[handlewanker]

What's it all about, hey? The very fact that "some" are making a good living with the Climate Variation hypothesis is food for thought.

Supposing yo'all went AWOL from yo' podiums, and stopped "denying" that AGW is the supposed cause of the supposed problemma, touted by Al Gore and co as "the inevitable end of the Humanoids as they know it" scenario.

Then....now that yo'all are in total consensual agreement, yo' can go out like Apostles and preach the "word" sated in the knowledge that everyone was of the same opinion, no dissenters, all Alchemists present and suitably funded, captive audience etc.

Everyone would be making a 100 million or so, writing books by the quadrillion, making more money.

Nobody gets to be poor or disadvantaged because they took the stand that AGW was a myth, nobody even understands figures are dodgy or rubbery, most if not all lack the wherewithal to actually go out and even swing a thermometer to check if'n the temperature was a bit on the fresh side.

In fact everyone is ecstatically happy, especially the enviro nuts, tree huggers, anti 4 wheel drive schools and especially the climatologists that misinterpreted the figures in the first place and are now feeling happy that they have been recognised as viable candidates for the Nobel Peace prize, which is now being mass produced to cater for the plethora of consensual thinkers in the noble art of sniffing the wind and bending with the breeze people.

Nobody gets to be disadvantaged, not with all those people making a 100 million or so like Al Gore did.

The economy will be booming once again.

The worlds a stage, and it'll need a big one to carry the load of consentialists preaching the word of AGW.

Mark Twank said, "When everyone else is marching in step, no matter what the tune, you had better be in step too, if you want to arrive at the same place as well".

The fact that there are HUGE quantities of very peer reviewed Alchemist vying to put their findings into some perspective or other, is irrelevant, just so long as the Plebs are enjoying the show, after all THEY are the ones paying for the show so they expect their money's worth.

What the Plebs don't like is to be told that the weather is getting rotten, caused by their life habits, and then that the weather ain't because some members of the Alchemistic clan done formed a different point of view, totally contrary to popular belief, and now the Plebs gotta fund a whole reshow of the aforementioned "facts" just to prove that the first mob got it all wrong, very confusing for the Plebiastically minded.

This is tantamount to going to your doctor and being told that your smoking habit,if continued,will be a sure cure for your AIDS problem, in spite of the fact that you are a non smoker, and do not have AIDS yet, which makes you want to take up smoking on advice,just to be on the safe side, LOL.

Nothing like "good sound advice" from an expert in his/her field.

It may or may'nt be a fact that the King is without clothing, so long as the King doesn't know it, and messengers tend to get shot just for being too observant, so very Humanoidaly consistent.
Ian.

[Robin Hewitt]

that the earth is warming and the cause is anthropomorphic. Why in the world would you say that's "garbage?" Because it doesn't fit your ideology?

That's not garbage, the Earth was warming for a bit at the end of the 20th century and part of the cause was probably anthropogenic. It may still be warming, nobody seems really sure because we seem to have lost the benchmarks.

One theory is that the warming was mostly anthopogenic and likely to become a problem.

That theory got shot full of holes, but instead of fixing it they started this weird consensus argument. The unwillingness to fix the holes with science suggests the theory may be untenable.

I am quite prepared to believe the AGW catastrophe theory as soon as it is modified to explain the facts. Until then "garbage" does not seem too strong a word.

I'll never convince you, luckily I don't care. Why do you?

[Robin Hewitt]

Warming for a bit? 6 of the last 10 years are the warmest on record, EVER.

Glad to see you acknowlege that EVER is a very big word

Presume you mean "since records began".

That is possible, because records began after we started climbing out of the little ice age.

Unfortunately, we can't be sure about that 6 out of 10 year thing because the temperature records have been adjusted. Nobody is arguing that the records have not been adjusted, but there is doubt as to whether they have been adjusted to a more accurate representation of the actual temperature.

I understand there is legislation before the US senate to force the various government agencies to release the raw temperature data and to open their adjustment strategy for public scrutiny.

Why is it so hard to get this information? Do they want to promote conspiracy theories? They are going the right way about it.

[OldSneelock]

Originally Posted by Matt Clara
Warming for a bit? 6 of the last 10 years are the warmest on record, EVER

Robin Hewitt replied:

Glad to see you acknowlege that EVER is a very big word

Presume you mean "since records began".

That is possible, because records began after we started climbing out of the little ice age.

