tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post6988339969398510563..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Anthony Watts pushes anti-semitic conspiracy theories wrapped up as a climate hoaxSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39026415779747094822016-02-25T06:18:08.322+11:002016-02-25T06:18:08.322+11:00Small correction and some additions re the Cook13 ...Small correction and some additions re <a href="http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024;jsessionid=DCE7948B243D3C7C5D1AF4870A55B27F.c3.iopscience.cld.iop.org#erl460291s2" rel="nofollow">the Cook13 paper</a>:<br /><br />Of the 33.4% of papers since 1991 in which the authors stated a position on the what is causing global warming, 97.1% attributed global warming mostly to human activity, 1.9% disputed that it was mostly human activity and 1% indicated uncertainty as to the main cause. In <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686" rel="nofollow">Oreskes 2004</a>, of the papers studied 100% attributed global warming to humans. In <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract" rel="nofollow">Anderegg2010</a>, of the top 200 climatologists, 97% attributed global warming to human activity. <br /><br />On the world's most popular climate conspiracy blog, <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/05/about-that-97-not-great-moment-for-wuwt.html" rel="nofollow">98.4% Wattsonians</a> reject 200 years of climate science and only 1.6% accept science.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-6817228494119940242016-02-25T04:04:29.137+11:002016-02-25T04:04:29.137+11:00Jim S, why would the other 68% be doing research o...Jim S, why would the other 68% be doing research on climate change and writing papers if they didn't believe in it?<br /><br /><br />Oh, right, I forgot the worldwide conspiracy to preserve high-paying cushy government jobs at taxpayer expense.Treesongnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-40088781156918583932016-02-25T03:47:18.841+11:002016-02-25T03:47:18.841+11:00@ jim s
look up the statistics for sexual assaul...@ jim s <br /><br />look up the statistics for sexual assault convictions again women by men in Sweden, then compare them to Saudi Arabia <br /><br />now push your theory that Sweden is obviously (due to a high conviction rate) a more dangerous place for women<br /><br />I mean "just look at the facts"<br /><br />"facts" without context are meaningless <br /><br />unless you are a delusional denier and they seem to support whatever daft theory you are pushingTadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-53273608875189392252016-02-25T03:30:12.985+11:002016-02-25T03:30:12.985+11:00Galileo overturned blind faith and dogma by observ...<i>Galileo overturned blind faith and dogma by observation and measurement</i><br /><br />He made very significant contributions to science but if you are talking about the helicentric theory, no. He was correct in accepting the Capurnican theory, but if you are talking about the second run-in with the Inquisition, a major problem was that his actual theory was wrong. <br /><br />The Catholic Church had no real issue with a heliocentrc theory <i>if</i> it could be supported. That's why they had theologians around to rejig things as needed.<br /><br />It is not a good idea to advance a dodgy theory when being hauled before a judicial body that had already told you to shape up. <br /><br />It is also not a good idea to publish a book that make the paranoid ruler of Rome think you were lampooning him. Admittedly, I don't think Galileo realized that likely effect of the book on Urban the VIII but still ...jrkrideauhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04869979887929067657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-27786292295182872462016-02-25T02:41:08.912+11:002016-02-25T02:41:08.912+11:00Yup...the typical singular, out-of-context factoid...Yup...the typical singular, out-of-context factoid meant to mislead so typical of all deniers. Never, ever the full analysis as that would, well, show their factoid to in fact BE misleading.<br /><br />Try out your factoid in a science coffee lounge at your local university and see how much coffee gets spit out at the moment of your declamation.jgnfldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-42422541534981618132016-02-25T02:24:41.881+11:002016-02-25T02:24:41.881+11:00Don't you just hate that plausible denial crap...Don't you just hate that plausible denial crap from deniers?Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-67256165217640863442016-02-25T02:23:59.107+11:002016-02-25T02:23:59.107+11:00Don't you just hate that plausible denial crap...Don't you just hate that plausible denial crap from deniers?Jammy Dodgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08360437479098314946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-39613910525779764122016-02-25T02:11:33.521+11:002016-02-25T02:11:33.521+11:00Re: 32%. Just stated a fact. Don't take it pe...Re: 32%. Just stated a fact. Don't take it personal.Jim Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09002284630613235407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-71147372231629898312016-02-25T02:07:20.892+11:002016-02-25T02:07:20.892+11:00Re: 32%. Just stated a fact. Don't take it pe...Re: 32%. Just stated a fact. Don't take it personal.Jim Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09002284630613235407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-49299089625425985762016-02-24T18:50:59.716+11:002016-02-24T18:50:59.716+11:00Deniers simply hate that consensus figure, they po...Deniers simply hate that consensus figure, they pop up to attack it whenever it’s mentioned and they ludicrously compare themselves to Galileo<br /> <br />Galileo overturned blind faith and dogma by observation and measurement<br /> <br />We can observe and measure AGW – the deniers simply don’t or can’t look down the telescope <br /><br />pathetic<br />Tadaaahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07736188830660481871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12647546962869789122016-02-24T18:17:28.954+11:002016-02-24T18:17:28.954+11:00100% of the prestigious scientific institutions on...100% of the prestigious scientific institutions on this planet. They must all be in on the conspiracy because they certainly have a better chance of recognising scientific fraud than the knuckle draggers at WUWT. Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-91374715039046393432016-02-24T11:23:32.507+11:002016-02-24T11:23:32.507+11:00Maybe Jim will not believe he is an idiot unless e...Maybe Jim will not believe he is an idiot unless everyone here or at least 97% says so. We do not all need to say it Jim! You are an idiot!<br /><br />That's one! BertBert from Elthamnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-16510824386135721212016-02-24T11:11:29.955+11:002016-02-24T11:11:29.955+11:00Jim, try the following:
Read all the biology arti...Jim, try the following:<br /><br />Read all the biology articles published in the past 5 years. Count up how many expressly endorse evolution. Do you think even 10% would? Personally I doubt it.<br /><br />Now, "conclude" with impeccable denier "logic" that there is no consensus on evolution in biology.<br /><br />Do you see why you "logic" is not very impressive?<br /><br />Alternatively, walk on over to your nearest research university, go to the physics faculty lounge and just ask. You think there wouldn't be a solid consensus on certain basics in climate science like greenhouse gases lead to warming?<br /><br />Or, you can sit behind your computer and post drivel instead of looking at the science which is your likeliest course, of course.jgnfldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-3196351538184492492016-02-24T11:02:58.051+11:002016-02-24T11:02:58.051+11:00*97% of the 32% of the papers that stated a positi...*97% of the 32% of the papers that stated a position. Check the paper yourself.Jim Shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09002284630613235407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-33151114438481560392016-02-24T08:56:12.099+11:002016-02-24T08:56:12.099+11:00[chortle][chortle]Brandon R. Gateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031044715994785956noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-22398311205848534532016-02-24T05:09:15.996+11:002016-02-24T05:09:15.996+11:00Bellman, Thatcher was aware of global warming befo...Bellman, Thatcher was aware of global warming before Monckton joined Downing Street. She was told by then chief scientist, Professor John Ashworth, who left that role in the summer of 1981. Details here <br /><br />http://ingeniouspursuits.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/monckton-margaret-and-bit-of-truth.html<br /><br />I met Professor Ashworth a number of times around between 1979 and 1981. He has had a distinguished career, at the universities of Essex and Salford, at the London School of Economics and the British Library, and earned his knighthood. Monckton is the Delboy of climate denial and got his peerage by accident of birth. If you have never heard of John Ashworth, it is no surprise, since he has always been a quietly effective professional, uninterested in self promotion. Unlike the charlatan Monckton.Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29668694020287133692016-02-24T04:50:10.819+11:002016-02-24T04:50:10.819+11:00"The author salutes IJAMR, for its integrity ...<i>"The author salutes IJAMR, for its integrity and open mindedness; unlike many other journals in mathematics, they do not pinch the nostrils of creativity, neither do they direct the milk of liberty in the sciences into their own suckers. Knowledge is for the free."</i><br /><br />hmmm.. pinch???Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12083190014669867976noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50111839914076739732016-02-24T02:57:04.644+11:002016-02-24T02:57:04.644+11:00Piers Corbyn also says that Big Oil is behind the ...Piers Corbyn also says that Big Oil is behind the global warming "scam", because they want to push up taxes on oil. <br /><br />Also, if Thatcher was behind the conspiracy, where does that put Monckton? He claims he was one of the first to advise her to investigate global warming in 1986. Was he part of the conspiracy? Bellmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04872924578152375407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-27191677727576064722016-02-24T00:19:32.062+11:002016-02-24T00:19:32.062+11:00The Club of Rome, the UN and the like are an obvio...The Club of Rome, the UN and the like are an obvious left-wing, liberal socialist conspiracy to create a one-world human society which looks after the Earth and its people.<br /><br />Such extremism must be stopped.MightyDrunkennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-63003856622566627232016-02-24T00:09:04.527+11:002016-02-24T00:09:04.527+11:00Bankers created feminism is a fantastic little sto...Bankers created feminism is a fantastic little story, based on a deep trove of evidence. So deep you'll never find it, but trust me, it's deep.numerobisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-85228316441229908142016-02-23T23:38:12.588+11:002016-02-23T23:38:12.588+11:00A conspiracy theory in which only 3% are not in on...A conspiracy theory in which only 3% are not in on it. It cracks me up.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-28114975783022391012016-02-23T21:02:17.221+11:002016-02-23T21:02:17.221+11:00From the SciAm article
" The lunar tide, how...From the SciAm article<br /><br /><i>" The lunar tide, however, remains weak compared to the solar tide in the upper atmosphere. Still, at altitudes above roughly 80 kilometers (50 miles) lunar tides have been detected in winds, temperature, airglow emissions and a number of ionospheric parameters. Almost two centuries after atmospheric lunar tides were predicted and first observed, they are still studied. They represent a unique type of atmospheric motion whose forcing mechanism is known with great precision, allowing us to test our numerical models and theoretical predictions."</i><br /><br />Over a long career Richard Lindzen failed to see the impact of lunar forces on the upper atmosphere, but we now know that the nodal or draconic cycle drives the motion of the quasi-biennial oscillations (QBO) of stratospheric winds.<br /><br />http://web.archive.org/web/20160223095845/http://contextearth.com/2016/02/13/qbo-model-validation/<br />@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-21498443403195066132016-02-23T19:38:26.378+11:002016-02-23T19:38:26.378+11:00Here's a reasonable link ...
Does the Moon hav...Here's a reasonable link ...<br />Does the Moon have a tidal effect on the atmosphere as well as the oceans?<br />http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-the-moon-have-a-tida/<br /><br />I only looked for this after doing an FFT on the entire hourly dataset (zero padding the -999.9 missing pressure values to the mean of the non-zero pressure values).<br /><br />M2 was the only lunar frequency that I could quickly see in the FFT and it was much smaller/thinner than the solar components (~multiples of diurnal cycle).<br /><br />Solar components at annual (yearly) and semi-annual (harmonic of annual?) then diurnal (daily), semi-diurnal (2X/day), 3X/day, 4X/day, ... , 11X/day (12X/day is at the Nyquist for hourly data so can't determine that one). Amplitudes are quite noticeable (semi-log) through 9X relative to background noise.<br /><br />As per the link above, Laplace appears to have figured this out two centuries ago, without observational data.Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-13933776546870085152016-02-23T17:29:38.801+11:002016-02-23T17:29:38.801+11:00And here's the Google street view for the addr...And here's the <a href="https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/704+Pine+Street,+Athens,+Wisconsin,+USA/@45.0293999,-90.0788082,3a,75y,83.89h,90t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m4!1suvtDL7u0i_E-YeNdx6NYMA!2e0!7i3328!8i1664!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x62f40ba4d3de495b!6m1!1e1" rel="nofollow">Google street view</a> for the address given as 'Hope Research, Hope Clinic' for the Pi paper.<br /><br />Not as entertaining as Lomborg's 'Consensus Centre', perhaps...billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-46805667690750477002016-02-23T16:20:51.644+11:002016-02-23T16:20:51.644+11:00It's a pity that corporations (in principle) c...It's a pity that corporations (in principle) cannot sue for defamation, otherwise Joanne Coding would not be able to get away with the things she says about the Australian BOM. Same with Jennifer Marohasy.<br /><br />I am all for free speech in general, but if someone is accused of something, evidence is required.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11552461190113661645noreply@blogger.com