# ITT: FXMastermind presents his evidence that climategate was scientifically meaningful **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 28, 2014, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-fxmastermind-presents-his-evidence-that-climategate-was-scientifically-meaningful/679981 "2014-01-28T20:55:33Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-fxmastermind-presents-his-evidence-that-climategate-was-scientifically-meaningful/679981/21 "2014-01-29T15:21:25Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I don’t know what the fuss is about, because I’ve set the trolling twit to _Ignore_. I wonder why you guys have not done so as well. > > I like debate, and am happy to hear from AGW deniers. Even if their questions or comments are ignorant, they can provoke informative discussions. But FXIdiot is just a pretentious troll, spouting nonsense uncontrollably the way cholera victims spout diarrhea. > > FXIdiot has a disciple here, named Werewolf or some such. From posts in GD I gather Werewolf, though ignorant, might be sincere. But I’ve added him to my Ignore list as well: He doesn’t seem to grasp that BBQ Pit is a forum for sincere anger and for sincere, but angry, debates. Instead, for him it’s a theater for unfounded insults. Plonk! Well, as I see it, I participate in this message board because in essence it has it against ignorance and against pseudoscience, and I’m honest about were I’m coming from, the replies I make are not much for the troll, but for other posters and for me as the effort made to look for relevant information is an education and it is part of a larger meta point: If this was pseudoscience then most of the examples contrarians point out would lead to more evidence that support what they claim; in reality the typical thing happens, the science cites they use actually show the experts making the opposite conclusion of what they claim, like when a poster thinking that it was good to point at a researcher that seemingly was against an item (with targeted quotes) turns to be in reality one of the better examples of using that item. But the fun part to me is to leave evidence in the record for others to see how a movement like the climate change deniers is mostly attracting jerks and dishonest people. \*\*BrainGlutton \*\*on the other thread challenged FXMastermind to come here and defend himself about his nonsense about “climategate”. Besides leaving on the record that he is a coward for not responding here, he doubles down on the cowardice by only quoting you… [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17056584&postcount=1580](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17056584&postcount=1580) From 3 years ago, making it look to others like if you are not making sense. FX goes for dishonesty even when attempting to sound honest. ---
**Author:** ![sylmar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@sylmar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sylmar)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-fxmastermind-presents-his-evidence-that-climategate-was-scientifically-meaningful/679981/22 "2014-01-29T15:31:01Z")
[quote=“watchwolf49, post:18, topic:679981”] _Snip_ **But** I’m not apologizing for FX’s behavior … he is good at what he does … he seems to have a better understanding of \*scientific method \*then the rest of you yo-yo’s … it’s fun to watch him dance circles around you. So far he’s the only one of y’all who has ever asked me to explain the science, at least as best I could. I really don’t know enough of this Climatology to teach it, y’all should know that by now. [QUOTE] Huh… this’all is amused with your conflating latching onto anecdotes and cut and paste walls of text with little to no substantive commentary/explanations/interpretation as the “scientific method”. Nice job spelling FX as the board jester voyeur… ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-fxmastermind-presents-his-evidence-that-climategate-was-scientifically-meaningful/679981/23 "2014-01-29T15:32:40Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > **GIGO** doesn’t understand the science. He just copy/pastes a lot of stuff he hasn’t read. He certainly doesn’t debate, he holds an ideology with religious zeal, and he’ll never concede a single point, no matter how minor. The sad part is that he doesn’t want to know about the science, and that’s just lazy. That’s not very good debate, if learning is the goal. Nope, that is calling not reinventing the wheel, there is a reason why that saying of “those not learning from history are condemned to repeat it” exist, I will add that those ignoring what was found before are just willful ignorants. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > **But** I’m not apologizing for FX’s behavior … he is good at what he does … he seems to have a better understanding of scientific method then the rest of you yo-yo’s … it’s fun to watch him dance circles around you. So far he’s the only one of y’all who has ever asked me to explain the science, at least as best I could. I really don’t know enough of this Climatology to teach it, y’all should know that by now. And what has happened so far is that you follow his ignorant lead on declaring the science resources that I point (and are recommended by many scientists even) as useless. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > Er… Umm … still have to make this pit-worthy … > > So don’t be such a bunch of banana-brained tufo-puking stupid motherblankers and lighten up some … there’s no debate until the fucking science is right. What is not right is to get advice from people like you that has their anti-jerk/anti-ignorant/anti-science radar broken. As many other are putting you on ignore the reality is that you decided to sleep with a dog of a debater, don’t complain now that you got fleas. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-fxmastermind-presents-his-evidence-that-climategate-was-scientifically-meaningful/679981/24 "2014-01-29T16:31:26Z")
