The ethical question no climate denier will answer

Tamino is not a credible source for anything. That is not raw data. That is data Tamino has adjusted to get it to match up. If I post data I will post the data if it comes from a blog I will check to make sure it is the real data. Posting an adjusted graph from Tamino is just bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Tamino is a fraud. He started out as a fraud. He has gone as far as stooping to lying about is qualifications. When he started his blog he said that he was a statistician. When his real identity as Grant Foster was revealed we learned that he had lied. Grant Foster has no statistics education what so ever. He is a failed musician.

So yes I'm attacking your source because your source is an unqualified lying sack of (*)(*)(*)(*)! So no I do not believer that his adjustment to the AR4 models is accurate because he is an unqualified lying sack of (*)(*)(*)(*)!

We can see quite well how the AR4s projections match up to the present in the IPCC's draft AR5 leak.



Tamino's adjustment is bull(*)(*)(*)(*)! Tamino isn't qualified to do such an adjustment nor given his record of lying can he be trusted to even be honest.

 

In this I fully agree. And it also shows why I encourage people to vette their sources.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/...no-with-plagiarism-in-a-dot-earth-discussion/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/06/saturday-silliness-tamino-aka-grant-foster-fracks-himself/

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2010/development-tamino-deletes-post/

http://notrickszone.com/2013/06/09/...ntury-today-data-show-no-warming-in-15-years/

 

Reading the admonishment of Foster from watts over his plagiarism of McIntyre is like reading the admonishment of a child.

Children will do what Foster did. Foster cited McIntyre then as he wrote got madder and madder then decided to delete the citation of McIntyre entirely. That is something you would expect from a child. Children do that. They think that because they are mad that they can ignore the rules and do what ever the hell they want.

Why did you steal from your sister? I was mad at her.

Why did you curse at me? I was mad at you.

Children have to be put to task for thinking that there personal feelings give them license to ignore the rules. A good parent recognizes this and calls them out on it. Apparently Fosters parents didn't do a very good job of this because he still acts like a child.

They should have taught him something about lying too but they failed at that as well.

 

So?

Prove it.

Utter nonsense. Where do you pick up that crap?

Oh that's where. So you're confusing the order in which Steve McIntyre analyzed the data, and the order in which Kinnard et. al. analyzed it. And on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, you impute false motives. Typical. And false.

And yet, neither you nor McIntyre can point to a single contaminated proxy. One again, you're just making stuff up off the top of your head.

 

So was Einstein. Is there a point to this?

So, unable to actually refute the science, you decide ad-hominem attacks will be really, really convincing. Typical denier crap. Wake me up when you have some real evidence.

We certainly can. And we can also see that Windigo can't read. Either that, or he doesn't know the difference between projections and model runs.

Say, aren't you the same guy who's claiming that increased CO2 makes the atmosphere less emissive?

 

Evidence is my first line of defense. Which is why you have lost this debate. But since you want to play the "you made a mistake" game, that's fine with me. Here are the mistakes you've made on this thread:
1. You falsely claimed I cherry-picked sea ice data. Still have not posted alleged data I purposefully omitted, and this is now post #6 since challenged to do so.
2. You falsely claimed sea ice data uncertainty was ignored, when it was actually plainly visible in the graph I posted.
3. You falsely claimed the Siple ice core showed 300 ppm CO2 in 1825.
4. You falsely claimed -- twice! even after being corrected -- that temperature decreased during 1750-1825.
5. You falsely claimed that CO2 was inversely correlated with temperature.
6. You falsely claimed that I want to tax exhalation.

That's one big ol' bucket of FAIL.

But not of citing them apparently. Since you have not yet backed up a single false statement that you've made, including your allegation of cherry picking on my part.

If you have no evidence to offer to the debate -- and clearly you don't -- then we would all be better off if you kept your uniformed opinions to yourself.

 

why don't you warmists argue how many angles will fit on the head of a pin, you don't have any workable solutions so why waste your time arguing about stuff you cant do anything about

 

And this is a big part of the entire problem.

You are using as a reference somebody that has no credibility and who's reputation was largely destroyed by others within the Global Warming community! Yet we are the ones accused of making attacks.

The thing is, you don't seem to get where any of us are coming from at all. You show charts and quote almost random sources (without checking their accuracy or validity), and yet you fail to comprehend that most of us you are screaming at believe that the planet is warming as well. So what exactly are you trying to prove anyways?

At least we vetted our sources, and do not start to wave evidence around by an individual who's own credibility within the MMGW community was largely destroyed by the use of plagiarized material and false data.

