The Holocene Deniers

[Gracchus]

Tell it to someone who cares what you think more than you care what they think. Why do you even bother to read my posts anyhow, what with my being in your infallible prejudgment (solely on my being politically an American Republican) the insincere, intellectually deficient liar I surely must be?

-- Frank

LIghten up Frank. Not all Republicans are intellectually deficient liars. Some are merely mentally deficient, and some are merely liars.

OK, that's fine with me -- I accept that you find no reasons for being skeptical of the claim that present highly politicized AGW (as distinct from plain 'ol GW) is "settled science" (or to give a thoughtful read to Draloos' essay). Very well.

Me, I remain skeptical (and presume that's OK with you).

-- Frank

You're fighting a fire and you come across some one pouring gasoline on the flames. He says, "I'm not to blame. I didn't start it!"

It doesn't matter in the long run how the fire started. We need to put it out, not feed it.

 

[thaumaturgy]

You STILL gotta be kidding!

I gotta be "qualified" before I can question/discuss and decide for myself whether to accept unquestioningly or to question what some (but not all) scientific authorities tell me that I gotta accept?

Actually Frank, you don't gotta be qualified to question the science, but it would certainly make your questions more to-the-point.

Look, I'm not a climatologist. I'm not even a statistician. But I am a doctor of geology. I even have some minor experience under my belt measuring gases in the atmosphere for a major oceanographic research facility. And even I'm unwilling to claim for myself the mantle of superior knowledge of the issues under discussion.

But I've read enough to know that the way we are discussing it here bears little resemblance to how the professionals are doing it.

So far what we've mostly gone around about is anecdotal data points treated as if they should have near perfect reproducibility. When I point out how good the data actually appears to be I am told that is absurd.

When I show how even flawed gauges measuring in synch can still show a repeatable trend, I am told it isn't "real world" (presumably because I generated the data using a constrained normal random number generator so as not to bias the results).

When I point out repeatedly that a statistically significant trend can be parsed from noisy data I am largely ignored (despite the fact that I have, at all points, provided statistically and mathematically robust reasoning for my conclusion. The response I get is usually something along the lines of "you flunk" or "you are wrong" and almost always without the interlocutor actually bothering to show me where the math is incorrect.)

In reality the data is not used the way we are discussing it. Not even close. I suspect none of us on here really could come close to processing the data appropriately to the discussion without access to much bigger computers. And even then just about every one of us would need a few more decades of specialized training to understand what we were really doing.

And this is all coming from a PhD geochemist.

When I studied (as part of my education as a physical organic chemist)

Then surely you see the statistical underpinnings of the data being discussed, right? Please point me to where I have failed in my discussion of the t-test, confidence intervals and ANOVAs. I would welcome it! (You will note in all honesty that I have been literally begging Glenn for correction to the math to no real avail. )

the history of science, the one thing the history of science SHOUTED to me louder than anything else is that (1) ALL humans are fallible and any one human can be wrong, (2) Empirical science is fallible and often wrong, (3) and (therefore) even a BUNCH of scientists all in unison are fallible and can be wrong.

CORRECT! But just because they can be incorrect does not mean they are, by definition, incorrect.

You may feel some sort of obligation to unquestioningly accept whatever scientific "authorities" (even a majority of them) tell you, but I feel a strong duty to myself to question before accepting things other scientists tell me I should believe which strike me as not being quite right given what (great OR LITTLE) I do know about physics and how science works.

So when you listed your points of discomfort earlier I noted your only response was one of some annoyance rather than addressing the points I made. (Post #404), I believe you titled your scientific response "Say WHAT???"

(Just an FYI, if you want people to not have a visceral negative response to your posts, try dialing back on the number of punctuation marks. It tends to make it sound like you are copping an attitude, not legitimately questioning the points raised.)

-- and it is clearer and clearer to me that nobody here wants to discuss the reasons for skepticism

Well, Frank, let's be frank. Your friend Glenn has come on here with his demands to discuss the temperature record of the land stations. I have, indeed, done so. I've done more than just about anyone else on here to address his points about the raw data itself. I've downloaded and churned through countless stations along with Glenn, and I've by hand made sure the data lined up day-by-day for several stations each of which had in excess of 20,000 data points. And I've dutifully run the stats and made my statements.

