"And first most important greenhouse gas is water vapor
The water vapour red-herring is #26 on this list of the most common bogus arguments repeated ad-nausem by "skeptics". Sure the water vapour in the atmosphere warms the planet signifigantly. However the atmosphere is basically saturated with water vapour, pump as much water vapour into the atmosphere as you like and it will fall out as rain with a few days.
You cannot staurate the atmosphere with CO2 (re: Venus) or N20, however you can saturate the oceans with CO2 to form carbolic acid and severly disrupt the very roots of the global food chain.
"I believe in AGW but let's not claim the climate science is easy to understand or obvious.
"This is why I get angry when AGWers equate those that disbelieve in AGW with creationists; the principles behind evolution are much easier and more intuitive to understand than climate science is."
Every scientists is a skeptic and the best of them are self-skeptical. However what people like me get angry about is the huge amount of deliberate and coordinated disinformation from lobbyists such as the CEI and the heartland institute. It's bad enough that the intellectually incurious simply accepted their crap on face value and endlessly repeat but what really pisses me off are the large number of politicians who actively push the same nonesense (Senator Inhofe is a particularly bad example).
There is a name for this kind of propoganda it's called "teaching the contraversy" They teach their contraversy in exactly the same manner as creationist teach their's; ie: via paid astroturfer's and web sites such as icecap, WUWT, ClimateAudit and countless other fronts for the FF industry. These are the people I routinely refer to a psuedo-skeptics, many others call them deniers.
Agrguing with these people and their avid followers is very much like arguing with creationists, evolution may seem a simple idea these days but when I went to school in the 60's it was every bit as contraversial and complex as climate science is today.
More recently the well established fact that smoking causes cancer was also vigoursly disputed by so called scientists. It should come as no surprise that some of the "scientists" spreading FUD on climate are the very same "scientists" who spread FUD for the tabcoo industry in the 80's and 90's (eg: Fred S Singer).
Why does Watts not publish anything but a website? Why is he so chummy with the lobbyists at CEI and the heartland institue? Why does he harp on about anomolus weather stations and then dishonestly lampoon scientists for statistically correcting their data to account for such anomolies? If you are a genuine skeptic you will find many more pertinent questions to ask Mr Watts, but don't hold your breath for an answer, the C02 buildup in your lungs is likely to kill you.
So lets have some examples. Or are you just another hand waving "skeptic"?
BTW: The single case you refer to has been explained numerous times as an attemp to DISPROVE a signal had been found. You seem unfamiliar with the concept of self-skepticisim so I can see how that might have escaped your notice. The fact remains that In the end the code was never used and the graph labeled VERY ARTIFICIAL was never published. I'm sure as hell that if I was fiddling data for a global conspiracy I would not put a label like that on the resulting graph, would you?
The N20 componet of smog is indeed the "the third most important greenhouse gas" as claimed in the GP's informative post. Note that the arosols contained in smog also has a significant cooling effect but I don't think we want to give any encouragement to the coal industry to resume killing "large numbers" of people with pea soupers
"Sharing data with scientists who already agree with you isn't science."
I don't defend his apparent attempt to thwart one of the 50 odd FOI request he has on his plate by requesting Mann delete some emails. However I do defend his commitment to opening up the data sources. The HADCrut data set has been available on the web to scientists, the general public, and psudeo-skeptics alike for years due mainly to his efforts. However I don't expect easily verifyable facts to stop uninformed wankers from being lead around by nose for fun and profit.
As the Nature editorial points out a small percentage of that set is still locked up by national governments such as France and is only available to researchers willing to fillout the red tape and wait months to get it, they are leaglly bound not to publish it!!! If not for the efforts of Jones 100% of the data would still be locked up with similar red tape.
I have no doubt as to the motives of the CEI and their ilk who continually bombard climate scientists with such requests while simultaneously running inumerable front sites for the FF industry (eg:icecap), and doing their very best to smear the reputations of leading climate scientists (eg: Mann, Schmidt).
The operative word in your post is "if". eg: If the "skeptics" stop hand waving and come up with some evidence then your speculation might have some merit. However it would still fail to explain why other completely independent data sets concur with the HADCrut set.
