feeding scum", as FCT contends, it should be quite easy. Besides, global warming is a hoax and we're all just ignorant shills for the democrats and scientists getting fat and rich on billions in grant money.

Download a Nucccitellli paper here as a PDF. Then tell us what you think he got wrong.

Climate | Free Full-Text | Comment on: Akasofu, S.-I. On the Present Halting of Global Warming. Climate 2013, 1, 4?11

 

[Mr. H.]

It's not "Global Warming", it's not "Climate Change"....

The operative is now "Weather Modification".

You get up in the morning, look out the window... and bear witness. Day in, day out.

The Liberal world is now the daily world. No matter if it's raining, snowing, scorching hot, freezing cold, parched dry.

And the daily world is the fault of Conservatives and their hydrocarbons.

We know the drill.

 

[SwimExpert]

Let's see if you whiz brains can refute what they've got to say. If they're "bottom feeding scum", as FCT contends, it should be quite easy. Besides, global warming is a hoax and we're all just ignorant shills for the democrats and scientists getting fat and rich on billions in grant money.

Download a Nucccitellli paper here as a PDF. Then tell us what you think he got wrong.

Climate | Free Full-Text | Comment on: Akasofu, S.-I. On the Present Halting of Global Warming. Climate 2013, 1, 4?11

You know what, despite the spirited debate that goes on on this board the truth is that everyone has been really accommodating of you so far. But your grace period is over. You have no interest in having a real and honest discussion on anything. In your brief time here you've done nothing but purposely and deliberately mischaracterize the position of people who disagree with your own. You're a quack. You're a complete loon. You're on the same level as National Socialist, Rdean, Franco, and Chesswarsnow.

 

[westwall]

Let's see if you whiz brains can refute what they've got to say. If they're "bottom feeding scum", as FCT contends, it should be quite easy. Besides, global warming is a hoax and we're all just ignorant shills for the democrats and scientists getting fat and rich on billions in grant money.

Download a Nucccitellli paper here as a PDF. Then tell us what you think he got wrong.

Climate | Free Full-Text | Comment on: Akasofu, S.-I. On the Present Halting of Global Warming. Climate 2013, 1, 4?11

Here are the glaring errors...... I'll let you think about why...

"Even if there were some (hitherto unidentified) energy imbalance that occurred during the LIA, the Earth would relax to a new equilibrium temperature that would consist of rapid initial heating followed by slow heating as the new equilibrium is approached [5]."

"There is a wealth of published studies that conclusively show the Earth thermal reservoirs are gaining heat."

"There is no recognized repository of instrumental GMST data that predate ~1850. In support of our claim, Figure 1 in [4] begins circa 1850 and extends to near the present time—not a two-century duration." ---I'll give you a clue here, this is an outright lie

"A proper prediction of the rate of Earth temperature increase would require a knowledge of the rate of change of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, along with changes of other human and natural climate forcings."

"The authors declare no conflict of interest"

Over to you...

 

[orogenicman]

Let's see if you whiz brains can refute what they've got to say. If they're "bottom feeding scum", as FCT contends, it should be quite easy. Besides, global warming is a hoax and we're all just ignorant shills for the democrats and scientists getting fat and rich on billions in grant money.

Download a Nucccitellli paper here as a PDF. Then tell us what you think he got wrong.

Climate | Free Full-Text | Comment on: Akasofu, S.-I. On the Present Halting of Global Warming. Climate 2013, 1, 4?11

You know what, despite the spirited debate that goes on on this board the truth is that everyone has been really accommodating of you so far. But your grace period is over. You have no interest in having a real and honest discussion on anything. In your brief time here you've done nothing but purposely and deliberately mischaracterize the position of people who disagree with your own. You're a quack. You're a complete loon. You're on the same level as National Socialist, Rdean, Franco, and Chesswarsnow.

Translation: SwimExpert doesn't know how to read scientific papers, so he resorts to personal, politically charged attacks.

