tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post5215054086374017365..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Matt Ridley goes to Serengeti and tells big fat lies about the work of Michael Mann and Keith BriffaSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger60125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-85777191777293691562014-01-14T14:01:53.019+11:002014-01-14T14:01:53.019+11:00"Note also: HotWhopper is set up to demolish ..."<i>Note also: HotWhopper is set up to demolish disinformation not propagate it.</i>"<br /><br />Here, here!<br /><br />Now watch Junior go crying elsewhere that the Nasty Sou wouldn't let him play in her sandpit just because he broke her rules, and those of critical thinking.<br /><br /><br />Bernard J.Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-4538351664481770592014-01-13T04:33:19.941+11:002014-01-13T04:33:19.941+11:00Comment deleted as way off topic. You've been...Comment deleted as way off topic. You've been warned multiple times AFG Jr. If you want to comment please follow the comment policy. Note also: HotWhopper is set up to demolish disinformation not propagate it.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-3552870270832019002014-01-13T04:10:13.830+11:002014-01-13T04:10:13.830+11:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.AGFJRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04174040607216472442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-866406150058988142014-01-12T20:34:04.181+11:002014-01-12T20:34:04.181+11:00I'm not surprised that AGF has little or nothi...I'm not surprised that AGF has little or nothing to contribute.<br /> <br />The BA & MA suggest no scientific or mathematical training (but I concede doesn't preclude it). The compulsion to wax lyrical on theodicy when the discussion is physical science is merely a confirmatory data point.<br /><br />I don't suggest that scientists from University of Utah are not both good and honest. I do doubt that their Arts programme produces such scientists.Robert Daynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-24703710746647063122014-01-12T09:20:13.007+11:002014-01-12T09:20:13.007+11:00AGF Jr - what are you rabbiting on about? Wegman ...AGF Jr - what are you rabbiting on about? Wegman <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/11/22/wegman-plagiarised-but-there-i/" rel="nofollow">plagiarised and worse</a>.<br /><br />And in case you change your mind about commenting here, do get back on topic. You've been asked to do so countless times.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-4592697148363310342014-01-12T09:18:24.442+11:002014-01-12T09:18:24.442+11:00What the "honest and intelligent visitor"...What the "honest and intelligent visitor" will see is yet another denialist not willing to actually engage in the science because you don't know any.PLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-24829664589753155672014-01-12T09:11:20.912+11:002014-01-12T09:11:20.912+11:00My but the BS is getting thick. Wegman exhonerate...My but the BS is getting thick. Wegman exhonerates Mann? Then why does Mann accuse Wegman of perjury, in characteristic fashion? Looks like a bunch of creationists confronted by a Neanderthal skull. Ignore it and it will go away. Logs and sticks at Exit are best ignored too, 'cause they sure won't get along with the Hockey Stick!<br /><br />Well I've posted enough for the rare honest and intelligent visitor--check out Michael Kelly's link and you will know for ever after that the "settled science" has always been and always will be nothing but junk science. Highly intelligent people never gave it anything but short shrift. --AGFAGFJRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04174040607216472442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-24521276262927322362014-01-12T09:02:14.834+11:002014-01-12T09:02:14.834+11:00Never mind; XYY males don't seem more aggressi...Never mind; XYY males don't seem more aggressive than XY males. Still dunno where all this hatred came from. The search continues...Dumb Scientisthttp://dumbscientist.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-34044922990198065142014-01-12T08:54:27.610+11:002014-01-12T08:54:27.610+11:00Many contrarians I've encountered have been me...Many contrarians I've encountered have been men with anger management issues. Maybe the "contrarian gene" is testosterone-fueled aggression, or possibly even XYY males...Dumb Scientisthttp://dumbscientist.