210 thoughts on “Lew/Bishop data request flow chart.”
🙂 (I couldn’t just leave a smiley face. “No all caps please”…)
Someone should make a flowchart for detecting Anthropogenic Climate Signals.
Maybe Mosher has one made already.
Andrew
What’s amazing to me is social scientists with zero experience in collaborative projects seem think they have a better understanding of how science works that actual practitioners of science.
I think the take-home here is stupid people own the Earth.
Carrick,
The weird thing is that ‘social scientists’ imagine that their endless leftist politico-rubbish is in some way related to science….. science and social science are as related as hell and heaven. I will leave to you which is which.
Great flowchart- you sum up the circular transparently corrupt practice quite well. That Lew, Oreskes & crew are considered credible for anything except negative examples of academic ethics and practice is symptomatic of deeper underlying problems.
SteveF (Comment #143234)
Lew is an imbecile, and even addressing the nonsense in his ridiculous ‘papers’ is just a waste of time. Nothing but dark humor in his paranoid raging; better to just laugh and move on.”
–
Not an imbecile, He is on a good salary.
Is any publicity “good” publicity for him?
He seems to be on a crusader bent like Don Quixote or McCarthy, filled with good intentions but becoming exactly what he hates and rails about.
In other words he fits the description of a conspiratorial paranoid fixated ideologue.
The funniest part is the contortions more rational warmers have to go through to support his views.
ATTP almost has to give up on transparency on science.
Eli supports his ludicrous surveys where he otherwise demands appropriate standards.
Mind you Eli does not have to move far to do this, not as a less rational warmer but as a very committed crusader himself.
Others who support him completely are blind to the mockery and damage he does to his and their cause.
The more rubbish Lew puts out the more obvious to everyone his nonsense and the more knots his supporters get into.
Heck I would pay to have him put out 4 papers a year, He is one of the best weapons on the skeptic side, evah.
–
The other laugh is the number of times Steve McIntyre is trotted out by the warmists as an excuse to not give data.
Not just with Mann but in the current Lewindowsky kerfuffle.
He is nicknamed the auditor, and attacked nonstop even though he has had nothing to do with Lewindowsky as far as I can recall.
This may be because he only investigates scientific papers.
Or because he is a gentleman.
And there we have it, ladies and gentlemen, a new Global SIA minimum record at 14.365 million km2. 🙂
But no PIOMAS out for 9 days.
What are they hiding?
Global SIA has been setting record lows since February 1. It’s now six days in a row. And it’s not by just a little. The February 6 number was over 200,000 km³ below the previous record low in 2007.
It’s a new year. As I remember, they’re always late for the January volume data. I haven’t seen the AMO Index updated yet either. I expect it didn’t drop like last year.
angech,
PIOMAS just came out for January, earlier than I expected. You would have lost your bet. Volume is increasing, as it always does this time of year, but not very fast. The volume anomaly is trending down, not up. It’s still fourth from the bottom, but closing on third.
DeWitt I cannot find my bet but I am sure you are right. I was hoping PIOMAS would go up a lot.
Neven’s view
“Angech, here is the link to the old DMI 30% graph, but you don’t want to use it because there is clearly something seriously wrong with it, just look at those black trend lines (which is why DMI replaced it, and removed the link, just like they told me a month ago after I asked them about it). I wouldn’t bet too strongly on PIOMAS either, but who knows.”
DMI 30%, now available at Anthony’s sea ice graphs, but no longer at Neven’s has something seriously wrong with it.
It uses a different algorithm to all the 15% products.
The current 15% charts all match each other and seem to miss the build up of ice off Novaya Zemlya currently occurring.
DMI 30% seems to correlate more closely with PIOMAS and Maisie.\
About MASIE produced by NIC (from NSIDC)
The NSIDC Sea Ice Index ice extent is widely used, but the edge position can be off by 10s or in some cases 100s of kilometers. NIC produces a better ice edge product, but it does not reach the same audience as the Sea Ice Index.
Note: Presently, NSIDC Sea Ice Index is showing ~700,000 km2 less ice extent than MASIE.
That’s a lot?
angech,
I compare JAXA and MASIE using a linear transform of the MASIE data. Usually, they’re pretty close. At the moment MASIE adjusted is about 400,000km³ ahead of JAXA, which is, indeed, a lot. Interestingly, the MASIE anomaly time series from the beginning of the data in 1/1/2006 to now shows a significant positive trend. And the anomaly is currently well above zero, close to the top of the band for the date.
I remember you saying something about a bet on PIOMAS, but I couldn’t find it either.
SteveF,
to paraphrase a quote generally used for “climate” and “scientist”:
“putting ‘social’ in front of ‘scientist’ has much the same qualifying effect as ‘witch’ in front of ‘doctor'”
angech (Comment #142370)
“First prediction for 2016. PIOMAS to jump this last month and in the next month.”:
No jump.
Zeke has put a post up on CE.
Admits “fixes to errors in temperature data have effectively doubled the amount of U.S. warming over the past century compared to the raw temperature records.”
raw data being
“The raw database is routinely reconstructed using the latest version of GHCN-Daily, usually each day.
This is not raw data.
@ angech (Comment #143253),
Zeke has apparently desensitized himself to the point of not being able to reflect at all on what he believes. If what he says is accurate, he has bought completely into a circular process that has nothing to do with finding objective knowledge….sort of like what lucia has outlined regarding Lewandowsky.
Basically Lew could do a paper and change the names from Skeptics to Climate believers and it would fit better.
The notions behind it would still be rubbish and as demeaning to those who believe as it is to those who are skeptical.
Which raises a flow chart and behavior problem.
Obviously we cannot see our own flaws of which we presumably have many.
But we could listen to those who point them out and try to obtain some understanding.
I try to be scientific.
I understand that increasing CO2 of itself should raise temperatures in a model planet atmosphere where it is the only GHG [and by extension should raise it in a GHG mixture if there are no other effects].
I understand that if CO2 caused a temperature rise this would have good and bad effects on the world and the climate.
But I also see that these effects which should be obvious and related are not happening.
I see that only the bad things that could happen with both CO2 and temperature rise are emphasized.
The paper that should be written would focus on how mindsets develop which preclude logical thought and introduce arguments based on selectivity.
Both sides guilty in this discussion.
How can good women and men lose sight of their training in science?
It is like they put up Maxwell Smart’s cone of silence and ignore all incoming contrarian evidence.
Z uses confirmation bias to confirm his findings and remains blissfully or deliberately unaware of it.
He happily calls modified data raw data and seems to believe that it is OK to call the modified data raw data.
He admits that the system deliberately lowers temperatures 100 years ago in the USA by over a degree and does not understand that thermometers, no matter how much error the older ones had were never all a full degree out because the readings were taken a hundred years ago and the same thermometers are only 0.5 degrees out when taken 50 years ago.
In fact if you used them today they would match very closely with all the electric sensors now used.
Not perfectly but certainly within a tenth of a degree.
Other good scientists who comment here are supportive of his views.
Yet give them a topic outside of this special interest and they would be as skeptical or more so than the rest of us.
Because they are good scientists.
When arguments get bent into pretzels, when every genuine query is deflected into circular arguments and everyone else can see the contortions and suffers the agony, why don’t they get it?
We can all agree the Arctic has been melting and the Antarctic was freezing up.
No.
We can all see that there has been a temperature rise and then a pause.
No.
We can all see that Climate is incredibly complex and then say that the science of a chaotic system is settled.
No.
We can all see that these contradictions exist.
Yes.
A blast from the past
Did not know it was going to be so funny and percipient 2 years on.
Steven Mosher (Comment #130013)
June 6th, 2014 at 11:36 am
“I see Tom Karl leaning over someone’s desk two or three times per month saying “What happens if we change this X? Oh, well that’s no good. Let’s change that Y. Oh darn, that’s no good either. Well, we have to drop in that new list of stations that Tom Pederson came up with.â€
This is the kind of conspiratorial ideation that skeptics need to avoid to be taken seriously.”
Not a conspiracy at all then.
hunter,
Reminds one of Captain Ahab pursuing Moby Dick.
Only in this case it’s the ever-elusive correct squiggly line that must be perpetually adjusted and presented over and over until… until… victory is won or revenge is had or something.
Andrew
angech,
The AMO Index for January is out. As I speculated somewhere above, it didn’t drop. It was up slightly from December. Hence the record low Arctic sea ice area and extent, if you don’t look at MASIE. But even MASIE has been below its trend line.
angech, you asked:
“How can good women and men lose sight of their training in science?”
In reference to Lewandowsky & gang- big assumption in that question, my friend.
Thanks Hunter
From “The Peer Reviewers’ Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review
Richard D. Morey, Christopher D. Chambers, Peter J. Etchells, Christine R. Harris, Rink Hoekstra, Daniël Lakens, Stephan Lewandowsky,et al”
The Royal Society Science Policy Centre [3] notes that in some cases, publicly releasing data can be ethically problematic. [It may make] the cases possibly identifiable. Research participants who consented to data release among qualified researchers may not consent to public data release. For some specialized research, secure data repositories accessible only by vetted researchers may be a better option than fully open data. Authors and reviewers should weigh the legal and ethical consequences of releasing data in the context of their research.”
Stephan signs his name to this and yet publishes papers identifying and criticizing research participants, many of whom were not even informed that they were being researched.
Has he no shame?
Silly question.
The one thing we can be sure of is that no-one will turn up on this thread to defend Lew.
The Grimes Conspiracy Theory paper (which thanks Lewandowsky for “valuable input on conspiratorial thinking”) still hasn’t had a corrigendum issued even though everyone agrees the methods were hopelessly flawed. Personally I think the paper should be withdrawn, but the lack of even a corrigendum shows that PLoS just isn’t taking this seriously.
“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
From Sou Wednesday, February 3, 2016
“Judith Curry attacks open data advocates and encourages people who try to suppress science
–
No-one will be surprised to learn that Judith Curry supports vicious attacks on scientists who publish on controversial topics . She gave up science for blogging her science denial a few years ago. Now she’s turned her attack onto two people who have been strong advocates for open science, Professor Stephan Lewandowsky and Professor Dorothy Bishop.
–
Openness is one of the central values of science.
–
Richard S J Tol February 3, 2016 at 5:19 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Richard S J Tol February 3, 2016 at 5:25 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sou February 3, 2016 at 4:42 PM
“A few people tweeted they want to know what Richard Tol said. It’s not interesting. He just made up another one of his silly little lies. It’s one of his trademarks.”
–
So much for openness.
–
I wonder if Richard would post his replies here?
It is woeful that someone can write an article on openness and then suppress replies
Sou. Science?
jferguson,
The relationship Sou:science is like which of the following?
.
a) witchdoctor:medicine
b) hell:heaven
c) imbecile:genius
d) communist:libertarian
e) all of the above
e
Nick seems to admire Sou and her tactics.
I did crack up over this “Now she’s turned her attack onto two people who have been strong advocates for open science, Professor Stephan Lewandowsky and Professor Dorothy Bishop.”
Biggest laugh I’ve had in days.
Carrick:
Nick seems to admire Sou and her tactics.
Baffling. Her style is certainly not his.
Carrick,
.
No surprise there; seems to me Nick cares mostly about the (progressive/leftist) public policy consequences of main stream climate science (and he is certainly not alone in that!), which is exactly what Sou is focused on. Two birds of a feather, as they say.
The comment by a certain Nick on the post referenced by angech don’t sound to me like Nick Stokes at all. What is obvious though are the biases of the usual here.
Sou is stark raving crazy if she thinks Lew & crew are for open science. However in her case this latest bit of cognitive dissonance is actually a milestone on a journey she began long ago, and not a frontier that she has suddenly crossed.
OT: Supreme Count Justice Scalia has passed away, apparently natural causes. Just a heads up.
RB. I’m not actually picking on Nick just stating facts. Nick seems to frequent her website and on occasion has posted follow up to her posts on his blog.
I don’t think it’s a question of bias to note her lack of ability and training in physical sciences or to notice some of totally insane things that come out of her mouth.
SteveF my take is pretty close to yours–they have a common political cause.
Carrick,
Much the same could be said of McIntyre and Anthony Watts, for example, despite Watts’ ‘lack of ability and training in physical sciences’. From past statements, they don’t seem to share political leanings and a lot of insane things come out of Watts. But for your (highly likely) misreading the “nick’ on that post though, I don’t think you would have used this occasion to comment on his visiting Sou’s site. Whether Nick’s posts show admiration for Sou’s tactics is not apparent to me, but I don’t plan to waste any more time than I did just now trying to look for such evidence on his website.
RB,
As usual, you go a step too far. You should have left McIntyre out of that sentence. Guilt by association much?
DeWitt,
While I was trying to say that McIntyre linking to Watts’ posts is not an indicator of McIntyre’s political leanings, I understand your urge to stick up for your team.
RB:
Much the same could be said of McIntyre and Anthony Watts, for example, despite Watts’ ‘lack of ability and training in physical sciences’.
Watts is a meteorologist. He does physical science related work. Sou is yet another inept social scientist delving into the physical sciences. I don’t see a parallel.
But I see you’re straining to generate an equivalence with McIntyre and Watts. I know of no similar examples where McIntyre has posted followups of Watts tripe on his own blog.
But for your (highly likely) misreading the “nick’ on that post though
I’m afraid that’s a fail at the mind reading exercise on your part. I didn’t actually read that post (I just quoted angech’s quote from this blog) so I don’t know which comments you’re referring to.
Once again… I told you I was referring to Nick’s posts on his own blog. Hopefully you’ll be able to make the obvious interpretation from the obvious explanation and not get distracted by irrelevancies again. This isn’t a hard exercise.
Whether Nick’s posts show admiration for Sou’s tactics is not apparent to me
Nick has posted generally positive, approving followups to Sou on his own blog. I think the proof is in the pudding.
I understand your urge to stick up for your team
Since that’s what you’re clearly doing here, I certainly believe you can empathize on that.
You can’t see the face I’m making right now but it’s a “how predictable” face.
And also an expression of the most extreme incredulity.
It’s pretty amusing to see a site that endorses conspiracy theories reporting on ones from another blog, that are appear in the blog comments, and are not endorsed by the blog owner.
I’m still waiting for my check from the Koch brothers.
DeWitt Payne:
I’m still waiting for my check from the Koch brothers.
You may want to get call the hotline number you were given when you joined as a secret member of the fossil fuel conspiracy then.
They may need your correct street address.
DeWitt,
“I’m still waiting for my check from the Koch brothers.”
.
Me too. I can’t be bought though…. at least not for a low price. I’m looking for six figures at minimum.
Carrick,
You may want to get call the hotline number you were given when you joined as a secret member of the fossil fuel conspiracy then.
