Posts by Kracklite
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
...and once again we go sailling on stormy seas to conspiracist la-lal-land with a crew of straw men.
The frequency of hurricanes is uncertain and not taken as a major make-or-break issue. The suggestion that it is is misinformation.
__New Scientist's__ summary says,
General climate models are not detailed enough to accurately predict the effects of warming on hurricane activity. Instead, modellers have tried to feeding in predictions from general models to detailed regional models of hurricanes. This has produced some widely varying results, but the consensus among experts is that global warming will not lead more hurricanes overall, but will increase the average intensity of storms.
and
There are problems with such studies. For starters, tropical cyclone activity in some regions seems to rise and fall in cycles lasting many decades. “This variability makes detecting any long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity difficult” concluded the 125 members of a World Meteorological Organisation international workshop on tropical cyclones and climate change, held in December 2006
As for for the motives that 'they' have 'just so they can'... whatever... well, my sarcasm's being overused these day's so I'll just say keep an eye out for those black helicopters.
-
Armed millipedes, one for DARPA
Erratum/Addendum: one for the Ignobel prize too, I'd think. I can see the papers now: 'Self-harm and suicide incidences among millipedes: an investigation.' 'Marksmanship and potential military applications among the arthropoda' War games and exercise with army ants (of course) against commando squads of...
Yes, I do need a cat, Russell.
-
well, that's because millipedes don't have opposable thumbs.
Well, a decent ergonomist could probably design a gun that could be used with opposable legs - after all a millipede has plenty to spare. It would take nanotech to achieve though.
Armed millipedes, one for DARPA
Re the 'new ice age', it was largely mistaken and overhyped (that link is subscriber-only, alas.
It has been noted that we're in an unusually long interglacial period now and that over the scale of thousands of years, the ice age may intensify again (we're not really out of it). That's thousands, GW is over hundreds. An order of magnitude difference, which I have to point out before some twit says, 'well, won't one cancel out the other?'
The paper that may have started it was published in 1971 by Stephen Schneider, who found that he had miscalculated, vastly overestimating the effects of aerosol cooling, and by 1975, the US National Academy of Science, concluded that more research might be necessary, but the case was weak. By 1977 Scheiner had retracted his earlier findings and was bemoaning the role of the mass media and conspiracy 'theorists' - see here
There was an apparent period of global cooling mid 20th century, but it was comparitively short lived and doesn't buck the trend. The oft-repeated claim that 'they', presumably meaning all or most scientists believed in the coming of a new ice age sooner rather than later is a media myth.
It was a short-lived scare, proposed by relatively few, based on limited and erroneous data, not broadly corroborated, not part of the mainstream of scientific thought and soon discarded. GW is not comparable in any of these aspects. It only made good headlines.
Also, the "'they' said this, then 'they' said that" is very poor logic, being an essentialist argument rather than recognising neither the quantitative nor the qualitative.
-
Google it. State of Fear is endlessly cited by "sceptics" as if it were something other than an airport novel. It's bizarre.
I know, hence my incredulity. I await Doctor No being used as an insightful and authoritative analysis of Chinese foreign policy.
A millipede couldn't shoot itself in the foot more often...
-
And now you're using a partisan review of a work of pulp fiction by Michael Crichton?!
Bozhe moi. What next, The Chronicles of Narnia?
-
Actually, almost all the editorial board of Nature have PhDs and are active scientists/academics.
Yes indeed, but my point was that their qualifications are not necessarily directly pertinent to every paper that they receive, rather their qualifications make them competetent to assess the potential worth and methodology of a paper before handing it on to a reviewer.
-
... actually, looking at the staff qualifications of Pew is like looking at the qualifications of the editorial board of a journal such as Nature - it would be to completely miss the point. Papers submitted for publication are always sent out for review externally. Referees remain strictly anonymous.
'Accounts payable assistant'? I'm still giggling over that one. It's a perfect case of 'Load. Fire! Aim.'
-
Your meme seems to be if they are not scientists dont trust them
Sloppy use of 'meme' - the correct word would be 'implication'.
And, as ever, it's a misrepresentation.
Pew is a polling and policy analysis organisation. See
here:
The Pew Center provides research, analysis and recommendations for federal, state, and international policies related to climate change. We bring together stakeholders, business representatives and experts on subjects ranging from technology development to design of sensible climate policy. These efforts influence our research and reports and inform our testimony before Congress.
They draw on climate scientists and other stakeholders, they do not do their own empirical research - they're not NASA.
This is something that you must have passed onto the 'about us' page but failed to mention.
The point is to trust scientists doing research and to trust policy analysts doing policy analysis (and dentists to do dentistry).
Administrative/Accounts Payable Assistant
And now that's just silly.
-
Kracklite, the Deeming report was in the Journal of Scientific Discovery 2005 as I pointed out.
No, you did not. Deming's paranoid mutterings revealing a conspiracy to 'get rid' of the MWP have no source, attribution or context. Do you want that to be taken seriously as 'testimony'.
This is how its done people, the conjuror and his assistants have new rabbits to pull out of the same hat
That's just a childish caricature (as is the 'interesting' NYT quote). Since you've decided that Mann 'and crew' are frauds, any peer-reviewed work has to be ignored and scientific practice is reduced to 'conjuring' from nothing. Science is a savage business, and studies have to be peer reviewed. That is, reviewed, by peers. Look it up. Mann's early work has been - as stated in the 2006 National Academy paper above has been criticised and added to, but in the end supported after a very rigorous process over more than a decade.
Simply plugging your ears and chanting 'la la la, I can't hear you', smears and name-calling do not an argument make.
And if you set a very high bar in requiring direct quotes with sources please play by your own rules
...
But you guys never do THAT do youNow that is downright dishonest, as is proven by the links to reports given in this and other threads.
Exxon and other oil companies give money to all manner of organizations, including a variety of environmental organization
It's called astroturfing colloquially. See also this, this, and so on...
Sorry to have to repeat myself,
Philip, you're going to have to, again and again and again...
-
The interesting bit from the NY Times is ..
100% fact-free and pure rhetoric.
A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.
Let's see, where to begin? Unattributed, anonymous, and the writer has already declared his antipathy ('pervert', 'let guard down' 'one of them' - is this guy paranoid or what?). Where's the context for the quote? Was the emailler talking about covering up the Mediaeval Warm Period? Sending it down a memory hole? Accounting for its anomalies in a model? A lot of scientists I know talk aggressively about 'getting rid' of problems by finding out what causes them so that those causes can be incorporated into the revised model. That's how science works. To use a casual remark like this, well...
Thanks for highlighting Deminmg's prejudice!