I assume you would grant that Glenn has presented his reason for skepticism. So as such I assume you would grant that I have discussed his reasons for skepticism. Quite in detail.

, and thus little I have to learn from this forum.

Ahhh, the "I have little to learn from this forum", jab. Do you find my discussion of the statistics in error or do you find Glenn's point in error?

All I (and Glenn, too) seem to serve here is a punching bag

Glenn is being abused horribly. I feel bad for that. And he's so kind and gentle. He only occasionally calls my extensive points supported by mathematics "silly", and only on one or two occasions has he accused me of specializing in "diversion" after I have posted a discussion of his points and the data. He tells me I need to learn statistics after I discuss t-tests, anovas, f-tests, chi square and confidence intervals but yet he never discusses statistics at deeper than a high school level, and even then almost never with anything like an equation.

I don't need this, and quite obviously neither do y'all. The hubris of the certainty of this group is stunning, and Glenn's patience amazes me.

You are joking right? Now I'm willing to cop to my nasty attitude when this whole thing started but I made a concerted effort to clean up my act, but this statement just makes me chuckle.

 

[Frank Lovell]

[FL replying to "Baggins"] Tell it to someone who cares what you think more than you care what they think. Why do you even bother to read my posts anyhow, what with my being in your infallible prejudgment (solely on my being politically an American Republican) the insincere, intellectually deficient liar I surely must be?

LIghten up Frank. Not all Republicans are intellectually deficient liars. Some are merely mentally deficient, and some are merely liars.




You're fighting a fire and you come across some one pouring gasoline on the flames. He says, "I'm not to blame. I didn't start it!"

It doesn't matter in the long run how the fire started. We need to put it out, not feed it.

Um...right, blame the victim.

No doubt about it, I am badly misfit here!

-- Frank

 

[Thistlethorn]

Um...right. I am badly misfit here, that's for sure. -- Frank

You keep saying that but you're not leaving.

 

[Frank Lovell]

Actually Frank, you don't gotta be qualified to question the science, but it would certainly make your questions more to-the-point.

Look, I'm not a climatologist. I'm not even a statistician. But I am a doctor of geology. I even have some minor experience under my belt measuring gases in the atmosphere for a major oceanographic research facility. And even I'm unwilling to claim for myself the mantle of superior knowledge of the issues under discussion.

But I've read enough to know that the way we are discussing it here bears little resemblance to how the professionals are doing it.

So far what we've mostly gone around about is anecdotal data points

When I show how even flawed gauges measuring in synch can still show a repeatable trend, I am told it isn't "real world" (presumably because I generated the data using a constrained normal random number generator so as not to bias the results).

When I point out repeatedly that a statistically significant trend can be parsed from noisy data I am largely ignored (despite the fact that I have, at all points, provided statistically and mathematically robust reasoning for my conclusion. The response I get is usually something along the lines of "you flunk" or "you are wrong" and almost always without the interlocutor actually bothering to show me where the math is incorrect.)

In reality the data is not used the way we are discussing it. Not even close. I suspect none of us on here really could come close to processing the data appropriately to the discussion without access to much bigger computers. And even then just about every one of us would need a few more decades of specialized training to understand what we were really doing.

And this is all coming from a PhD geochemist.

Then surely you see the statistical underpinnings of the data being discussed, right? Please point me to where I have failed in my discussion of the t-test, confidence intervals and ANOVAs. I would welcome it! (You will note in all honesty that I have been literally begging Glenn for correction to the math to no real avail. )

CORRECT! But just because they can be incorrect does not mean they are, by definition, incorrect.

So when you listed your points of discomfort earlier I noted your only response was one of some annoyance rather than addressing the points I made. (Post #404), I believe you titled your scientific response "Say WHAT???"

(Just an FYI, if you want people to not have a visceral negative response to your posts, try dialing back on the number of punctuation marks. It tends to make it sound like you are copping an attitude, not legitimately questioning the points raised.)