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-59301987437160700102014-01-12T07:51:20.230+11:002014-01-12T07:51:20.230+11:00Yes, it does seem that way, doesn't it. But i...Yes, it does seem that way, doesn't it. But it's the men who express the gene.<br /><br />I won't be letting Bob's flattery go to my head :) It took him a while. He's a bit slow. <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/05/bob-tisdale-is-perennially-puzzled.html" rel="nofollow">That article</a> is from May last year, but the light bulb hasn't gone off yet. Maybe I was too easy on him <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/gobbling-up-or-spitting-out-bob.html" rel="nofollow">this time around</a> :)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-22772253517809906312014-01-12T06:41:59.640+11:002014-01-12T06:41:59.640+11:00Women appear to be carriers; there's a pile of...Women appear to be carriers; there's a pile of brother-in laws involved. I think the editor of "The Spectator" maybe. Weird-sister swapping fraternity. See you, Sou, are top item on WUWT currently, alongside stoat.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-81801876108749499142014-01-12T05:12:06.255+11:002014-01-12T05:12:06.255+11:00There's probably a denial gene. I wonder if it...There's probably a denial gene. I wonder if it's recessive and is only expressed when the "upper" class inter-marry :)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-56332767580028776002014-01-12T04:57:46.393+11:002014-01-12T04:57:46.393+11:00I learnt today that the UK's AGW-denier Enviro...I learnt today that the UK's AGW-denier Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, is Matt Ridley's brother-in law. "Lord" Lawson is Monckton's brother-in-law; the denial scene here is positively incestuous.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-63715668715779013252014-01-12T03:26:47.724+11:002014-01-12T03:26:47.724+11:00Amusingly, noisy l.o.d. measurements don't eve...Amusingly, noisy l.o.d. measurements don't even tell us what's been happening with the Earth's oblateness, which was presumably the point. Luckily, actual scientists have studied changes in <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL047879/abstract" rel="nofollow">Earth's oblateness</a> and found that Greenland and Antarctic ice loss have dominated these changes since 2002.Dumb Scientisthttp://dumbscientist.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-56546563461170720702014-01-12T03:00:00.351+11:002014-01-12T03:00:00.351+11:00I don’t know anything about U of U, but I’ve worke...I don’t know anything about U of U, but I’ve worked with people at Brigham Young U, and they are honest scientists trying to understand and protect the planet. Also check out Utah Mormon Republican scientist Barry Bickmore’s page at http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/. If you’re going to change anything in the US, the churches have to get behind it.<br /><br />However, AGF is a one-trick pony: the little original material he’s posted here (l.o.d.) is essentially all he’s got. Unfortunately he doesn’t understand what it doesn’t tell us.PLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-87024088694289450042014-01-11T18:31:04.945+11:002014-01-11T18:31:04.945+11:00Keen to understand agfosterjr better I entered tha...Keen to understand agfosterjr better I entered that moniker into Google...<br /><br />Several hits of climate science denial and religiosity, so probably the same person.<br />Gravatar said: agfosterjr. BA UofU. MA UofU.<br /><br />So I Googled UofU:<br />University of Utah<br /><br />And, in that moment, I was enlightened.<br /><br />Rob.Robert Daynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55431224232385991672014-01-11T16:12:50.543+11:002014-01-11T16:12:50.543+11:00Captain Flashheart, that's a good idea.
AGFJr...Captain Flashheart, that's a good idea.<br /><br />AGFJr do pay attention to just how wrong non-experts like obsessive denier blogger McIntyre has proven to be. Also how Wegman (also not a climate scientist) plagiarised material and altered it at the same time so it could be abused for political purposes by the hard right in the US republican party. Those ugly episodes are well in the past and have been thoroughly documented.<br /><br />And as well as being wronger than wrong, very long-winded, and unable to articulate a coherent argument - you have shown a tendency to veer way off topic, AGFJr, There are numerous articles on HW about sea level that you can comment on and remain on topic. Many of them about how, like you apparently, Anthony Watts thinks that ice doesn't melt when it gets hot.