 

they are not out to prove or do anything except wreck the economy of western world near as I can tell.

Any jackass can kick a barn down, but it took a carpenter to build it. ... Sam Rayburn, 1953

so far all their efforts have just hurt the economy and made a lot of politicians and their corporate buddies rich, but then that is what it was designed to do. That and hurt poor people with increased power bills

 

Did Einstein start off by lying about his qualifications and publishing under a pen name so no one could verify his claims of expertise.

What is there to refute Tamino makes a very weak argument that the model projections should be adjusted down. He has little credibility and despite making the argument no such adjustment has been made. As is the case with Trenberths adjustment to the ARGO data you are trying to pass off a fringe theory as the consensus.

Oh why don't you enlighten us.

Aren't you the guy who says that the troposphere is a perpetual motion machine and the stratosphere is too.

And CO2 has absorbative and emissive properties. In the troposphere the absorbative properties dominate resulting in an net decreace in total emmistivity. In the stratosphere its emissivity dominates resulting in an increace. That you can't understand this isn't my concern to me.

Remember that you agreed that the equation correct until it became convenient to disagree at which point you changed reference from the top if the troposphere to the surface and couldn't understand hoe that changed the equation from alpha to (1-alpha).

 

Well, if that is what you believe, certainly no one is going to convince you otherwise.

And you've managed to avoid the points that Ruddiman makes while pretending that one kind of CO2 is worse than another and defending the idea that modeling noise in a system is valid. Hey, you want to pretend you know everything because you can't think outside the box, or any box, go with God and be happy.

My opinions flow from the science investigations, such as the work of Ruddiman, the physical science which says CO2 is CO2 when it comes to greenhouse gases, and knowing that temperatures aren't behaving the way CO2 modelers are claiming. Nothing more. I thought this would be easy to understand by nearly...anyone....but you have proven me wrong. Never again shall I assume that those who can walk can also chew gum. I beg your forgivenness daring to give such credit to random internet denizens, and hope your career in science is as solid as the box you have designed to constrain your ability to think for yourself.

 

"no credibility" ... "reputation destroyed" ... that sure sounds like an attack to me. So you're making attacks, and you're complaining that you're accused of making attacks -- which you are in fact doing?

Here's what's missing, Mushroom: you haven't shown anything in the graph I posted that's actually, verifiably wrong. And you won't. Because you can't. Attack the man all you want, and I'll keep pointing out that you're engaging in ad hominem attacks. Show me where he's wrong, and I might actually pay attention.

This, coming from someone who hasn't checked the validity of the attacks you're making. Look in the mirror once in a while.

Well congratulations, since you agree that the planet is warming, you've passed stage 1 of climate denial. Now you're on to stage 2. You've got some crazy idea that the reason the planet is warming is natural variability, and because you've got the wrong idea of the cause, you're going to have a wrong idea of what to do about it. It's my job to correct your errant thinking.

Really? Just how did jackdog vet that source that told him there were a lot of vessels that sailed through the Northwest Passage in the 19th century? How did PeakProphet vet that source that told him that CO2 was 300 ppm in 1825? And for that matter, how did you vet the source that told you Tamino had engaged in plagiarism? Because my guess is, you didn't vet it at all: you just read it on some blog, and assumed it must be true.

Gee, another ad-hominem attack. And another post in which you have failed to show that anything I've posted is actually wrong.

 

You know,Windy, if you couldn't make ad-hom attacks, you wouldn't have anything to say at all.

In other words, you cannot even in the slightest deny that the data on the graph I posted is the complete truth.

Not at all. That's just a falsehood that some damned disreputable liar continues to spread around. Who told you that?

What a load of nonsense has gotten into your head. It's going to be in there for a long, long time I fear.

 

So what would you propose we do PD ? The past 20 years worth of efforts have been worse than useless. Even if we were to cut to ZERO (0) Co2 emissions by 2050 all it would do is wreck the GDP and standard of living for the first world countries, but isn't that the goal for the watermelon ecology activists. Then there are the Malthusians who think poor people should be treated as livestock and the elitist politicians and their millionaire friends who invest in green corporation becasue no matter how much money they have it will never buy them happiness.

Seriously PD, do you have any solutions or maybe you just like to play scientist at the computer with no clue as to what you C&P from the propaganda sites like skeptical nonsense

 

I haven't ignored Ruddiman at all. In fact, I explicitly agreed with Ruddiman in this post, and in fact I don't know of a single climate scientist who would disagree with those points.

And I have also pointed out that pre-industrial climate effects can be quantified (and have been: see Lal 2004), and they're a lot less than what we're doing now with fossil fuel burning. In fact, fossil fuel burning currently releases CO2 at about 80 times the rate of preindustrial agriculture. It's simply not in the same league.