I think I put the number in my ‘Charter Member: The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy’ coffee mug. I’ll check.
McIntyre site points out problem with paper [Gavin’s in this case by Nicholas Lewis].
Gavin changes paper to reflect problem.
Uses same line as previous people,
We found a few errors by ourselves and fixed them.
–
“I should be clear that we are not claiming infallibility and with ever-closer readings of the paper we have found a few errors and typos ourselves which we will have corrected in the final printed version of the paper. For instance – The F2xCO2 value”
–
No acknowledgment.
Meanwhile McIntyre/Lewis is subject to derogatory comments at other sites where people had swallowed the original paper hook, line and sinker.
A flow diagram would be good here as well.
Poorly reviewed paper, biases ignored, critical [truthful] outside review, Change paper, ignore input.
Other criticisms ignored but relevant , change paper.
At least it was put out online before being fully published.
So retraction not needed.
Simple Climate Model
1. AGW = ‘True’.
2. Call Squiggly Line Drawing procedure.
3. If bad output then call Squiggly Line Adjustment procedure.
4. Goto 1
Andrew
Ta, Andrew.
My mates are going for a bike ride from Shepparton to Bermagui 650 K but I will only do 3 days [450K].
Going around the base of Australia’s tallest mountain, into Deliverance territory.
Wish I was younger and fitter.
Perverse that doing the right thing, getting fitter, carries such risks.
Well that’s a funny coincidence. I hadn’t checked this site in a while, but today I had just managed to recover my RSS subscription list load it onto my new computer. When I did, I saw the above comments about Sou and Nick’s approval of her. What makes this a funny coincidence is I just a few hours before that, I had written my first blog post in a little bit, and it just so happened to be about Sou and her approach blogging.
Specifically, I highlight how Sou constantly engages in unlawful activity on her site to commit theft, and global warming advocates seem to have no problem with that.
Strictly speaking, copyright infringement isn’t theft in the legal sense. But what Sou is doing is clearly illegal (read, for example, the boilerplate at the bottom of this page) and she is advising others to break the law as well, which, IANAL, might be considered criminal conspiracy.
Brandon, the twitters you found that link to Sou’s network does directly speak to the approval and/or endorsement of the wing-nut Sou by many so-called establishment scientists, including Gavin Schmidt.
You’re right about her depriving others of their income while still profiting from it herself. Realistically, without WattsUpWithThat, her site wouldn’t even exist.
Carrick (Comment #143291)-The term you want is “moonbat” I believe
Carrick,
She certainly wouldn’t have anything to blog about without Watts up with that!
Sou certainly practices constant copyright violation. But there’s really very little one can do. I know I wouldn’t file a case in New Zealand, and I don’t think there’d be much point in filing one in the US (if that’s possible.) If it is possible (and I don’t know the ins and outs of lodging a suit against a plaintiff in New Zealand) and you won, I don’t think one could easily collect. Collecting might involve filing another suit in New Zealand.
Plus, unless you regularly register copyright, the financial award is damages– which for most blogs would be miniscule.
Archive.is is pretty unresponsive to take downs.
If you self host you can block Archive.is if that’s what you prefer. (I do.) But if your using wordpress or some other free hosting, really, there is practically nothing you can do.
” But what Sou is doing is clearly illegal”
Really? Under what law? Archive sites are well established. Sou does not make or hold the copy.
All WUWT posts (and Sou’s) are already archived on the wayback machine, and many at archive.js. Here is the wayback archive for the Sea Ice page at WUWT. 373 copies. Not all requested by Sou.
Nick,
Archive sites may be well established, but it’s not at all clear that they don’t violate copyright laws. Linking to an archive when the original doesn’t exist any more is probably covered under fair use. I seriously doubt that what Sou is recommending, however, would be considered fair use. That would make it illegal under pretty much everybody’s copyright laws. As lucia points out, however, enforcement is quite another thing. Would Sou respond to a take down request? Dunno.
Google, for example, gets hundreds of millions of take down requests/year.
Nick,
Under what law?
US copyright law that’s what law.
Under US copyright law whether copying is or is not a violation depends very strongly on the purpose of archiving. (Other factors also matter but I don’t see any that would help Sou’s copyright be found ‘fair use’.) In our law, archiving to deprive the copyright of income is a copyright violation. Effect on the ability of the copyright owner to make money on his IT is the main issue under our law.
With respect to the archive site: The wayback is pretty well established. And they obey robots.txt. So it’s very easy to exclude them. Also, if you ask them to take down, they do take down. It’s also pretty clear the wayback’s motivation is not to take away income from the owner.
Whether a person making the request of the wayback to archive is violating copyright can be a separate question from whether the wayback is. (In such circumstances, wayback would be indemnified by DMCA provided they take down when requested. The copyright owner still has the right to pursue the person who requested the copy.)
That other people requested pages doesn’t mean Sou’s behavior is not a copyright violation. Depending on who the other person was and why they requested the copy, it may be that both Sou and the other person are committing violations or it may be that only Sou is.
But as far as I can tell, Sou is violating US copyright laws. Because she is copying precisely to deprive the copyright owner of visits to his site and clicks from visits to his site is an income generating activity for the copyright owner. We know her motive for copying because she tells us. And her behavior is habitual.
Nick,
So you’re saying that the following is meaningless?
Copying the this page or its contents (i.e. text, images or anything displayed by the html on this page) for purpose of saving the contents on a server and displaying my content online at another at a domain other than “rankexploits.com” is prohibited
DeWitt,
I’m saying that if it means anything, it is directed at the organisation that actually copies and hosts the content. That isn’t Sou. But the Wayback machine has for at least a decade been systematically archiving the web. If it’s illegal, someone would have noticed.
As Lucia says, you can opt out – just by modifying the robots.txt file. If WUWT was bothered about it, I’m sure they could do that.
Nick
Sou does not make or hold the copy.
Actually, I suspect Sou’s actions do constitute “making” the copy under US law. Given the pattern of constant archiving, it’s almost certain these archived copies come into being when she visits the archive site and she requests the archive site creates a copy.
Under US law this is considered her making the copy. That she does so by submitting a ‘click’ to a site that is set up to send a bot that captures the screen and then does all the processing on that server only means that more than one entity is involved in making the copy. But that means that both she and the ISP that owns/runs the archiving service are potentially liable and both are involved in “making” the copy.
Unless it just so happens that those archives are getting created magically with no intervention on her part then yes, she does “make” the copy. That’s sufficient to result in copyright violation on her part.
DeWitt
Google, for example, gets hundreds of millions of take down requests/year.
Google also generally obeys robots.txt protocols, they provide a large number of means to communicate with them, they permit you to set pages to “no cache”, they permit a copyright owner to ask them to remove a cache– all fairly simply.
If google doesn’t take down, they can be sued. (Likely the wayback can also be sued.)
Google’s intent for copying is not specifically to deprive the copyright owner of income or potentially income generating visits. So that factor differs from Sou also.
Even though their intent is not to deprive anyone of income, Google has had suits lodged over various types of copying– out of print books, image snapshots and so on. If you do find a book you’ll often find you can only read snippets– for good reason. If they don’t have permission to copy, permitting full reading would (or at least might) have the effect of depriving the copyright owner of sales– so Google can’t do that and don’t.
Nick
DeWitt,
I’m saying that if it means anything, it is directed at the organisation that actually copies and hosts the content. That isn’t Sou.
If Sou is visiting an archiving service and requesting they archive, they are acting as ISP and under US law she is considered to be copying.
But the Wayback machine has for at least a decade been systematically archiving the web. If it’s illegal, someone would have noticed.
They take down. They permit opt out. Early on they also only showed stuff that was stale.
As Lucia says, you can opt out – just by modifying the robots.txt file. If WUWT was bothered about it, I’m sure they could do that.
I don’t know if WUWT is bothered about it. But that doesn’t actually affect whether WUWT would have a right to pursue the case. Also: permitting the wayback wouldn’t require them to permit Sou to do what she does. That’s not the way the law works. So the fact that the wayback intermittently visits and copies in no way makes what Sou does “not a copyright violation”.
If Sou is requesting those copies be made she is the one “making” the copy. If she is doing so to deprive Anthony of hits, she is violating US copyright law.
Anthony the copyright owner is the only one who can pursue it– and I suspect he doesn’t think it worth the bother. But that doesn’t mean Sou isn’t violating US copyright law. It only means the copyright owner doesn’t think it’s worth the bother to pursue.
“Whether a person making the request of the wayback to archive is violating copyright can be a separate question from whether the wayback is.”
DeWitt’s claim was “But what Sou is doing is clearly illegal”
So it’s not a separate question. It’s his claim.
“In our law, archiving to deprive the copyright of income is a copyright violation.”
If so, the test would be the intent of archive.js. But as you say, the civil law is more concerned about the effect.
“Because she is copying precisely to deprive the copyright owner of visits to his site…”
She isn’t copying at all. Under your huge stretch of the law, anyone who simply clicked on an archive site would be breaking that law, if they did so intending to deprive the archived site of ad income. And what would happen to Adblock users…
Nick
So it’s not a separate question. It’s his claim.
You seemed to be suggesting that if the wayback’s archiving is legal then Sou’s also is. That’s not true. These are separate legal questions.
DeWitt’s claim is Sou’s behavior is a copyright violation. The issue of the wayback is another issue entirely.
In fact: I’m pretty sure Sou’s behavior is a copyright violation under US law. The wayback machine may or may not be.
If so, the test would be the intent of archive.js
Wrong. If someone pursued a claim against Sou, the test of whether Sou violated copyright would involve the intent and effect of Sou’s actions. Sou’s action appear to be to: do something that causes a copy to be made. That is copying. Her intent appears to be to deprive WUWT of traffic which could potentially generate income for the copyright owner.
>She isn’t copying at all. Under your huge stretch of th
She is almost certainly copying. Archive.is doesn’t send bots around copying unless someone requests, and the circumstantial evidence strongly suggets she is copying.
If she visits this page at archive.is: http://archive.is/
enters a url in the box surrounded by the red box and clicks “save page” she is copying under US law. I have no idea what Australian law says, but under US law she is copying.
anyone who simply clicked on an archive site would be breaking that law, i
Nonesense. Merely clicking on a link to an already created copy is entirely different from entering a url in that red box and requesting a copy be created, stored on a server and a url be made available for linking so that others can view the copy that has been created.
DeWitt Payne, interestingly, copyright violation can amount to a felony in the United States. I don’t think Sou has to worry about since it requires we be dealing with values of something like $2500, but still, actively encouraging people to help promote what would be a felony if one only had more traffic is… incredible.
Carrick, don’t forget Tom Peterson of NOAA, who’s received a lot of attention lately for his work on adjusting the temperature record, chose to publish an e-mail sent to him and his co-authors by Anthony Watts at Sou’s site. I don’t have a problem with him publishing the e-mail given how rude and offensive Watts was in it, but the fact he chose that site speaks volumes.
lucia, if it were necessary, I could post examples of Sou editing people’s comments on her site to replace links with archived copies of the targeted page. I think it would be ludicrous for anyone to suggest she isn’t ordering these copies be made. I get Nick Stokes apparently wants to argue her ordering a copy be made isn’t copying anything, which is neither legally correct nor remotely reasonable, but there can be no doubt she is ordering many copies be made. And then directing people to read those copies rather than the originals.
Also, Nick Stokes is just flat-out wrong when to say:
As Lucia says, you can opt out – just by modifying the robots.txt file. If WUWT was bothered about it, I’m sure they could do that.
One may be able to opt out of the Wayback Machine’s archiving, but archive.is explicitly states it ignores robots.txt files. That someone could choose to opt out of one service doesn’t mean another service they cannot opt out of is okay.
“For info on people who create the copies being the infringers:”
That’s an odd one to cite. It was a case where a claim of copyright violation was dismissed. And, according to wikipedia: “The Court held that Gunter was not directly liable because the copyrighted content was not stored on myVidster’s servers,and was not contributorily liable because there was no evidence that conduct by myVidster increased the amount of infringement.”
There’s a reason I normally don’t care to respond to Nick Stokes. Just look at his above comment. He quotes this:
“The Court held that Gunter was not directly liable because the copyrighted content was not stored on myVidster’s servers,and was not contributorily liable because there was no evidence that conduct by myVidster increased the amount of infringement.â€
As though that somehow makes what Sou does okay, yet he conveniently fails to quote things like:
The “infringers” were people uploading material in breach of copyright. There was no evidence these were myVidster users, nor evidence of a link between such people and myVidster, nor that myVidster “contributed” or incentivized this behavior.
Uploading a copy of a file is no different, in any meaningful sense, than instructing a server to create a copy of it.
“In fact: I’m pretty sure Sou’s behavior is a copyright violation under US law.”
This is civil law. It creates remedies for damage. “Behavior” is not a copyright violation. Sanctioning behavior is what the criminal law is for. And there is no way that Sou could be causing damage if the archive organisation isn’t.
Brandon, ” yet he conveniently fails to quote things like”
The court made no finding that anyone committed a copyright violation. They found that Gunter did not infringe copyright. And a big part of the reason was that he did not actually store the material in question. Nor did Sou.
I could have quoted stuff like: “The myVidster user viewing such material online is not engaging in copyright infringement, any more than a person “sneaking into a movie theater to watch a movie without buying a ticket” is infringing copyright by seeing the movie”
or “There are practical and social objections to “stretching the concept of contributory infringement far enough to make a social bookmarking service a policeman of copyright law”.” “A joint brief by Google and Facebook analyzed myVidster as being at best a tertiary infringer, if even that, a position not recognized as liable in any current theory of law – indeed the law does not recognize “secondary” infringement either. It recognizes three positions: direct infringement, contributory infringement, and non-infringement.”
This is not a finding that supports a stretched view of copyright infringement.
“Uploading a copy of a file is no different, in any meaningful sense, than instructing a server to create a copy of it”
Of course it is. If you upload, you have a copy in your possession. If you enter a URL in a box at archive.js, you are simply suggesting that they add a copy of that page to the billions of others that they make publicly available.
And there is no way that Sou could be causing damage if the archive organisation isn’t.
So for example Sou editing someone’s post in her site and replacing their link to WUWT with a link to an archived version of the WUWT page isn’t “Sou causing damage” in your mind?
Nick,
I think you ought to read more carefully.
The case against the named defendant because that entity only linked. But Poster is quite clear: the case was dismissed because the plaintiff sued the wrong people. Posner does say who did copy: The people who uploaded to servers. That would be people who did what Sou did: created copies on a server owned by a host (who wasn’t the defendant).
Those who created the copies were the ones copying. That’s what Sou does.
Nick Stokes, of course the court didn’t make a finding anyone had committed copyright violation. The people it said had done it weren’t involved in the trial. That doesn’t change the fact the ruling labeled them as having committed copyright infringement, which is likely a point lucia was wanting to make with sharing the article.
