Al Gore targets Heartland Skeptic Conference With New Billboard Claiming 'Consensus' -- Climate Depot Responds

AlyssaMoore · 2012-05-20T23:46:26.521458+00:00

Likewise I have never seen anything on climate science on the serious science subreddits apart from one submission on space a short time back that was removed very quickly by the moderators

You apparently haven't been looking for more than 10 seconds, since there are two climate science articles on the frontpage of /r/science at this very moment.

"Feudalist propaganda?" Drunk-posting on reddit is a dangerous thing!

publius_lxxii · 2012-05-20T22:21:19.754640+00:00

And now you blatantly misrepresent your own comments posted to this site. On top of misrepresenting other people!

.But then you have no idea why even that small a sample is bad news for Kerry Emmanuel and others who keeps pushing the hurricane is getting stronger more common and other babble.

Are you daft? Emmanuel is a dynamicist. His seminal paper on strengthening hurricanes in a warmer climate is a theoretical dynamical study. Are you really so fundamentally unfamiliar with the science here that you're going to make up stuff about one of the most pivotal tropical meteorologists in the world? Do yourself a favor and get acquainted with the actual science.

Since 2005 Hurricane frequency and intensity have declined and as the resident AGW cultist YOU have to face that fact eventually.

WOW!! Talk about cherry-picking on top of failure of basic statistics! Does it really need to be spelled out to you why starting a trend computation at the most prolific and unprecedented hurricane season in recorded history is going to skew your analysis? Nevermind the fact that you can't possibly perform timeseries analysis with any statistical significane on 7 years of hurricane data?!?!?

kokey · 2012-05-20T22:14:05.692424+00:00

Of course. Which is why I want Heartland to press charges, and let the relevant details come out during discovery. We already know that everything is accurate and real with the exception of a single memo, and there are more than plausible explanations for the origin of that memo that are equally as valid as the assertion that Gleick faked them. In fake, in light of Joe Bast's handling of the billboard campaign, I'd say some of those alternative explanations are bolstered.

'Tis a shame that Heartland isn't pursuing legal action; for once, it would be nice to see them put their money where their mouth is.

Anyways, the article isn't working, so there is no way to vet this.

publius_lxxii · 2012-05-20T15:36:45.651730+00:00

Ha ha when will you read the link I posted?

I'm more than familiar enough with Maue's papers; tropical meteorology isn't my expertise or focus, but it's still an interesting diversion to indulge in from time to time. Apparently, you haven't actually invested the time to understand his research, seeing as you don't understand either my or Turnip's criticism of how you are attempting to use Maue's work to support your unfounded assertions.

Gems like this corroborate the point:

The lowest TWO YEARS sequence since 1970.The lowest two years series on record was the very last two years.He never stated just two years only you freaking moron!

smacks forehead

It's trivial to look at whether or not two years is a representative sample of a population of data. In this case, it's not, and invoking them as evidence is absurd. Everything else in your argument is just as yawn-inducing.

publius_lxxii · 1 day

All facts you and turnip have not countered at all.

You've still missed the point entirely. ACE is an integrated measure for tropical cyclone activity. It doesn't control for the frequency of storms in a given year, so your invocation of it as evidence for your statistically invalid claims that landfalling hurricanes are decreasing in number is inappropriate. By the way, that statistical claim -

We have decrease in landfalling hurricanes.Decrease in total number of cyclones and decreased cyclone storm length.

Passes no statistical test. Two years is not nearly enough data to ascertain a trend in something as noisy as hurricane frequency. You don't even offer any evidence on "decreased cyclone storm length". In fact, you mix up basic meteorology - hurricanes are tropical cyclones. Many mid-latitude and extra-tropical storms are "cyclones;" they're just eddies in the synoptic scale mean flow.

Care to try again?

fungussa · 1 day

I suggest you learn something about models before you argue about them.

publius_lxxii · 1 day

You haven't responded to Turnip's point. If you want a valid analysis of trends in tropical hurricane strength, then sure - use Ryan Maue's work (although it's from his doctoral thesis and hey, isn't the IPCC invalid because it references theses in some places?) But you need to control for frequency of storms to make a valid analysis.

kokey · 1 day

No, I didn't. Kokey tried to deflect and change the topic - literally a 90 degree turn. If kokey has an argument or specific criticism about the dendrochronology selection criteria then he should make it, else he's just flailing and distracting attention form the issue at hand - that once again, for the umpteenth time, McIntyre is making BS arguments to smear paleo-climate scientists.

publius_lxxii · 1 day

Cute. Are you deliberately trying to be obscenely ignorant? Because let me tell you - you're succeeding beautifully!

kokey · 1 day

Try the hard part of making a real counterpoint to Durkin's essay.

You might want to check that your monitor is working, because I made several explicit counterpoints to Durkin's essay, which you haven't bothered to criticize - just downvoted into oblivion with the typical 'skeptic' armada.

ItsJustAConspiracy · 1 day

What a shallow response. SkS is an unreliable source because one of its writers is a cartoonist? Never mind the fact that every claim on the website is meticulously backed up with reference to primary literature!