Well, Frank, let's be frank. Your friend Glenn has come on here with his demands to discuss the temperature record of the land stations. I have, indeed, done so. I've done more than just about anyone else on here to address his points about the raw data itself. I've downloaded and churned through countless stations along with Glenn, and I've by hand made sure the data lined up day-by-day for several stations each of which had in excess of 20,000 data points. And I've dutifully run the stats and made my statements.

I assume you would grant that Glenn has presented his reason for skepticism. So as such I assume you would grant that I have discussed his reasons for skepticism. Quite in detail.

Ahhh, the "I have little to learn from this forum", jab. Do you find my discussion of the statistics in error or do you find Glenn's point in error?

Glenn is being abused horribly. I feel bad for that. And he's so kind and gentle. He only occasionally calls my extensive points supported by mathematics treated as if they should have near perfect reproducibility. When I point out how good the data actually appears to be I am told that is absurd. "silly", and only on one or two occasions has he accused me of specializing in "diversion" after I have posted a discussion of his points and the data. He tells me I need to learn statistics after I discuss t-tests, anovas, f-tests, chi square and confidence intervals but yet he never discusses statistics at deeper than a high school level, and even then almost never with anything like an equation.

You are joking right? Now I'm willing to cop to my nasty attitude when this whole thing started but I made a concerted effort to clean up my act, but this statement just makes me chuckle.

Ah me...more evidence of a failure to communicate. Well, thanks for your thoughts (above); I wish they'd applied to my skepticism rather than to Glenn's (for instance, I have not given you any "anecdotal data points") -- his case for his skepticism and my case for my skepticism have some overlapping elements, but they have different focuses of primary concern -- even though I find Glenn's case pretty compelling (which no doubt proves that Mr. "Baggins" prejudged me correctly), I didn't come here to defend Glenn's case or run interference for him from criticism (I think he does a better job of that than you think he does), but rather to learn where I am going wrong in my skepticism (if I am going wrong) -- but nobody wants to discuss my case for skepticism with me, they just want to tell me (explicitly or implicitly or by summary pejorative rejection on grounds that I am not of the approved political persuasion) that I cannot be right (without even reading one single essay that happens to well-articulate my case, which was the only thing I've asked of anyone here -- I have NOT "told" ANYone here what they MUST do or think) and then talk about Glenn's case for skepticism of AGW.

That's OK, I get the message. Various of you can show irritation/frustration/dismissal by prejudgmentally outright ad hominems and pejorative innuendos and aim 'em at any skeptic of AGW that's handy -- but I mustn't reveal any such irritation/frustration via multiple quotation marks. Clearly I am BADLY misfit here, just wasting y'all's time and mine.

Sorry for the enduring failure to communicate -- I am glad I at least provided you a chuckle.

-- Frank

 

[thaumaturgy]

Ah me...more evidence of a failure to communicate.

Is that your special code for something? I don't get it. I get that you are trying to display for us your humility, but I really don't understand the point of that phrase.

Well, thanks for your thoughts (above); I wish they'd applied to my skepticism rather than to Glenn's

I am sitting here this afternoon and I'm getting ready to read the Drallos essay so please give a bit of time for me to address your other points.

But, of course the last time I addressed your points I got the famous "Say WHAT???" reply from you. But more importantly you did open the discussion up to "skepticism" in general, not just your own. That was what I was addressing. Since I've been discussing with Glenn now for nearly 300 posts worth of exchange on AGW skepticism.

(for instance, I have not given you any "anecdotal data points")

Correct and I never said you did. I did however point out that the only data so far discussed have been of anecdotal variety.

-- his case for his skepticism and my case for my skepticism have some overlapping elements,

So are you suggesting his obsession with individual temperature stations is not necessarily a valid point of skepticism or is it valid?

but they have different focuses of primary concern -- even though I find Glenn's case pretty compelling

Which part? The total avoidance of statistical robustness or the constant hammering on anecdotal evidence that ultimately has little if anything to do with how the data is actually applied? I mean both are pretty compelling.

(which no doubt proves that Mr. "Baggins" prejudged me correctly)

Why do you put Baggins' name in quotes all the time? Is it just to prove some point about cybernyms? (oh, btw, I like that term I had not heard it before).