Unfortunately, we can't be sure about that 6 out of 10 year thing because the temperature records have been adjusted. Nobody is arguing that the records have not been adjusted, but there is doubt as to whether they have been adjusted to a more accurate representation of the actual temperature.

Temperature Data is accumulated from multiple locations around the world with the preponderance of the data collection occurring in areas that were formerly rural in nature. Now the population of the world has increased and the areas where the temperatures are taken are in settled areas where the sensors are sheilded by buildings. Buildings leak heat in the winter and dump airconditioning waste heat in the summer. I have not found any papers published on the concept of recording errors due to methodology. Where is the control sample for this experiment?

[Robin Hewitt]

Where is the control sample for this experiment?

You'd think the control sample would be satellites and weather stations that stayed truly rural.

However the corrections to the record have no relation to the urban heat island effect which would require recent temperatures to fall.

Here is a delightful gif image which claims to alternate the old official record against the new. This is why there is doubt over the recent "hottest year" claims. Cooking The Books At USHCN | Real Science

Interestingly 2010 was supposed to be the new hottest since records began, but that was assuming a mild winter which doesn't seem to be panning out.

Matt seems to have stopped posting temporarily. When he gets back maybe he would care to explain the temperature correction for me and why I should believe the 6 hottest years theory. Seems only fair, I have explained a few issues for him and I'm sure he can come up with a good answer from the pro-AGW press.

[RomanLini]

...
Temperature Data is accumulated from multiple locations around the world with the preponderance of the data collection occurring in areas that were formerly rural in nature. Now the population of the world has increased and the areas where the temperatures are taken are in settled areas where the sensors are sheilded by buildings. Buildings leak heat in the winter and dump airconditioning waste heat in the summer. I have not found any papers published on the concept of recording errors due to methodology. Where is the control sample for this experiment?

That is such a wonderful scientific and logical argument.

Let's move all the sensor stations to the same distance from population centres that they were 100 years ago, and surrounded by the same square miles of rural land that they were 100 years ago.

Then re-do the sensor data and compare it to the temperature 100 years ago.

And by the same token we should eliminate all data from any sensor station that has become closer to urban heat as that data is faulty.

The Climate Scam Deniers would have a heart attack.

[handlewanker]

Albert Einstein is reputed to have said, "The fact that we are doing research proves that we know nothing, and until we get it right, all hypotheses are just so much guesswork".

A man truly in charge of his deductions as opposed to those that just follow others' reasoning and embroider it to justify being in the "club".

Most, if not all, climatology research is not worth comparing to a penny horrible, judging by Einstein's comparison, they both have plots dredged from someone's imagination and require a dense Pleb readership and funding program to bring to public attention.

Once the public's attention has been attracted, the plot just gets embroidered by those that have agendas to fulfill and mouths to feed, to make it more plausible, never mind if'n the actual facts start to deviate from the base plot, the end result is more important than the developing facts themselves.

The other side of the coins is that since the end result will not be felt in our lifetime, despite the doomwatchers predictions, unless of course you have a fountain of youth in your back garden and intend to live forever, the Climate Variation hypothesis may well either prove to be a hoax or inundate us with lots of watery surprises.

In the meantime back at the ranch, some people are making a decent living selling the good oil derived from snakes, purporting to cure all forms of pox related illnesses and some that have yet to be invented.

Whichever way you get excited about it, on the time scale of Humanoidal activity, (given that the Dinosaurs ruled the planet for 250 million years or so give or take a couple of millinion or so, and the Humanoidal stage of evolution only just made 2 million from the time they came down from the trees and then started to cut them down), any AGW related process that affects the weather will be of such insignificence that Even Einstein would dismiss it as a joke.

In this statement, I realise it is to be treading on the toes of very eminent and self agrandised people, peer reviewed in some form or another by fellow followers of the same doctrine that they suscribe to so ardently.

In the immortal words of Mark Twank, "If'n you can't beat them, and don't want to join them, ignore them till they go away", sound advice from one who knows.

I think the Alchemists are a self regenerating breed, and probably won't go away, but Al Gore made a 100 million and got an honourable acclamation from the mob suscribing to their doctrine, and money talks, believe you me, that's about as big as you can acclamatically get.

Perspective is the catch word, and interpretation is a tricky play on words.
Ian.

[fizzissist]

Here's one from your personal favorite:
Al Gore Calls out Fox News Over Climate Change Coverage - Gearlog

Yes. It's true. Fox News regulates climate reporting on Fox News. Wow, Matt. Pretty keen observation.