 

[orogenicman]

"There is no recognized repository of instrumental GMST data that predate ~1850. In support of our claim, Figure 1 in [4] begins circa 1850 and extends to near the present time—not a two-century duration." ---I'll give you a clue here, this is an outright lie

Really? I am assuming that you have at your fingertips a"recognized repository of instrumental GMST data that predate ~1850"

If so, perhaps you can produce it here, now for the rest of us to peruse.

Over to you...

 

[SwimExpert]

Let's see if you whiz brains can refute what they've got to say. If they're "bottom feeding scum", as FCT contends, it should be quite easy. Besides, global warming is a hoax and we're all just ignorant shills for the democrats and scientists getting fat and rich on billions in grant money.

Download a Nucccitellli paper here as a PDF. Then tell us what you think he got wrong.

Climate | Free Full-Text | Comment on: Akasofu, S.-I. On the Present Halting of Global Warming. Climate 2013, 1, 4?11

You know what, despite the spirited debate that goes on on this board the truth is that everyone has been really accommodating of you so far. But your grace period is over. You have no interest in having a real and honest discussion on anything. In your brief time here you've done nothing but purposely and deliberately mischaracterize the position of people who disagree with your own. You're a quack. You're a complete loon. You're on the same level as National Socialist, Rdean, Franco, and Chesswarsnow.

Translation: SwimExpert doesn't know how to read scientific papers, so he resorts to personal, politically charged attacks.

He, and I'm thinking possibly you as well, don't even know what he's arguing, and what he's arguing against.

 

[flacaltenn]

That paper is a butt-hurt flailing at a REAL science paper from a warming activist with no advanced credentials, a meterologist, a "community college" person, and an unknown "engineering" person at a university in Minn with a tropical sounding name.

It doesn't read well.. Misinterprets the original work. And attempts to do a Karl Rove type SPIN on the science facts.. Don't think I'll waste my time to read the ORIGINAL work -- if Nuticielli is the ONLY guy who's challenging the work..

But I'll just guess --- that ORIGINAL paper must have been pretty powerful to get all this dander up..

 

[flacaltenn]

Fascinating primadonna backstory here... Seems like the Akakosu paper prompted a resignation of a member of the editorial board at the new Climate journal.. And he resigned BEFORE the paper had gone thru peer review.. And WHEN HE resigned --- he ran straight to Cook/Nutti to whine and bitch about the "unfairness" of allowing scientific works CONTRARY to his view of journal editorial policy...

Just like the daytime soaps...

Syun Akasofu?s work provokes journal resignation | Watts Up With That?


On the Present Halting of Global Warming

WUWT readers may remember Dr. Syun Akasofu as the source of a graph tracking the Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation with sine wave shifts in global temperature up and down.

Akasofu’s recent submission to the first issue of the new journal “Climate,” a submission in this same vein of analysis, provoked one of the journal’s editorial board to resign in protest.

Dr. Asasofu’s submission was entitled “On the present halting of global warming,” and Dr. Chris Brierley of University College London declared the work to be of such insufficient quality for publication that his resignation in protest was requisite.

Dr. Brierley cites computer models and insufficient evidence in the paper as his reason for rejecting Dr. Akasofu’s submission to ‘Climate’ and thus provoking his resignation from the journal’s editorial board, despite crediting Dr. Akasofu’s hypothesis as valid and reputation as “deserved.”

Best part of this drama are the comments on this article at WUWT..

I see Brierley has chosen the Junior SS (skepticalscience) Treehouse Gang as the platform for his flounce.

-----------

“..Dr. Brierley presents as an extreme abuse of the scientific method…”

Uh, so he goes to a website that is an extreme abuse of what they attempt to pass as “science”!?
---------------------------

It is worth comparing the execrable behaviour Chris Brierly with the courageous behaviour of Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen.

Brierly has resigned from an Editorial Board because he objects to a paper being accepted for consideration for publication. Note, it is consideration for publication of the paper which has prompted his resignation. If the paper were lacking in quality or otherwise flawed then peer review (i.e. consideration for publication) would have revealed the flaw(s) and, therefore, the consideration would have rejected the paper for publication.

By his resignation prior to consideration of the paper, Brierly has demonstrated that it is NOT the quality of the paper which he dislikes. Therefore, his dislike can only be of the author of the paper, Syun Akasofu, or of the information provided in the paper. Neither reason is a proper objection to the paper.