But actually if you find Glenn's case compelling and that is in no small part based on his presentation of material here and on his blog then I don't think any critique of your reasoning has anything necessarily to do with politics. The fact that you are a libertarian simply reinforces a previously established correlation. And all of us here know that correlation is not causation.

, I didn't come here to defend Glenn's case or run interference for him

If you find his case compelling it is clearly the one that been most well established on this thread, but I agree you are not supposed to defend the man you feel has been treated as a "punching bag" by us here on this forum.

I am not asking you to. I do find it interesting that when I did discuss your points you responded with the "Say WHAT???" reply that didn't really address any of the science I raised. I am doubly intrigued because now that I know you are a physical organic chemist I rather thought you would provide us with some new scientific meat here.

from criticism (I think he does a better job of that than you think he does)

A professional scientist like Glenn should be able to address errors in statistics far more eloquently than merely saying I am "wrong" and then running away from the math. A professional scientist of Glenn's caliber should also know that not all noise is signal and doesn't necessarily represent some bizarre impossible physical phenomenon. But if you find his approach to be "compelling" then I would very much like to see how you deal with the numbers as well. I really would.

We've got a geophysicist (Baggins), a petroleum explorationist (Glenn) a physical organic chemist (you) and a geochemist/industrial R&D chemist (me) all here. I'd really like to see some more numbers.

, but rather to learn where I am going wrong in my skepticism (if I am going wrong) -- but nobody wants to discuss my case for skepticism with me,

Oh just stop it! I did address some of your points in Post #391 and post #399

Others have addressed the Drallos essay. What do you mean by "address your skepticism"? Do you mean support its conclusions?

they just want to tell me (explicitly or implicitly or by summary pejorative rejection on grounds that I am not of the approved politicalpersuasion)]

I'll level with you, whatever your political persuasion doesn't matter to me when the hard facts get involved. That's why I've been going on about the data. I'll not lie, I am no fan of the conservative end of the spectrum here in the U.S., but if you have facts and data then plop them out. No more of this persecution stuff.

, which was the only thing I've asked of anyone here -- I have NOT "told" ANYone here what they MUST do or think)

But when someone like me addresses the science points you raise like in post #391 and #399 that just gets lumped in with all the others who aren't addressing your skepticism. I hardly see how it pays off to address your points.

That's OK, I get the message.

No, I don't think you do. No one (at least not me) wants to shut you down. I do, however, wish to get the facts straight. I will address your scientific case as I have addressed Glenn's.

We are all professional scientists here so let's talk science. And let's stop with this political stuff.

Various of you can show irritation/frustration/dismissal by prejudgmentally outright ad hominems and pejorative innuendos and aim 'em at any skeptic of AGW that's handy -- but I mustn't reveal any such irritation/frustration via multiple quotation marks.

Are you serious? Have you really actually read this thread at all?

Clearly I am BADLY misfit here, just wasting y'all's time and mine.

I am growing quite tired of this line of whining. Sorry to call it that, but that is precisely what it is. Let's talk about your science.

Sorry for the enduring failure to communicate -- I am glad I at least provided you a chuckle.

You provided a chuckle because you characterize Glenn's side of the debate in a rather, shall we say, strange manner.

I think the facts speak for themselves.

Look, Frank, I'm sitting here this afternoon and I'm reading your blessed Drallos essay. Give me a little time and I'll address what I can.

 

[Baggins]

"Leave him alone he isn't worth it"

 

[thaumaturgy]

I took some time to read through Drallos' essay. Here's my take on it:

Drallos starts off with:

Evidence of warming is often presented as evidence of human-caused warming, The logical construction of this argument is as follows:

If human activity causes global warming, then the Earth will warm.
The Earth is warming.
Therefore, human activity causes global warming.
This argument is invalid because the conclusion is drawn from a common logical error known as the converse error.

Dr. Drallos is mischaracterizing the debate. His tactic is called a strawman argument in which he mischaracterizes the debate and then attacks the mischaracterization. It is also a logic fallacy.
Drallos then states:

Another invalid argument is the claim that, ``If there is a consensus of scientists that global warming is human-caused, then human-caused global warming must be true.''