Which is particularly relevant because the lawsuit dealt with the person who didn’t make copies of anything, whereas in both Sou and archive.is’s cases, they are making copies. Which remains true evn if you want to pretend a person making a copy with archive.is it merely “suggesting” it make a copy, something which could only seem true to a delusional mind.
Now pardon me while I go suggest my copy machine copy things. Because hey, as long as I never had the paper in the machine in my possession, I clearly can’t be copying it when… I press the Copy.button.
Or to be less facetious, you claiming instructing something to make a copy is merely making a suggestion is beyond idiotic.
Nick
Of course it is. If you upload, you have a copy in your possession. If you enter a URL in a box at archive.js, you are simply suggesting that they add a copy of that page to the billions of others that they make publicly available.
Suggesting? No. You are doing and action where by your IP visits the page to be copied with the visit being made through their proxy IP. While your IP is visiting (through a proxy) the page is fetched and copied, then made available on another server.
Good luck claiming you are merely “suggesting” a copy be made to a judge.
you are simply suggesting that they add a copy of that page to the billions of others that they make publicly available.
Whether archive.is host billions of other pages is irrelevant to the question of whether a particular one they host is a copyright violation. Lots of ‘free image’ sites host zillions of copyright violations. The zillions present doesn’t magically forgive any individual violation in court. A imagine a judge would bust out laughing at such a claim.
But even hosting zillions of legal pages doesn’t make a copyright violation ok. If it did, youtube would be allowed to host copyright violations. They aren’t.
Brandon
Now pardon me while I go suggest my copy machine copy things. Because hey, as long as I never had the paper in the machine in my possession, I clearly can’t be copying it when… I press the Copy.button.
Or alternatively, if you hire Kinkos to copy, then you didn’t copy, right? Uhmm… no. Court says you both copied. The copyright owner can sue you, Kinkos or both. Copyright owners used to win these suits against both. That’s why Kinko’s started making people prove they owned the copyright before copying.
lucia, I’m not sure even Nick Stokes would be willing to say paying a store to do something is merely “suggesting” they do it.
“Posner does say who did copy: The people who uploaded to servers.”
The court may be suggesting that Flava is suing the wrong people. But they don’t say that suing the “right” people would succeed. But Posner is clear on what is the element of copyright infringement in uploading (link here):
“But if the uploaded video is copyrighted, the uploader has (depending on the terms of use) infringed the copyright. A customer of Flava is authorized only to download the video (or if he obtained it on a DVD sold by Flava, to copy it to his computer) for his personal use. If instead he uploaded it to the Internet and so by doing so created a copy (because the downloaded video remains in his computer), he was infringing.”
The copying is a breach of the terms of use under which the uploader obtained the product. Supplying a URL to archive.js does not breach any terms of use.
Sou does not instruct or command the archive site to copy. She has no power over them; they have no obligation to her.
Nick,
Archive.is cannot modify US copyright law through their terms of use. Copyright violations have nothing to do with “terms of use” of private parties.
She has no power over them; they have no obligation to her.
She makes a request and activates a sequence of events that causes a copy to be made. You are bringing up things that are irrelevant to copyright law. You can try to hunt for verbs all you like, but entering a url and clicking that button causes a copy to be made. Plus, she knows it.
lucia:
Archive.is cannot modify US copyright law through their terms of use. Copyright violations have nothing to do with “terms of use†of private parties.
To be fair, terms of use are relevant in that terms of use may include things that lift some copyright restriction. They could authorize certain types of copies of things be made, or allow people to use copies in specific ways. That doesn’t justify what Nick Stokes said:
The copying is a breach of the terms of use under which the uploader obtained the product. Supplying a URL to archive.js does not breach any terms of use.
As if there are no terms of use for a product, then the full protection of copyright law is automatically in effect, but the distinction might help with Stokes’s poor attempts at parsing this problem away. A person agreeing to a particular ToS could violate copyright laws by breaking that ToS, but that in no way indicates it is fine to make copies when there is no ToS.
Incidentally, I’m inclined to call Stokes’s deranged or a liar for saying:
Sou does not instruct or command the archive site to copy. She has no power over them; they have no obligation to her.
The site provides an automated service. Anyone who clicks on a button to activate this automated service has clearly instructed/commanded the site to activate the automated service. That a person using an automated service doesn’t have power over people running that service doesn’t somehow mean them using the service is just suggesting the service be used. Heck, the site gives this preface for activating its service:
My url is alive and I want to archive its content
Users of the site activate its service by saying they want to archive a webpage. But according to Stokes, they’re not archiving or making copies of anything. They’re just suggesting the website make a copy… with an automated service they can activate whenever they want.
For the record, I am not submitting this comment to your site. I am simply suggesting your site process some text I provide. I have no control over your site, and you have no obligation to me, so this is not me actually posting a comment.
Oh, and for the record, the link Nick Stokes provides to supposedly show “the copies of [my] site that archive.js makes available” doesn’t actually do that. It includes results for sites I don’t own, and it fails to include a quite a few copies that have been made.
Apparently he didn’t bother to read the simple examples shown on the page he links to which show how to actually search for copies of pages from a given site. Because it’s really easy to do. That’s why I was easily able to find the ~40 or so copies of my material that have been posted on there when I filed a DMCA notice over the site.
Which caused the owner of the site to ditch one of his service providers because it was located within the United States, and it wouldn’t shield him from copyright complaints like the ones he currently hides behind. Which I’m sure Stokes would say is all meaningless, not an indication the guy knows fully well what he’s doing is illegal.
Brandon,
To be fair, terms of use are relevant in that terms of use may include things that lift some copyright restriction. They could authorize certain types of copies of things be made, or allow people to use copies in specific ways.
If what you mean is I can grant a license for people to copy my stuff yes. But that’s not a really “terms of use” issue. That’s granting a license. An entity might be include granting of a license in a document the label “terms of use”, but the copyright is still not strictly a “terms of use” issue. The granting of license is a licensing issue. Licenses can be provisional and require any number of things–giving credit, payment and so on. If people don’t pay, give credit and so on, they haven’t conformed to the agreed on terms of the license.
In any case, Archive.is can’t through its terms of use grant Sou (or anyone) a license to copy my stuff. Nor can they grant anyone a right to copyright anything other than material to which Archive.is holds a copy by any means. Whatever TOS any archive has with their users, that TOS can’t grant their users a license to copyrights the archive doesn’t hold.
They’re just suggesting the website make a copy… with an automated service they can activate whenever they want.
It’s very hard not to laugh at the whole idea of “suggesting”. If Archive.is was a gun, the analogous suggestion would be that a person X who aimed a gun at person Y at point blank range and pulled the trigger did not shoot person Y they merely “suggested” the bullet move in the direction of Y. After all: the gun (designed to launch bullets) might misfire. Or there might not be a bullet in the gun. And they had no “power” to force the gun mechanism not to jam and so on. Maybe the gun would have jammed– just as maybe Archive.is’s software would have failed to perform as designed!
Well.. of course if the gun jammed then the person firing it would not have managed to shoot someone. And if Archive.is’s software failed, Sou (or whoever requested the copy) would not have made a copy. But if the software functioned as designed, Sou would make the copy she requested.
Or perhaps a person standing on the top of a building holding a cannon ball in their hand and releasing it over the edge didn’t “drop” the item when they opened their hand. They only ‘ceased to give it support’ and perhaps “suggested” it fall to the earth. After all: the person holding the cannon ball has no control over the earth nor do they control the physical laws of the universe. They can’t force the earth to attract the cannon ball causing it to fall toward the earth. So, by that reasoning, they didn’t “drop” the ball. They just sort of “suggested” or “hoped” or something.
Well, yes. If the law of gravity had failed to operate, a cannon drop would not drop when a person releases a hold on it. And we all agree that mere mortals have no control over the law of gravity. Nevertheless, we do say they dropped things. We don’t say they merely “suggest” things fall to the earth.
Because of this, there is no way for websites to prevent an archive.is user from mirroring pages on the site.[7]
Many can block them with .htaccess, a php script or cloudflare. You just need to know their IPs. They don’t seem to have very many.
Some people can’t block them because they are hosted in ways that give the no control. And you can’t get Archive.is to cooperate in not copying. But if you pay attention, you can block them.
lucia:
If what you mean is I can grant a license for people to copy my stuff yes. But that’s not a really “terms of use†issue. That’s granting a license. An entity might be include granting of a license in a document the label “terms of useâ€, but the copyright is still not strictly a “terms of use†issue.
Yup. I just brought it up because the court case you reference dealt with a situation where there was a terms of use agreement which was violated by the people doing the copyright infringement. That’s why the judges referred to a terms of use agreement, which is what Nick Stokes quoted.
If there hadn’t been any such agreement, what they did would still have been a copyright violation. The judges just wouldn’t have had to look at what the terms of use granted in the way of licenses for the product which was unlawfully copied and disseminated.
It’s very hard not to laugh at the whole idea of “suggestingâ€.
I know, right? Even for Stokes, that one was pretty outlandish.
Some people can’t block them because they are hosted in ways that give the no control. And you can’t get Archive.is to cooperate in not copying. But if you pay attention, you can block them.
Of course, archive.is could change IP addresses, in which case they’d no longer be prevented, at least until you blocked any new ones. Wikipedia is wrong in what it said, but it does have the right idea. There is no way to configure your site to stop the archive.is service itself (such as by instructing a crawler not to scrape your site). It just overlooks that blocking access from the site will stop the service from really doing anything.
This is interesting. This post reads as if archive.is is funded through donations. But the owner set up a donation site for “pet rescue” which is used to fund archive.is:
Isn’t running archive. is expensive? Thank you for providing this free service btw. Why do donations go to a pet rescue fund instead of the webpage capture project? Are they affiliated with each other?
Anonymous
We are not affiliated. At first, there was a link to WebCite’s fundraising project, but they were not happy with my initiative. I browsed few random projects and chose that pet rescue fund.
Also, I heard that people are more willing to help animals than other people. Thus the donations to a pet rescue fund can be seen as the upper estimate of how donation to the webpage capture project would perform.
I for one would like to thank Nick for coming here and so amply demonstrating the true reason why so many of the Climate Faithful support Sou and link to her website.
And that Truth is that most of them are just as utterly dishonest as she is. Whether it’s rules lawyer arguments like nick above about how to define ‘copying’ or ‘Hide the Decline’, Gleick Forging documents, GISS Altering Data, Gore’s Movie, Mann’s Nobel, or a thousand other things, the true nature of the Warmists is there to see for anyone willing to dig for the truth. In fact, it’s usually just under the surface.
What makes Sou different from many of them is that she’s Stupid. She brags about doing what the others at least have the sense to hide. Her Lies are often childishly transparent. Her ‘Debunkings’ usually amount to name calling and variations of ‘but that’s not what the consensus says’. Heck, I remember one time her rebutle to something was literally (and I’m going from memory here, but I’m pretty sure these were her exact words)”but she’s a Denier, so we can safely ignore her word.” Normally someone like her would be ‘put on a bus’ by the leadership of whatever cause she had decided to champion. But the Warmists not only tolerate but encourage and promote her.
The simple fact is, Sou is a great rabble rouser, and the Climate Faithful are usually too blinded by ideology to even notice the glaring inconsistencies.
And she’s inexorably linked to WUWT. There’s something ironic there, but I might be to Skeptical to see it. <¿<
“Her Lies are often childishly transparent.”
schitzree,
I have commented a few times over the years that such things are cries for help.
. . . under this amendment, all of the other criminal procedures and penalties must be available even if the infringement has absolutely no impact on the right holder’s ability to exploit their work in the market. The only enforcement provision that countries have the flexibility to withhold in such cases is the authority of state officials to take legal action into their own hands.
By the way, this is rather off-topic, yet I can’t help but notice similarities between this issue and the discussion happening around a recent post by Dan Kahan about consensus messaging. I’d like to think my post on the topic does a good job of explaining why the paper he refers to is… not dispositive, to put it mildly:
But reading people’s comments on his post (or the post at Anders’s place) is in many ways more interesting. The study in question asked subjets their views on global warming, then presented the subjects consensus messaging, and then asked their views on global warming again. I think most people can intuitively understand why that does not constitute proof consensus messaging is effective at changing people’s opinions, even if the researchers also asked the subjects about the new Apple Watch and the new Star Wars movie. Yes, that was how they sought to overcome any biases their methodology introduces. I don’t get it either.
Anyway, the point is the problems with this approach should be immediately apparent to people. Yet, for some people, they aren’t. There’s a level of willful blindness, active avoidance and seemingly intentional obtuseness that runs through certain people’s comments on that issue just like there is with Nick Stokes’s on this issue. I suspect if you asked Stokes about this paper, he would behave similarly to them; and likewise, if you asked them about Sou’s massive copyright violations, they’d respond similarly to him.
But perhaps the best part is these people are complaining about how rude and insulting it is for Kahan to compare anyone to Fox News. That sort of faux outrage is hilarious.
(Plus it’s always good for a chuckle when someone deletes tweets to cover up an embarrassment.)
Off topic, but I really wish Lucia would be kind enough to reopen the long missed store and offer those wonderful “Hide the decline” mugs and other excellent Rank Exploits collectibles. It has been far too long. Pretty please, Lucia? 😊
Hunter,
It takes time to create a graphic get it on the mug etc. Then customers are only interested during extremes. If it goes out again (on either direction, using either the AR4 or 5 baseline.) I might make one. That time is not now.
Thanks. Thanks to a minor but tragic kitchen accident I am short your great coffee mug and would like to get another one. But patience is a virtue..
Copyright Flowchart
RB (Comment #143271)
“The comment by a certain Nick on the post referenced by angech don’t sound to me like Nick Stokes at all. What is obvious though are the biases of the usual here.”
Carrick (Comment #143267)
“Nick seems to admire Sou and her tactics.”
“Nick has posted generally positive, approving followups to Sou on his own blog. I think the proof is in the pudding.”
jferguson (Comment #143269)
“Baffling. Her style is certainly not his.”
SteveF (Comment #143265)
“The relationship Sou:science is like which of the following?”
f. Nick:Sou and “McIntyre and Anthony Watts”
DeWitt Payne (Comment #143276)
angech “As usual, you go a step too far. You should have left McIntyre out of that sentence.”
RB (Comment #143277)
” I understand your urge to stick up for your team.”
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #143314)
“lucia, I’m not sure even Nick Stokes would be willing to say paying a store to do something is merely “suggesting†they do it.”
Oh, Brandon.
How utterly sweet and naive.
Nick Stokes (Comment #143308)
” If you enter a URL in a box at archive.js, you are simply suggesting that they add a copy of that page to the billions of others that they make publicly available.”