Here is a description from a reputable source of how the UN has conducted it's investigation so far.
Further, the IPCC has a budget of $5-6 million per annum and none of the roughly 2500 scientists who compile the reports recieve a single penny of it in remmuneration. A small portion goes to the 2 or 3 paid staff but I will leave it at an exercise for you to actually visit their site and inspect their finiancial accounts to find out how they spend the rest of it.
Personally I think the premise is so obviously false that this stunt will backfire on the coal industry as did similar "scientific" arguments by the tabcoo companies in the 80's.
Yeah right, the whole "house of cards" has crumbled due to one line of source code that was never published. How about doing a bit of homework and finding out why the unpublished graph was labelled VERY ARTIFICIAL?
As for the so called "missing data" it seems the MET have noted the advice in the Nature editorial and are now petitioning 188 countries for permission to publish the remaining few percent of records still tied up in red tape.
The sad irony here is that Jones has spent most of his carrer making the other 95% of those records easily accesible to the scientific community.
"What if the democratic process has already been derailed?"
Our democratic process may have been derailed in many ways but the fact is the vast majority of Aussies don't want people wandering around with semi-autos and handguns. The NRA did come over here and try to derail that wish after the Tasmaninan massacre. We saw through their insensitive sales pitch and they were visably shaken when angry (unarmed) mobs turned up at their rallies and sent them packing back to the US. Like you they were mystified as to why we would react that way.
The explaination is simple. We aren't that fearfull of our fellow countrymen, our prime minister can go for a jog in the morning without a bullet proof vest and a small army, most of us would like it to stay that way.
"In Switzerland, they still believe it, and to this day they don't waste any money on a standing army. Instead, every militia member (which is every male 18-45) has a fully-automatic rifle in his house, ready to defend his nation if necessary."
Private weapons? Excuse me while I pack my bags for Switzerland, I want one of these in my driveway.
"Also, corporations can't participate in a free market, they are entities that exist solely at the whim of the government."
That is a great example of how people misinterpret the term "free market", the word "free" means "free to participate" which corporations are certainly doing. The word "market" refers to the set of rules that govern transactions between particpants.
IMHO the US senate is the most corrupt regulatory body in the western world, it is where corporate representives meet to redefine the market in their favour, ensuring some are more free to participate than others.
"This will be decided by a jury in a court of law"
That's cold comfort while your sitting in remand fattening the wallets of private prison operators. As for common law, what risk did she pose? Why did the supposed risk only last for two days?
I'm not from the US so perhaps someone could explain to me why the "land of the free" has the largest prison population on the planet? Is the slogan some sort of Orwellian joke or can people simply not handle freedom?
"Most of the others are complaining about the fact that the results are self-selected."
Is that really a fact? I pointed out in another post that the survey was not intended to measure literacy. Reading the abstract again I also doubt they were self selecting. Here is the relevant quote with highlights...
The key objectives of this survey were therefore: to explore how much young people enjoy writing, what type of writing they engage in, how good at writing they think they are, what they think about writing and what the role of technology is in young people's writing. This report outlines the findings from 3001 pupils aged 9-16 from England and Scotland, who completed an online survey in May 2009.
Now someone might want to dig into the pdf report and contradict me but the word "pupils" seems to indicate they were asked to fill this out in class time, ie: not self selected.
I know that it's geek herasy not to burn social scientists at the stake but I'm a bit of a softy.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, there is a vast difference between someone who belives a deity lit the fuse and someone who rejects the science they don't like.
"And first most important greenhouse gas is water vapor
The water vapour red-herring is #26 on this list of the most common bogus arguments repeated ad-nausem by "skeptics". Sure the water vapour in the atmosphere warms the planet signifigantly. However the atmosphere is basically saturated with water vapour, pump as much water vapour into the atmosphere as you like and it will fall out as rain with a few days.
You cannot staurate the atmosphere with CO2 (re: Venus) or N20, however you can saturate the oceans with CO2 to form carbolic acid and severly disrupt the very roots of the global food chain.
"I believe in AGW but let's not claim the climate science is easy to understand or obvious.
I agree, the science is not settled, philosophically speaking science is never settled.
