Discussion > The Moral and Intellectual Poverty of Climate Alarm
Troll Ditto.
Phil Clarke
Phil Clarke,
Why did you lie for Gergis?
Are you still being paid to lie for corrupt Hockey Teamsters?
golf charlie
Phil Clarke,
Or do you just lie anyway because you enjoy it?
golf charlie
Phil Clarke, honesty and truth does exist, you could try here:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/A-W-Montford/e/B00366BZZE?ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_2&qid=1575784407&sr=8-2
Phil Clarke, unfortunately, you have always preferred the distortion and corruption of science as produced as propaganda by the Hockey Teamsters very own William M Connolley
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/21/william-connolley-demonstrates-once-again-why-wikipedia-is-an-untrustworthy-reference-source/
If I access Wikipedia, I get asked to donate money to save Wikipedia. I don't. If Wikipedia want to know why, the answer is simple, William M Connolley.
golf charlie
Clarke, why do you Hockey Teamsters keep referring to each other's papers? Round and round it goes, same old data sets.
"These are our proxy data. If you don't like them, we have others."
Moral and intellectual poverty.
Charly
Oh how the rubbish rolls in! For how much longer can the apologists for junk models get away with it? Here's another straw for that camel's back:
'“If models and reality do not fit together, scientists should rather question their models,” says Vahrenholt. “This would mean that the much more dramatic sensitivity estimates of the last IPCC model observations – 1.86°C for TCR and 3°C for ECS – would have to be thrown overboard.” This of course would result in undermining the current Fridays for Future movement and plans by governments to tax CO2.'
https://notrickszone.com/2019/12/07/model-failure-politics-hot-because-climate-models-are-too-hot-says-leading-german-climate-science-skeptic/
Here's an expose of even more blatant junk being perpetrated the top Temple of Climate Alarmism:in Germany:
The Schellnhuber Equation
Or how about this climate junk being pushed by the still-Stalinist New York Times: Mr. Fountain manages to get nearly every “fact” in his article factually wrong, which I consider a major [negative] accomplishment for a long-term science journalist.
Jo Nova has written a good summary of the multiple layers of incompetence that the CO2 Panic has required in order to develop and continue having so much influence:
'It takes layers of incompetence to wind up an atmospheric spectral change into Death To Billions. Mass delusion and catastrophic hyperbole just doesn’t come from nowhere — it’s starts with incompetent scientists who never ask each other hard questions, not even in the tea rooms. They tell journalists ambiguously phrased, cherry picked lines which are then amped up by the media, who also ask no hard questions and go on to misquote and exaggerate. By then it’s a junkyard of science communication, and that’s when attention-seeking zealots get hold of what they thought were scientific pronouncements and turn them into bumper stickers of enviro-biblical jello.'
John Shade
No need to engage with the paper that shows model skill, just move on to the next bunch of BS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
Phil Clarke
To take one aspect: Kip Hansen claims sea level rise is not accelerating, airily dismissing a recent paper with a wave of the hand and showing instead a graph from NOAA with a best fit line, again ignoring the blatent fact that the plot has been above the trend line for the last 4 years. Hint:you can plot a straight line through any time series, doesn't mean the data is linear)
Tamino examained the same satellite data and found
The average rate over the last 24 years is about 3.4 mm/yr. That’s about twice the average rate since 1880. It’s certainly over 3 mm/yr. 20th-century average rate: less than 2 mm/yr. 21st-century average rate: more than 3 mm/yr. Three is larger than two. Conclusion: the rate of sea level rise went up. That’s acceleration.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2017/01/30/sea-level-acceleration/
Dismiss peer-reviewed papers you don't like, then make stuff up. Quality journalism there.
Phil Clarke
Torrents of Pish about climate in the media are commonplace - see this astute essay lamenting that fact from way back in 1871:
'THREE consecutive years of drought, while they have stimulated the inventive resources of practical agriculturists, have had the natural effect of calling forth a plentiful crop of speculation from weather prophets and projectors, and half-instructed meteorologists, and all the philosophic tribe of Laputa in general, to whom the periodical press now affords such fatal facilities.'