Nick Stokes (Comment #143315)
“Supplying a URL to archive.js does not breach any terms of use.
Sou does not instruct or command the archive site to copy. She has no power over them; they have no obligation to her.”
lucia (Comment #143317)
” entering a url and clicking that button causes a copy to be made. Plus, she knows it.”
schitzree (Comment #143326)
“I would like to thank Nick for coming here and so amply demonstrating the true reason why so many of the Climate Faithful support Sou and link to her website.”
RB (Comment #143277)
” I understand your urge to stick up for your team.”
DeWitt
everyone is pocking up on the theme I mentioned to you some time back the 30% DMI graphs.
You were not keen on them at the time. Now they have disappeared.
The only reason is the different metrics used show more ice in the Arctic rather than less.
Something MASIE seems to show as well.
Reason given for discontinuation it’s time. Reason for disparity, none!
MASIE is interesting. MASIE 2006 extent is way lower relative to 2016 than JAXA and sets the record low for the current date by a large margin. And rather than record lows, MASIE 2016 extent is close to the middle of the band. They say that the edge of the ice with MASIE can be hundreds of kilometers different than the other satellite results like JAXA. I’ll be curious to see the PIOMAS results for February.
The MASIE people don’t recommend using it for comparisons over time. In the FAQ they say: “2. When should I use MASIE and when should I use the Sea Ice Index?
Use the Sea Ice Index when comparing trends in sea ice over time or when consistency is important. Even then, the monthly, not the daily, Sea Ice Index views should be used to look at trends in sea ice. The Sea Ice Index documentation explains how linear regression is used to say something about trends in ice extent, and what the limitations of that method are. Use MASIE when you want the most accurate view possible of Arctic-wide ice on a given day or through the week. “
Nick,
That still says that the Sea Ice Index is underestimating current Arctic sea ice extent by a substantial margin, on the order of 400,000km² or about 3%. Part of the problem with trends is that MASIE only goes back to 1/1/2006
I see today that Nick’s Hero has posted a new article on her HotWhooper blog, “Anthony Watts pushes anti-semitic conspiracy theories wrapped up as a climate hoax”
Well, I think, This should be good. Might as well jump right to Godwin’s law. I do read many of the articles over at WUWT, so you’d think I would have noticed Anthony blaming the Jews for anything. let’s just follow Sou down the old rabbit hole and see where see ends up.
OK, skip the rants about Jo Nova and Willis Eschenbach, as they don’t seem to have anything to do with this article (or anything else, really).
“Anthony Watts is surprised by past climate variability” Apparently he posted an article about another warm water ‘blob’ that formed and broke up repeatedly thousands of years ago. Cue Sou to make numerous accusations that Anthony didn’t know that past climate changed. Because obviously He didn’t posted this to counter the constant attempts by the Climate Faithful to insist that there wasn’t a little ice age on medieval warm period and that climate has been a perfectly flat hockey stick for tens of thousands of years. No, Anthony must be the one oblivious to past climate.
“There is no greenhouse effect sez WUWT” Odd, I’m pretty sure Anthony has repeatedly written that he accepts the Greenhouse Theory. Ah, it turns out Tim Ball wrote “The author believes the evidence shows that human CO2 is not causing AGW, that the hypothesis is not proved.” And of course Sou immediately jumps from ‘no evidence that CO2 is causing AGW’ to ‘no greenhouse effect’. Sou then charges into a rant about how Warming must mean AGW and AGW must mean CO2. Apparently because climate can’t change on it’s own… Which, remember, only Anthony doesn’t know about.
Ah, here we go, the meat of the article. “Climate science is a socialist Nazi plot” WAIT, WAIT. I thought Anthony was going to be blaming the Jews, not the NAZI. Well, let’s see. Supposedly Tim Ball is a “Fan of Hitler” because 2 years ago he used a quote from Mien Kompf to explain how large scale organizations can push a ‘big lie’ and manipulate the public. Does this mean if I quote Obama that “energy costs will necessarily skyrocket” that makes me an Obama Fan? Where was I? Accusation by Sou that Tim Ball’s Article about how and why the IPCC and UN are leading to a One World Government is a conspiracy theory. Heh, probably. So Sou proves it’s nuts by making up a list of the conspirators… on her own… that includes Hitler? No, no link to anything on WUWT to explain her list. Hey, Tim’s a Liar because he quotes from a Club of Rome book and somehow switches ‘against whom we can unite’ with ‘to unite us’ and leaves out a bit in the middle of the quote that says that they were wrong and pollution and climate weren’t they enemy but just a symptom. And he got the date the book was printed as 1994 when it came out in 1991. So clearly he’s a big fat liar who lies. Or, alternatively, maybe he has a later printing, and they edited it to make it smother. I’d check that, but the Library thinks this book is so unimportant that it has their only copy in deep storage.
Ah! Finally, we get to the meaning of the Title. Tim believes this is all to the benefit of promoting Global Socialism and The One World Government. That’s sounds the same as the New World Order Conspiracy, which Sou knows is similar to the Illuminati Conspiracy, which is kinda like the International Jewish Conspiracy. BINGO! Sou has successfully played 6 degrees of anti-Semitism. And to help tie all this Conspiring together Sou has to link (repeatedly) to that bastion of Truth, Rational Wiki. (For those who don’t know, Rational Wiki is the Encyclopedia Dramatica of Socialists, Atheists, and Climate Faithful the world over)
I could go on, but from here Sou pretty much has a Lew style Conspiracy Ideation meltdown. it’s really kind of sad to watch.
So, Where’s Nick to help rationalize THIS pile of Warmist mind vomit? I’d just love to see how he justifies and excuses more completely typical behavior from his fellow travelers.
Made a mistake in posting but now it’s fixed. Thank God (or your preferred dispenser of Fate) for post editing.
I hate to say this, because I hate siding with Sou at all, but on this one, she’s more right than you are Schitzree. Tim Ball has flat-out said the greenhouse effect isn’t real on Watts Up With That (or to be precise, that increasing CO2 levels doesn’t cause global warming). And that’s not the only post on WUWT to do it. I don’t even follow the site, but I’ve seen at least four different posts in which the same thing was said. Heck, there was one post where the greenhouse effect was specifically said to contradict elementary physics. (See here for examples.)
That Watts may on some occasions say he accepts the greenhouse effect doesn’t change that he uses his site to promote views which say it isn’t real. Similarly, he co-authors books with people who say, in the same book he co-authors with them, things like we can’t even know the planet has warmed. (See here for discussion.)
And when Tim Ball used a quote from Mein Kampf, he didn’t just use some quote in passing. He directly compared people he disliked to Nazis, repeatedly driving home the comparison in his post. Ironically though, he apparently misunderstood the quote he was referring to because it referred to a supposed conspiracy not by the Nazis, but by the Jews. The result is he painted himself in the role of Adolf Hitler, ranting and railing about a massive Jewish conspiracy to create the global warming scam. (See here for discussion.)
I get it might be nice and easy, and even fun, to just mock everything and just dismiss it out of hand, but there’s a reason she can gain some traction – Watts Up With That regularly posts ridiculous nonsense that should embarrass any “skeptic,” and the best thing that could be done for any “skeptic” cause would be for Anthony Watts to shut it down. No actual skeptic could read WUWT and think it is good or useful.
(Oh, and for the record, Tim Ball is a dragon slayer. Yes, he denies the greenhouse effect.)
Nick Stokes (Comment #143336)
The MASIE people don’t recommend using it for comparisons over time. In the FAQ they say:”*******.
Do you ever think for yourself, Nick.
This is a Kevin O’Neill and Neven standard trot out line.
And it is tragic.
Do you read their stuff and repeat it as a standard formula as a put down to MASIE or do you join with them in promulgating their attack?
Logic, Nick
“2. When should I use MASIE and when should I use the Sea Ice Index?
” Use MASIE when you want the most accurate view possible of Arctic-wide ice ”
The most accurate means the most accurate.
“Use the Sea Ice Index when consistency is important”
what does the most consistent mean?
The most consistently inaccurate for example fits perfectly in this definition.
Personally I would define the most accurate to also be the most consistent [as in closest to the truth] and therefore think MASIE is miles ahead.
You obviously feel that being consistently [as in not able to change to much in response to truthful daily and weekly variation]
wrong is better than being accurate and truthfully variable.
Accuracy is a much better characteristic than consistency for any data to have and for anyone to use that data.
But you do not agree or see this??
Heaven help you.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #143340)
“”Tim Ball has flat-out said the greenhouse effect isn’t real on Watts Up With That
Not true [could be if he is a dragon slayer but show the quote]
” What is not fine is to research the greenhouse effect and conclude it isn’t real. That is because the greenhouse effect is beyond dispute.””
True.
If people want to say humans aren’t contributing to the greenhouse effect via our emissions of greenhouse gases, that’s not fine. That’s crazy.
true. but it is not currently warming the world.
“The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change,†Watts Up With That (WUWT), has decided to tell everybody greenhouse gases don’t cause the planet to warm.
Not true.
The first line of a post which went up at WUWT a couple days ago says: ‘ The only place in the world where CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is in climate models, including those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”
True
That’s about as clear a rejection of the greenhouse effect as you’re going to find.
Not true.
–
You are conflating two different things Brandon and then using anger to pretend they are the same.
The greenhouse effect, to be clear, is CO2 in the air causing a rise in the heat of the air when its concentration increases.
The other effects of a rise in temperature could be a rise in humidity [moisture in the air] with an albedo increase that compensates and mostly blocks the greenhouse gas temperature rise.
Called a negative feedback.
You choose to completely ignore this possibility when the fact is that currently “The only place in the world where CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is in climate models” is a completely legitimate statement for the last 18 years on RSS satellite and Manu Loa data.
He is not denying CO2 causes GHG effects in this statement, that is your bias of his bias.
He is merely stating that there has been no warming consistent with a CO2 rise in the period covered by the current climate models.
Spin it any way you want but this is the fact.
Show a statement of his denying GHG effect of CO2, I am sure you have plenty, but do not use this post as it is purely your wrong interpretation.
Sou and ATTP are spin offs of WUWT.
Sou is wonderful, like Lewindowsky she epitomizes everything wrong with people with ideological blinkers.
ATTP is better. He changed his blog name, he has lost some of his fixation on Anthony and writes excellent articles that are thought provoking.
You write excellent articles, I would love to see you commenting at WUWT.
But it is your choice.
Brandon, that ‘to be precise’ is an awful big difference. the Greenhouse effect could be perfectly true, and that still doesn’t mean that doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere will have any noticeable effect on global temps. Convection, Absorption, Changes in Water Vapor, and a whole host of other effects could easily swamp or counteract any warming that would be caused in the perfect world of the models. My own personal theory is that it varies, and that an increase in CO2 that would cause a 2.5’C rise at a global average temp of 14 will only cause a 1’C increase at a GAT of 15, and would cause a -0.5’C decrease at a GAT of 16.
As for what was said ‘in one post’, unlike in the blogs of the Climate Faithful, Skeptics usually prefer to argue with someone and link to data when they think a poster is wrong, not just delete or ‘borehole’ it. A concept I’ve also noted that Sou has trouble wrapping her head around. at least I assume that’s why she thinks she needs to copy each post on WUWT she disagrees with like it’s an exhibit in a court trial.
As for the Hitler Quote, all I can say is most people these days can read that as the Projection it clearly was. Hitler basically spelled out his methods for all to see while accusing his chosen boogiemen of doing it. Just like the Alarmists do. And I’m sorry if hearing the Warmists compared to NAZI’s hurts, but if the 10/10 video fits, WEAR IT.
Now, does WUWT put up some pretty silly thing from time to time? OH SNAP! Well, I guess that invalidates anything ever written there. Conversely, you can try posting a rebuttal and argue your case. And no, you probably won’t change the minds of some of the regulars (cough Willis cough), but you’d be surprise how may of the lurker can follow an argument and tell when one side is blowing smoke. Or maybe that’s your real problem. :p
And Tim? Does he believe in Conspiracy Theories? Sure sounds like it. Guess what, I believe in some Conspiracy Theories too. I believe that Peter Gleick stole Hartland documents trying to catch them doing the same kind of crap the Warmist were doing, and when he didn’t find much he forged a memo to make it look they were. And I believe when he was caught at it the Warmist closed ranks to protect one of their own. I even believe they’re still covering for him, which is why the article on Rational Wiki about it paints him as a hero of the people who uncovered the damning memo that Heartland ‘claims’ is a forgery. I also have a Conspiracy Theory that the Warmists will continue to find new reasons to adjust the warming higher until they are stopped by the end of the CAGW meme. You want to dismiss those theories as crazy? fine. just don’t expect me to change my mind just because you think it’s unreasonable to suspect the Climate Faithful of being dishonest. That ship sailed back in 07.
And if you want to convince me that Tim Ball is a ‘Dragon Slayer’ you’ll need to link to something PROVING it. He might be one for all I know, but Sou style ‘he said THIS, which sounds like THAT, so he must believe SOMETHING ELSE’ strawman arguments aren’t going to cut it. Try an actual quote. Or Don’t. I frankly don’t care much what a Sou defender thinks is a logical argument.
“And if you want to convince me that Tim Ball is a ‘Dragon Slayer’ you’ll need to link to something PROVING it.”
“Do you ever think for yourself, Nick.”
Yes. But when looking at an issue of fact, I don’t just rely on my opinion, as you do. I consult the documentation. And that is what I was quoting.
Nick posted: “he (co) wrote the book”
Now, you see that? THAT’S how you count some coup in Climateball. Brandon, take notes.
A number of Authors on that book. I suppose it might be remotely possible that Tim might have been arguing some point about negative feedbacks countering the greenhouse effect, but unless someone else feels like digging further or Tim himself comments I’m satisfied that he’s a full blown Dragon Slayer.
Nick Stokes
“Do you ever think for yourself, Nick.â€
Yes.
But,
i.e. No.
Shame.
“when looking at an issue of fact, I consult the documentation.
And that is what I was quoting.”
Even when the documentation is misleading/wrong?
think for yourself, Nick
When it says MASIE is more accurate
would you use a CT Scan for diagnosis of a lung cancer which is more accurate , or a Chest X Ray which is more consistent but alas lacks accuracy?
Do you want to know where the ice really is [MASIE] or where some obviously botched up, under evaluating, 15% algorithm consistently tells you it might be?
By the way, you should admit if something is more accurate it is really more consistent anyway?
Consistent in being right that is.
Schitzree, I think Nick Stokes pretty much trashed your entire comment with that single line. I mean, I can’t believe you actually questioned that Tim Ball is a dragon slayer, but I gave you the opportunity to do so because I wanted to see if you’d really be that foolish. You were. I’m not sure there’s anything more that needs to be said.
