Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Pliny

CERN: Climate Models will need to be revised

Recommended Posts

The CERN and Spencer papers are two. Then your have the Linzden papers. Your opinion of these papers is irrelevant. Micheal was engaging in the rediculous exercise of judging science by counting the number of papers.

How ridiculous is it ? We use consensus in all aspects of science, and generally of knowledge. This is why we don't have UFO studies in the news every day. Yes, you can have a Gallileo or an Einstein every 100 years or so, but we don't hold back other fields because of the possibility that everyone is wrong.

For the record, the study I just posted indicated that the fringe viewpoints are also held more by researchers with less experience in the field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The court of public opinion is what usually decides matters. Slowly but surely, the ship has been turning around and poll after poll has the public's belief in APGW on the wane. The average Joe (an important fellow) can put a lot more faith in the Sun and clouds than they can in the 4/10ths of one per-cent CO2 in our atmosphere that has civilization supposedly hurtling towards Armageddon. Let the debate continue.

Edited by Keepitsimple

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The court of public opinion is what usually decides matters. Slowly but surely, the ship has been turning around and poll after poll has the public's belief in APGW on the wane. The average Joe (an important fellow) can put a lot more faith in the Sun and clouds than they can in the 4/10ths of one per-cent CO2 in our atmosphere that has civilization supposedly hurtling towards Armageddon. Let the debate continue.

There was a time when the average Joe realized his limitations and relied on science to do its work, and on the media to report it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There was a time when the average Joe realized his limitations and relied on science to do its work, and on the media to report it.
I case you hadn't noticed the 'average joe' is getting extremely sick of elites telling him to shut up and listen to his betters. The same zeitgeist that led to the rejection of the HST are behind the rejection of CAGW and behind the incoherent rise of the tea party.

The "elites" need to start respecting the average joe a lot more than they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I case you hadn't noticed the 'average joe' is getting extremely sick of elites telling him to shut up and listen to his betters. The same zeitgeist that led to the rejection of the HST are behind the rejection of CAGW and behind the incoherent rise of the tea party.

The "elites" need to start respecting the average joe a lot more than they do.

This is exactly the problem - people telling average Joe that his opinion on climate is as valid as someone who worked on it their whole life.

Average Joe has a lot of power, and a lot of responsibility but not a lot of interest in what's really going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a time when the average Joe realized his limitations and relied on science to do its work, and on the media to report it.

Was that back when the "scientists" donned long robes and hats with stars on them? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for pointing out "johnny b good's" reference. I read your comment there. Whew!

I'm "johnny b good" now? Not even close to my name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh come on now, don't leave us guessing.

I'm sure we could come up with all kinds of creative possibilities!

:)

About JBG (link).

When my kids saw their sign they thought it was funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn you sound like a pompous spoiled child at times. The thread is yours.

You know Waldo, eventually your people skills are going to result in your having no audience at all.

You're going to need a gun to get people to play with you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is exactly the problem - people telling average Joe that his opinion on climate is as valid as someone who worked on it their whole life.
Well then the people who worked on climate their whole lives should stop acting like arrogant prima donnas who manipulate the system to suit themselves and put protecting their colleagues' 'reputation' ahead of the truth.

Respect must earned. And somewhere along the way scientist forgot that and started demanding it instead of earning it.

They had help of course - all of the political operatives like Gore who see climate change as a way to achieve their political ends. They were more than happy to massage the egos of the scientists and tell them how wonderful they were. The trouble is these political operatives were a just another minority out for their our self interest. Scientists are now paying the price because the average Joe does not distinguish between a scientist and a political operative.

Edited by TimG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About JBG (link).

When my kids saw their sign they thought it was funny.

At first I must admit I hesitated, not wanting to see what you looked like. But then I thought, oh what the heck and clicked the link.

Only to find I was directed to a company site.

