Only to dismiss it right away.
So yeah, maybe you read it, but Warren is on the side of dismissing what the experts are saying, feedbacks are inconvenient for his narrative and once one follows his links at ten one finds yet again a reliance on discredited information to discredit the scientists, somehow there is nothing that would show him that many “skeptics” are the ones not being truthful to him.
But, even if it were true, that’s not what he said. you said he’d forgotten about the other stuff and he hadn’t.
I loved how you imply you didn’t read it, particualrly where he slams sceptics for saying un-sciencey stuff.
How can “feedbacks are inconvenient for his narrative” be true if the mentions them 36 times?
Of course “his sources are deniers” and yet you never mention the data to be discussed.
Painting him as an obscurantist is funy, since he link to NOAA, RealClimate, and IPCC. in the homepage-
If you know any math at a level higer than high-school I can show you with IPCC numbers why this is right and therefore the high feedback number is wrong.
BTW, if you mention the sun as an excuse you open a flank on the whole alarmist front that can be difficult to defend to say the least.
Meh, you only are trying to avoid that you claimed something that was not accurate.
Nah, I already pointed out that he wants to pass himself as being in the middle, that is just his smoke screen, like the one that you posted early saying that you claim that you think that there is a problem, the longer this goes with your efforts you clearly show that in reality there is no problem whatsoever. Consistency is not to be expected here nor from Warren.
Second time you post a challenge that was already replied to, and with a Realclimate cite no less.
Of course I’ve said things that weren’t accurate, I’ m not perfect. Could you tell me what was it in this mini-Warren discussion, that I claimed that wasn’t accurate?
Translation = He’s a denier.
I don’t care for your links since you don’t vouch for them.
Do you take the challenge? Do you? Not your links, you.
And I say so, but more sophisticated.
Translation = So much for the math.
That’s a NO on showing what you claimed was inaccurate.
NO on sophisitication, really, if you have to say you’re sophisticated, then you aren’t.
No on the challenge to you. What does it matter if you can link if you don’t understand what you’re linking to. There’s a word for that, it escapes me now.
I’m talking about him, not me. The trick is to sound like a middle of the road fair minded person, and fool many with that act. Once again, the deniers he dumps on are ones that do deny the basic science, the problem is that then he discredits what the experts are saying by putting them on the alarmist camp. And when one follows his linked previous posts the already discredited bile thrown at researchers is clearly there:
A classic.
Warren again:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2010/10/15/denying-the-catstrophe-the-science-of-the-climate-skeptics-position/2/
No cites to support what he is saying here, and the same maneuver was seen in his post attempting to separate or make more diverse what most climate researchers and experts are saying.
What Warren is not telling you is that for his latest reconstruction Mann teamed up with a researched that had teared apart his previous reconstruction, (and we know that thanks to “climategate” 2.0) what Warren is attempting to discredit is the early research, and tell others to ignore the latest that shows that once again Mann was correct.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html
Only a smoke screen from you.
You accused me.
and still not say what was inaccurate.
Are you denying that alarmism is key to the public’s interest in GW/AGW/Climate Change?
People don’t get stirred by albedo or near-ir absotion rates.
Are you denying there are experts on the alarmist camp?
Since you refuse to tell me why I should beleive them, I won’t comment on them.
No cites in an Op-Ed? That only happens like 99.999% of the time.
Mann2008 is a review made by Mann on his own work.
Mann2008 use oak chornologies that the experts (Bailey and Wilson) say they are useless.
Suuuure. Simple math is a smoke screen, OK.
Suuure, that will convince others, not, the evidence is clear that he is completely off base if not lying about who changed Global Warming to Climate Change.
And you do not see anything bad with that, not surprised.
And thanks for that acknowledgement, why is he considered then reliable remains a mystery.
That is not the only thing Mann et all used, misleading in the extreme. And others confirmed his research, BTW some papers use the paleoreconstruction data to report that the very high estimates of future temperature are not likely, those of the 4 to 6 degrees of increase by the end of the century; unfortunately, the more doubt is thrown to paleoclimate data then the more uncertainties are added and then 4 to 6 degrees is more possible once again, you can not have it both ways. I prefer to accept that paleoclimate is more valid and so the high really alarming levels are less likely in the future, don’t you think?
Who are those “others”? The 5 people reading this thread?
Well, “discovering” that op-eds don’t have cites is like discovering that the NY Giants won the Superbowl: True, but such common knowledge that there is no gotcha element.
I can’t believe your second sentence, because it is only possible by forgetting the several times his website has been mentioned (including by you).
If he were simply a guy with an op-ed, I’d agree, but since you know he isn’t I cannot fathom why you said that.
It’d be certainly misleading to affirm to I or anyone in the universe said that Mann2008 **only **used the faulty oak chronology, so again I don’t kow what you’re talking about.