Though I will just highlight this part of your comment:
I’m sorry if hearing the Warmists compared to NAZI’s hurts, but if the 10/10 video fits, WEAR IT.
Defending comparing people to Nazis is about the best way one could possibly show reasonable discussion isn’t possible with you. It’s also a great way to make this remark hilarious:
I frankly don’t care much what a Sou defender thinks is a logical argument.
Angech, “Do you read their stuff and repeat it as a standard formula as a put down to MASIE or do you join with them in promulgating their attack?”
Do you read at all? “Their attack”? Who do you think “they” are. I’m quoting MASIE documentation.
“Sceptic”: “But the good people at MASIE say ice is nothing special this year.”
Me: “But their documentation says…”
“Sceptic”: “Why are you always quoting rubbish from leftist warmunists?”
Nick.
They are Neven and Kevin.
Don’t pretend you do not know them.
Neven used the same MASIE documentation over at Ron Clutz’s Science matters blog attacking MASIE by the way [see
Happy Arctic Ice Year! Posted on January 1 by Ron Clutz in the older blogs section]. NevenA · January 1
For those of you who hate my style there is a lot of interaction with Neven, Neven wins but the polar bear picture is very cute , almost as good as Lucia’s cat.
and variations at Paul Homewood’s blog – DMI’s Missing Graph [“on fake skeptic blogger Paul Homewood’s blog Not a Lot of People Know That” is Neven’s lovely classy description]
NevenA permalink February 20, 2016 10:43 am [Nick’s favorite phrase used in entirity] February 21, 2016 11:12 am “I call everyone who comes with bold statements and conspiracy theories a liar,”
Pethefin permalink February 22, 2016 12:33 pm “Neven, you are the only one talking of conspiracy which BTW has become somewhat of a standard defense for alarmists when their dogma is being questioned ” seems a pertinent comment on this thread.
Kevin O’neill trotted up under a pseudonym at WUWT to do much the same.
Saying “Posted at WUWT – let’s see if it goes through:
oneillsinwisconsin February 22, 2016 at 2:51 pm
I used Walt’s email reply to Jim, but didn’t link anything in the comment so that AW couldn’t use it as an excuse to snip.
Posted by: Kevin O’Neill | February 22, 2016 at 23:59.
Shades of Peter Gliek.
And now you parrot it.
Oh well.
Great company you keep.
Dragon Slayer = pejorative (like Nazi).
Easier than having to prove AGW I guess.
Andrew
Andrew_KY,
Ok Andrew_KY. You want to wave around the word Nazi as if that’s supposed to scare us into thinking there is something wrong with using the term “Dragon Slayer”.
It’s true that the word “Nazi” became a pejorative. That’s because people who called themselves Nazi’s did contemptible things and people can to believe them contemptible. The word “Nazi” did not become an inaccurate label in the process. Hitler was a Nazi — we get to use the term. We aren’t required to not apply the term to Hitler himself merely because the Nazi came to have a perjorative meaning owing to the the action of Hitler himself and his followers (i.e. “Nazis”.)
Dragon Slayers aren’t “Nazis”, but if you want to engage the analogy we can discuss the extent to which the analogy applies. The extent is: We get to apply it to people who are “Dragon Slayers”.
The “Dragon Slayers” certainly applies to those who wrote the book. Thos authors are
“by John O’Sullivan (Author), Hans Schreuder (Author), Claes Johnson (Author), Alan Siddons (Author), Martin Hertzberg (Author), Joseph Olson (Author), Charles Anderson (Author), Tim Ball (Author) ”
It also applies to those who are “followers” of those authors and promulgate their ideas.
So: Dragon Slayer has come to mean “those promulgate, or harbor the ideas are reflected in the chapters of that ‘Slaying the Dragon'”.
Many think that means the ideas are kookie (at least from the POV of science) — and so the people who associated themselves with the book by becoming authors are kooks (wrt to science and the scientific method.). So, when someone is identified as a “Dragon Slayer”, many people will think that person is a kook or harbors kookie ideas about scientific facts and conclusions.
But the fact that many people think those who are “Dragon Slayers” are kooks and being a kook is considered sub-standard doesn’t mean we don’t get to use the word to describe the people who believe in and promulgate the ideas in “Slaying the Dragon”. We do get to use words to describe things.
If you want to redeem or defend their ideas, they you have to explain what is correct about them. (Many are clearly just kookie. Claes’s Johnson’s chapter alone is enough to make any mechanical engineer’s head spin.)
Now, wrt to Tim Ball: it may be that one of the authors didn’t quite “get” what was happening when the book was written. Or maybe he mis-expressed himself. But if he wants people to believe that he doesn’t believe or promulgate the ideas in that book, he needs to say so clearly. Though normally people aren’t required to criticize others, in this case, by virtue of adding his own stuff to “Slaying the Dragon”, to convince people he isn’t promulgating everything in the book he not only has to clarify his chapters, he has to tell us that he doesn’t believe or promulgate the stuff in the other chapters.
Because if he does believe or promulgate those ideas he is a Dragon Slayer. You might think there is nothing wrong with believing or promulgating that stuff– if so, bully for you. But those who believe or promulgate it are Dragon Slayers. So you don’t get to say we can’t call them that.
And even if we don’t use the word, those who believe or promulgate the ideas in that book are– from a science point of view– kooks. The book title conveniently supplied a word– but they notion that they are kooks or harbor kookie ideas springs form the action of promulgating the ideas in the book, not from the word.
“You want to wave around the word Nazi as if that’s supposed to scare us into thinking there is something wrong with using the term “Dragon Slayerâ€.
I didn’t say there was anything wrong with using ‘Dragon Slayer’. I just pointed out it’s being used in the same way ‘Nazi’ is used. I don’t complain about the use of Nazi either, for that matter. I believe in freedom of expression. I don’t have to agree with what’s expressed.
It just needs to be recognized that it’s a common smear tactic to associate people who disagree with an Unsavory Group Of People rather than actually arguing a scientific position (which isn’t as easy).
Andrew
So calling people by a title they gave themselves is equivalent to calling people Nazis. I’d like to say that’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard all day, but… it’s not. Just look at this piece at Bishop Hill about how people (supposedly) rejected the idea of peaceful protests in favor of thuggery:
“Opponents seized on this and shortened the party’s title Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, to the dismissive “Nazi”
“Opponents seized on this and used a shortened variation of the book’s title “Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory”, and applied it to dismiss people who similarly questioned the theory.
Andrew
Andrew_KY,
The problem is that the book doesn’t slay the sky dragon. Nor is it the Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory. It’s tripe. No, wait. You can eat tripe. The pages of Slaying the Sky Dragon might possibly be fit for lining a bird cage or wrapping fish guts for disposal, but only if someone gave you a copy.
Andrew_KY,
Each word is being used as terms to describe groups of people believe a certain constantlation of ideas and who share certain behaviors. We could say the similar things about other group terms like “Christians”, “Heathens”, “Community Organizers”, “Farmers” or any number of group terms. Are some of these sometimes used pejoratively? Yeah. Would that mean that two terms that happen to be used ‘pejoratively’ are being used “similarly” to the extent that both are being used “pejoratively”…. uhmmm… Yeah.
So what? Black, white, yellow and green are all used “similarly”: as adjectives to describe color. Observing they are used “similarly” is a pretty trivial and mostly meaningless “insight”. Yours about “Nazi’s” being a group term that applies to a group many people look down on and “Sky dragons” being a term for a group term that applies to a group many people look down on. Well… yeah. That’s because the behavior and beliefs of both groups cause others to look down on them.
Andrew_KY
I suspect Nazis gave themselves their own name, too.
Of course. That’s why people call Nazis Nazis. The group turned the term they call themselves into a perjorative by behaving in ways others disdain. If your observing the same fate for the term “Sky Dragons”… well all rightie then.
Brandon said: “Schitzree, I think Nick Stokes pretty much trashed your entire comment with that single line.”
(Sigh) No Bandon, Nick didn’t trash my entire comment. What he did was provide some actual proof the Tim Ball is a Dragon Slayer, something you failed utterly to do yourself. (And no, I’m not buying that you didn’t provide it to set a clever trap for me. Save the ‘I was only pretending to be stupid’ lines for 4chan) The fact that Tim is a Dragon Slayer doesn’t disprove any of the main points of my comment however, which is why I said in the ending “He might be one for all I know”. The fact that Tim is apparently clueless about this aspect of physics doesn’t prove:
1) That he didn’t know that climate changes.
2) That he believes in Conspiracy Theories. (The fact he writes about them does that 😉
3) That he is a ‘Hitler Fan’ or anti-semitic.
The only thing it proves is
4) That he doesn’t believe in the Greenhouse Effect.
But even if they were ALL true, that wouldn’t prove that Anthony or WUWT were any of those things. Which, remember, was the actual point of Sou’s article. And Anthony has repeatedly said he accepts the Greenhouse Effect. So all you’ve got is guilt by association on the Dragon Slayer one.
Now me, personally? I’m all for some guilt by association. Anthony letting Dragon Slayers post articles at WUWT, even if they are about something else like Conspiracy Theories, doesn’t really look good. Not nearly as bad as when the Climate Faithful defend Mann, Gleick, or Sou, but still. And I don’t think that Anthony distancing himself from their beliefs while promoting their writings is enough. It sends the message ‘I think this belief isn’t important to the discussion’. Anthony should probably stop posting articles by Tim until he either repudiated the Dragon Slaying belief or at least distances himself from them.
So, come on Brandon! If your going to defend Sou’s article as ‘more right then me’ you’re going to have to come up with a lot more proof then what you’ve given us. So far you’ve only gotten a half point on one out of four accusations.
Oh, wait. That was Nicks. So far all YOU’VE done is complain.
Since the thread is going in this direction anyway…
Brandon said: “Defending comparing people to Nazis is about the best way one could possibly show reasonable discussion isn’t possible with you.”
Well, how about comparing the Khmer Rouge to the NAZI. Or the Stalin era Soviets, apartheid era South Africa, or the last 50 years in North Korea.
I mentioned the 10/10 video for a reason, Brandon. At best it was Climate Faithful snuff porn, fantasizing about being able to just blow up anyone that didn’t accept their Decree on what and how we should be doing things. At worst it was an explicit threat. And it was hardly a lone example. I’m not going to link to all the time a Warmist has called for ‘Deniers’ to be punished or thrown into reeducation camps for not believing the right thing. I know you’ve seen them all too.
Yes, there is a tendency to reach for the NAZI label too quickly. But that doesn’t mean we must muzzle ourselves when we see this kind of behavior being not just displayed, but actively promoted. That’s how the original NAZI’s came to power.
What truly frightens me is that the Warmists should know these things too. That they think they’re so secure and above criticism that they can do things that will inevitably bring NAZI comparisons should frighten everyone.
Re: angech (Comment #143350) February 24th, 2016 at 5:40 am
My ears were burning, so here’s the interview I did with Walt Meier (NASA/ex NSIDC) on the DMI/MASIE “controversy”:
Just in case you were wondering, MASIE doesn’t get his vote for determining trends.
schitzree:
(Sigh) No Bandon, Nick didn’t trash my entire comment. What he did was provide some actual proof the Tim Ball is a Dragon Slayer, something you failed utterly to do yourself. (And no, I’m not buying that you didn’t provide it to set a clever trap for me. Save the ‘I was only pretending to be stupid’ lines for 4chan)
Uh… what? Why would it be stupid of me not to provide proof Tim Ball is a Dragon Slayer? One generally doesn’t provide proof of obvious things like that. It’d be like providing proof Hilary Clinton is a member of the Democratic party. That someone “failed utterly” to provide proof of something which is common knowledge isn’t a reason to criticize them.
And yes, I actually did consider pointing out he co-authored that book. I also considered pointing out he’s an active member of the Sky Dragon community. I decided not to because I felt it was pointless, figuring only the most biased of individuals would challenge such an obvious truth. Which is exactly what you did.
But even if they were ALL true, that wouldn’t prove that Anthony or WUWT were any of those things. Which, remember, was the actual point of Sou’s article. And Anthony has repeatedly said he accepts the Greenhouse Effect. So all you’ve got is guilt by association on the Dragon Slayer one.
You’re acting as though pointing out a host repeatedly runs material of a certain nature and/or by a certain person is merely “guilt by association.” No. Leaving aside that I gave at least one example of the same sort of thing being written by another person at WUWT, it is not guilt by association to assign responsibility to a person for the material he routinely runs on his site.
Brandon said: “Defending comparing people to Nazis is about the best way one could possibly show reasonable discussion isn’t possible with you.â€
Well, how about comparing the Khmer Rouge to the NAZI. Or the Stalin era Soviets, apartheid era South Africa, or the last 50 years in North Korea.
I don’t think you could more intentionally misunderstand/misinterpret what I said. There’s a thing called context, and when one ignores it, it tends to be easy to paint what people say as wrong. I’m not going to waste my time explicitly clarifying every statement I make to try to prevent people like you from doing this, especially not when you’re going to say insane things like:
I mentioned the 10/10 video for a reason, Brandon. At best it was Climate Faithful snuff porn, fantasizing about being able to just blow up anyone that didn’t accept their Decree on what and how we should be doing things. At worst it was an explicit threat.
You’re deranged. And you’re in good company. I’ve started seeing people suggest people like the #heathrow13 will start engaging in terrorism, going so far as to suggest they might blow up planes. It’s crazy, and so are you.
Sorry about the double post there; I have no idea how that happened. I even thought the WordPress software is explicitly designed to prevent it.
Anyway, I should point out I did just learn something entertaining about Tim Ball I had never noticed before. While “skeptics” like to make a lot of hay about how Michael Mann has sued Ball for libel, it turns out Ball himself filed a libel lawsuit half a decade before that, long before anyone had sued him for libel. He hadn’t liked what a person said about him (somebody Johnson?) when criticizing his credentials on climate science, so he filed a libel lawsuit. He then dropped it because there was no actual grounds for it.
So… yeah. Mann suing Ball may be wrong, but what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. People who resort to libel lawsuits because they don’t like what others say about them, then refuse to actually pursue those lawsuits deserve criticism. That goes for both Michael Mann and Tim Ball.
Okay, this will probably be my last comment about Tim Ball. I happened to find a link to the chapter he wrote for the Dragon Slayer book on his site, with the file aptly named dragon-slayers-chapter.pdf, further showing why it is silly to complain about people about people calling him a Dragon Slayer. That’s not the important part though. During the chapter, Ball talks about how he gave a presentation of scientific facts to a government committee, and he uses their reaction to claim the politicians don’t understand how science works. That’s not really surprising as he says:
science works by presenting a hypothesis, which is then tested by other scientists
Which isn’t actually true. While confirmation/verification by other scientists is always good, it is also acceptable for one to test his own hypotheses. Regardless, what matters is he then immediately lists the “scientific facts” he presented to the committee:
The earth was slowing in its speed of rotation.