Talk about disillusionment! I trusted you, and now I feel so... betrayed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ah yes, where I was headed... getting TimG to qualify his vaguely sourced/defined declarative is always a challenge... so, we have been able to flush out "attribution", but not yet what constitutes the vaguely offered, "very few" and "few and far between" references. Equally, we don't have a comparative reference point... you know, how many attribution studies, standing with merit attribution studies, have been published offering an alternate linkage... an alternate other than anthropogenic based? How many of those are there, hey?
The only attribution papers in the last while have been responses to skeptical papers on the same topic.

put them up... the ones that, as I said, have standing and merit. Put them up.

The CERN and Spencer papers are two. Then your have the Linzden papers. Your opinion of these papers is irrelevant. Micheal was engaging in the rediculous exercise of judging science by counting the number of papers.

well... now we are getting somewhere. In keeping with this threads OP focus (CERN/CLOUD), let's forgo discussion on the woefully failed Spencer & Lindzen papers/premise. Let's examine your claim that the CERN results... those initial results now just recently released by CERN... are, as you say, presenting an attribution study - one that, as you say, presents an alternate premise/causal link for global warming, one other than anthropogenic based. Please support your claim that the recent CERN/CLOUD paper/results is an attribution study, one that presents a causal basis for global warming.

as for your criticism of whatever you interpret of MLW member Michael Hardner's post, it was you... you... who initiated a comparison reference in regards to, as you stated, "very few" and "few and far between".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They had help of course - all of the political operatives like Gore who see climate change as a way to achieve their political ends. They were more than happy to massage the egos of the scientists and tell them how wonderful they were. The trouble is these political operatives were a just another minority out for their our self interest. Scientists are now paying the price because the average Joe does not distinguish between a scientist and a political operative.

This is a symptom of our culture, and science is only a reflection of the problem.

I don't think that I would categorize scientists as you have... or to blame them which is really what you're doing. I think that many specialists are becoming frustrated with our system of debate, and this is what you're calling 'prima donna' behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that I would categorize scientists as you have... or to blame them which is really what you're doing.
If the scientists did not want to get blamed they should not have defended Mann, Jones and the rest of the "team" when the peddle junk science. If they had taken the higher ground and criticized Mann and Jones as they deserved then it would be harder to lump them in with all of the political operatives. But that did not happen. And we see the consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know Waldo, eventually your people skills are going to result in your having no audience at all.

You're going to need a gun to get people to play with you!

I am... taken aback! I am noted for being a, "people person"... a, "man of the people"! Surely you have misjudged - I am inclined to perceive you have a bias... do you and I have any personal exchange history... anything recent? :lol:

perhaps you could offer some of your Dale Carnegie insight: in that one of the expressed MLW forum rules advises against someone putting up a "ta da" link, without offering any personal interpretation towards presenting some, "aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion", (notwithstanding the GostHacked (GH) "ta da" link was to a most questionable site, one that offered woefully incorrect/fabricated statements, one that only quoted noted prolific deniers)..... tell me, what would Dale Carnegie do when responding to the GH "ta da", particularly given the purposeful GH intent, particularly balanced against the historical expressed GH position? What would Dale do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exactly the problem - people telling average Joe that his opinion on climate is as valid as someone who worked on it their whole life.

Average Joe has a lot of power, and a lot of responsibility but not a lot of interest in what's really going on.

Well then the people who worked on climate their whole lives should stop acting like arrogant prima donnas who manipulate the system to suit themselves and put protecting their colleagues' 'reputation' ahead of the truth.

arrogant prima donnas? You mean like your favoured Spencer's act with Monckton in Cancun... like that? Or Spencer's dance with the earlier Dressler paper's embargo date? Or Spencer's recent FoxNews presence where he helped to push/pump forward the already fabricated mainstream take on his paper... one influenced by the Heartland Institute's Forbes article? Or Spencer, now multiple times, pre-release hyping his own papers? Or Spencer, now multiple times, searching out the most fringe journals, to purposely tout his self-serving gatekeeper meme? Like that? Like any of that?