My point in bringing that he (he = Mann et al. 2008) used a faulty pice of information, that he knew it was faulty and that he was told (or at least he had to know) that the people actually using that information specifically said they shouldn’t be used. If he can make such an egregious mistake it certainly gives me reason to continue checking the results.
More uncertainties (and removing false data is not creating more uncertainties) does not mean higher temps are possible, it simply means we dont know and should be more careful about how certain our predictions are.
Paleoclimate is a kick-ass tool in understanding AGW/GW/Climate change. Furthermore, I’d venture to say it is THE tool. If we can look at the past with accurate proxies (oak ain’t one), then our predictions/scenarios for the 21st century will definitely be better.
Obviously you ignore that others read it anyhow.
Now this one really shows all others how clueless you are, he is mentioned to be put down constantly.
Uncertainty goes both ways, the fact that you do not know that is enough to tell others how reliable you are on weighting evidence and sources, but that is fine with me. Incidentally most references to your “faulty oak data” are coming from WUWT and other denialist sources, indeed they do want their cake and eat it too.
The reality is that in the same post here you do want to claim that you can disparage paleoclimate research and call it the beesnees at the same time. As pointed out before, “consistency” is not ever in the dictionary of some.
Are you saying that Mann2008 was right in using oak chronologies? Criticising the use of certain proxies is NOT tearing down a whole science.
How can you get “disparage paleoclimate research” from “oak chorologies are bad because **actual paleoclimatoligists **say they are”.
The quotes can come out of my whore-mum’s syphilitic ass, but that fact doesn’t make them bad. Are you saying that oak chronologies are right?
They are part of the big picture, and no, as they are compared with the other sources so it is not reasonable to assign uselessness to them, it is only when issues like the divergence problem crop up that then one should consider dropping the three rings, and that was what Mann did and was accused of something else (you can not win with the inconsistency of the deniers), in any case, this is becoming silly as several other reviews have not come pointing at serious flaws in Mann’s research.
Once again, Mann’s paleoclimate data is an important element on why even latest research supports the conservative projections of the IPCC as they use paleoclimate to get the most likely sensitivity.
Of course that latest study that supports the middle of the road and conservative estimates of the IPCC has been used by denier sites to continue to claim that the IPCC is alarmist :smack:, as I noticed before, there are no easy pickings by the deniers and they have to do more and more with misrepresentations of what new studies say.
And that gets us once again to Warren and Forbes, his tactic of putting the IPCC in the alarmist camp is bananas. And it does betray how his effort is also to include plain deniers into the skeptic camp.
This study is peculiar in the sense that it was also pointed out by a lukewarmer in the pit, the spin he gave it indeed came from WUWT and they did lie by claiming that the study reported that the IPCC was alarmist and this study showed that! It actually showed that the “no easy pickings” indeed makes deniers reach for studies that in reality undermine what they claim once one takes a closer eye on them. The study in the end is really close to the middle of the IPCC projections, and just like the IPCC:
What an alarmist! And of course if anyone paid attention (not the WUWT folks or Forbes) this study pointed out by deniers show also experts using computer models and yes, paleoclimate data (Classic “we must denigrate them at all costs” denialist causes) to report that the high temp rises estimated on some recent studies (that one could call alarmist) NOT made by the IPCC are not likely.
No answers, no actual answers to anything. It’s always the droning “deniers want everone to die because they are stupid and evil and look he mispelled a url and he had a complaint but it is only to cover his absolute denial of all science, because any criticism, no matter how small, means you want to destroy everything and all clmate sicentist are alwas perfect and the only mistakes are tricks by blind-orphan-raping denialists”.
But actually, I have to thank you, because you’re the kind of alarmist that makes it easier for us sceptics to present our case. Each time we give a moderate view ("Hey, maybe it 1.2 and not 1.6) and your response is (What you really mean is that is 0.3, I read in a comment section) shows that the alarmist case can onl survive b constantly predicitng TEOTWAWKI. Your refusal to engage the science, the math, the biology with point-counterpoint but rather a pre-made answer is the butter in my toast.
Thanks.
Suuure you tell that to yourself, the evidence is clear here, Warren is clueless, Models are good to lower estimates to the moderate outlook made by the IPCC, Also Paleoclimate is good to use to cut real alarmists to size, but you, Warren and others have the compass broken on how to identify alarmists, the harder you oppose this or pretend that it is not the case by avoiding dealing with the evidence presented that shows how misleading your sources are and you never take them to task is direct evidence of where you are coming from, so, so much for your smokescreens.
Warren is not clueless, that’s evident to anyone who read the blog. He might be wrong, but not clueless and has a much much better grasp of models and maths than you.
Models are always good to help, but they should not be plugged or replace actual observations.