Anthony Watts is a so-called "meteorologist" who has failed to ever produce evidence that he has a meteorology degree, yet you routinely re-post material from his blog here. What a hypocrite!

AlyssaMoore · 1 day

There is full consensus that astrology works

No, there isn't. We can ask any astrophysicist.

fungussa · 1 day

That criticism betrays a supremely fundamental ignorance of what climate models are and how they are used. Not only is climate projection not an initial value problem, no one analyzes model output without using ensemble statistical techniques in order to quantify uncertainty due to sensitivity of modeled trajectories to precise initial conditions.

No one seeks consensus. It just so happens that multiple lines of evidence all converge on the same answer with respect to climate change, and they've been on a convergent course for nigh a century.

kokey · 2 days

Read the papers yourself. Why should you trust my word or Steve McIntyre's word when you can go to the original papers?

kokey · 2 days

Really? You're not going to offer any critical analysis; just regurgitating Durkin's absurd thesis?

It's patently absurd to argue that modern environmentalism is rooted in Nazi Germany. Do you seriously buy that? Reverence for the environment and nature is not unique to Nazi Germany; would you seriously tell a German, today, face-to-face, that their country's extremely widespread environmentalism movement is a relic of their Nazi history?

The article is just another farsical, partisan re-interpretation of history. And Durkin apparently knows nothing about Hitler and why the Nazi's were so focused on racial purification, especially targeting Jews, gypsies, and other ethnic groups. It had much less to do with economics/capitalism than compared to xenophobia and ethnocentrism.

Durkin's thesis is entirely wrong. Green ideology was not the core value of the Nazi party. Nearly every society has "green ideologies", and it's absurd to elevate fundamental, shared values as the principle descriptors of a societal movement's beliefs.

All this article illustrates is how low fake-skeptics will sink to try to smear people they disagree with. What happened to seeing past hyperbole?

ManBearPigg · 2 days

Is the IPCC misrepresented here? It seems consistent with figures I have heard in the past. Or do you have some other information to enlighten me with?

Yes, they are. Nowhere does the IPCC assert that all the radiative perturbation due to increased CO2 should be stored in the ocean over such short timescales. In fact, this is totally unsurprising; as we get more and better observations of ocean heat content - especially the deep ocean - we see that more and more heat than we realized is being stored there. And when you start to integrate the error bounds out to climatic timescales relevant for heat storage in the ocean, you start to eliminate the old discrepancies between observations and theory.

I advise you not to get your scientific information from blogs.

ItsJustAConspiracy · 2 days

Sorry, that's some horrendously weak spin. There are plenty of other commenters in this forum who regularly chat about pseudo-science, yet you never jump on board; you just swipe claws at people you disagree with. So my observation stands.

publius_lxxii · 2 days

No, for the most part they're just physicists and mathematicians who decided around grad school that they wanted to focus on problems which they could conceptualize easier with respect to the real world.

contrarianism · 2 days

Define "climate change activities." The number means nothing without seeing what it was actually spent on; for all we know, there is fuzzy math going on. What happened to "skepticism?"

publius_lxxii · 2 days

TL;DR - It's because he has a chip on his shoulder.

kokey · 2 days

Not quite. This author doesn't even understand the analysis that McIntyre is currently ranting about on CA. His gripe is that the Yamal chronologies are different between the CRU archive and other versions used in reconstructions. Nowhere has McIntyre ever re-analyzed the data and failed to find a hockey stick; his criticism has always been issues in the raw proxy data and quibbling over statistical methods (which when explored end up being irrelevant).

But leave it to fake-skeptics to invent their own narratives.

kokey · 3 days

Godwin's Law is invalid if it is invoked on purpose, and it always backfires.

ItsJustAConspiracy · 3 days

Oh, right. Sometimes I forget you're a card carrying member of the Ministry, too.

This game is cute, but it really betrays something deep - if you were evenly remotely capable of engaging in a scientific argument with SkS, you would. But you can't, hence these pathetic smear games.

Eh, at least unlike some of the other posters here, you don't even pretend to have knowledge of this science. That's a significant step up from most of them.

ItsJustAConspiracy · 3 days

You don't own the word "skeptic." In fact, so-called climate skeptics have entirely misappropriated the word. True skeptics question everything with rational and deliberate thought; so-called climate skeptics just mindlessly regurgitate material they've seen on WUWT without any presence of mind or deliberate thought on it.

The authors at SkS do a fantastic job of summarizing peer-reviewed material and rebutting the endless, mindless "arguments" from so-called climate skeptics. And they're not even friendly to the peer-reviewed literature. They rarely if ever extrapolate from the results and conclusions explicitly expressed in the literature they cite.

Are you really unable to tell the difference or is this just more of the typical counters smarm?

The person playing word games and smearing a valuable educational resource for everyone discussing climate science is going to accuse someone of "smarm?" ROFL!

ItsJustAConspiracy · 3 days

Ah. And "Real-Science", "ClimateRealists", and any number of other fake-skeptic 'brands' isn't newspeak?

counters

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login