Again, what Dr. Drallos is missing is the key factor that simply because there is a concensus does not mean that the concensus is ipso facto invalid.
Why must people lambaste a scientific concensus? Sometimes when the mass of professionals in on a particular specialized field have a concensus it is TRUE. Not always, and maybe not in this case. But it is completely beside the point that there is a concensus and it is not a valid criticsm of the science.
Drallos then indicates that global warming appears to have stopped in 1998. According to NASA this doesn’t seem to be the case
Here’s the data from NASA:

It looks to me like Dr. Drallos in his Fig 1 is interpreting a noise spike as signal. If you look at the data he has there you will see that at any point it is possible to take a spike one way or the other and interpret some unwarranted conclusion. 1998 was a giant spike up, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore the more reasoned approach of the general secular trend in the data.
Drallos states that “over the last 10 years there has been global cooling”. That doesn’t seem to fit with the overall data from NASA which shows marked increase in temperature. It would help if Dr. Drallos would fit a line to his data and prove his assumption with an f-test and then explain why he has “windowed” the data to just the last 10 years.
Drallos then discusses the role of natural vs anthropogenic forcings. Unfortunately this is a logical error. Just because something else happened differently at a different time doesn’t mean it can’t happen via anthropogenic factors now.
And as Thistlethorn has hammered home quite nicely the hockey-stick chart is still very impressive in comparison.
(Also, just a quick point of interest: Drallos writing in 2008 talks about “continental drift”. Sorry but “continental drift” is the old hypothesis. We’ve dealt with plate tectonics now for a few decades. If Dr. Drallos is going to talk earth science he should definitely talk it at the advanced level. “Continental drift” is what I thought people said who haven’t had a geology 1 class. Just MHO)
Drallos then launches into the CO2 lead/lag discussion. Again, no one debates that increasing temp can cause exsolution of CO2. But that doesn’t change the fact that CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. You, Frank, should know this better than anyone else on here. How many times have you run an FTIR with a chamber that wasn’t flushed with N2? Note that little CO2 absorption peak?
Just because it can work one way and another doesn’t mean that it will ONLY work one way and NOT the other.
I think this might be verging on post hoc ergo propter hoc.
As for the “insolation” discussion. Well,

According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed.(SOURCE)

So I am curious about what data Dr. Drallos is showing in his Fig 4.
I really can’t knowledgably address the solar irradiance issue as this well outside of my bailiwick. However, it would surprise me if climatologists never thought of that. There are some discussion around the relative strength of the solar forcing function (here)
It sounds like there is a solar forcing function, but it is not fully clear, nor is it as strong a forcing function as CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
Drallos states:

If the current temperature trend can be shown to be outside the limits of what we know to be natural variability, then a strong case can be made for an un-natural or man-made cause. So let's look at the recent trends compared to the past natural behavior.

I fear he is going to construct another logic fallacy and assume that if the trends are within bounds of natural systems of the past then we must assume the current state is wholly natural. That doesn’t seem to follow.
But I must add that the Hockey Stick Graph that Thistlethorn shared earlier is still quite alive and well (Source=http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong.html)
Drallos states:

Within the context of historical temperature patterns, as shown in Fig. 5, there does not appear to be anything whatsoever unusual or beyond the limits of natural variability in the current temperature patterns. Therefore we must conclude that natural phenomena are capable of explaining the presently observed warming. So Point 2 is false. (Point 2 must be true in order to conclude that human activity is the cause of global warming.)

It sounds to me like he is saying since the variability today is little compared to past historical variability (pre-industrial and pre-historic) that indeed we have to assume the modern uptick in temperature is natural? That is logically suspect. The only thing one actually can conclude is that the variabilities are different. And that’s about all. It alone cannot rule out man-made action, nor can it prove only natural causation.
He then procedes to make a point that scientific concensus does not make something true, as earlier discussed. No matter how many examples of flawed scientific concensuses he can raise it doesn’t change the fact that a scientific concensus could be true. In fact when faced with this complex data and all the difficulties incumbent on this discussion a betting man would do well to go with the people who actually understand the subtleties of the debate (ie the climatologists).
Drallos then states:

Computer climate models do not provide evidence of human-caused global warming. There are many reasons to discount the predictions of the computer climate models. Most importantly, is the fact that the computer models are not real and they have not been validated against real observations.