The magnetic field has weakened gradually and consistently over the last several decades: if this trend continues the magnetic field will reach zero in approximately 120 years.
When the earth’s magnetic field disappeared as it has done many times mass extinction of species occurred.
I’m pretty sure it is crazier than even his normal conspiratorial rantings are, and it turns out he’s promoted this same viewpoint at WUWT as well.
Why would it be stupid of me not to provide proof Tim Ball is a Dragon Slayer? One generally doesn’t provide proof of obvious things like that.
So your opinions are so self evidently right you don’t need to provide proof. That’s really the defense you’re going with. Really.
You’re acting as though pointing out a host repeatedly runs material of a certain nature and/or by a certain person is merely “guilt by association.†No. Leaving aside that I gave at least one example of the same sort of thing being written by another person at WUWT, it is not guilt by association to assign responsibility to a person for the material he routinely runs on his site.
Well, I’m glad you didn’t decide THIS one was so obvious you didn’t need to prove it, because your proof was wrong. The link showed clearly that, once again, you took a quote of someone saying CO2 isn’t causing warming anywhere but in the models, and deciding that means they don’t believe in the Greenhouse Theory. Do we need to explain again why that isn’t true?
You seem to be really bad about jumping to conclusions and then expecting everyone else to accept them without proof. It really doesn’t help your position any.
I don’t think you could more intentionally misunderstand/misinterpret what I said. There’s a thing called context, and when one ignores it, it tends to be easy to paint what people say as wrong.
Right, context. Which is apparently another one of those things you think are so obvious you don’t need to try to explain them.
You claim comparing people to NAZI is somehow undefendable. I give you a concrete, we’ll documented, unmistakable example of how the Warmists have in the past behaved in a way that is utterly comparable to NAZI behavior (10/10 video), and the best you can come up with is to call me deranged and to throw up some strawman about how some group I’ve never heard of isn’t going to blow up planes.
You want to know what I think, Brandon? I think the real reason you don’t try to prove your oh so obviously correct opinions is because you usually got nothin’.
So, just a reminder. These are the bullet points from the Hotwhopper Article where Brandon thinks ‘Sou is more right then me’.
-“Anthony Watts pushes anti-semitic conspiracy theories wrapped up as a climate hoaxâ€
-“Anthony Watts is surprised by past climate variabilityâ€
-“There is no greenhouse effect sez WUWTâ€
-“Climate science is a socialist Nazi plotâ€
Now as I’ve said, I’m willing ti give you a half point on the third one because, while WUWT (in the form of the article Sou doesn’t actually link to) never ‘sez’ there is no Greenhouse Effect, that does appear to be Tim Ball’s position. And I’ve made some (so very subtle) hints that there’s another one of them I’d be willing to give at least another half point on. Oh, what the heck. Let’s just agree that number 4 is a given. Although the whole NAZI thing was pure Sou. Ironically I don’t think Tim himself has actually brought up NAZI’S since the thing 2 years ago.
That still leaves you short at least a full point, Brandon. Got anything else? Beside opinions I’m just supposed to accept because you say so?
“science works by presenting a hypothesis, which is then tested by other scientists
–
Which isn’t actually true.”
–
Funny, sounds perfectly true and logical to everyone else here.
Wait.
A caveat
“it is also acceptable for one to test his own hypotheses.”
This is also true but cannot make the first statement untrue.
Same with poor Tim’s other comments.
3 valid true scientific facts suddenly worth nothing because Tim Ball mentions them.
a. The mass extinctions BTW might have accidentally “coincided
‘ with the magnetic field flips ie it is a true statement.
b. I had this recently with a lovely fellow at our university of the third age. CAGW is true because scientists say so. Pointed out Judith Curry and qualifications.
Suddenly scientist wasn’t the issue but denier was.
Whatever Tim’s views are does not mean every comment he makes is false or has to be attacked, but….
Anyone checked out the happy polar bear photo?
Perhaps someone could ask Ron to put it up here no captions if Lucia agrees
Not sure why we’re still flogging Tim at this point. But I’ll bite.
The earth was slowing in its speed of rotation.
Ya, I’ve read that before. Something like a fraction of a second per year I think. The Earth is supposed to end up Tidal Locked with the moon in a Hundred Million Years of so, just like the Moon is with it. Did Tim say way he was bringing this before government? I doubt any of them would still be in office when this starts to be an issue. ;p
The magnetic field has weakened gradually and consistently over the last several decades: if this trend continues the magnetic field will reach zero in approximately 120 years.
Heard that one too. Add to it that, the last time I checked, the amount that the Earths Magnetic Pole ‘drifts’ had been increasing significantly. The 120 years part sound like one on my pet peeves, ‘project the trend line until it goes off the graph’. Which is almost as bad as ‘project the curve until it hits vertical’. But ya, the Earth is about due for a Magnetic Field crash and possibly a Pole Reversal. There’s evidence of past Pole Reversals (proxies based on coral growth if I remember right), but I don’t think they were ever able to work out how often the Magnetic Field might go down but come back up in the same polarity. Expected to happen ‘soon’ (Geological speaking).
When the earth’s magnetic field disappeared as it has done many times mass extinction of species occurred.
I’ve seen speculations to this effect, but that was all they were. About on par with the speculations for the effects of a 2C warming, frankly. The last timeline I remember seeing had to assume their were two non Pole Reversal Magnetic Field collapses (which don’t show up in the Pole Reversal proxies) to explain mass extinctions that happened ‘in between’ Pole Reversals. I think you also had to define ‘mass extinction’ and ‘occurred’ somewhat loosely. Ah well, proxy science. What can you do. 🙂
I’m pretty sure it is crazier than even his normal conspiratorial rantings are, and it turns out he’s promoted this same viewpoint at WUWT as well.
Well, that depends. If you mean those ideas are crazy, then no. They’re actually pretty mainstream for their branches of science. If you mean it’s crazy to be worried about them, oh GOD yes. The first won’t even be noticeable for thousands of years and the second might not happen for nearly as long, and we have no idea what (if anything) it could effect when it does.
I can say however that at least these aren’t Conspiracy Theories. Not unless it’s the Earth doing the conspiring. ^¿^
schitzree:
So your opinions are so self evidently right you don’t need to provide proof. That’s really the defense you’re going with. Really.
My opinion that people who label themselves Sky Dragons, going so far as to co-author the primary book of the Sky Dragon movement, are in fact Sky Dragons is so self evidently right I don’t need to provide proof. Yes. I think most people can agree when a person is a leading proponent of a cause, it is obviously acceptable to label him a proponent of the cause.
Well, I’m glad you didn’t decide THIS one was so obvious you didn’t need to prove it, because your proof was wrong. The link showed clearly that, once again, you took a quote of someone saying CO2 isn’t causing warming anywhere but in the models, and deciding that means they don’t believe in the Greenhouse Theory. Do we need to explain again why that isn’t true?
Sure, by all means, argue about how Tim Ball saying greenhouse gases aren’t causing warming isn’t actually disputing the greenhouse effect as he could possibly just be saying some opposite force completely counteracts it. And then when I point out Tim Ball regularly says things like:
CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, as demonstrated in the book Slaying the Sky Dragon.
I’m sure you can argue he’s not disputing the greenhouse effect, he’s just disputing that carbon dioxide has any role in it. I guess the distinction between denying the greenhouse effect and denying the existence of a greenhouse gas might be important to some people.
Of course, given the book Tim Ball says proves CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas says backradiation isn’t real, meaning the greenhouse effect would be impossible, it’d take semantic parsing on the level of Nick Stokes to figure out how Tim Ball could be not disputing the greenhouse effect. He co-authors a book which denies the greenhouse effect and directs people to it as proof CO2 isn’t a greenhouse effect, but he isn’t denying the greenhouse effect…
I think most people would just be able to read between the lines of Tim Ball’s posts and figure out he’s endorsing the rejection of the greenhouse effect. This is supported by the fact most of the commenters on Tim Ball’s post discussed that idea, not the idea CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas by other things are or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but there’s an exactly equal and opposite feedback counteracting it.
But sure, make whatever fine distinctions you want regarding exactly what crazy beliefs Tim Ball holds and Anthony Watts allows him to repeatedly promote at his site. And defend Tim Ball comparing people he dislikes to Nazis because there are incredibly rare occasions when someone can fairly be compared a Nazis. And sure, claim a horrible propaganda video shows people are fantasizing about being able to murder anyone they disagree with.
As ridiculous as that all is, I still don’t think it tops you suggesting it was stupid of me not to provide proof Tim Ball is a Dragon Slayer.
Oh, to be clear, I am intentionally not responding to much of what was said in that comment. Please don’t take that as me accepting anything in it is correct or even just not having a response to it. I simply got tired of responding to this sort of nonsense:
You want to know what I think, Brandon? I think the real reason you don’t try to prove your oh so obviously correct opinions is because you usually got nothin’.
Remember, the first thing this guy demanded I provide proof of is that Tim Ball is a Dragon Slayer. That is the sort of thing he apparently feels I should have to provide proof of. In fact, he goes so far as to suggest I should have provided proof of it before anyone even asked me for any, as though the idea Tim Ball is a Dragon Slayer is so extreme anyone stating it should be expected to provide proof at the same time.
Combine that with him defending Tim Ball labeling people Nazis, and, well… I don’t think anything really needs to be said.
My opinion that people who label themselves Sky Dragons, going so far as to co-author the primary book of the Sky Dragon movement, are in fact Sky Dragons is so self evidently right I don’t need to provide proof. Yes. I think most people can agree when a person is a leading proponent of a cause, it is obviously acceptable to label him a proponent of the cause.
I’ll remind you that you didn’t provide any evidence for any of that. Heck, I honestly don’t even believe YOU knew about Tim being a co-author of the Sky Dragon book before Nick brought it up. All this spleen venting and outrage reeks of ass covering.
And then when I point out Tim Ball regularly says things like:
“CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, as demonstrated in the book Slaying the Sky Dragon.”
Well, if he regularly says things like that, you shouldn’t have any trouble linking to one. Because I sure ain’t taking your word on anything by this point.
I’m sure you can argue he’s not disputing the greenhouse effect, he’s just disputing that carbon dioxide has any role in it. I guess the distinction between denying the greenhouse effect and denying the existence of a greenhouse gas might be important to some people.
Well, my capacity to argue such a point might be slightly inhibited by the fact that I already agreed Tim is a Dragon Slayer. Remeber? It was back when Nick provided actual proof. (And MY GOD, it was beautiful. A real OH SNAP moment. I bet after hitting the ‘Submit!’ button he whipped out a pair of sunglasses and turned to walk away from an explosion in slow motion)
See, that’s how we do things in the real world. We provide proof of what we believe, not just assertions. And we sure don’t claim we had the proof after the fact but we just didn’t give it because we think it should be common knowledge.
And as for that book you just happened to find his chapter from right now even though you knew all along he wrote it, did you happen to notice anywhere in it in between all the ‘crazy’ science where he actually says himself that he doesn’t believe in the Greenhouse Effect? Because while I’m satisfied that if he’s co-authoring a Dragon Slayer book he’s probably a Dragon Slayer, I’d still like an actual quote. Proof is good. More proof is better. Incontestable proof is best.
I think most people would just be able to read between the lines of Tim Ball’s posts and figure out he’s endorsing the rejection of the greenhouse effect. This is supported by the fact most of the commenters on Tim Ball’s post discussed that idea, not the idea CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas by other things are or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but there’s an exactly equal and opposite feedback counteracting it.
Well, I sure wouldn’t want to accuse you of just making things up by this point, but that isn’t what I remember ‘most’ of the comments discussing. I seem to recall most of them arguing the actual topic of that article, which was Socialism and Conspiracy and whether ‘environmentalism’ was the new religion of the left. So just to be sure I went back to the article (which wasn’t easy since, as was mentioned, Sou doesn’t actually link to it) and sure enough, endless arguments about whether National Socialism is Socialist, how George Soros wants to rule the world, the perceived shortcomings of religion in general, and a truly ridiculous number from richardscourtney calling anyone who disagrees with him a fascist, ect. ect. Pretty much what one would expect from such an article. But I did find a handful discussing that line from Tim about “The author believes the evidence shows that human CO2 is not causing AGW, that the hypothesis is not proved.” And guess what? Not a one I could find mentioned that there is no Greenhouse Effect. A few might have implied it, by claiming that there’s been no increase in water vapor or the tropical hot spot or something, but it’s just as likely they meant what I’ve said before, that negative feedbacks are reducing any AGW to level it’s swamped by natural variability.
Or maybe they all are Dragon Slayers, but hide their opinions behind other terminology because, despite what you’ve implied, Anthony really does come down on outright Dragon Slaying.
You know what? I could keep going on and on with this, but it’s clearly pointless. You can’t even conceive that one of your opinions might not be correct, and the only defense you’ve come up with for not providing the proof that Tim was a Dragon Slayer (that you supposedly already had) is that it MUST be obvious because Tim is a Dragon Slayer. Pure circular reasoning.
In other words, I was right. I really didn’t need to know what a Sou defender thinks is a logical argument.
How does the collapse of the earth’s magnetic field lead to mass extinction? Won’t animal magnetism keep us going? Mutual attraction?
Oddly, this came up at my place yesterday in a required entry in a magnetometer/accelerometer calibration program. Alas, there does seem to be a dwindling in the earth’s magnetic field
jferguson,
How does the collapse of the earth’s magnetic field lead to mass extinction?
The Earth’s magnetic field acts as a shield from charged particle radiation from the sun and cosmic rays. No magnetic field, no shielding. That’s a point they left out in the movie The Martian, as Mars doesn’t have a magnetic field. In fact, they’re working on magnetic shielding for spacecraft.
The Earth’s magnetic field reverses approximately every million years. That was used as part of the proof of continental drift. The reversals were recorded in the deposits at the mid-oceanic ridges. The mechanism isn’t well understood and the 120 year prediction is speculation as is the possibility of mass extinction.
The rotation of the Earth is indeed slowing and the distance from the Earth to the Moon is increasing because of tidal effects. At some point, the Moon will be far enough from the Earth and the rotation of the Earth will have slowed enough that it will always be above the same point on the Earth, i.e. tide locked. But the sun will probably become a red giant before that happens.
I’m actually not surprised that Brandon appears to be unaware of this.
As far as when the next field reversal will occur, 120 years is, in fact, a possibility. See this article, for example. Field strength appears to be declining much faster than previously thought. There is no evidence, however, of mass extinctions from field reversal.
“We could say the similar things about other group terms like “Christiansâ€, “Heathensâ€, “Community Organizersâ€, “Farmers†or any number of group terms.”