(you can read the whole thing here: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/1298497
I will admit that 'plentiful crop of speculation' is more polite than 'torrents of pish', but here in 2019 the 'half-instructed meteorologists' are no longer a joke. The 'philosophic tribe of Laputa' at least had flappers whose job it was to remind their clients of the real world since they were 'so lost in thought that they cannot function in everyday life unless constantly struck by a bladder full of pebbles or dry peas, for which every one of them is escorted by one or two servants, so called "flappers".' Alas, we have no such flappers to escort, for example, the delegates and the demonstrators at COP25.
John Shade
Phil Clarke, you are still a liar. Is this one of the requirements to worship Hockey Teamsters?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/06/saturday-silliness-tamino-aka-grant-foster-fracks-himself/
Saturday Silliness: Tamino aka Grant Foster fracks himself
Anthony Watts / April 6, 2013
People send me stuff.
"This morning my inbox had a forwarded Twitter item about a Tammy post where supposedly none of what McIntyre discovered about the dating problems in Marcott et al hockey stick “matter”, because “Tamino” has proven otherwise, even though Marcott’s PhD thesis with the same proxy data (but not arbitrarily re-dated) does not show the 20th century uptick. But, all Tamino did is throw some artificially generated spikes into the mix, run a process where he doesn’t show the code/work, and say “trust me”. It is amusing. We’ll save that for a future examination, as I’d like to see what Mr. McIntyre has to say.
In the meantime, Josh has a cartoon about a previous episode from Tammyworld: .... "
Grant Foster obviously agrees with Steve McIntyre's analysis, but doesn't like to admit it:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/4/6/tamino-does-climate-audit-covers-josh-214.html?currentPage=2
golf charlie
Mr Clarke (Dec 8, 2019 at 11:36 AM): you remain obsessed with the validity of “peer-review” of papers. Are you aware of one of the “Climategate” revelations, that exposes a discussion to destroy the career of one academic who found flaws in the paper submitted to him for “peer-review” merely because he found flaws?
Then there is this:
‘Global warming alarmists suffered a big hit this week in their effort to deify shoddy “peer-reviewed” climate papers.
Stanford University medical professor John Ioannidis, in an interview with Agence France Presse (AFP), blew the lid off the trustworthiness of the peer-review process.
When the alarmist community seeks to push a new argument or messaging strategy in the global warming debate, they first have one of their pseudo-scientists write an article for publication in a compromised peer-reviewed journal.
The political left has infiltrated and taken over most science journals that address political hot topics, much as they have taken over most of the “mainstream” news media.
This is especially the case regarding global warming issues. As the leaked Climategate emails revealed, editors of science journals typically are prominent alarmists or deliberately coordinate with prominent alarmists in the selection of articles and messaging.
The “peer-review process” typically involves the editor sending a submitted article to a team of reviewers who are outspoken climate activists.
After the paper is published, global warming activists and their media allies typically cite the peer-reviewed nature of the paper as evidence that its conclusions are infallible.
Any who question the methodology or alarmist conclusions are then labelled science deniers.
According to Ioannidis, the peer-review process guarantees little in terms of trustworthiness even before political agendas compromise the issue.
“[W]hen studies are replicated, they rarely come up with the same results. Only a third of the 100 studies published in three top psychology journals could be successfully replicated in a large 2015 test,” AFP reported, summarizing Ioannidis’ findings.
“Medicine, epidemiology, population science, and nutritional studies fare no better, Ioannidis said, when attempts are made to replicate them,” according to AFP.
When only a third of peer-reviewed studies reach the same results when they are replicated by outside authors, this is a serious problem.
Regarding climate change papers, the peer-reviewed papers are likely even less reliable – before even considering the inescapably political nature of the topic – because many papers address predictions and models for which it is impossible to test the paper’s conclusions against objective evidence.
For example, when a scientist invents a climate model predicting rapid global warming or seriously negative future climate impacts, and when a paper summarizing the results of his or her model appears in a peer-reviewed journal, there is no way at the time of publication to compare the climate predictions against real-world observations.
This adds an additional level of doubt to the accuracy of global warming predictions published in peer-reviewed science journals.