This will be a short topic or a trainwreck. Global warming is a proven fact and there’s no amount of oil industry shilling from FX or anyone else that can change it. Eventually, those oil companies will go bankrupt and sued out of existence. That will be a great day ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-fxmastermind-presents-his-evidence-that-climategate-was-scientifically-meaningful/679981/25 "2014-01-29T17:40:36Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > In this thread. > > Whoops. Gotta refresh more often. Still no word from our favorite climate “skeptic”. I mean, surely this couldn’t be because he’s a big fat stupid poo-poo headed liar, could it? Nah, he’s better than that. He’s a SCIENTIST don’tcha know. Well, regardless of whether he’s a big fat stupid poo-poo headed liar, if he DOESN’T come into this thread and present his evidence, he makes a liar out of you, because you said he was going to. 😛 :rolleyes: To prevent this, I suggest that we all agree that “ITT” stands for “_ **I** t’s **T** ime **T** HAT_” (in the context of this thread’s title). ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-fxmastermind-presents-his-evidence-that-climategate-was-scientifically-meaningful/679981/26 "2014-01-29T19:27:33Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > This will be a short topic or a trainwreck. Global warming is a proven fact and there’s no amount of oil industry shilling from FX or anyone else that can change it. Eventually, those oil companies will go bankrupt and sued out of existence. That will be a great day Come on, trainwreck. 😃 On a slightly different note: > [@I'm sick of this Global Warming!](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/im-sick-of-this-global-warming/666440/1572): > > You would be far more convincing if you used links to sources, instead of just claiming things. And this year’s award for _stunning_ lack of self-awareness goes to… ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-fxmastermind-presents-his-evidence-that-climategate-was-scientifically-meaningful/679981/27 "2014-01-29T22:52:51Z")
I find it amazing that people think Gigo is the bees knees when it comes to debating the whole climate change thing. The reason is pretty simple, Gigo has adopted the Michael E Mann debating strategy. (On a side note, I like Gigo. However whenever climate is the topic I try and stay away) Gigo runs with the whole climate change thing, then when challenged on anything, links to Real Climate. The problem with that is it is circular. Real Climate is run by the very folks that I believe couldn’t research their way out of a wet paper bag. Then, when anyone dares to question the ‘science’ an ad hominem is instantly issued claiming that the person who asks the question is either a) working for an evil oil company or b) anti-science. But this is the basic method for climate change scientists these days. For example, Judith Curry recently appeared in front of Congress to testify about the state of the climate and climate science. Mann called Curry (who happens to be the Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and serves on the NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee and the DOE Biological and Environmental Science Advisory Committee, and served on the National Academies Climate Research Committee and the Space Studies Board, and the NOAA Climate Working Group. Curry was also a reviewer for IPCC Third Assessment), a ‘serial climate disinformer’. [Link](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/climate-change-report_b_3999277.html) Curry issued a [challenge](http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/18/mann-on-advocacy-and-responsibility/)to Mann: > [@](#): > > Since you have publicly accused my Congressional testimony of being ‘anti-science,’ I expect you to (publicly) document and rebut any statement in my testimony that is factually inaccurate or where my conclusions are not supported by the evidence that I provide. What do we hear from Mann? Crickets. He won’t do it because he can’t. And Gigo does similar things, including throwing around the word denier. Then to make matters worse, FXMastermind is on my side. Which is sorta like getting a job as head coach of a baseball team only to find out your pitcher has no arms. Or legs. He just sorta spits the ball towards the plate. This topic is way more complex than Gigo or the doomsayers believe. The reality is way different than the models and the two are diverging. Hell the Met Office just decided that, after denying that there was a pause in the rise of temperatures two years ago, there actually is a pause and it began in 2000. [Link](http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF). Now that the temps have paused it is very interesting to watch. The reason it is interesting is that the climate doomsayers are running around looking for the missing heat. And that heat, according to the doomsayers, lies everywhere thermometers aren’t. Which is rather handy for those who made a prediction that isn’t coming true. They can say it is still warming without providing any evidence. For the record, my guess as to what is happening with the climate is that it heated up for a while. It will run flat for a while. After that it may cool or warm. I believe that CO2 has little to do with the overall climate changes that are happening. [This](http://www.slideshare.net/ryanswelch/how-much-atmospheric-co2-is-from-human-activity-23514995)is one of the reasons I have an issue with the CO2 is gonna kill us all line of thought. I also believe that we ought to work towards the cleanest energy that will meet our needs. Additionally, the climate gate emails show a hell of a lot of bad science. When the guy writing the code says things like: > [@](#): > > I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. and > [@](#): > > One thing that’s unsettling is that many of the assigned WMo codes for Canadian stations do not return any hits with a web search. Usually the country’s met office, or at least the Weather Underground, show up - but for these stations, nothing at all. Makes me wonder if these are long-discontinued, or were even invented somewhere