Paleoclimate is very good, but, since I said that Mann2008 uses one part of it wrongly it means I want to disolve all paleocliamtists in acid.
Alarmists are the key to the publicity of GW. Do you really think that the general public cares about watts/m2 or albedo or absortion rate? People remember the falsely disappaering polar bears or Katrina or a hot/cold summer/winter, sinking islands.
Once again, you never engage a number, a formula, basic science.
Nope, that effort was just to make you honest and keep things in perspective. Paleoclimate is good to use and Models too, on the other hand, when sources like Warren resort to swallowing hook line and sinker the points of deniers like the “they changed global warming to climate change” and does not correct that after more than a year, one has to dismiss those sources as it is clear that they do consider many who are deniers to be just skeptics.
Like the music band that found brown M&Ms in the bowl, finding denier calling cards in the rhetoric of virtually all opinion pieces from him (and not an expert to boot once again) is enough to grant his dismissal, like the music band does when finding one brown M&M in the bowl, it is not then rare to find many items that are missing, like his broken compass of who is an alarmist or not; once again, putting the IPCC in the alarmist camp then is like Van Halen finding the electronics not to spec after they find the tell tell sign that the organizers missed much more.
Just wondering, why do you keep taking about Mann as if his hockey stick is the only one there is, when you can find numerous other studies (one example) that independently found similar results using different forms of data? Scientifically, if many independent studies show similar results (which is exactly what science does to verify a theory), that suggests that Mann’s results weren’t that far off if there were errors.
Also, do you think that this graph shows that the current solar cycle is ending early (see bottom two graphs, solar flux and sunspot number)? Of course it isn’t, not for another year or two. If not, then why do you keep claiming that it is cooling over the past decade or so?
**I **didn’t bring Mann’s hockey stick up. Warren Meyer (a horrible, orphan-dismembering denier of death) said that he hadn’t mentioned it because he didn’t care for it even if right. GigO said Warren “wasn’t mentioning Mann latest reconstruction”, i.e. Mann2008. He certainly wasn’t, but it’s not like he was hiding a paper that has 207 million hits in google.
I mentioned that one of Mann2008’s chronologies (and not all as gIGo said) were irretrievably faulty. The oak chronologies used by Mann2008 (119 in total) were not wrong because us evil deniers said so, but because the experts, climate-change believeing paleoclimatologists who got them said that oak was terrible for that.
NO hockey stick mentioned either. GigO then went on to I was denying the whole field paleoclimate, whereas I said IN THIS VERY THREAD that paleoclimatology is a key , element in GW/AGW/Climate change (GIGo said it was only a trick to say I supported paleocliamtology). I don’t know, for now, if these oak chronologies end up being that important in the final result (my guess is that they aren’t), but since such an egregious error exists, one can wonder what others may lurk there (maybe none). It certainly escaped the miraculous peer-reviewers.
The chart has no units on the two y axes, but finding the original paper makes me think it’s right., the sun is in an interesting phase (As mentioned in this interview I brought up)
I say there is a cooling because one of GIGO’s own linksaid so. Under the misleadingly titled graph, with NOAA data it says (my bolding) “Figure 1: **Short-term cooling trends **from Jan '70 to Nov '77, Nov '77 to Nov '86, Sep '87 to Nov '96, Mar '97 to Oct '02, and Oct '02 to Dec '11 (blue) vs. the 42-year warming trend (Jan '70 to Dec '11; red) using NOAA NCDC land-ocean data.”
Unhinging is not very becoming, and no, just bringing Fritz Vahrenholt again does not magically changes that he is not impressing anyone where it counts, he has written a book, he is not an expert in the issue and one can say that when the book road is chosen is because they do know that peer review will find the flaws, so one really has to dismiss it. Already his gross misunderstanding and denial of the warming trend is enough to grant his dismissal.
As pointed out, he is not impressing anyone of notice, just denier sources.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/02/february_2012_open_thread.php
Of course, it is not hard to find then much more bad science once one notices the first huge brown M&Ms.
[QUOTE=Fritz Vahrenholt]
In the second half of the 20th century, the sun was more active than it had been in more than 2,000 years. This “large solar maximum,” as astronomers call it, has contributed at least as much to global warming as the greenhouse gas CO2. But the sun has been getting weaker since 2005, and it will continue to do so in the next few decades. Consequently, we can only expect cooling from the sun for now.
[/QUOTE]
Already rebutted. This is actually evidence that shows that the current warming is not natural nor at the levels he expects.
As for his conclusion that the increase will be just at low levels like 1 degree, one would have to forget the latest study based on paleoclimate then, only that that is unlikely to happen, the reality is that the ones that were brave to face peer review like Spencer that also support the low levels just hit a wall when trying to convince others that the low levels can be expected.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/editor_of_remote_sensing_agree.php