CO2 that is withdrawn from the air is good. CO2 that is added to the air is bad. I would have thought you could grasp that concept. Since the CO2 from animal respiration is balanced by the CO2 from plant respiration, the good and bad balance out. That's not true of fossil fuels. I know petroleum geologists have a hard time following such logic, so if you're having a problem with that, ask your mother to explain it to you.

Not only is modeling noise valid, it's done routinely in every branch of science. The fact that you don't know that speaks volumes of your level of understanding. Have you ever been to Lucia's Blackboard? She's a climate skeptic, so you're going to love her. But wait! Lucia models noise -- correctly -- in many of her posts! Please rush over there and tell her that what she's doing is invalid.

And, as I predicted, you have no response to this graph, or to this graph, which clearly show that what you've been led to believe is just plain wrong. I guess you're just not able to think outside of that box you've constructed for yourself.

 

He has already said. We should discriminate in the CO2 produced to make darn sure certain types (most) of economic activity comes to a halt, and those who profit from doing nothing (carbon trading for example) are rewarded mightily by the enslavement of humanity to manual labor, particularly agriculture, itself a CO2 emitting enterprise. In other words, he has no solution any more than anyone else does, but is going to insist it is his way because...he has invested in stock options in carbon trading companies and plans on being the overlord in this Pol Pot nirvana?

It doesn't make any sense, but then that is to be expected of those trapped within a box of their own making.

 

You did not even read the references I provided, did you? One of them was from the person who he plagiarized in the first place! He blatantly plagiarized the work of another, changed the date how he wanted it to come out, then when the individual complained about it he changed the comment on his own blog from one of condemnation to one of support!

I am not attacking him at all if you notice. I could not give a rat's behind what his "data" shows, because it is worthless. It is the Global Warming crowd themselves that attacked him and destroyed his credibility, I only tried to pass that information on to you. But like an ostrich, instead of actually looking you bury your head in the sand and cry.

One of the things I try to get people to do over and over is to make sure that their sources are vetted. It is really not all that hard, simply check your source, and ensure that it is not biased in any way or that their findings are not corrupted. If you simply take any source you find simply because it agrees with you, then you are in trouble (and in any academic situation will get a fail) because you did not verify your source. But you are so insistent on attacking anybody that does not agree with you that you have a completely closed mind and I can't seem to be able to have an adult and reasonable conversation with you.

http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/15/how-marcottian-upticks-arise/

Try to follow some of what is going on there, and the later attacks by Tamino against McIntyre and Marcott, and their responses. He blatently stole their findings, altered the data the way he wanted it to look, then attacked them when he was caught.

And this is the expert you say we should listen to!

Funny, but the list on the bottom of your tag line, you are consistently violating at least numbers 1, 2, 4, and apparently 5 in your attempts to defend him from "our" attacks. Interestingly enough, I have not attacked him at all, other then to repeat what others in the Global Warming community themselves are saying about him (and my reports have actually been rather mild compared to those).

Dude, learn how to vette your sources.

 

Actually, we've leveled off in the rate of CO2 intensity, whereas it had been rising before 1990, so it hasn't been totally useless. But you're right, we need to do more. Which is why I support a tax on fossil carbon, along with a lot of conservative economists. When fossil carbon is priced out of the market, the problem will solve itself.

Unmitigated climate change will cost the economy far, far more than the cost of mitigation. (In fact, we're seeing those costs right now: see the data from Munich RE). So doing nothing by 2050 is what's really going to wreck the economy.

Gee, strawman much? Next time, try and find somebody who actually thinks people are livestock, and cite your source. Otherwise it just looks like you're being dishonest.

 

another ambiguous statement with absolutely nothing to back it up, which is surprising because I can find tons of links which proclaim that global warming will cause trillions in damages. Don't bother linking them and quoting them however, I am out of the "my expert beats your expert" forum wars between wannbe scientists with cut and paste talking points educations . Who is right and who is wrong is a moot point considering that reducing man made CO2 emissions to [B]zero [/B] by the year 2050 would have only a .1C effect after 50 years. Hardly any effect while affecting the lives of billions of people

strawman, ROFL. Show me where reducing that enacting draconian CO2 taxes will do anything other than enrich the politicians and the green energy companies which peddle snake oil that do nothing except raise the price of electricity. As I have pointed out we can spend trillions and nothing we do will have any but the most minute effect on the earths temperature for hundreds of years. Near as I can tell you are the trying to peddle snake oil which cures nothing and simple gives the patient the runs while the elites and politicians fatten their bank accounts. Whats in it for you PD ? Whats your motivation?