<br /><br />This article is about how Matt Ridley rejects the multiple lines of evidence indicating global and northern hemisphere surface temperatures of the past one to two thousand years, plus he rejects the modern instrumental record. He's a wanker.<br /><br />If you want to argue about sea level, do it on a sea level article. And when you do, at least discuss the science rather than quoting clowns like Monckton, who wouldn't know sea level from a mountain top. Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-15244594532856453632014-01-11T15:46:39.565+11:002014-01-11T15:46:39.565+11:00sou, I would like to propose a new rule for your s...sou, I would like to propose a new rule for your site: if anyone claims Mcintyre debunked Mann, they need to put up a comment explicitly addressing the Wegman report and John Mashey's rebuttal (or at least the three main points of deliberate red noise, series selection and plagiarism) before any other comments are allowed through. Otherwise your site ends up being yet another venue for these ignorant assholes to slander Mann's work.Captain Flashheartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-76091233705757329122014-01-11T15:37:55.758+11:002014-01-11T15:37:55.758+11:00Real skeptics cite the peer reviewed literature an...Real skeptics cite the peer reviewed literature and provide uncertainty bounds on their estimates rather than waving their hands. For instance, <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183/F3.large.jpg" rel="nofollow">Fig. 3</a> from Shepherd et al. 2012 compares ice sheet mass trends in Greenland and Antarctica using GRACE gravimetry, laser altimetry, and the input-output method which subtracts glacier discharge from estimates of precipitation. All three methods agree that Greenland and Antarctica combined are losing mass.Dumb Scientisthttp://dumbscientist.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52456417872252783452014-01-11T15:34:50.774+11:002014-01-11T15:34:50.774+11:00@AGF: You've really gone off the deep end, hav...@AGF: You've really gone off the deep end, haven't you? Tough night at the pub? Answer just one of my questions. Or, I suggest, Sou should just cut you off. Let's start with:<br /><br />What does the *history* of secular trends in l.o.d. tell you about *future* SLR?PLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-34818025979963173552014-01-11T15:08:23.957+11:002014-01-11T15:08:23.957+11:00yikes!yikes!billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-85553477422173880122014-01-11T14:33:41.706+11:002014-01-11T14:33:41.706+11:00My but you are provincial. Did you know that Job ...My but you are provincial. Did you know that Job is considered one of the three greatest works in literary theodicy of the Western tradition, along with Faust and Dante’s Inferno? Will I be allowed to quote from the other two? You are the one who exudes dogmatic religious fervor, and I have insulted your high priest. I am the iconoclast.<br /><br />Lord Kelvin and the Edomite bards are agreed: God can quantify, and we should too. “Possible” quantifies; it means a non-zero probability. Negligible odds maybe, but not “impossible.” “Probable” means somewhat better than 50/50 odds maybe. It’s almost as meaningless as “possible.”<br /><br />So how to assign odds to SLR scenarios, and what sort of correlation is there between global T and SLR? First the millennial (I don’t think the word actually shows up in the Bible) scale: over ice ages T/SLR correlation translates to ice surface/volume correlation. Can you figure out why? T is a function of albedo, or ice cover; sea level is a function ice volume. And ice melting and freezing is a function of insolation, that is, Milankovitch Cycles. <br /><br />SLR has been pretty linear for 80 years, allowing for annual noise, while T has fluctuated dramatically. That is to say, there is little correlation to speak of. OK, on a secular scale, maybe (dam that religious jargon), but on a decadal scale, hardly. But this is to be expected. After all, steric expansion requires nearly two orders of magnitude more energy than eustatic SLR. Did you get that? You must first pick a mechanism of energy transfer before you can predict SLR. If you can’t predict the mechanism you can’t predict the rise. So you would have to be able to predict pauses, like the one we’re in now, to have any hope of estimating future SLR. The best one can do is extrapolate.