Thus, Brierly’s resignation can only be an attempt to harm the scientific process which requires the full exchange and questioning of information.

Compare that to the behaviour of Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen who is the Editor of Energy & Environment (E&E). For some years she has wanted to retire but an appropriate successor has been hard to find, and this is not surprising. The so-called ‘Hockey Team’ has attacked and reviled her and her reputation. In attempt to stop E&E publishing one paper they tried to get her sacked from her university position.

Drama --- this is what is behind the curtain at SkS....

 

[westwall]

"There is no recognized repository of instrumental GMST data that predate ~1850. In support of our claim, Figure 1 in [4] begins circa 1850 and extends to near the present time—not a two-century duration." ---I'll give you a clue here, this is an outright lie

Really? I am assuming that you have at your fingertips a"recognized repository of instrumental GMST data that predate ~1850"

If so, perhaps you can produce it here, now for the rest of us to peruse.

Over to you...

Here's two sources (of many, and one is even a wiki link so even you can understand it!) have fun!


The keeping of weather diaries in Europe became a scientific practice from the late fifteenth century, i.e. at the beginning of the Early Modern Period. Examples of early diaries are known from Poland (Gorczynski, 1922; Walawender, 1932; Rojecki, 1966), the various regions of Germany (He11mann, 1883, 1901; Klemm, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1979, 1983), the Czech lands (Pejrn1 and Munzar, 1968a, 1968b [dealing with Bohemian records from Basle]; Klemm, 1983; Munzar, 1984, 1994, 1995; Brazdil and Kotyza, 1995a, 1995b, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c), Switzerland (SMB, 1872, 1873, 1885) and Denmark (La Cour, 1876). The information recorded in weather diaries is used in various ways.






http://www.hist.unibe.ch/unibe/phil...348/46_Pfister-Daily-Weather-Obs-99-2_ger.pdf

Central England temperature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Abraham3]

It's not "Global Warming", it's not "Climate Change"....

The operative is now "Weather Modification".

You get up in the morning, look out the window... and bear witness. Day in, day out.

The Liberal world is now the daily world. No matter if it's raining, snowing, scorching hot, freezing cold, parched dry.

And the daily world is the fault of Conservatives and their hydrocarbons.

We know the drill.

That would be a FAIL

 

[Abraham3]

Let's see if you whiz brains can refute what they've got to say. If they're "bottom feeding scum", as FCT contends, it should be quite easy. Besides, global warming is a hoax and we're all just ignorant shills for the democrats and scientists getting fat and rich on billions in grant money.

Download a Nucccitellli paper here as a PDF. Then tell us what you think he got wrong.

Climate | Free Full-Text | Comment on: Akasofu, S.-I. On the Present Halting of Global Warming. Climate 2013, 1, 4?11

You know what, despite the spirited debate that goes on on this board the truth is that everyone has been really accommodating of you so far. But your grace period is over. You have no interest in having a real and honest discussion on anything. In your brief time here you've done nothing but purposely and deliberately mischaracterize the position of people who disagree with your own. You're a quack. You're a complete loon. You're on the same level as National Socialist, Rdean, Franco, and Chesswarsnow.

That would be a FAIL

 

[Abraham3]

Let's see if you whiz brains can refute what they've got to say. If they're "bottom feeding scum", as FCT contends, it should be quite easy. Besides, global warming is a hoax and we're all just ignorant shills for the democrats and scientists getting fat and rich on billions in grant money.

Download a Nucccitellli paper here as a PDF. Then tell us what you think he got wrong.

Climate | Free Full-Text | Comment on: Akasofu, S.-I. On the Present Halting of Global Warming. Climate 2013, 1, 4?11

Here are the glaring errors...... I'll let you think about why...

"Even if there were some (hitherto unidentified) energy imbalance that occurred during the LIA, the Earth would relax to a new equilibrium temperature that would consist of rapid initial heating followed by slow heating as the new equilibrium is approached [5]."

"There is a wealth of published studies that conclusively show the Earth thermal reservoirs are gaining heat."