"This is why I get angry when AGWers equate those that disbelieve in AGW with creationists; the principles behind evolution are much easier and more intuitive to understand than climate science is."
Every scientists is a skeptic and the best of them are self-skeptical. However what people like me get angry about is the huge amount of deliberate and coordinated disinformation from lobbyists such as the CEI and the heartland institute. It's bad enough that the intellectually incurious simply accepted their crap on face value and endlessly repeat but what really pisses me off are the large number of politicians who actively push the same nonesense (Senator Inhofe is a particularly bad example).
There is a name for this kind of propoganda it's called "teaching the contraversy" They teach their contraversy in exactly the same manner as creationist teach their's; ie: via paid astroturfer's and web sites such as icecap, WUWT, ClimateAudit and countless other fronts for the FF industry. These are the people I routinely refer to a psuedo-skeptics, many others call them deniers.
Agrguing with these people and their avid followers is very much like arguing with creationists, evolution may seem a simple idea these days but when I went to school in the 60's it was every bit as contraversial and complex as climate science is today.
More recently the well established fact that smoking causes cancer was also vigoursly disputed by so called scientists. It should come as no surprise that some of the "scientists" spreading FUD on climate are the very same "scientists" who spread FUD for the tabcoo industry in the 80's and 90's (eg: Fred S Singer).
I second the call for a benevolent hack into the heartland institute and/or the CEI.
"$ grep "blatant data tampering" highly_incriminating_file.txt # because conspiracies store their misdeeds in plaintext"
Exactly, the crafty bastards also clearly label their graphs with "VERY ARTIFICIAL" to hide the fact that they are very artificial.
"The real smoking gun.."
Please study the propoganda you have been fed more carefully, it's not a smoking gun, it's a smoking iceberg.
Why does Watts not publish anything but a website? Why is he so chummy with the lobbyists at CEI and the heartland institue? Why does he harp on about anomolus weather stations and then dishonestly lampoon scientists for statistically correcting their data to account for such anomolies? If you are a genuine skeptic you will find many more pertinent questions to ask Mr Watts, but don't hold your breath for an answer, the C02 buildup in your lungs is likely to kill you.
"it's all over the place"
So lets have some examples. Or are you just another hand waving "skeptic"?
BTW: The single case you refer to has been explained numerous times as an attemp to DISPROVE a signal had been found. You seem unfamiliar with the concept of self-skepticisim so I can see how that might have escaped your notice. The fact remains that In the end the code was never used and the graph labeled VERY ARTIFICIAL was never published. I'm sure as hell that if I was fiddling data for a global conspiracy I would not put a label like that on the resulting graph, would you?
The N20 componet of smog is indeed the "the third most important greenhouse gas" as claimed in the GP's informative post. Note that the arosols contained in smog also has a significant cooling effect but I don't think we want to give any encouragement to the coal industry to resume killing "large numbers" of people with pea soupers
"Sharing data with scientists who already agree with you isn't science."
I don't defend his apparent attempt to thwart one of the 50 odd FOI request he has on his plate by requesting Mann delete some emails. However I do defend his commitment to opening up the data sources. The HADCrut data set has been available on the web to scientists, the general public, and psudeo-skeptics alike for years due mainly to his efforts. However I don't expect easily verifyable facts to stop uninformed wankers from being lead around by nose for fun and profit.
As the Nature editorial points out a small percentage of that set is still locked up by national governments such as France and is only available to researchers willing to fillout the red tape and wait months to get it, they are leaglly bound not to publish it!!! If not for the efforts of Jones 100% of the data would still be locked up with similar red tape.
I have no doubt as to the motives of the CEI and their ilk who continually bombard climate scientists with such requests while simultaneously running inumerable front sites for the FF industry (eg:icecap), and doing their very best to smear the reputations of leading climate scientists (eg: Mann, Schmidt).
The operative word in your post is "if". eg: If the "skeptics" stop hand waving and come up with some evidence then your speculation might have some merit. However it would still fail to explain why other completely independent data sets concur with the HADCrut set.
Here is a description from a reputable source of how the UN has conducted it's investigation so far.
