The nub of the climate change thing problem

[kalm]

Hey man, feel free to post your unbiased sources….

If I take the time to look them up and post them, will you read them and accept them?

No, you won't.

So, I won't.

Stop wasting my time.

Thought so.

[travelinman67]

Internationally recognized and respected, heavily published and awarded climate scientist, and member of the IPCC council, Lennart Benngtson, attempts discussion and debate...

...is bullied and intimidated into resigning.

http://climateaudit.org/2014/05/14/the- ... bengtsson/

Google his name...look at the Alarmist website's reaction.

The epitome of unprofessional, immature behavior...the antithesis of scientific discipline.

[kalm]

Internationally recognized and respected, heavily published and awarded climate scientist, and member of the IPCC council, Lennart Benngtson, attempts discussion and debate...

...is bullied and intimidated into resigning.

http://climateaudit.org/2014/05/14/the- ... bengtsson/

Google his name...look at the Alarmist website's reaction.

The epitome of unprofessional, immature behavior...the antithesis of scientific discipline.

Just for fun, I did. While the first few hits are from Exxon mobile backed "skeptics" I did find this gem on the first page:

Ha ha: Lennart Bengtsson leaves advisory board of GWPF
Posted by William M. Connolley on May 14, 2014
(46)

So says the Onion, Germany’s finest news source.

This has so many shades of “Chinese academy endorses NIPCC report”. The back story: Lennart Bengtsson, sounding somewhere between very naive and emeritus, joins the GWPF, talking the usual nonsense (I believe most serious scientists are sceptics) indicating that either he really doesn’t know what’s going on, or is deliberately obfusticating. Now, it seems, his various respectable colleagues have pointed out his silliness to him. So he’s ditching the GWPF, because he doesn’t want to be an outcast. But he hasn’t got the grace to admit the foul-up is all his error.

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/05/1 ... d-of-gwpf/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He sounds like a decent fellow who wasn't prepared for being associated with the flat earthers.

Next!

[travelinman67]

Klam, I posted this knowing you'd knee-jerk your O.D.D. donkpuke.

Bengtsson has either authored or co-authored 222 peer-reviewed research papers on climatology over the past 51 years.

http://www.issibern.ch/~bengtsson/publications.html

He is, arguably of course, one of the leading authorities on climatology to have ever lived.

You either didn't read his letter of resignation, condeming the "Alarmist" communities response to his initiation of dialogue, you are unconscionably disingenuous, or reading impaired.

Oh, BTW, the initial post from "climateaudit", was authored by Steve McIntyre, the scientist who found the errors in the NASA/Hansen model, and later, Fraudster Mann's deletion of "Warm Period", "Little Ice Age", and Tree Ring data (the so-called infamous "Trick"), which discredited the late "Hockey Stick" hoax.

Now, before you, AGAIN, knee jerk donkpuke, assuming you can understand what I've written and are not a paid D.U.mbocrat operative, please do some research before posting. Despite my commitment to stop wasting my time responding to your ignorant drivel, I thought I'd give you one last chance. Make.the best of it.


5-4-3-2...

[kalm]

Klam, I posted this knowing you'd knee-jerk your O.D.D. donkpuke.

Bengtsson has either authored or co-authored 222 peer-reviewed research papers on climatology over the past 51 years.

http://www.issibern.ch/~bengtsson/publications.html

He is, arguably of course, one of the leading authorities on climatology to have ever lived.

You either didn't read his letter of resignation, condeming the "Alarmist" communities response to his initiation of dialogue, you are unconscionably disingenuous, or reading impaired.

Oh, BTW, the initial post from "climateaudit", was authored by Steve McIntyre, the scientist who found the errors in the NASA/Hansen model, and later, Fraudster Mann's deletion of "Warm Period", "Little Ice Age", and Tree Ring data (the so-called infamous "Trick"), which discredited the late "Hockey Stick" hoax.

Now, before you, AGAIN, knee jerk donkpuke, assuming you can understand what I've written and are not a paid D.U.mbocrat operative, please do some research before posting. Despite my commitment to stop wasting my time responding to your ignorant drivel, I thought I'd give you one last chance. Make.the best of it.