Indeed. “Warmers” (short for “Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis Believers) is one too. The people in that group cling to some weird beliefs and exhibit some dubious behaviors like cutting security fences and blocking airport runways, written crazy claims and generally have wasted a lot of people’s time and money.
Andrew
DeWitt Payne, do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say things like:
I’m actually not surprised that Brandon appears to be unaware of this.
Even though you have absolutely no basis on which to believe I am unaware of anything you said?
The first “scientific fact” I quoted from Tim Ball is a trivial truth. The second statement is highly questionable on its time-scale as the actual rate of the decline in Earth’s magnetic field is difficult to discern, and more importantly, is just wrong as the Earth’s magnetic field would not disappear during a reversal. The third statement is where things get crazy though, as it is just a wild fabrication based upon no actual evidence.
I happen to be quite familiar with this topic due to my IT interests as there has been a lot of hype and scare promoted about things like this (and massive solar flares, etc.). I’ve had a copy of the paper the article you link to is about on my hard drive for over a year. Your belief I’m unaware of these things, when you even acknowledge was way wrong on one of the points, is absurd.
I wouldn’t be surprised if I happened to know more about the Earth’s magnetic field reversing than anyone else here, but that hardly matters, as anyone who knows the topic at all would know two of the three things Tim Ball said are “scientific facts” aren’t even true.
The things I supposedly don’t know today are incredible. DeWitt Payne decided I was unaware of things I’ve known and discussed for years, and schitzree is saying:
I’ll remind you that you didn’t provide any evidence for any of that. Heck, I honestly don’t even believe YOU knew about Tim being a co-author of the Sky Dragon book before Nick brought it up. All this spleen venting and outrage reeks of ass covering.
Because I said Tim Ball is definitely a Dragon Slayer without pointing out he co-authored their seminal book, Because apparently he feels it was necessary for me to explain why it is unquestionable Tim Ball is a Dragon Slayer, rather than just stating what is common knowledge:
See, that’s how we do things in the real world. We provide proof of what we believe, not just assertions. And we sure don’t claim we had the proof after the fact but we just didn’t give it because we think it should be common knowledge.
Seriously. If I said Al Gore supports action to combat global warming, I would apparently have to provide links to prove that too. Because that’s apparently “how we do things in the real world.” Whenever we say anything, no matter how widely known or easy to verify, we provide proof. We don’t say things we expect everyone to know with the plan of providing proof if asked for it by someone not familiar with the topic.
I guess. I mean, I don’t really know. After all, I know nothing apparently.
“See, that’s how we do things in the real world. We provide proof of what we believe, not just assertions.”
he asserted.
“See, that’s how we do things in the real world. We provide [evidence ] of what we believe, not just assertions.”
More correct, but still a self defeating, sentiment.
“More correct, but still a self defeating, sentiment.”
…the Warmer asserted.
Andrew
DeWitt,
” At some point, the Moon will be far enough from the Earth and the rotation of the Earth will have slowed enough that it will always be above the same point on the Earth, i.e. tide locked.”
.
As you suggest, Earth and Moon will both have been engulfed and vaporized by the Sun in it’s red giant phase long before then. But in a mere million millennia the Sun will have warmed to the point the Earth will become inhospitable to life unless much of the sunlight is being blocked by intelligent life….. now that’s real global warming.
asserting that an assertion is an assertion is self evident.
there is a legal phrase for this.
Mosher:
asserting that an assertion is an assertion is self evident.
there is a legal phrase for this.
Steven Pinker was able to expand something like this into an entire chapter in The Language Instinct. I didn’t find that part instinctive. Maybe you did.
“there is a legal phrase for this”
Assertively speaking.
Andrew
“there is a legal phrase for this”
Tortology.
Nick, thank you for the best groan of the day!
“See, that’s how we do things in the real world. We provide proof of what we believe, not just assertions.â€
he asserted.
Ooh, burned. 🙂 I’ll admit, I’m not that good at backing up my assertions myself. I do most of my blogging by phone and don’t really have links already handy, so if I want to provide one I have to Google it up right then and there. Still I do TRY to find a link supporting my assertions when somebody calls me on one, not just endlessly whine that I shouldn’t of had to.
DeWitt Payne, do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say things like:
“I’m actually not surprised that Brandon appears to be unaware of this.”
Even though you have absolutely no basis on which to believe I am unaware of anything you said?
Well Brandon, maybe it’s because you do things like post lists of scientific facts that someone you disagree with apparently holds, which many of us here knew are either true or currently open to debate, and then declare them ‘crazier then conspiracy theories’ without saying what part you specifically find crazy.
The first “scientific fact†I quoted from Tim Ball is a trivial truth.
So? Trivial doesn’t mean False. It sure doesn’t mean Crazy. I think Global Warming from Anthropogenic CO2 will be trivial. That doesn’t mean I think the Greenhouse Effect is false. It does mean I think Climate Crisis hysteria is crazy. Actually explaining what you think helps others to understand your position.
The second statement is highly questionable on its time-scale as the actual rate of the decline in Earth’s magnetic field is difficult to discern, and more importantly, is just wrong as the Earth’s magnetic field would not disappear during a reversal.
And it seems I was wrong about some of the things I posted earlier about Pole Reversals (or at least the science has advanced since the last time I looked into it. I’m no self declared Expert in it like Brandon) It seems they now have proxies not just for polarity by field strength too. And these show that while the last true Pole Reversal did happen nearly three quarters of a Million years ago, there was a Magnetic Field ‘blip’ about 41,000 years ago where the Field decreased to 5% of it’s normal strength, flipped poles for about 250 years, flipped back, and then re stabilized. And the whole thing took around 440 years. So while the 120 year thing is probably still an example of extending a trend to the edge of the graph without actually knowing what might effect it, it at least now has some precedent.
And Brandon, if the Field does drop to one twentieth it’s strength, saying that claims it disappeared is ‘just wrong’ may be splitting hairs. It sure took a lot less then that for a reduction in the Ozone layer to make claims there’s a ‘hole’. But whatever.
The third statement is where things get crazy though, as it is just a wild fabrication based upon no actual evidence.
I actually mostly agree with you here. I’ve always found the evidence for linking EMF collapses with extinction events to be highly speculative. The problem is they aren’t TIM’S wild fabrications. They are based on numerous peer reviewed papers that are promoted by some of the same wild eyed alarmists that are also warning us about Climate Change, Ocean Acidification, Peak Oil, and a host of other civilization ending catastrophes that are just over the horizon. Good luck on convincing the believers that something is crazy because it’s based on nothing but wild conjecture and unproven models. I’ve been fighting that battle for years. :p
From what I’ve read if there’s any fallout from an EMF collapse then it will probably be from the effects on our Electrical Grid. And even there the reports I’ve seen run from ‘end of civilization’ to ‘it might effect some of our older infrastructure, in a few places, maybe’ Oh well, we’ll have decades to figure it out, and most of the things we’d do to protect ourselves we should be doing anyway to protect ourselves from the next Carrington Event, which happen a hell of a lot more often the EMF collapses, and with MUCH shorter notice.
Personally I think they threw the Mass Extinctions in there because there is a certain percentage of the population, a ‘green’ percentage let’s call it, that will start salivating like Pavlovs dog when they hear one of their political master’s catch phrases. It’s the same reason every college course from quantum physics to basket weaving now mentions Climate Change. (And no, I’m not linking to an example to prove that. Maybe because it’s Brandon level self evident. Maybe because I just pulled it out of my assertion)
Because I said Tim Ball is definitely a Dragon Slayer without pointing out he co-authored their seminal book, Because apparently he feels it was necessary for me to explain why it is unquestionable Tim Ball is a Dragon Slayer, rather than just stating what is common knowledge
You’re still going on about this? Fine, here’s another ‘scientific fact’ you can think is ‘crazy’ (and no, I’m not going to bother to look up a link to it ;p
Most humans, by the age of four, have internalized the concept that just because THEY know something, that doesn’t mean everyone else knows it as well.
Regardless of how ‘common knowledge’ you now claim Tim’s position among the Dragon Slayers is, it was on you to provide evidence of it when you first took up that argument. But instead of mentioning the book you claim you knew all about you said:
Tim Ball has flat-out said the greenhouse effect isn’t real on Watts Up With That
And then linked to an article were Tim didn’t actually say that, but said something else that you thought you could claim means the same thing. Something that, frankly, I’ve said myself despite that I clearly do believe in the Greenhouse Effect.
You didn’t start this whole crazy dispute about Tim’s status as a Dragon Slayer by stating it was common knowledge. You started by trying to prove it… badly.
I happen to be quite familiar with this topic due to my IT interests as there has been a lot of hype and scare promoted about things like this (and massive solar flares, etc.). I’ve had a copy of the paper the article you link to is about on my hard drive for over a year. Your belief I’m unaware of these things, when you even acknowledge was way wrong on one of the points, is absurd.
I wouldn’t be surprised if I happened to know more about the Earth’s magnetic field reversing than anyone else here, but that hardly matters, as anyone who knows the topic at all would know two of the three things Tim Ball said are “scientific facts†aren’t even true.
You know what else most people learn before they leave elementary school? That when someone repeatedly claims, after the fact, that they not only already knew about something but are probably the biggest expert in the room, and they just didn’t say anything because they think it was just so obvious or that they were just testing you, then that person is probably just spreading Bullshit. (Woot! Connection to the last thread topic. +5 points)
Oh, quick note. While I’m still skeptical of the ‘EMF Collapse causes Mass Extinctions theory, there are more reasons for it then just the increase in solar radiation getting in. A lot of migratory animal (like Canadian Geese) can sense the Earths Magnetic Field and use it to navigate during their long migrations. What happens to them when the Field greatly reduces in strength, or flips, is still unknown to the best of my knowledge. Obviously the ones that survived the Laschamp Event 41,000 year ago adapted, but I don’t know how many species didn’t survive it. Just a thought.
DMI
“angech pointed out this graph problem some time ago, over on Lucia’s.â€
Thanks for remembering , Steve
“Still, he will never understand that DMI don’t owe him or Anthony an explanation.â€
Do DMI owe an explanation to anyone?
Yes,
To me or Anthony, no.
Small fry.
Perhaps to Scientists, Arctic researchers, Climate scientists, Meteorologists and the Danish people.
Perhaps not.
“you are damned if you ever make a mistakeâ€
Usually reserved for big mistakes, like Enron.
“and now you are damned if you apologize.â€
Only if you are the Catholic church.
The Chart went “wrong†6 months ago.
It started to show higher amounts of ice, it must be wrong.
No comment at any stage from 6 months ago that there had been a change in the way of presenting graphs. The graph was not updated before Christmas for 2-3 weeks, people noticed.
The DMI said “The person [singular] responsible for the graphs was away for 2 weeks holiday.
Convenient?
Most other ice sets were late updating as well so just no one in the office.
15 % came on line, then 30%
Anthony links to it on his sea ice charts, hundreds of people notice it and talk. It runs for 1 week? and then disappears.
The reason “it’s an outdated graph and due to take downâ€
It had been running happily, ice getting slowly higher for 2 years.
People fuss and another reason pops up out of the blue.
Very good logically on the maths
Make a reason for that increase.
Volkswagon cleverness
†We are using a new mask giving greater ice area.â€
Problems
Why take 7 months to explain,
‘Why hide behind rubbish excuses originally
Why update 7 months ago an outdated graph unless you meant to keep on using it.
Why splice a new graph onto the end of an old graph 7 months ago.
Lance Armstrong [I like Lance by the way, absolutely crucified],
Volkswagen,
Climate science malfeasance.
A perfect trifecta.
Why bother with a conspiracy theory when you have real crooks .
There is too much absurdity to the comments I’ve been seeing the last couple days. I’m sick people. I don’t have the energy to properly scoff at all this. For instance, I was supposedly trying to prove Tim Ball is a Dragon Slayer in a comment where I wrote four paragraphs discussing him and his views then said:
(Oh, and for the record, Tim Ball is a dragon slayer. Yes, he denies the greenhouse effect.)
I had just written about how Tim Ball denies the greenhouse effect, then I added a parenthetical noting he’s a Dragon Slayer while repeating that he denies the greenhouse effect. And apparently I did all that because I was trying, badly, to… prove Tim Ball is a Dragon Slayer?
And because I was trying to prove Tim Ball was a Dragon Slayer, it was apparently very important I provide proof he is a Dragon Slayer because anyone who doubted my statement would obviously take my failure to do so as some critical failing, not a normal statement of common knowledge people could ask questions about if they wanted information/clarification.
And I’m apparently I was claiming I’m the biggest expert in the room, not on just one topic, but all topics… because I said I wouldn’t be surprised if I knew more about a subject than anyone else here. It couldn’t be that I don’t view myself as any expert at all, or simply that I suspect most people here haven’t taken any real time to look at the issue. I’m clearly posturing and posing, pretending I know things like Tim Ball co-authored the seminal Dragon Slayer book.
I might be mixing some topics here, but honestly, I stopped even trying to figure out anything this guy was saying after he said:
The first “scientific fact†I quoted from Tim Ball is a trivial truth.
So? Trivial doesn’t mean False. It sure doesn’t mean Crazy.
There were three supposed “scientific facts” in a list. I called the list crazy. I then said one of the items in the list is a trivial truth and didn’t discuss it any further while I went on to explain things wrong with the other two statements.
Now, one could view that as me acknowledging not every item on the list was crazy even as I called the list as a whole crazy. Or one could view me saying an item on the list is a “trivial truth” as some attempt on my part to claim that item is false and crazy.
I can’t even laugh as much as I want to about this stuff because every time I try I start coughing too much and nearly grey out. I think if I get labeled a “Sou defender” one more time I might die due to not being able to catch my breath!
So yeah, I just want to let people know I’ll be excusing myself of any further discussion of Sou and the stuff arising from it on this page. I just made a super, hilariously awesome discovery, and I don’t care to distract myself from it when more of this inanity.
Because seriously, this thing is too hilarious.
I had just written about how Tim Ball denies the greenhouse effect, then I added a parenthetical noting he’s a Dragon Slayer while repeating that he denies the greenhouse effect. And apparently I did all that because I was trying, badly, to… prove Tim Ball is a Dragon Slayer?
Well Gee, you called someone a Dragon Slayer (in parentheses). That should have been enough for me, since I’ve never seen a warmist call someone a Dragon Slayer before without them having written a book on it. It’s not like you had right before that just made up a quote that Tim never actually said about the greenhouse effect not being real, as you’ve done repeatedly in this thread, and then linked to the article that proved that wasn’t what he said. I don’t know how I could have ever doubted your word on such a topic.