other than Canada! You really have to wonder if the science coming out is any good whatsoever. On a side note, I have two predictions. Prediction the first, in twenty or thirty years the climate science now being done will be used as an example of how not to do things. I believe that there are so many issues with data, math and the scientific culture that the ‘consensus’ will be used to show that agendas + science == crap. Prediction the second. Much like Paul Ehrlich, who made predictions that were so amazingly wrong that it boggle ones mind, the climate doomsayers will be proven wrong but still have a following. Slee ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-fxmastermind-presents-his-evidence-that-climategate-was-scientifically-meaningful/679981/28 "2014-01-29T23:58:15Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > I find it amazing that people think Gigo is the bees knees when it comes to debating the whole climate change thing. The reason is pretty simple, Gigo has adopted the Michael E Mann debating strategy. (On a side note, I like Gigo. However whenever climate is the topic I try and stay away) > > Gigo runs with the whole climate change thing, then when challenged on anything, links to Real Climate. The problem with that is it is circular. Real Climate is run by the very folks that I believe couldn’t research their way out of a wet paper bag. Then, when anyone dares to question the ‘science’ an ad hominem is instantly issued claiming that the person who asks the question is either a) working for an evil oil company or b) anti-science. But this is the basic method for climate change scientists these days. That is funny, the accusation was that I run for [Skeptical Science](http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php), try to keep up. 🙂 > [@sleestak](#): > > For example, Judith Curry recently appeared in front of Congress to testify about the state of the climate and climate science. Mann called Curry (who happens to be the Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and serves on the NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee and the DOE Biological and Environmental Science Advisory Committee, and served on the National Academies Climate Research Committee and the Space Studies Board, and the NOAA Climate Working Group. Curry was also a reviewer for IPCC Third Assessment), a ‘serial climate disinformer’. [Link](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/climate-change-report_b_3999277.html) > > Curry issued a [challenge](http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/18/mann-on-advocacy-and-responsibility/)to Mann: > What do we hear from Mann? Crickets. He won’t do it because he can’t. > > And Gigo does similar things, including throwing around the word denier. Like if Mann was the only one not criticizing Curry and are already dealing with the errors. > **[Judith Curry responds … sort of](https://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/28/judith-curry-responds-sort-of/)** > > Let’s be crystal-clear what the issue is. The issue is temperature in the Arctic, not some sector of the Arctic, not some season in the Arctic, and the real issue (the point of dispute) is: t… > [@](#): > > Let’s recap. The issue is Arctic temperature since 2000. Judith Curry cited numerous references containing time series plots of Arctic temperatures, claiming that “Some of the plots show the recent temperatures to be comparable to the earlier temperatures; others show current temperatures to be much warmer.” When we look for ourselves, we discover that each and every one either has little or no data after 2000, or covers some sub-region of the Arctic/particular season rather than “the Arctic,” or flat-out contradicts the claim that “Arctic surface temperature anomalies in the 1930’s were as large as the recent temperature anomalies.” > > The number of papers she cites which show “recent temperatures to be comparable to the earlier temperatures” equals zero. > > The number of times she refers to analyzing actual data about the issue for herself, equals zero. > [@sleestak](#): > > Then to make matters worse, FXMastermind is on my side. Which is sorta like getting a job as head coach of a baseball team only to find out your pitcher has no arms. Or legs. He just sorta spits the ball towards the plate. History has show that you are not much better, but at least you have legs. > [@sleestak](#): > > This topic is way more complex than Gigo or the doomsayers believe. The reality is way different than the models and the two are diverging. Hell the Met Office just decided that, after denying that there was a pause in the rise of temperatures two years ago, there actually is a pause and it began in 2000. [Link](http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/q/0/Paper2_recent_pause_in_global_warming.PDF). > > Now that the temps have paused it is very interesting to watch. The reason it is interesting is that the climate doomsayers are running around looking for the missing heat. And that heat, according to the doomsayers, lies everywhere thermometers aren’t. Which is rather handy for those who made a prediction that isn’t coming true. They can say it is still warming without providing any evidence. [http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming](http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming) > [@](#): > > The Met Office Hadley Centre has written three reports that address the recent pause in global warming and seek to answer the following questions: > > ``` > What have been the recent trends in other indicators of climate over this period? > What are the potential drivers of the current pause? > How does the recent pause affect our projections of future climate? > > ``` > > The first paper shows that a wide range of observed climate indicators continue to show changes that are consistent with a globally warming world, and our understanding of how the climate system works. > > The second suggests that it is not possible to explain the recent lack of surface warming solely by reductions in the total energy