5-4-3-2...

McIntyre is a mineral and gas exploration guy without an advanced degree (at least in climatology) who has effectively and scientifically debunked two things...jack and shit...and Jack just left town.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... e_McIntyre" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Honestly, there has to be some independent and legitimate scientific group of deniers that can't be tied to industry out their...isn't their?

[CID1990]

Klam, I posted this knowing you'd knee-jerk your O.D.D. donkpuke.

Bengtsson has either authored or co-authored 222 peer-reviewed research papers on climatology over the past 51 years.

http://www.issibern.ch/~bengtsson/publications.html

He is, arguably of course, one of the leading authorities on climatology to have ever lived.

You either didn't read his letter of resignation, condeming the "Alarmist" communities response to his initiation of dialogue, you are unconscionably disingenuous, or reading impaired.

Oh, BTW, the initial post from "climateaudit", was authored by Steve McIntyre, the scientist who found the errors in the NASA/Hansen model, and later, Fraudster Mann's deletion of "Warm Period", "Little Ice Age", and Tree Ring data (the so-called infamous "Trick"), which discredited the late "Hockey Stick" hoax.

Now, before you, AGAIN, knee jerk donkpuke, assuming you can understand what I've written and are not a paid D.U.mbocrat operative, please do some research before posting. Despite my commitment to stop wasting my time responding to your ignorant drivel, I thought I'd give you one last chance. Make.the best of it.


5-4-3-2...

McIntyre is a mineral and gas exploration guy without an advanced degree (at least in climatology) who has effectively and scientifically debunked two things...jack and ****...and Jack just left town.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... e_McIntyre" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Honestly, there has to be some independent and legitimate scientific group of deniers that can't be tied to industry out their...isn't their?

Scientists on both sides of the debate have sugar daddies paying the research bills. Thats the problem with the science- most of it is tainted, and there is no way for you or I to know what is accurate and what is not

Try getting a research grant from the USG to explore non-anthropogenic causes for climate change. Or better yet, watch what happens to your grant when you publish something derogatory to the AGW platform

[kalm]

McIntyre is a mineral and gas exploration guy without an advanced degree (at least in climatology) who has effectively and scientifically debunked two things...jack and ****...and Jack just left town.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... e_McIntyre" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Honestly, there has to be some independent and legitimate scientific group of deniers that can't be tied to industry out their...isn't their?

Scientists on both sides of the debate have sugar daddies paying the research bills. Thats the problem with the science- most of it is tainted, and there is no way for you or I to know what is accurate and what is not

Try getting a research grant from the USG to explore non-anthropogenic causes for climate change. Or better yet, watch what happens to your grant when you publish something derogatory to the AGW platform

I'd imagine it would be as difficult as getting a grant to deny evolution.

[Baldy]

Scientists on both sides of the debate have sugar daddies paying the research bills. Thats the problem with the science- most of it is tainted, and there is no way for you or I to know what is accurate and what is not

Try getting a research grant from the USG to explore non-anthropogenic causes for climate change. Or better yet, watch what happens to your grant when you publish something derogatory to the AGW platform

I'd imagine it would be as difficult as getting a grant to deny evolution.

Well, evolution has been proven...

[89Hen]

I have an outing next Friday. Forecast right now is 71, partly cloudy with a 10% chance of rain. Let's see what it turns out. I can't lose either way.

Friday forecast now 65 with T-Showers, chance of rain 60%. So we've gone from a great day on the course, to shit. Hopefully will change again.

Deteriorating by the minute. Now 64, rain and thunder, chance of rain 70% with the added "potential for heavy rainfall" in bold letters.

So we're one day out. Current forecast is now 63 with AM rain, chance of rain 100%. Interesting that they removed the "potential for heavy rainfall" note beacuse on the 10pm news last night they said we could get 3-5 inches of rain.