Just like ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN all regulate climate reporting on their respective channels.

Since Fox News, a point you seem to be preoccupied with, does not do the science itself, and Al Gore does not do science, it would clearly be more appropriate to go to where the science itself is being discussed?

Matt's best shot so far is to point us to an episode of Futurama to support his argument. That'd be the equivalent of me pointing to the ManBearPig episode of Southpark to support mine.

I still have no idea who Sammon is. I'll bet Matt has no idea who Santer is.

[fizzissist]

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate."

--Kevin Trenberth, NCAR


http://junkscience.com/FOIA/mail/1255523796.txt

In that same set of emails, we find:

"...But this raises the interesting question, is there something going on here w/ the energy & radiation budget which is inconsistent with the modes of
internal variability that leads to similar temporary cooling periods within the models. I'm not sure that this has been addressed--has it?"

--Michael Mann

Ya get it Matt? These are the key players on your "Team", with Mann being the principle promoter of his infamous Hockey Stick.....and THEY admit they don't know, and even THEY don't agree.

BTW, we're ready for you to post the link to the recent AP article 2010's world gone wild: Quakes, floods, blizzards by Borenstein and Bell.

Talk about a travesty of reporting.....The headline may as well be The Sky Is Falling!

[fizzissist]

Dissent in science isn't just good, it's necessary. Unfortunately, it doesn't change the fact that there's a consensus among climate scientists that it's happening and it's caused by man.

Are you dense?? Do you not recognize the names in the emails I just posted?

[Robin Hewitt]

Open Letter to Congress from U.S. Scientists on Climate Change and Recently Stolen Emails | Climate Science Watch

I'm interested in this bit:-"The scientific process depends on open access to methodology, data, and a rigorous peer-review process...".

If you could just point us at this open access methodology and data I'm sure we could all be converted to your side of the argument in a trice.

[handlewanker]

I think Matt, that there ARE a lot of people in consensual denial that AGW is the cause, but on the other hand, Santa is a very real person to some folk, especially those in the retail industry....LOL...and hundreds of millions of children actually believe in the Santa story, doesn't mean they're all wrong does it?.....does it......you mean you are also a doubter......shame on you....and you were once a child yourself...LOL, perhaps you didn't have any toys to play with at Christmas so you had to play with yourself...Oh well....there are many Alchemist who believe and a whole lot that don't believe in Santa..I mean Climate Variation....so who's your role model?

Name the man/woman at the top of your Alchemist list that you would rather be burned at the stake before denying their peer reviewed papers.....just one, or a consensual group.

The problem is, most if not all of the research done on Climate Variation is a "suck it and see" policy, nothing definite before the sucking, but pretty assumed conclusions after the whatever is sucked....it could be sweet, on the other hand your taste buds might be corrupted by years of hard likker tasting, then you might assume it is like that 20 year old double malt Johnny Walker Blue label whisky that you found in bottle in a trash bin after a party....like "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"....just a point of view.

It is now fairly well established that the Alchemists are a very devious lot, with agendas to fulfill that come before any results the hypotheses pertain to.

The very fact that there is a divided camp on the topic of Climate Variation with many discredited Alchemists tossed aside for dubious findings, leads to one thinking, that if there's smoke there must be fire.....or if there's fire there MUST be smoke...but in the absence of smoke does one assume there is no fire and disbelieve the fact that your house has just burned down due to a smokeless fire?...many insurance companies suscribe to this hypothesis...LOL.

Fizzwizz might have his/her favourite Alchemist that is fervently believed to be the true god of Climatology, be that as it may....doesn't mean Fizzwizz is to be believed in any more than the god he/she believes in.

One rotten apple is enough to make the whole apple barrel rotten, or suspected of being corrupted....the same goes for a doctor who has the penchant to "practice" medicine in ways not approved of by the establishment of medical practitioners, assuming the establishment weren't all corrupt and were crucifying the said medico for blowing the whistle..whatever.

Down in OZ it is now the week before Christmas, about to be celebrated for whatever purpose, and the weather which is "normally" baking the nuts off'n a brass monkey, is atrocious, it is peeing down, daytime temperature of 17 degrees C, and not likely to get better for the big night when Santa falls down the chimney...LOL.

If anybody with a degree in Climatology told me that the weather was getting worse due to me and you burning fossil fuels to pass the time, I'd say, "Get outta here, the bloody weather is just going through a normal 10 year cycle or so"...happened 10 years ago similarly....then it dried up and we were gasping for a bit of the wet.
Ian.