In the case of the 1988 Hansen model it seems like we tracked reasonably well along “Path B” and this model was formulated with CO2 as a major forcing function. In a sense it was a great case of a prediction based on a physical model which was born out over the next 12 years or so.
But further to the point Dr. Drallos is simply wrong on this point. Models are often hindcastin order to verify their predictive capability. Since they are built as physical models they can be “launched” from some arbitrary starting point. HERE’S some examples of model vs predction (HERE)
Finally in his Conclusions section, Drallos states;

Recall our conditions that, in order to justify the new proposition that recent global warming is not the result of natural causes but is, instead, the result of human activity, the following conditions must be true:

1. Global warming is taking place
2. Natural causes cannot account for the observed warming.
3. Human activity can account for the observed warming and the new theory must be consistent with historical data

What we've shown in the previous sections is that Condition 1 is not true. Condition 2 is not true and Condition 3 is not true. Since all three of these conditions must be true in order to justify the theory of human-cause global warming, we must conclude that there is no logical basis on which to believe that theory.

The facts seem to indicate that indeed Point #1 is true. Point #2, even if false doesn’t make anything impossible. It merely provides and alternate hypothesis. It disproves nothing. Point #3 would seem to be in line with models developed around the various forcing functions and how they hindcast.
[FONT=&quot]Again, just my take on the essay.
[/FONT]

 

[Frank Lovell]

...Um...right. I am badly misfit here, that's for sure. -- Frank

You keep saying that but you're not leaving.

So far, that's true.

I keep hoping that someone will seriously address the major elements of Drallos' essay (which well-articulates the collective or reasons why I am presently skeptical of the "settled science" truth of the present the claims of AGW) so I could see what I am missing that y'all feel should erase my skepticism and allow me to enjoy the certainty many of y'all seem to enjoy.

Would you like for me to leave, Mr. "Thistlehorn"? -- Frank

 

[thaumaturgy]

So far, that's true.

I keep hoping that someone will seriously address the major elements of Drallos' essay

I have. Please see post just two back.

 

[grmorton]

Well, as I explained earlier, we're a bit bullet-shy after having Glen dodging and weaving all through this thread, bullying people with his impeccable credentials (in the oil industry) and strange obsession with individual surface temperature measurement stations in the US.

So far I haven't seen you make any kind of statement on the issue of air conditioners next to thermometers. Do you think this is the best way to collect temperature data? (below is another example.

If you are not ducking and weaving, would you care to say that this is a fine way to capture the global temperature?

 

[grmorton]

I love this guy who can't grasp the simple point that individual thermometers next to air conditioning units doesn't mean squat statistically when discussing warming trends.

And you seem not to understand that when a survey shows that 8% of all thermometers are next to heat sources, and that causes a 5 deg C rise in temperature (see the siting document I have mentioned before), that .08 x 5 = 0.4 deg C of warming just due to the effect of nearby heat sources. The IPCC says that global warming over the past 100 years is .84 deg C, and if .4 of that is due to heat sources, then in reality the best you can eke out is a .44 deg C warming, not the alarming amount claimed by the IPCC.

If you can't understand that, then you don't understand math.


Would you care to see another air conditioner next to a thermometer? And remember, houses and buildings ARE heat sources as well. It doesn't just take an air conditioner.

If all right wingers can do is post pictures of weather stations next to aircon units they are completely moribund.

And you think that airconditioners next to thermometers ensures good quality data? Is that your position? Are you crazy?

It isn't good science to site waether stations near aircon units, or, far more likely, site aircon units near weather stations, but you are intellectually unable to grasp why it doesn't matter when we are looking for warming trends.