<br /><br />Of course if ice starts melting catastrophically such niceties become insignificant and irrelevant. The trick then is to predict T, and the ICPP has a notoriously poor track record at that, observation consistently coming in at or below bottom IPCC estimates. And that’s after the adjustments, virtually all of which serve to increase T anomalies. Hansen surely has no quibbles with Mann’s hockey stick, which shows no MWP or LIA. The stick provides ammo Hansen is always looking for to ground his doomsday scenarios. So when Jorge Montt revealed trees that grew before the LIA they didn’t get much coverage in the press--zero to be exact--while the same glaciers’ record breaking retreat got world wide time lapse Youtube viewing. See how fast it’s melting? Who can deny it? And West Antarctica is next. But of course it’s all BS if a forest was there first, due to natural variation. We’re lucky when something survives centuries of glacial flow, so it’s not likely that we’re seeing anything anomalous--these MWP forests grew up north too--at Exit Glacier--and must have been something like global as far as temperate glaciers go.<br /><br />As for LOD, it sets constraints on how much the ice can be melting. Not as good as SLR really, but it helps us guess what is causing SLR, which up until about a decade ago, few claimed to know, including Munk (not Monk). On the average LOD should increase 1.7ms/century, taking GIA into account, and its failure to do so requires explanation. Core/mantle coupling might account for some of that, but the longer it goes on--half a century now--the less likely it seems that the earth’s moment of inertia is increasing. Ice is not melting as fast as it’s snowing. Therefore blame SLR on heat expansion. Therefore no worries. <br /><br />McIntyre beat Mann all to pieces, except in the revisionist history of the climate apologists. And the emails were innocent? Don’t take my word for it or anyone else’s. Read them. Kelly’s compilation is the best I’ve seen; if you can bring yourself to read books banned by the priests you will have a revelation. See http://michaelkelly.artofeurope.com/cru.htm<br /><br />Cheers, --AGF<br />AGFJRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04174040607216472442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45793268657672833212014-01-11T12:10:08.794+11:002014-01-11T12:10:08.794+11:00" McIntyre has been proved right about everyt..." McIntyre has been proved right about everything". I read your links; you read mine. http://www.desmogblog.com/steve-mcintyre<br /><br />McIntyre and McKitrick demolish the "hockey stick". Download the National Academies "North" report, 2006 (www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676)PLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-87614960148187951872014-01-11T08:19:19.902+11:002014-01-11T08:19:19.902+11:00And I really don't get the religion thing. Yo...And I really don't get the religion thing. You quoted the bible at us, but don't worry about people who have been demonstrated to lie. Again, go to Barry Bickmore's page on Monckton. Bickmore is a devout Mormon, a scientist, and a concerned Republican. He should be your model as a person of faith. PLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-25795407461354858002014-01-11T08:17:35.913+11:002014-01-11T08:17:35.913+11:00"RC backs Hansen against the IPCC. Surprise.&..."RC backs Hansen against the IPCC. Surprise." Not what I said. Poor reading skills: try again.<br /><br />You don't understand the science at all, do you? Hansen's prediction is possible within the limits of our knowledge of ice sheet dynamics. That doesn't make it "likely" in IPCC jargon, but it is not ruled out. I'll ask you again: How do you *know* that Hansen is wrong?<br /><br />And again: What does past l.o.d. tell us about the future? Even in the plot you show us, what's the message? Days are getting longer (red line) but with lots of variability on annual, interannual, and longer time scales. <br /><br />Sea level: the satellite-era plot covers 20 years. There are lots of papers about change in sea level rate, many of which highlight resolved time-dependence over much longer periods using tide gauges. The IPCC states "The rate of sea level rise since the mid-19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia (high confidence). Over the period 1901 to 2010, global<br />mean sea level rose by 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m (see Figure SPM.3). {3.7, 5.6, 13.2}". In fact, read all of B.4. in the AR5 SPM, then follow up in the main AR5 WG1 reference. Do you agree with the IPCC assessment of past sea level? If not, why?<br /><br />And now you're rehashing the stolen emails. Know how many commissions have addressed these and found that the denial camp had fabricated their story from out-of-context quotes? PLnoreply@blogger.com