Respect must earned. And somewhere along the way scientist forgot that and started demanding it instead of earning it.

noted: TimG hyperbole, offered in the context of his underlying conspiracy angle.

They had help of course - all of the political operatives like Gore who see climate change as a way to achieve their political ends. They were more than happy to massage the egos of the scientists and tell them how wonderful they were. The trouble is these political operatives were a just another minority out for their our self interest. Scientists are now paying the price because the average Joe does not distinguish between a scientist and a political operative.

nonsense! The average Joe you speak of doesn't spend an inordinate TimG time trolling the depths of the denialsphere. As for political operatives, I give you your favoured type of scientist, Roy Spencer - PhD Legislator, who unabashedly states:

I would wager that my job has helped save our economy from the economic ravages of out-of-control environmental extremism.

I view my job a little like a legislator, supported by the taxpayer, to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to minimize the role of government.

If I and others are ultimately successful, it may well be that my job is no longer needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the scientists did not want to get blamed they should not have defended Mann, Jones and the rest of the "team" when the peddle junk science. If they had taken the higher ground and criticized Mann and Jones as they deserved then it would be harder to lump them in with all of the political operatives. But that did not happen. And we see the consequences.

squawk! The "team"! squawk! The "team"! squawk! Group think!!! Group think!!! squawk!

just how big is that much ballyhooed denier projection on, the "team"? If one dares to suffer the resultant head-banging from actually reading visitor comments within denialBlogTown, one is continually, repeatedly, deluged with guttural screeches about, the "team"!!! Who is on that, oh so powerful, "team" you keep bleating on about, TimG? Who makes up the "team"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the scientists did not want to get blamed they should not have defended Mann, Jones and the rest of the "team" when the peddle junk science. If they had taken the higher ground and criticized Mann and Jones as they deserved then it would be harder to lump them in with all of the political operatives. But that did not happen. And we see the consequences.

Why wouldn't they defend them ? They believe that their studies are accurate, and beyond that - they are human beings who rightly feel that they're under siege by a popular press that misreports the facts, that personally attacks them, and calls their motives into question. They have had their personal emails stolen and gleefully posted by these same forces.

I'm surprised that the emails didn't show them as being even more hostile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

squawk! The "team"! squawk! The "team"! squawk! Group think!!! Group think!!! squawk!

You obviously have a lot of knowledge on the topic at hand. As such, you have an opportunity to actually convince people that the deniers are as they say you are.

You will squander that opportunity by using a mocking and unbecoming tone. TimG is one of the most knowledgeable posters here defending the skeptics, so if anybody here deserves a dignified argument it's him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You will squander that opportunity by using a mocking and unbecoming tone. TimG is one of the most knowledgeable posters here defending the skeptics, so if anybody here deserves a dignified argument it's him.

I know your position on these matters and I appreciate your sticking up for those who make contrary arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know your position on these matters and I appreciate your sticking up for those who make contrary arguments.

I speak my mind against bad arguments, especially those from people who are closer to me politically. Kind of like how you yell at your own kids' bad behavior but not others.

I would like to see more of that on this board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

put them up... the ones that, as I said, have standing and merit. Put them up.

You know full well that in waldoworld none have merit no matter how many are put up.

You do have a vast library of references about what scientists can be trusted to publish what you like to hear and what scientists can not be trusted. Wink! Wink! Nudge! Nudge!

We'll have to put CERN scientists on the maybe list unless you can convince them their "findings" are flawed, waldo. If not, it's waldohell for them. Somehow big oil is involved, I just know it.

What findings? Well, it appears climate models will need some revision but we aren't sure yet until waldo has gone through the research and has had a chance to thoroughly trivialize it and trash the scientists who raised their ugly heads on the matter. They have to be idiots to question something that has already been settled by the science. It is only the conversation that needs to be won now. No matter what comes up from science we'll just keep saying the same things. To quote a well known true believer, "squawk! The "team"! squawk! The "team"! squawk! Group think!!! Group think!!! squawk!"