"There is no recognized repository of instrumental GMST data that predate ~1850. In support of our claim, Figure 1 in [4] begins circa 1850 and extends to near the present time—not a two-century duration." ---I'll give you a clue here, this is an outright lie

"A proper prediction of the rate of Earth temperature increase would require a knowledge of the rate of change of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, along with changes of other human and natural climate forcings."

"The authors declare no conflict of interest"

Over to you...

An assortment of quotes with no other commentary is a FAIL.

 

[Abraham3]

You know what, despite the spirited debate that goes on on this board the truth is that everyone has been really accommodating of you so far. But your grace period is over. You have no interest in having a real and honest discussion on anything. In your brief time here you've done nothing but purposely and deliberately mischaracterize the position of people who disagree with your own. You're a quack. You're a complete loon. You're on the same level as National Socialist, Rdean, Franco, and Chesswarsnow.

Translation: SwimExpert doesn't know how to read scientific papers, so he resorts to personal, politically charged attacks.

He, and I'm thinking possibly you as well, don't even know what he's arguing, and what he's arguing against.

That would be a FAIL.

 

[Abraham3]

That paper is a butt-hurt flailing at a REAL science paper from a warming activist with no advanced credentials, a meterologist, a "community college" person, and an unknown "engineering" person at a university in Minn with a tropical sounding name.

It doesn't read well.. Misinterprets the original work. And attempts to do a Karl Rove type SPIN on the science facts.. Don't think I'll waste my time to read the ORIGINAL work -- if Nuticielli is the ONLY guy who's challenging the work..

But I'll just guess --- that ORIGINAL paper must have been pretty powerful to get all this dander up..

Hmm... undirected hostility. That would be a FAIL.

 

[Abraham3]

Fascinating primadonna backstory here... Seems like the Akakosu paper prompted a resignation of a member of the editorial board at the new Climate journal.. And he resigned BEFORE the paper had gone thru peer review.. And WHEN HE resigned --- he ran straight to Cook/Nutti to whine and bitch about the "unfairness" of allowing scientific works CONTRARY to his view of journal editorial policy...

Just like the daytime soaps...

Syun Akasofu?s work provokes journal resignation | Watts Up With That?


On the Present Halting of Global Warming

WUWT readers may remember Dr. Syun Akasofu as the source of a graph tracking the Pacific Multidecadal Oscillation with sine wave shifts in global temperature up and down.

Akasofu’s recent submission to the first issue of the new journal “Climate,” a submission in this same vein of analysis, provoked one of the journal’s editorial board to resign in protest.

Dr. Asasofu’s submission was entitled “On the present halting of global warming,” and Dr. Chris Brierley of University College London declared the work to be of such insufficient quality for publication that his resignation in protest was requisite.

Dr. Brierley cites computer models and insufficient evidence in the paper as his reason for rejecting Dr. Akasofu’s submission to ‘Climate’ and thus provoking his resignation from the journal’s editorial board, despite crediting Dr. Akasofu’s hypothesis as valid and reputation as “deserved.”

Best part of this drama are the comments on this article at WUWT..

I see Brierley has chosen the Junior SS (skepticalscience) Treehouse Gang as the platform for his flounce.

-----------

“..Dr. Brierley presents as an extreme abuse of the scientific method…”

Uh, so he goes to a website that is an extreme abuse of what they attempt to pass as “science”!?
---------------------------

It is worth comparing the execrable behaviour Chris Brierly with the courageous behaviour of Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen.

Brierly has resigned from an Editorial Board because he objects to a paper being accepted for consideration for publication. Note, it is consideration for publication of the paper which has prompted his resignation. If the paper were lacking in quality or otherwise flawed then peer review (i.e. consideration for publication) would have revealed the flaw(s) and, therefore, the consideration would have rejected the paper for publication.

By his resignation prior to consideration of the paper, Brierly has demonstrated that it is NOT the quality of the paper which he dislikes. Therefore, his dislike can only be of the author of the paper, Syun Akasofu, or of the information provided in the paper. Neither reason is a proper objection to the paper.