Kalm, I don't think this means they are always wrong, but considering I picked a random day 10 days ago and the forecast changed almost every day, maybe I was correct in this case. Our forecasts around here absolutely BLOW.

[CID1990]

Scientists on both sides of the debate have sugar daddies paying the research bills. Thats the problem with the science- most of it is tainted, and there is no way for you or I to know what is accurate and what is not

Try getting a research grant from the USG to explore non-anthropogenic causes for climate change. Or better yet, watch what happens to your grant when you publish something derogatory to the AGW platform

I'd imagine it would be as difficult as getting a grant to deny evolution.

Well it depends who is pulling the strings- but the difference is that there are some very reputable scientists refuting the AGW predictions- some have even been on the other side of the fence- on Al Gore's original Nobel team-

There is not really any such thing as a "scientist" asking for grant money to research whether or not man has only been around for about 6000 years

[CAA Flagship]

I have an outing next Friday. Forecast right now is 71, partly cloudy with a 10% chance of rain. Let's see what it turns out. I can't lose either way.

Friday forecast now 65 with T-Showers, chance of rain 60%. So we've gone from a great day on the course, to shit. Hopefully will change again.

Deteriorating by the minute. Now 64, rain and thunder, chance of rain 70% with the added "potential for heavy rainfall" in bold letters.

So we're one day out. Current forecast is now 63 with AM rain, chance of rain 100%. Interesting that they removed the "potential for heavy rainfall" note beacuse on the 10pm news last night they said we could get 3-5 inches of rain.

Kalm, I don't think this means they are always wrong, but considering I picked a random day 10 days ago and the forecast changed almost every day, maybe I was correct in this case. Our forecasts around here absolutely BLOW.

For many years, I would look at St. Louis weather (long before I moved here) and figure that Virginia would have similar weather two days later. The DC area is probably a lot closer to STL from a temperature standpoint usually. SE VA would always be 4-7 degrees warmer.
Yesterday it was high 50's and rain here. Tomorrow you are screwed. Today there is not a cloud in the sky but in the 60's. Your Saturday should be OK.

[houndawg]

I thought Mann was vindicated by multiple independent investigations in the East Anglia controversy and that the Hockey Stick had been supported by other studies.

It's called "spin". Try sources other than Huffpo.

Anthony Watts,.though a skeptic, is good at posting thorough, complete studies with methodology, data and analysis, NOT summaries and spin.
The Hockey Stick was discarded several years ago after IPCC assessment no. 4.

http://ecowatch.com/2014/05/14/military ... -conflict/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;





"It is not possible to discuss the future of national and international security without addressing climate change," retired US Air Force General Donald Hoffman said in a statement. "Food shortages, droughts, floods - all directly tied to climate change will be catalysts for conflict."


Sonsabitches have even turned the military. This is it for western civilization...

[houndawg]

Hey man, feel free to post your unbiased sources….

If I take the time to look them up and post them, will you read them and accept them?

No, you won't.

So, I won't.

Stop wasting my time.

Translation: "I don't have any".

[89Hen]

For many years, I would look at St. Louis weather (long before I moved here) and figure that Virginia would have similar weather two days later. The DC area is probably a lot closer to STL from a temperature standpoint usually. SE VA would always be 4-7 degrees warmer.
Yesterday it was high 50's and rain here. Tomorrow you are screwed. Today there is not a cloud in the sky but in the 60's. Your Saturday should be OK.

That sounds about right, but our weather rarely comes from St Louis... at least our really bad weather. Our bad storms come from anywhere but directly west. The derecho (sp?) we had a couple years ago came from NE Indiana, our bad snows come from the south, our real rain soakers come from the east.

[houndawg]

For many years, I would look at St. Louis weather (long before I moved here) and figure that Virginia would have similar weather two days later. The DC area is probably a lot closer to STL from a temperature standpoint usually. SE VA would always be 4-7 degrees warmer.
Yesterday it was high 50's and rain here. Tomorrow you are screwed. Today there is not a cloud in the sky but in the 60's. Your Saturday should be OK.