 

Sure I read your sources. In fact, I read most of them last April when this whole kerfuffle broke out. Here's what I didn't find: I didn't find a single sentence published by McIntyre that was republished by Tamino without attribution. Not one sentence. That's what's called "vetting a source". So do us all a favor and prove what you say is true. Find one sentence published by McIntyre that was republished by Tamino without attribution.

If you can't do that, you've got nothing and you know it. (And, by the way, so does McIntyre. Which is why he's never been able to demonstrate his charges have even the slightest bit of merit either.)

And there's your whole problem, Mushy. You don't give a rat's ass about the data. Which is why you're wrong, and will always be wrong with that attitude.

So tell us all how you vet the data in that graph when you don't care a rat's ass about the data. I can't wait to hear it.

On the contrary, my mind is completely open. Just show me in a verifiable way where I'm wrong. Do you realize that so far on this thread you have yet to cite a single peer-reviewed source? If you want to have an adult conversation with me, you can start by acting in a scientific manner. That means citing real science, not the crap you get on WUWT.

If it was so blatant, you would be able to find me that plagiarized sentence. Or McIntyre would.

Just to be clear, here's a real example of plagiarism. In 2006, a professor from George Mason University, Edward Wegman, wrote a report for a congressional committee that contained computer code plagiarized -- taken line-for-line without attribution -- from another person, including even the random number seeds. The plagiarized coder knew about this report and didn't say a single word. Who was that unconcerned plagiarized coder? Steve McIntyre. Why wasn't he screaming? Because Edward Wegman was on "his side" of the debate. It turns out that McIntyre's sense of ownership over his work is very selective and very subjective.

I'm not saying you should listen to anyone. I'm saying you should look at that data you don't give a rat's ass about. Because it's the data that proves you wrong, not the person.

So if I were to call you a liar, that wouldn't be an attack if I were simply repeating what someone else said first? You have a strange sense of ethics, Mushy.

 

Too bad. Nature is hostile to man and must be changed. The Earth is too cold.

 

Climatology is a lower-level science. That's why they can't come up with positive solutions; they aren't very smart or they wouldn't be in climatology. Second, climatologists "go native"; they magnify the importance of their work. Unfortunately, the thing that would make it most important is alarmist theories.

If climatology were a real science with high-IQ scientists going into that field, those scientists would invent things that control the weather--break up hurricanes and other storms, push rain into the drought areas, etc. Notice how their conclusions discredit all the great scientists and inventors over the past 400 years and make our best people the source of all evil.

 

Oh I have to disagree there, I don't think most climatologists are necessarily evil or stupid, as with any profession a few probably are. Most are just academics who need a job and are afraid they to bite the hand that is feeding them and their families. The really evil ones are the politicians and the elitist Malthusians paying them who are out to fatten their already bloated bank accounts in the first instance and play social engineer in the last. What does it matter if a few thousand serfs die of hypothermia because they cannot afford power as long as you have that new Bentley and are warm and toasty

 

And trust me, I am doing exactly what you suggest, I am not listening to anyone, specifically you.

Be careful what you ask for.

 

Personally, I think the biggest problem is that it is really a pretty "new" science, and is designed to work in big broad trends, not micro-analyzing minute parts of data of which there really is no hard physical record.

Yes, tree rings can tell you a lot of general information, but they can't give you a total picture. The same with other sources like ice cores and the ocean floor. They also only generally give the effect, very rarely do they provide the cause.

For example, for most of the history of the planet, there have been no ice sheets at all. Why not? Why now? Well, there is a lot of speculation and theory, but no real facts. Why did we then go the opposite and into snowball earth status, not once but many times? Once again, no facts just theory and speculation.

Climatology is not rocket science. It is a set of measurements and speculations covering barely a hundred years, and some samples that postulate back a few thousand more, trying to explain the most complex natural system on our planet. This is one reason why I laugh, because the people completely buy into the predictions, and when they are wrong the simply fiddle with them until they come out the way they want them to.

NEXT YEAR IS GOING TO BE THE HOTTEST EVER!
3 years later, it is proven that that summer was actually one of the coolest in a century.
BUT IT IS STILL WARMING!
Temperatures have flatlined, no significant changes.
IT IS THE HOTTEST THEN IT HAS BEEN IN A MILLION YEARS!

*yawn*

Like the Earth Day 1970 predictions to me. The more alarmist people get, the more I tune them out. And history has proven that to be much more accurate a prediction then actually listening to them.