received by the planet, i.e. the balance between the total solar energy entering the system and the thermal energy leaving it. Changes in the exchange of heat between the upper and deep ocean appear to have caused at least part of the pause in surface warming, and observations suggest that the Pacific Ocean may play a key role. > > The final paper shows that the recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century. Nor does it invalidate the fundamental physics of global warming, the scientific basis of climate models and their estimates of climate sensitivity. > [@sleestak](#): > > For the record, my guess as to what is happening with the climate is that it heated up for a while. It will run flat for a while. After that it may cool or warm. I believe that CO2 has little to do with the overall climate changes that are happening. [This](http://www.slideshare.net/ryanswelch/how-much-atmospheric-co2-is-from-human-activity-23514995)is one of the reasons I have an issue with the CO2 is gonna kill us all line of thought. I also believe that we ought to work towards the cleanest energy that will meet our needs. First I thought it was going to be about that new denier point of the stadium wave, but it turns out that it is just the old CO2 is just a small part of the atmospheric gasses, “so it is not important”; of course before getting to the main item, one should notice that at the same time contrarians are telling us CO2 is an important plant food, they are nothing but contradictory. > **[Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming](https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm)** > > \Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues... > [@](#): > > When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth’s surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that “this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming.” > [@](#): > > The planet is accumulating heat > > When there is more energy coming in than escaping back out to space, our climate accumulates heat. The planet’s total heat build up can be derived by adding up the heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice (Murphy 2009). Ocean heat content was determined down to 3000 metres deep. Atmospheric heat content was calculated from the surface temperature record and heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (eg - the energy required to melt ice) were also included. > Figure 4: Total Earth Heat Content from 1950 (Murphy 2009). Ocean data taken from Domingues et al 2008. > > From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 gigawatts with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans. Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans. What about after 2003? A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed from ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep (von Schuckmann 2009). Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 ± 0.11 Wm?2, consistent with other determinations of the planet’s energy imbalance (Hansen 2005, Trenberth 2009). The planet continues to accumulate heat. > Figure 5: Time series of global mean heat storage (0–2000 m), measured in 108 Jm-2. > > So we see a direct line of evidence that we’re causing global warming. Human CO2 emissions far outstrip the rise in CO2 levels. The enhanced greenhouse effect is confirmed by satellite and surface measurements. The planet’s energy imbalance is confirmed by summations of the planet’s total heat content and ocean heat measurements. > [@sleestak](#): > > Additionally, the climate gate emails show a hell of a lot of bad science. When the guy writing the code says things like: > and > > You really have to wonder if the science coming out is any good whatsoever. Here everyone has to wonder if someone will tell you how several investigations found nothing bad about the science, nor any improper thing done by the scientists, unless you want to make the point that thought crimes are possible when scientists were trashing the deniers. > **[Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate"...](https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/debunking-misinformation-about-stolen-climate-emails)** > > The international controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot of heat. > [@](#): > > Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the “Climategate” Manufactured Controversy > > The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate. > > Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing > > Six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing. > > ``` > A three-part Penn State University cleared scientist Michael Mann of wrongdoing. > Two reviews commissioned by the University of East Anglia"supported the honesty and integrity of scientists in the Climatic Research Unit." > A UK Parliament report concluded that the emails have no bearing on our understanding of climate science and that claims against UEA scientists are misleading. > The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Inspector General's office concluded there was no evidence of wrongdoing on behalf of their employees. > The National Science Foundation's Inspector General's office concluded, "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct...we are closing this investigation with no further action." > > ``` > > Other agencies and media outlets have investigated the substance of the emails. > > ``` > The Environmental Protection Agency, in response to petitions against action to curb heat-trapping emissions, dismissed attacks on the science rooted in the stolen emails. > Factcheck.org debunked claims that the emails put the conclusions of climate science into question. > Politifact.com rated claims that the emails falsify climate science as "false." > An Associated Press review of the emails found that they "don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions." > > ``` > [@sleestak](#): > > On a side note, I have two predictions. Prediction the first, in twenty or thirty years the climate science now being done will be used as an example of