And this is before taking into consideration the inherently political nature of the global warming debate and the political agendas of journal editors and their carefully selected article reviewers.
The lesson to be learned is the liberal media engage in laziness or deliberate misrepresentation when they cherry-pick certain peer-reviewed studies and claim that anybody who questions them is “attacking science,” “attacking scientists,” or being a “denialist.”
Sound science requires critically testing theories and predictions – including those published in peer-reviewed science journals – against objective evidence.’
– Bob Abra
Radical Rodent
"After the paper is published, global warming activists and their media allies typically cite the peer-reviewed nature of the paper as evidence that its conclusions are infallible.
Any who question the methodology or alarmist conclusions are then labelled science deniers."
Dec 8, 2019 at 4:02 PM Radical Rodent
Gergis is an absolute role model for Phil Clarke, taking taxpayers money for publishing the same Peer Reviewed rubbish twice.
In fairness to the legendary Nick Stokes, he was part of the Climate Audit thread that rumbled her the first time. This begs the question about the identity, stupidity, greed and integrity of the Climate Science Expert Peer Reviewers that approved it second time around. Why didn't they read the original Climate Audit post and thread? Surely if they did understand their specialised subject they would have known what had been so wrong first time around?
golf charlie
<> Are you aware of one of the “Climategate” revelations, that exposes a discussion to destroy the career of one academic who found flaws in the paper submitted to him for “peer-review” merely because he found flaws?
No, who was that?
That article is a feeble attempt to apply Ioannidis' work on medical research to climate science, when there's no evidence that it is so applicable.
Phil Clarke
Mr Clarke – you never fail, do you? As usual, you merely attack the messenger, with no real reference to the message, other than blah blah bla-blah blah blah….. I shall let you rummage around the “Climategate” emails to find the victim; let’s face it, if I can find it, you will have no problems.
Radical Rodent
But I don't believe such a text exists. I believe if you produced it, it would not actually support the claim you're making.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence
- Christopher Hitchins.
Phil Clarke
Dec 8, 2019 at 9:15 PM | Phil Clarke
You are still a liar. You seem to be entrenched in denial. Is this why you are so attached to Mann's Hockey Stick?
What about if you make a start by explaining why you were so confident about Gergis? Should be easy assuming you had studied the paper and reached your own conclusion without somebody else doing it for you.
golf charlie
"No, who was that?"
Clarke, you are an apology for a human being.
The quote is from Christopher Hitchens.
Charly
No, I was asking for the identity of the scientist who was the subject of the alleged conspiracy to terminate his career. I am not optimistic about getting an answer.
Phil Clarke
Okay, Mr Clarke, I shall concede that point – I am having difficulty finding any of the infamous “Climategate” emails, never mind any specific ones, so will assume that you will have similar problems, if you actually could be bothered looking. The victim’s name: Chris de Freitas, then an academic of standing at (iirc) Auckland University (cue your ridiculing of the man, without doing too much background investigation of your own, which will really go to demonstrate the effectiveness of the discussed desire to smear the guy’s name into oblivion and destroy his career – note: not “terminate” but destroy; the protagonists were not in a position to actually terminate, but discussed actively engaging in wrecking his scientific credibility, thus destroying his career – not that you will understand the irony, there, of course).
Radical Rodent
Clarke, you said you were not optimistic about getting an answer.
Now you have your answer.
So what difference does it make?
( Is that "no, the quote wasn't from Christopher Hitchens", or "no, I am not an apology for a human being"? ).
Charly
No, I was asking for the identity of the scientist who was the subject of the alleged conspiracy to terminate his career. I am not optimistic about getting an answer.
Dec 8, 2019 at 10:07 PM | Phil Clarke
Can you explain why you keep lying?
golf charlie
No actual evidence, then.
Phil Clarke
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy#Publication
Phil Clarke
No actual evidence, then.
Dec 9, 2019 at 8:16 AM Phil Clarke
Phil Clarke "The Art of Lying and Denying in Hockey Stick Maintenence"
golf charlie
Dec 8, 2019 at 1:13 AM | Phil Clarke
You are still a liar. Thank you for continuing to prove it.