You know what waldo, the world mean temperature rose 1.5 degrees fahrenheit over the last century. Actually, I would probably be more alarmed if it hadn't changed at all and we were stuck in some static twilight zone.

waldo, is your love of man such that you feel beholden to save him from himself? Even those blasphemous individuals, such as myself, are worthy of your concern? Or perhaps such people as myself are so contemptible and irredeemable they need to be sacrificed for the collective good; or at least to win the conversation. Racists were all wrong after all and that conversation was finally won and we can see things are so much better. No more Blacks hanging from trees, much to the chagrin of the tea party who wish to return to that era - but that conversation has already been won. Science has proven that Blacks are of the same species as his European brethern. We can finally make patronizing laws that uplift his status to where the white man is - yay! Sanity prevails and we shall make laws to ensure it does because laws enforce the truth of the conversation. We must make some big laws; with teeth - truth was never so revealing than at the end of a gun barrel. Bwaha hahahaaa!

Oops! Sorry got carried away there. Well, got to go now. Should I, in the words of Maxine Waters, just go straight to hell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
squawk! The "team"! squawk! The "team"! squawk! Group think!!! Group think!!! squawk!

just how big is that much ballyhooed denier projection on, the "team"? If one dares to suffer the resultant head-banging from actually reading visitor comments within denialBlogTown, one is continually, repeatedly, deluged with guttural screeches about, the "team"!!! Who is on that, oh so powerful, "team" you keep bleating on about, TimG? Who makes up the "team"?

You obviously have a lot of knowledge on the topic at hand. As such, you have an opportunity to actually convince people that the deniers are as they say you are.

You will squander that opportunity by using a mocking and unbecoming tone. TimG is one of the most knowledgeable posters here defending the skeptics, so if anybody here deserves a dignified argument it's him.

of course, we've discussed themes of this in the past. That sense of abject decorum you speak to reflects upon year over year repeated exchanges... it reflects upon patterns of consistent habit, tendency, approach, method, process, style, etc., At this point, if it ever existed, there is no avenue to, as you say, "convince people"... certainly not the usual suspects.

on many levels, this MLW microcosm on the so-called climate change debate, reflects upon areas of the greater polarized thought... it also reflects upon the greater dynamic, one that showcases the glaring absence of true skeptics. Instead what we have at large, what MLW has, is a myriad of outright deniers falsely positioning as skeptics. Really... skeptics... here?

a real skeptic doesn't blindly accept anything... everything... simply because the denial echo-chamber fosters it upon them! A real skeptic doesn't have a narrow, restricted double-standard on evaluation... a real skeptic demands accountability across the board. A real skeptic accepts personal limitations and doesn't presume to punch above one's own knowledge weight... a real skeptic relies upon, but doesn't outright accept, the expertise of knowledgeable persons/outlets. A real skeptic doesn't ignore underlying motivations at play, particularly from the loudest barkers and howlers fostering the latest and greatest, every other week, silver bullet. A real skeptic doesn't search out tabloid journalism to project upon a preconceived position. A real skeptic demands accountability, completeness and substantive argument built upon sound practice, method and process... a real skeptic doesn't interpret developments based on the inherent deficiencies within today's mainstream media. A real skeptic actually puts some effort into attempting to interpret developments and their underlying foundations. And on, and on......

since you mentioned, by name... TimG is the poster boy. He is certainly not, as you suggest, "defending skeptics". Has he ever presented an actual argument... let alone been able to defend it? Purveyors of continued conspiracy themes are not knowledgeable... purveyors of attack by association are not knowledgeable. Purveyors of select and never-ending "auditing" are not knowledgeable, particularly when they can't, when they won't turn that audit inward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...