how not to do things. I believe that there are so many issues with data, math and the scientific culture that the ‘consensus’ will be used to show that agendas + science == crap. The 70’s is calling back, they want your reheated baloney back. (Scientists actually dealt already with a long pause, by the majority of them predicting that warming was coming then, even if there was a long “pause” as today) > [@sleestak](#): > > Prediction the second. Much like Paul Ehrlich, who made predictions that were so amazingly wrong that it boggle ones mind, the climate doomsayers will be proven wrong but still have a following. > > Slee No. in reality you showed all that deniers can fail left and right and still have a following. > **[Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Arctic Sea Ice Extent 2012 Update](https://skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-arctic-sea-ice-extent-2012.html)** > > Last year we examined a few predictions of the September annual Arctic sea ice extent in 2010 and 2011.  We now have another year of predictions in the books, and a new record sea ice minimum.  The Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH) has... > [@](#): > > Between 2008 and 2012, the model-based and statistical predictions have had the most accuracy, with an average difference from the observational data of 13%. However, in recent years the statistically-based predictions have been the most accurate. The heuristic predictions have been slightly less accurate, on average 15% off from the observations between 2008 and 2012. > > The lower accuracy of the heuristic submissions is primarily due to the inaccurate predictions of the climate contrarians, which one Skeptical Science contributor has described as “hubristic,” since they are based more on irrational optimism, unwise focus on short-term noise, and hubris than logic or experience. Ignatius Rigor’s heuristic predictions have also not fared well (Figure 1), which are based on the belief that the Arctic Oscillation plays a major role in sea ice extent - a hypothesis which appears not to be borne out by the data thus far. > > Climate contrarian bloggers and blog readers (Watts, Goddard, Bastardi, and WUWT readers) averaged a 23% miss with their hubristic sea ice extent predictions, while climate realist bloggers and blog contributors (tamino, Cawley, and Grumbine) averaged just a 9% miss with their statistically-based predictions. The take-home lesson here is that statistical predictions based on the long-term Arctic sea ice death spiral are clearly more realistic than denial-based optimistic predictions that sea ice will somehow magically recover to previous levels. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2014, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-fxmastermind-presents-his-evidence-that-climategate-was-scientifically-meaningful/679981/29 "2014-01-30T00:27:34Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > For example, Judith Curry … Yeah, how did I not know that was coming? You can stop right there. Curry is a lying denialist fanatic – a former decent climate scientist who has basically stopped publishing and descended into apparent dementia as she devotes almost all her time to her discreditable blogs and the slavering acolytes of “Inforwars” type conspiracy lunatics that hang out there. Some of this I’ve said before but I’ll say again. Curry’s antics have even caught the attention of [Sourcewatch](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Judith_Curry), and Scientific American [published an article about her](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-heretic) that I thought was much too kind, but nevertheless lays out many of the problems with her positions. Kind of reminds me of the old saying that, for a publicity whore at least, there’s no such thing as bad publicity. The reasons for all the attention are not hard to understand. She is the darling of WUWT and Watts’ gang of denialists; she’s teamed up with blatant denialists like McIntyre, Pat Michaels, and many others; she’s been courted and quoted by aides to the lunatic senator Inhofe; she’s been quoted and interviewed on denialist sites like Friends of Science and SPPI, the latter I believe slaveringly quoting from an interview with her published in a fine scientific journal called “[Oilprice.com](http://Oilprice.com)”, in which she asserts, among other things, that the IPCC is useless and that any possible attribution of climate change to CO2 is unknown, assertions with which the fine scientific journal [Oilprice.com](http://Oilprice.com) enthusiastically agreed. You can read more about this shameless self-serving shill [here](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/02/24/205554/my-response-to-dr-judith-currys-unconstructive-essay/) and [here](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/judith-curry-opens-mouth-inserts-foot/) and [here](http://www.desmogblog.com/judith-curry-was-me-she-was-against-me). A bit from Sourcewatch: > [@](#): > > Climate scientists criticize [Judith Curry’s] uncertainty-focused climate outreach communication for containing elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence … In September 2010, Curry started a weblog, Climate Etc., which takes the same “stress-the-uncertainties” approach taken by past efforts to thwart science-based policy actions, as documented by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway in their book Merchants of Doubt. > > … Curry’s contrarian-leaning “public outreach” public communication is criticized by prominent climate scientists and other science-aligned climate bloggers for a propensity toward “inflammatory language and over-the-top accusations …with the…absence of any concrete evidence and [with] errors in matters of simple fact.”. > > ``` > "...Examples of the unreliability of Curry's blog publications are illustrated by Michael Tobis[16] and James Annan[17], who both showed basic flaws in her understanding of uncertainty and probability, or at least an irresponsible level of sloppiness in expressing herself. Arthur Smith pointed out an under-grad level misunderstanding[18] in her own field's basic terminology," said Coby Beck.