Thus, Brierly’s resignation can only be an attempt to harm the scientific process which requires the full exchange and questioning of information.

Compare that to the behaviour of Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen who is the Editor of Energy & Environment (E&E). For some years she has wanted to retire but an appropriate successor has been hard to find, and this is not surprising. The so-called ‘Hockey Team’ has attacked and reviled her and her reputation. In attempt to stop E&E publishing one paper they tried to get her sacked from her university position.

Drama --- this is what is behind the curtain at SkS....

That would be a FAIL.

 

[Abraham3]

"There is no recognized repository of instrumental GMST data that predate ~1850. In support of our claim, Figure 1 in [4] begins circa 1850 and extends to near the present time—not a two-century duration." ---I'll give you a clue here, this is an outright lie

Really? I am assuming that you have at your fingertips a"recognized repository of instrumental GMST data that predate ~1850"

If so, perhaps you can produce it here, now for the rest of us to peruse.

Over to you...

Here's two sources (of many, and one is even a wiki link so even you can understand it!) have fun!

The keeping of weather diaries in Europe became a scientific practice from the late fifteenth century, i.e. at the beginning of the Early Modern Period. Examples of early diaries are known from Poland (Gorczynski, 1922; Walawender, 1932; Rojecki, 1966), the various regions of Germany (He11mann, 1883, 1901; Klemm, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1979, 1983), the Czech lands (Pejrn1 and Munzar, 1968a, 1968b [dealing with Bohemian records from Basle]; Klemm, 1983; Munzar, 1984, 1994, 1995; Brazdil and Kotyza, 1995a, 1995b, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c), Switzerland (SMB, 1872, 1873, 1885) and Denmark (La Cour, 1876). The information recorded in weather diaries is used in various ways.

http://www.hist.unibe.ch/unibe/phil...348/46_Pfister-Daily-Weather-Obs-99-2_ger.pdf

Central England temperature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have to admit that you, WestWall, have put more real effort into this than anyone else. You read the PDF for one. As far as I can tell, you're the only denier to have done so (at least by the evidence presented).

Checking...

 

[westwall]

[/COLOR][/B]


Really? I am assuming that you have at your fingertips a"recognized repository of instrumental GMST data that predate ~1850"

If so, perhaps you can produce it here, now for the rest of us to peruse.

Over to you...

Here's two sources (of many, and one is even a wiki link so even you can understand it!) have fun!

The keeping of weather diaries in Europe became a scientific practice from the late fifteenth century, i.e. at the beginning of the Early Modern Period. Examples of early diaries are known from Poland (Gorczynski, 1922; Walawender, 1932; Rojecki, 1966), the various regions of Germany (He11mann, 1883, 1901; Klemm, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1979, 1983), the Czech lands (Pejrn1 and Munzar, 1968a, 1968b [dealing with Bohemian records from Basle]; Klemm, 1983; Munzar, 1984, 1994, 1995; Brazdil and Kotyza, 1995a, 1995b, 1996a, 1996b, 1996c), Switzerland (SMB, 1872, 1873, 1885) and Denmark (La Cour, 1876). The information recorded in weather diaries is used in various ways.

http://www.hist.unibe.ch/unibe/phil...348/46_Pfister-Daily-Weather-Obs-99-2_ger.pdf

Central England temperature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have to admit that you, WestWall, have put more real effort into this than anyone else. You read the PDF for one. As far as I can tell, you're the only denier to have done so (at least by the evidence presented).

Checking...

Here's a secret for you. I ALWAYS read what you guys post. I might actually learn something from it. I WANT to learn. Something your cohorts and sadly, you, seem to not want to do.

 

[Abraham3]

This is the most insignificant of nit-picks. The question under debate between Cook, Nuccitelli and Asafoku is whether or not gloabal warming has halted in the last 15 years, not the availability of weather records for 15th century Europe. That would be a FAIL.

But, really, I appreciate the effort.

 

[Abraham3]

Here's a secret for you. I ALWAYS read what you guys post. I might actually learn something from it. I WANT to learn. Something your cohorts and sadly, you, seem to not want to do.

That must be how I got where I'm at.