[Mariss Freimanis]

Someone may have a "worsening condition" but how does that relate to the earth's climate? There is nothing out of the ordinary going on with it; less than a degree change in the past 100 years and less than 3" sea level change in the past 100 years. In other words, nothing needs to be done.

Besides mixing metaphors, you also display a dull arrogance; "you, lay people", "most not possessing a college degree". Come on, who are you going to persuade to your point of view taking that tack? One cannot have a bit of respect for your viewpoint if you show none for theirs.

[Robin Hewitt]

I don't believe you'd even understand the data, let alone come up with an intelligent analysis of it.

Well, thank you for insulting me.

Surely "open access" means that even presumed thicko's like me are allowed to view the informtion, even if we have no chance of interpreting it to a logical conclusion?

[handlewanker]

What he actually means Robin is that unless you are thinking the same as he does your thoughts are irreleveant...typical AGW denier.

Whichever way, siding with the Alchemists is to walk a razors edge, either you're for them or 'agin them, no middle ground, and Maris is no Alchemist by any stretch of the imagination, maybe reads the journals occasionally, but serious perusing takes definite higher educational standards to interpret them, more so to actually interpret the gobbledegook that some of the Alchemists are putting out makes walking a razors edge a matter of anyone's guess....you can't win either way in the Climate variation debate.

The sorry state is that heads of Governments are as lay men as the rest of the Plebs, and as such need the interpretational skills of dinkum Alchemists to make decisions, which leaves one to wonder just who is advising whom, the with it or against it brigade, the heads of Government can't know the difference.

Too many Alchemists putting out too many peer reviewed papers on so many varied angles on the same topic makes one wonder if they're paid to promote the society and keep the rest of the Plebs in the dark, tantamount to high priests at the high alter mumbling incantations only they are privy to.

Nothing has changed in the Humanoid society, except we don't burn the Wizards at the stake any more, maybe witches get the short end of the stick still, but their turn will come....LOL.
Ian.

[fizzissist]

No, I mean neither you, nor I, nor anyone not trained in climatology or with some advance degree in a related field would interpret the data correctly.

Lots of people who aren't climatologists, you mean. I'm afraid their opinion doesn't count. It's like going to a plumber for a second opinion after you decide you don't like your oncologist's diagnosis.

You're making a lot of assumptions here, and unfortunately for you, you just might be sadly mistaken.

In any case, interpretation of data is one thing, the integrity of the data is another, and it doesn't take an advanced degree to see when data is manipulated, corrupted, hidden, or intentionally lost if you've got hard evidence. That hard evidence exists, and in spades.

You have yet to address the denial of FOIA requests for raw data, data that YOU as a taxpayer are entitled to see. FOIA requests have been denied in both the U.S. and the U.K.......which raises a singular question, and a big red flag.

If what you're saying is true, and there's conclusive evidence the globe is warming, then why wouldn't you be dying to share the proof??

The answer is simple. You're lying, and you're hiding the lie.

[fizzissist]

I'm picking myself up off the floor...

THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: Paper: Arctic Temperatures 2-3C higher only 1000 years ago

Raymond S. Bradley??? Real Climate's very own R.S. Bradley????

2-3deg C warmer for a 400 year period between 800-1200ad than the last 100?
Oh, I'm sure that shows up in the models, right, Matt?

Another significant paper was just published by the AGU in Sept. by Akasofu

On the recovery from the Little Ice Age

http://www.scirp.org/journal/NS/

Download the .pdf, and if you have any questions interpreting or understanding the data Matt, just let us know.

[dufas]

I'm picking myself up off the floor...

And don't forget, these scientists investigated themselves and found that they could never do anything wrong...........

[Robin Hewitt]

It's like going to a plumber for a second opinion after you decide you don't like your oncologist's diagnosis.

But aren't the climate scientists straying outside their field when searching proxy data for trends that can be projected forward? Surely in this case a second opinion from a statistician would be a good idea.

Not releasing their methodology for scrutiny makes it look like they don't believe it would stand examination.

[fizzissist]

But aren't the climate scientists straying outside their field when searching proxy data for trends that can be projected forward? Surely in this case a second opinion from a statistician would be a good idea.

Not releasing their methodology for scrutiny makes it look like they don't believe it would stand examination.

A statistician like Steve McIntyre????
:cheers:

But hey, gluing some apples onto oranges when the oranges start to spoil....it's still oranges, right? It's just a clever "trick".