That sounds about right, but our weather rarely comes from St Louis... at least our really bad weather. Our bad storms come from anywhere but directly west. The derecho (sp?) we had a couple years ago came from NE Indiana, our bad snows come from the south, our real rain soakers come from the east.

If you're talking about the derecho of '09 it came through here, before NE Indiana.

[89Hen]

That sounds about right, but our weather rarely comes from St Louis... at least our really bad weather. Our bad storms come from anywhere but directly west. The derecho (sp?) we had a couple years ago came from NE Indiana, our bad snows come from the south, our real rain soakers come from the east.

If you're talking about the derecho of '09 it came through here, before NE Indiana.

I'm terrible with time elapsed, but I don't think it was that long ago. I think it was 2012, maybe 2011.

Looked it up, was 2012...

[CID1990]

I was in DC for that whopper

[travelinman67]

http://m.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh ... tional_pop

[CID1990]

Here's an interesting article in Der Spiegel- and a window into the group pressure that a lot of these climate scientists have to deal with:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 68856.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[travelinman67]

Der Spiegel was too ambiguous (they are pro-AGW).

National Review had an accurate view of WaPo's Gershon's article about Bengtsson's resignation.

http://m.nationalreview.com/article/378 ... rt-darwall

[CID1990]

Der Spiegel was too ambiguous (they are pro-AGW).

National Review had an accurate view of WaPo's Gershon's article about Bengtsson's resignation.

http://m.nationalreview.com/article/378 ... rt-darwall

I went with the Der Spiegel article to avoid the inevitable dismissal due to source.

It quotes Bengsston faithfully so I'm not really concerned with the spin one way or the other.

EDIT: This isn't to say that AGW isn't real. Bengsston doesn't say that, either. But what he is getting at is basically two-fold:

1. Science by consensus is not science

2. We need to reconcile observable results with the prediction models. So far, those two are not jibing.

[travelinman67]

DENIERS....La,La,La,La,La,La,La,La,La
La,La,La,La,La,La,La,La...

[kalm]

Der Spiegel was too ambiguous (they are pro-AGW).

National Review had an accurate view of WaPo's Gershon's article about Bengtsson's resignation.

http://m.nationalreview.com/article/378 ... rt-darwall

I went with the Der Spiegel article to avoid the inevitable dismissal due to source.

It quotes Bengsston faithfully so I'm not really concerned with the spin one way or the other.

EDIT: This isn't to say that AGW isn't real. Bengsston doesn't say that, either. But what he is getting at is basically two-fold:

1. Science by consensus is not science

2. We need to reconcile observable results with the prediction models. So far, those two are not jibing.

So practically the entire scientific community is in on the scandal?

[Seahawks08]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... -of-doubt/

[CID1990]

I went with the Der Spiegel article to avoid the inevitable dismissal due to source.

It quotes Bengsston faithfully so I'm not really concerned with the spin one way or the other.

EDIT: This isn't to say that AGW isn't real. Bengsston doesn't say that, either. But what he is getting at is basically two-fold:

1. Science by consensus is not science

2. We need to reconcile observable results with the prediction models. So far, those two are not jibing.

So practically the entire scientific community is in on the scandal?

The "practically the entire scientific community" thing is a pro-AGW talking point but it is fallacious on many levels.

Again, consensus is what is being pushed in the climate science community but consensus is not what drives good science. It leads to the abandonment of scientific discovery - this is why this "entire scientific community" refuses to try to identify the reasons why the climate models are not lining up with the observed results- because their minds have been made up and theres as much orthodoxy to it as there is science. The real inconvenient truth here is that none of the climate models from your "entire scientific community" have been correct. This in and of itself does not mean that AGW isnt a real phenomenon- but it definitely calls into question the actual impact.

The whole debate comes down to where people's meal tickets are coming from- the government (which always has an interest in expanded scope and power) or big industry (which has an interest in seeing AGW debunked regardless of whether it exists or not). If your vast majority of scientists were saying that there is no AGW and there were outliers like Bengsston complaining about professional and internal pressures to get on board with that I would be just as skeptical.