Finally an acknowledgement that I have a point. Getting this is like dragging teeth out of a hen's mouth. It does matter when 8% of them have heat sources nearby. You seem not to grasp the simple mathematical fact that if 8% of them have heat sources and those heat sources cause a 5 deg C rise in temperature, the average resulting from those 8% are increased by half of what the IPCC says the earth has warmed. That IS significant and you seem to be mathematically challenged here.

Class 5 (error >= 5ºC) – Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating
source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/X030FullDocumentD0.pdf

Or possibly you have grasped it but it is all you have got so you have got to cling to it dishonestly.

Show me mathematically how 8% of the statsion can have a spurious increase in temperature of 5 deg C and not affect the average of all the data by 0.4 deg C. I would love to see how you can claim that math is dishonest.

 

[grmorton]

The Wegener institute don't seem to think he was a persecuted lone voice judging by their biography:

Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research (AWI) Alfred Wegener

He qualified for his doctorate in 1904 did 2 years post doc at Lindenberg Observatory, then went on an expedition to Greenland till 1908, on returning he got a lectureship in Marburg in 1909. 11 years later he got a professorship at Graz. That doesn't appear to be the CV of someone treated very very badly, it appears to be the CV of someone who climbed the academic ladder swiftly.

Then you don't know the history of your own business. Do you know what the AAPG Memoir #1 is???? It is the bar-b-que of Alfred Wegener. That book is now a collectors item which brings big bucks on the secondary market.


For those who don't know what the AAPG is it is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, one of the organizations of which I am a member. It skewered Wegener and Mr. Bailey lacks knoweldge of the history of his own discipline.

 

[grmorton]

Tell it to someone who cares what you think more than you care what they think. Why do you even bother to read my posts anyhow, what with my being in your infallible prejudgment (solely on my being politically an American Republican) the insincere, intellectually deficient liar I surely must be?

-- Frank

Well, Frank, I am a democrat and he doesn't like me any better.

 

[grmorton]

It seems to be a soft spot of yours when Baggins points out the fact that most AGW deniers are right wingers. Why is this?

Why is that relevant, thistlethorn? It seems to me that you all seem to want to talk about political affiliations rather than the scientific data. Is all you have available to you the critique that republicans can't be scientific? What an utter load of stuff I find on my ranch after the cows have passed by.

 

[grmorton]

All I know is what I've read on this sub-forum, and it seems to me that it was not Glenn (the originator of this subforum) who initiated uncharitable rhetoric. I have known Glenn for about 10 years now and I do not think he "slaps" people -- though he is prone to "slap BACK," which I think is a heckuva lot more understandable than "slapping FIRST."

As I said to lifetothefullest, I have a really bad habit of responding in kind. It is not one of my better attributes.

Is this the Drallos link you wanted? http://home.comcast.net/~pdrallos131681/CO2/co2.pdf

 

[grmorton]

The hubris of the certainty of this group is stunning, and Glenn's patience amazes me.

-- Frank

Wow. No one has ever attributed patience to me.

 

[grmorton]

LIghten up Frank. Not all Republicans are intellectually deficient liars. Some are merely mentally deficient, and some are merely liars.

Graccus, do you think I have a point with heat sources next to thermometers? Here is one just for you to comment on.

What say ye? Is this good science?

 

[grmorton]

You keep saying that but you're not leaving.

Why do you want all those who have opinions differing from yours to leave? Are you so insecure that you can't comment on heat sources next to thermometers?

Here is another one for you Thistlethorn. No doubt you won't respond. You don't respond to anything I say, except to engage in total illogic that those who are unlikable can't tell the truth.

I will grant quickly that I am probably totally unlikeable. But that conclusion is totally irrelevant to the truth or falsity of what I say.

Are you too chicken to comment on the above photo? Do you think this is good science? Can you show mathematically why if 8% of the stations are next to heat sources causing a 5 deg C bias we shouldn't expect that .4 deg C of the claimed warming is due merely to air conditioners?

 

[grmorton]

Note how this map shows Greenland warming. The problem is that GISS at their site Global climate at a glance, in the dot maps when you click on Greenland's dots shows that since 2000 Greenland has been cooling. Below are two examples.
Why do you think they have totally inconsistent data? Could it be that their data is crap?