Further, the IPCC has a budget of $5-6 million per annum and none of the roughly 2500 scientists who compile the reports recieve a single penny of it in remmuneration. A small portion goes to the 2 or 3 paid staff but I will leave it at an exercise for you to actually visit their site and inspect their finiancial accounts to find out how they spend the rest of it.
Personally I think the premise is so obviously false that this stunt will backfire on the coal industry as did similar "scientific" arguments by the tabcoo companies in the 80's.
Yeah right, the whole "house of cards" has crumbled due to one line of source code that was never published. How about doing a bit of homework and finding out why the unpublished graph was labelled VERY ARTIFICIAL?
As for the so called "missing data" it seems the MET have noted the advice in the Nature editorial and are now petitioning 188 countries for permission to publish the remaining few percent of records still tied up in red tape.
The sad irony here is that Jones has spent most of his carrer making the other 95% of those records easily accesible to the scientific community.
Keep plugging away mate. You have posted some very informative stuff to counter this well designed publicity stunt.
"What if the democratic process has already been derailed?"
Our democratic process may have been derailed in many ways but the fact is the vast majority of Aussies don't want people wandering around with semi-autos and handguns. The NRA did come over here and try to derail that wish after the Tasmaninan massacre. We saw through their insensitive sales pitch and they were visably shaken when angry (unarmed) mobs turned up at their rallies and sent them packing back to the US. Like you they were mystified as to why we would react that way.
The explaination is simple. We aren't that fearfull of our fellow countrymen, our prime minister can go for a jog in the morning without a bullet proof vest and a small army, most of us would like it to stay that way.
Am I the only one here who thinks armed rebellion over a video game is a tad extreme?
Let me plug that into my computer here. *crunch crunch* Ah here's the answer: 42.
Nobody writes jokes in base 230.
But there are people who don't get D. Adams references. BTW: There is no integer base such that 42 = 272 decimal.
"Maybe we have better law enforcement?"
Good explaination, if you define "better" as more profitable then law enforcement in the US can look forward to further improvements.
I keep seeing the term Black Friday. Here in Oz, this is Black Friday.
Free = Anyone can participate.
Market = A set of rules governing transactions between partcipants.
Conclusion: "Unregulated free market" is an oxymoron.
"In Switzerland, they still believe it, and to this day they don't waste any money on a standing army. Instead, every militia member (which is every male 18-45) has a fully-automatic rifle in his house, ready to defend his nation if necessary."
Private weapons? Excuse me while I pack my bags for Switzerland, I want one of these in my driveway.
"Also, corporations can't participate in a free market, they are entities that exist solely at the whim of the government."
That is a great example of how people misinterpret the term "free market", the word "free" means "free to participate" which corporations are certainly doing. The word "market" refers to the set of rules that govern transactions between particpants.
IMHO the US senate is the most corrupt regulatory body in the western world, it is where corporate representives meet to redefine the market in their favour, ensuring some are more free to participate than others.
"We were so busy being scared of the communists (a la 1984) that we forgot to fear the other extreme"
As someone who lived through the cold war I feel obliged to thank you for that very astute observation.
"This will be decided by a jury in a court of law"
That's cold comfort while your sitting in remand fattening the wallets of private prison operators. As for common law, what risk did she pose? Why did the supposed risk only last for two days?
I'm not from the US so perhaps someone could explain to me why the "land of the free" has the largest prison population on the planet? Is the slogan some sort of Orwellian joke or can people simply not handle freedom?
"Most of the others are complaining about the fact that the results are self-selected."
Is that really a fact? I pointed out in another post that the survey was not intended to measure literacy. Reading the abstract again I also doubt they were self selecting. Here is the relevant quote with highlights...
The key objectives of this survey were therefore: to explore how much young people enjoy writing, what type of writing they engage in, how good at writing they think they are, what they think about writing and what the role of technology is in young people's writing. This report outlines the findings from 3001 pupils aged 9-16 from England and Scotland, who completed an online survey in May 2009.
Now someone might want to dig into the pdf report and contradict me but the word "pupils" seems to indicate they were asked to fill this out in class time, ie: not self selected.
I know that it's geek herasy not to burn social scientists at the stake but I'm a bit of a softy.