[10] > > ``` > > Climate scientist James Annan has provided examples (with rebuttals) of assertions made by Curry on topics like no-feedback climate sensitivity, aerosols, climate change detection&attribution, and the IPCC tolerance of challengers; he finds there’s a pattern of “throwing up vague or demonstrably wrong claims, then running away when shown to be wrong” > > “In a 2010 comment[20] she called blogger Deep Climate’s detailed and well-documented investigation into the Wegman Report “one of the most reprehensible attacks on a reputable scientist that I have seen” even as she revealed in her incorrect synopsis of the charges that she had not even read it for herself. … [i.e.] she shows herself ready to publicly criticise someone else in the strongest terms based entirely on second hand information gleaned from places like Climate Audit and Watts Up With That.” > > Gavin Schmidt has criticised Curry for “not knowing enough about what she has chosen to talk about, for not thinking clearly about the claims she has made with respect to the IPCC, and for flinging serious accusations at other scientists without just cause.” [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Judith\_Curry](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Judith_Curry) > [@sleestak](#): > > Now that the temps have paused it is very interesting to watch. The reason it is interesting is that the climate doomsayers are running around looking for the missing heat. And that heat, according to the doomsayers, lies everywhere thermometers aren’t. Which is rather handy for those who made a prediction that isn’t coming true. They can say it is still warming without providing any evidence. Wrong. You just don’t understand the basic fundamentals of the earth’s energy budget. Given that the external forcings haven’t changed (in fact, they’ve increased) the heat **is** there, because the earth obeys the laws of thermodynamics and not the laws of magic. As for your link to some denialist blog about how “little” human-produced CO2 there is, yeah, it’s so “little” that from the glacial cycle bounds of 180 ppm at maximum glaciation to 280-300 ppm during interglacials, a transition that takes on the order of ten thousand years, we’ve managed to drive it up to 400 ppm in just a few hundred years. That’s a greater differential than the difference between an ice age and an interglacial, and we’ve put this \*\*on top of \*\* our current interglacial max. If you chart historical CO2 levels over the past 1.2 million years, the post-industrial spike is a vertical line going straight up and off the chart. That’s how “little” we’ve added. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2014, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-fxmastermind-presents-his-evidence-that-climategate-was-scientifically-meaningful/679981/30 "2014-01-30T02:35:37Z")
Could be cow farts. We don’t know that it \*isn’t \*cow farts, you can’t falsify that. And we wouldn’t even have to give up cows, just stuff a really big cork up in there, trap the methane, problem solved. Not a good idea to smoke around them once they get inflated, though. Hamburger _Hindenberg_, raining from the sky… ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2014, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-fxmastermind-presents-his-evidence-that-climategate-was-scientifically-meaningful/679981/31 "2014-01-30T04:15:20Z")
Oh the…bovinity? ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2014, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-fxmastermind-presents-his-evidence-that-climategate-was-scientifically-meaningful/679981/32 "2014-01-30T04:42:42Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Could be cow farts. We don’t know that it \*isn’t \*cow farts, you can’t falsify that. And we wouldn’t even have to give up cows, just stuff a really big cork up in there, trap the methane, problem solved. Not a good idea to smoke around them once they get inflated, though. Hamburger _Hindenberg_, raining from the sky… These sorts of posts need to come with a “screen and keyboard hazard” warning: “If you are drinking a nice Cab-Merlot at this time, please stop drinking and put down the glass before reading the following message.” It seems only fair. The keyboard is OK but I have wine up my nose. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2014, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-fxmastermind-presents-his-evidence-that-climategate-was-scientifically-meaningful/679981/33 "2014-01-30T05:24:57Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Could be cow farts. We don’t know that it \*isn’t \*cow farts, you can’t falsify that. And we wouldn’t even have to give up cows, just stuff a really big cork up in there, trap the methane, problem solved. Not a good idea to smoke around them once they get inflated, though. Hamburger _Hindenberg_, raining from the sky… [The Master speaks …](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/832/do-cow-and-termite-flatulence-threaten-the-earths-atmosphere) ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2014, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-fxmastermind-presents-his-evidence-that-climategate-was-scientifically-meaningful/679981/34 "2014-01-30T05:35:29Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, that is calling not reinventing the wheel, there is a reason why that saying of “those not learning from history are condemned to repeat it” exist, I will add that those ignoring what was found before are just willful ignorants. > > And what has happened so far is that you follow his ignorant lead on declaring the science resources that I point (and are recommended by many scientists even) as useless. > > What is not right is to get advice from people like you that has their anti-jerk/anti-ignorant/anti-science radar broken. As many other are putting you on ignore the reality is that you decided to sleep with a dog of a debater, don’t complain now that you got fleas. Then why the hell do you flood the thread? I’m not saying your links are useless, I’m saying you don’t understand them. You throw these extensive quotes when your own words should say the same. You’re wrong by omission, with an amateur dog pack behind you. I’m embarrassed for you. Your science is religious dogma, you don’t even know what a Joule is, now do you? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2014, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-fxmastermind-presents-his-evidence-that-climategate-was-scientifically-meaningful/679981/35 "2014-01-30T06:11:42Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Then why the hell do you flood the thread? I’m not saying your links are useless, I’m saying you don’t understand them. Why thank you captain obvious, I admit that on more than one occasion, I also do not understand all about how a geneticist works, but it would be silly to claim that me or many others would not be able to identify the proper experts to consult when we are dealing with some scientific racists that post also in the SDMB. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > You throw these extensive quotes when your own words should say the same. You’re wrong by omission, with an amateur dog pack behind you. > > I’m embarrassed for you. The many real scientists that PM about how well I do get it, the many that tell me so in a thread like this one, and the many that tell you that you are wrong and putting you on ignore tell me that you are wrong. > [@watchwolf49](#): > > Your science is religious dogma, you don’t even know what a Joule is, now do you? I knew it is a unit of measurement, by the dictionary it is the effort required to make one watt of power for one second. As in the example of the geneticists, I do not need to know everything about how to calculate with that unit of measurement, because I’m aware of people smarter that I am using that unit to show how silly guys like you are. > **[Breaking News...The Earth is Warming... Still. A LOT](https://skepticalscience.com/Breaking_News_The_Earth_is_Warming_Still_A_LOT.html)** > > In a previous post we discussed how the argument that the Earth has stopped warming doesn't make much sense because the people claiming this don't know how to draw their 'system boundaries' correctly - how can you work out whether the Earth is... > [@](#): > > Now we would like to focus on the total figure at the bottom and try to convert that into numbers that we can all get our heads around. To try and make numbers with lots of zeroes meaningful. > > The total heat accumulation in the environment from 1961 to 2003 is estimated as 15.9 x 1022 Joules. Got that? Is that clear in your head? Now read on… > > Next, this graph from the National Oceanographic Data Centre, looking at Ocean Heat Content in the upper half of the ocean shows the following: > > Roughly 5 x 1022 Joules since 2003. Since the IPCC’s graph above up to 2003 shows that most of the energy from global warming is in the oceans, to a first approximation, Ocean Heat Content change since then is going to be close enough to the Total Heat Content change. > > So, total heat content change from 1961 to 2011 - 50 years - is approximately 21 x 1022 joules. > > 210000000000000000000000 joules > > (a joule is 1 watt for 1 second. So a 100 watt light bulb will use 100 joules in 1 second) > > A BIG number but somewhat unreal. So how much heat is this. What could it do? What is it in the real world, where we don’t routinely look at numbers that big. > [@](#): > > And now we have run out of terrestrial heat sources that might do the job. Since Geothermal Energy is the only energy source on the planet large enough to even conceivably supply this much energy and even it is too small, that leaves only one option left. > > An imbalance in the heat flows to and from Space. Nothing else fits the evidence. > > Lets be very clear about this: NOTHING ELSE FITS THE EVIDENCE > > Not theory, not ideology, not political views, not internal variability, not questions over surface temperature records, not fudged or not fudged data, not hockey sticks or Medieval Warm Periods, or perhaps missing ‘hot-spots’. > [@](#): > > So what we are left with are just 2 possibilities. High level clouds are increasing - relative to low level clouds, because it is the difference between their 2 effects that counts, or the GH gases are causing more of the GH effect. > > Add to this that our understanding of the radiative effects of GH gases is based on masses of detailed data and is applied in many fields - Astronomy, Defence, Satellite observations of all types, Meteorology, even designing Micro-wave ovens - oh, and Climate Science. > > Whereas the “It’s the clouds” answer requires that certain types of clouds have become more common, but other types haven’t. Without any viable mechanism to explain why. > > It has been suggested that Cosmic Rays may influence cloud formation, and this is certainly a possibility although the evidence suggests the effect if it exists isn’t very strong. And this theory is based on Cosmic Ray levels reaching the Earth varying over the 11 year Solar Cycle. So this can’t explain continuous warming over nearly 5 Solar Cycles - there would need to be a long term trend in Cosmic Ray levels which isn’t supported by the observations. And this theory predicts that the changes will occur in low-level clouds and as we discussed earlier, this sort of change is contradicted by the evidence about when the warming is happening. > > So, we have a solid understanding of the effect of the GH gases, and clouds need to be doing some surprising flip-flops to be the only possible alternative explanation. > > Can we totally rule out cloud flip-flops? No. But what are the odds that masses of detailed data are wrong but instead ‘something else’ is happening. Possible yes. But probable? Likely? No. > > The number that changed the world… > > All this can be deduced from one simple number - 21 x 1022 - that removes almost all other considerations from the table. > > Its GH Gases or high level cloud changes. NOTHING ELSE FITS THE DATA. > > When the first analyses of Ocean Heat Content calculated from old temperature data from the oceans where first published in the early 2000’s, they were described as the ‘Smoking Gun’. Because they were. They are the primary observational evidence for Global Warming and the human nature of it. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2014, 6:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-fxmastermind-presents-his-evidence-that-climategate-was-scientifically-meaningful/679981/36 "2014-01-30T06:20:53Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > [The Master speaks …](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/832/do-cow-and-termite-flatulence-threaten-the-earths-atmosphere) The master speaks: > **[Can we fight global warming with artificial global cooling?](https://www.straightdope.com/21344115/can-we-fight-global-warming-with-artificial-global-cooling)** > [@](#): > > The basic idea is simple. Our problem is global warming, right? We know when volcanic eruptions blast vast quantities of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, the pollution blocks sunlight and the earth noticeably cools off. Therefore, if we create artificial volcanoes to pump sulfur dioxide or other substances into the air on purpose, the resultant global cooling will cancel out global warming and we can go on happily burning fossil fuels and generally making a mess of the environment just like before. > > Even in summary you can glimpse the dubiousness of this scheme, and the more you dig into it the worse it sounds. The core issue is this: Although everybody calls what’s supposedly happening global warming, the more precise term is “anthropogenic global climate change” — a critical difference. While increased greenhouse gases are expected to lead to a warmer environment overall, that’s just on average. Some areas will get wetter and some dryer. Many will get hotter; a few will get cooler. Obey your master. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2014, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-fxmastermind-presents-his-evidence-that-climategate-was-scientifically-meaningful/679981/37 "2014-01-30T06:43:07Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > Your science is religious dogma Storm, is that you? 🙂 [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/HhGuXCuDb1U/hqdefault.jpg "Tim Minchin's Storm the Animated Movie") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U) - Tim\*: Storm to her credit despite my derision Keeps firing off clichés with startling precision Like a sniper using bollocks for ammunition _Storm_: “You’re so sure of your position But you’re just closed-minded I think you’ll find That your faith in science and tests Is just as blind As the faith of any fundamentalist” _Tim_: “Wow, that’s a good point, let me think for a bit… Oh wait, my mistake, that’s absolute **bullshit**. Science adjusts it’s views based on what’s observed Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved. ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [January 30, 2014, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-fxmastermind-presents-his-evidence-that-climategate-was-scientifically-meaningful/679981/38 "2014-01-30T07:45:10Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > For example, Judith Curry You mean that woman who sells [software and consultancy services specifically created for the energy sector](http://www.cfanclimate.com/omnicast.php)? That Judith Curry? I’d be shocked if someone whose company works hand in hand with the energy sector would in any way show bias. That would be almost as absurd as claiming that the Koch brothers try to influence policy-makers with their money. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2014, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-fxmastermind-presents-his-evidence-that-climategate-was-scientifically-meaningful/679981/39 "2014-02-02T05:37:08Z")
> [@watchwolf49](#): > > watchwolf49 View Post > But I’m not apologizing for FX’s behavior … he is good at what he does … he seems to have a better understanding of scientific method then the rest of you yo-yo’s … A late comment on this previous post done here. As usual in reality there is plenty of evidence to show show wrong you are about FX. Just recently in Great Debates he demonstrated to all his ignorance of the temperature records that are available and made in the arctic, then he shows that he does not know anything about the history of where the medieval warm period came and how deniers never seem to learn from history nor they have have the concept that science progresses. (It is notorious how he looks like a extreme conservative when he is not aware of timelines) [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17067472&postcount=317](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17067472&postcount=317) [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17067650&postcount=319](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17067650&postcount=319) That, and the fact that he can not show to the OP in this thread what the heck he knew about climategate is telling. It also tell us that indeed you do not have a good anti-jerk/anti-ignorant/anti-science detector, it is leading you to follow a real dog of a debater and it does rub on you. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2014, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-fxmastermind-presents-his-evidence-that-climategate-was-scientifically-meaningful/679981/40 "2014-02-02T17:25:20Z")
And when FX claims that we should bitch slap him if he uses denier arguments, well, we have to comply. 🙂 [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17068465&postcount=325](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17068465&postcount=325) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-fxmastermind-presents-his-evidence-that-climategate-was-scientifically-meaningful/679981.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/itt-fxmastermind-presents-his-evidence-that-climategate-was-scientifically-meaningful/679981.md?page=3)