Clearly when Brandon makes declarations like these we must all accept them as Gospel, regardless of whether any link he may, in his wisdom, choose to share with us actually supports or outright contradicts him. For Brandon is all wise and all knowing.
There were three supposed “scientific facts†in a list. I called the list crazy. I then said one of the items in the list is a trivial truth and didn’t discuss it any further while I went on to explain things wrong with the other two statements.
Alternatively, Brandon may simply be full of it, and blindly assume that anyone holding an opinion that differs from his is not just wrong, but crazy.
As I already explained above, the ‘crazy’ list:
1) true, but trivial. Not Crazy
2) probably true. Semantics over whether 1/20 counts as disappear. Not Crazy
3) probably not true, but an opinion apparently held by a sizable part of the Geomagnetic community. Are they all Crazy? I have no idea.
I think if I get labeled a “Sou defender†one more time I might die due to not being able to catch my breath!
Well, worry not! Since the Hotwhopper Article I originally brought up was mostly about calling Anthony and Tim anti-semitic Hitler Fans who don’t know climate changes (as I’ve mentioned repeatedly) and only briefly touched on belief in the Greenhouse Effect, I can in all honesty say that you have not in fact defended Sou. So breath easy.
Statistics prove global warming will stop now. From the GWPF.
Bugs,
There are many nutty claims made about global warming (eg 1+ meter sea level increases by 2100, atmospheric CO2 levels of >850 PPM by 2100, “back radiation violates the second law”, etc.), on both sides of the political divide. This is just one more. I particularly liked the part about the mathematical methods being unusually applied in economics (AKA the dismal science)…. talk about lowering credibility!
“I don’t have the energy to properly scoff at all this.”
Yet… 400 or so more words.
Andrew
Well, Ball usually struck me as reasonable but with opinion.
( Everyone on this issue is opinionated, because regardless of science, everyone is mindful of the back end – policy ).
.
But Brandon has done me a service because I didn’t realize his claims which do a disservice to science and rational decisions about CO2. As such, Ball needs to be called out. The radiative forcing from additional CO2 is quite calculable. The actual resulting retention of heat may be moderated somewhat by motion of the atmosphere, but that by no means contradicts testable processes of radiative transfer.
.
By making these ridiculous claims, Ball degrades the credibility of those who would point out very real reasons for inaction. Those include:
.
The limited degree of warming.
.
The lack of harm from observed warming.
.
The lack of a physical basis for climate change other than warming.
.
The secular tendency toward reduced CO2 emissions that occur without policy.
.
The secular tendency toward rapidly decelerating population growth – also without policy.
.
etc. etc.
.
Yes, Virginia, there is warming.
No, Virginia, it is not a problem.
“The radiative forcing from additional CO2 is quite calculable.”
That’s quite assertive, TE.
Andrew
“The radiative forcing from additional CO2 is quite calculable.â€
That’s quite assertive, TE.
.
The physical properties of CO2 are repeatably measured in a laboratory.
.
Those properties are applied in radiative transfer codes.
.
Applying those radiative transfer codes to the atmosphere as it exists implies less energy lost to space.
.
Arguing that CO2 doesn’t cause warming is about as off the mark as those who argue it’s a problem without demonstrating why.
“Arguing that CO2 doesn’t cause warming”
TE,
When climate science presents a graph that goes up (warmer) and down (cooler) repeatedly, and they all do, the C02 can’t be causing warming during the periods when the line goes down.
Andrew
When climate science presents a graph that goes up (warmer) and down (cooler) repeatedly, and they all do, the C02 can’t be causing warming during the periods when the line goes down.
.
Yes, there are fluctuations in the amount of energy in/out of the oceans, and certain circulations change earth albedo by changing average cloud amounts in ways that probably aren’t resolvable yet.
.
But that doesn’t change the radiative influence of increased carbon dioxide.
.
The only significant way earth balances incoming energy is by radiating it away in the infrared.
“But that doesn’t change the radiative influence of increased carbon dioxide”
Ah. You are changing your tune. Now it’s not necessarily warming, but influence. That’s an entirely different goalpost on a different football field than warming.
Trying to get people to be a little clearer in their positions.
“But that doesn’t change the radiative influence of increased carbon dioxideâ€
Ah. You are changing your tune. Now it’s not necessarily warming, but influence.
.
Hmmm – the influence is of warming.
.
But I diverge from the insane climate posse in this way.
Temperature is not a term in the equations of motion of the atmosphere. Warming is slow, small, and not a source of significant climate change, because circulation of the atmosphere doesn’t have anything to do with the global temperature of the atmosphere.
“the influence is of warming.”
OK. And when it’s not warming, it has no influence. It’s intermittently influential.
Andrew
CO2 is always doing the same thing. It is the anthropomorphic projections of the climate believers that change from ice age to Venus runaway….
hunter,
I’m guessing in the interests of scientific understanding, a C02 Influence graph is forthcoming. The temperature anomaly graph is entirely inadequate to visualizing what C02 does moving through time.
Unless its a flat line. That would be disappointing.
Andrew
Brandon,
I don’t care if you, or anyone else for that matter, take me seriously or not. In fact, I don’t care what you think about anything or anyone and try to not read your posts. If there were a way to block them, as there was back in the days of USENET, I would.
Andrew_KY:
“I don’t have the energy to properly scoff at all this.â€
Yet… 400 or so more words.
I know, incredible, right? Hundreds of words wasn’t even close to enough to describe the level of mockery people are deserving!
And DeWitt Payne, I suggest in the future you try harder. It might help you stop saying so many stupid things.
Brandon,
You end up arguing with everyone. That should tell you something. I doubt it will.
TE writes
The only significant way earth balances incoming energy is by radiating it away in the infrared.
Apart from changes in albedo, you mean?
TTTM,
It depends on the definition of incoming energy. If it’s energy that’s already absorbed, then TE is right. And you could say that albedo modifies the incoming energy at the top of the atmosphere rather than balancing it with outgoing energy. Lindzen’s Iris hypothesis was an attempt to link temperature to albedo in a negative feedback loop. There doesn’t seem to be much evidence that it’s correct, though.
If you’re paranoid, this should really freak you out:
The new mind control
The internet has spawned subtle forms of influence that can flip elections and manipulate everything we say, think and do
by Robert Epstein
I like how the author thinks that Silicon Valley is libertarian. How naive.
I like how the author thinks that Silicon Valley is libertarian. How naive.
I suppose it depends on were you’re coming from. richardscourtney claims the Democrats are Right Wing.
When you’re at the bottom of a well, even the ground is up.
Dewitt writes
Lindzen’s Iris hypothesis was an attempt to link temperature to albedo in a negative feedback loop.
I dont think Lindzen’s Iris hypothesis was about albedo, cirrus clouds impact on DLR, not reflected solar radiation.
Re: bugs (Comment #143393) February 26th, 2016 at 5:52 am
Bottom line; he used basic time series analysis to develop models that he could then use to make forecasts of future temperatures. Was there any physics, I hear you ask? The answer, as I’m sure you’ve guessed, is no.
@ Andrew_KY (Comment #143406)
My reference to “anthropomorphic” was very deliberate. http://www.merriam-webster.com/…/anthropomorphic
Merriam‑Webster
1 : described or thought of as having a human form or human attributes 2 : ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things
The only significant way earth balances incoming energy is by radiating it away in the infrared.
Apart from changes in albedo, you mean?
.
As noted above, I was referring to any amount absorbed, not changes in absorption.
.
However, in the seasonal cycle, albedo appears to decrease from winter to summer, so I’m not sure that there’s a case to be made for global warming increasing albedo.
.
I find that the case against alarmism is not that warming is unlikely, it is that the warming has been exaggerated in extent, and the result of that warming is not all ilk of undefined climate change ( climate depends on motion and motion depends on the gradient of temperature which will remain largely the same ), and that the impacts on humans and ecosystems are also small and perhaps of net benefit.
TE,
Your last paragraph is pretty much the expanded definition of the Lukewarmer position.
SteveF, it tells me a number of things. I have no idea what you might think it should tell me though. I don’t even know for sure if you have something specific in mind.
But I find almost everything in this world tells us some things, so yes, that does tell me something 😛
Dewitt notes “Your last paragraph is pretty much the expanded definition of the Lukewarmer position.”
Its certainly reflective of my position.
Its a pretty bleak outlook to assert a warmer climate is a worse climate IMO.
TTTM,
A warmer climate can have negative consequences…. for example warmer ocean surface temperatures can bleach, and even kill, corals. Certainly rising sea levels could cause problems in low lying coastal regions if the extreme increases (1 to 2 meters over <100 years) some of the more wild eyed have projected were to happen. (I think 16 inches by 2100 is a more plausible "high" rate, FWIW… hardly catastrophic.) But even acknowledging potential negatives, there are lots of potential positives as well, which are always ignored by the climate alarmed…. more productive farming, greening of semi-arid regions, greater biological productivity, warmer winter nights at mid to high latitudes, longer growing seasons, etc. If you put aside the really crazy stuff (we are all going to die when the ecosystems collapse!) the disagreement boils down to a philosophical difference of opinion on values, costs, risk, and benefits…. AKA politics.
Jim Hunt (Comment #143415)
“he used basic time series analysis to develop models that he could then use to make forecasts of future temperatures. Was there any physics, I hear you ask? The answer, as I’m sure you’ve guessed, is no.”
“models to make forecasts of future temperatures.”?
The answer must be yes.
Good to see you engaging here.
The results hurt your sensibilities?
Sorry.
The physics showed that there is no warming to see here.
So move along.
Next.
where is the ice on Novaya Zemlya?
There ought to be ice.especially at a true 15% concentration.
Not mentioning PIOMAS until it comes out!
“where is the ice on Novaya Zemlya?”
I’ve asked it for some years already from myself, some experts and on several different sites. I’ve not received any satisfactory answer. If the reason for ice melt in the arctic is GLOBAL warming then why has the loss of ice almost exclusively concentrated to one area – the Barents Sea west of Novaya Zemlya? In all other areas the loss is really insignificant. Year after year.
If you put aside the really crazy stuff (we are all going to die when the ecosystems collapse!) the disagreement boils down to a philosophical difference of opinion on values, costs, risk, and benefits…. AKA politics.
I don’t think one can underestimate the importance of politics.
From one of Judith’s recent posts is a gem of a quote from Gavin with regards the hiatus – a threat to scientists dedicated to “the cause”.
Gavin Schmidt: Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, is tired of the entire discussion, which he says comes down to definitions and academic bickering. There is no evidence for a change in the long-term warming trend, he says, and there are always a host of reasons why a short-term trend might diverge — and why the climate models might not capture that divergence. “A little bit of turf-protecting and self-promotion I think is the most parsimonious explanation,†Schmidt says. “Not that there’s anything wrong with that.â€
Gavin now has a budget and real people he’s responsible for. No longer can he simply let the science fall where it may. He is truly lost.
Sven and angech,
IMO, what we are seeing is the result of a northern shift in the North Atlantic Gyre. The same thing happened in the early twentieth century with water temperature increasing near Svalbard enough that it was no longer ice bound for most of the year. Coal mining on Svalbard became possible. That went away in the 1940’s and started again in the late 1970’s.
Interestingly enough, this cycle corresponds closely to the AMO Index. If that is indeed cyclical, we should see a shift back southward in the next ten years or so and something of a recovery in sea ice extent in the Barents Sea west of Novaya Zemlya. We should also see a reduction of ice being flushed through the Fram Strait during the summer.
My ocean current hypothesis is supported by the fact that ice on the eastern side of Svalbard persists longer than the ice to the North, West and South.
Conspiracy theories strike at Eli’s
Kevin O’Neill said..
“Yes, all the other sea ice extent graphs are wrong. Only the DMI 30% is correct.”
Well you said it Kevin.
Note I did not say this. Anywhere, anytime, and certainly not in this blog stream.
So you chose to make up, fabricate an idea.
Then ascribe it to another person, in this case me.
Then make up a conspiracy theory and ascribe it to me.
Great style, appreciated.
“Now, you can either believe in a vast conspiracy”- No I don’t.
In your conspiracy thought stream you say.
“This requires that all the satellite operators be in on it. All the other sea ice extent data compilers be in on it. All the people who collect in situ observations be in on it. The people who do ice area and ice volume be in on it.”
In on what?
Yes, all the other sea ice extent graphs are consistent.
Europe’s National Meteorological Services and, by extension, the International Users and Science Community, share data from the 30 different satellites. 10 American including NOOA [5], 6 European,5 chines, 2 Russian, 2 Japanese etc. Everyone likes cooperating.
Galileo 7 & 8 launched on 27 March from Europe’s Spaceport in French Guiana on top of a Soyuz rocket.
The CDOP-2 consortium is constituted of Meteo-France, as host institute, and of the following co-operating institutes : MET Norway (Norway), DMI ( Denmark), Ifremer ( France), KNMI ( Netherlands).
The Ocean and Sea Ice Satellite Application Facility (OSI SAF) supplies the 15% product to DMI.
DMI do not even touch it other than to put their name on it.
All I said was that the 30% product which uses a different Algorithm, which was being actively updated, and had nothing wrong with it, unless you believe a major stuff up to split a new data graph on an old data graph was done, was withdrawn when it did not match. the other, ubiquitous 15% graph.
This was a nucifragous summary of your pithy argument, Kevin
DeWitt, I am pleased to see a theory emerge from you. Very radical of you. Thanks. 🙂 Here is one even more radical, but interesting I think.
.
Scafetta and others hypothesize EMF could affect ocean current patterns that could, in turn, affect GMST. The ocean is an electrolyte after all, a non-homogeneous one since temperature is a direct factor for conductivity. Various depths thus have varying conductivity.
The work of Nicola Scafetta (2014) I know is fringe, but it makes some sense. The 11-12-year solar cycle has a better chance of becoming synchronized with Jupiter and Saturn’s orbital period and magnetic fields than some other hypotheses, like pregnant women getting in sink with tidal forces and giving birth on full moons, for example.
.
The AMO thought by some to be charting a 60-year cycle with 20-year steps. It just so happens, as Scafetta points out, that an alignment of Jupiter and Saturn happens about every 20 years, and processes 120 degrees every Great Conjunction, arriving back to complete the 360 degree celestial cycle every 60 years.
Scafetta 2014:
The existence of climatic oscillations at about 10, 20, 60 and 1000 yr (and others) have been confirmed by numerous modern studies analyzing various instrumental and proxy climatic records such as the global surface temperature, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), ice core records, tree ring records, sea level records, fishery records, etc. (e.g.: Bond et al., 2001; Chylek et al., 2011; Klyashtorin et al., 2009; Knudsen, 2011; Jevrejeva et al., 2008; Mörner, 1989; Scafetta, 2012a, 2013c; Wyatt and Curry, 2013). Indeed, numerous authors have also noted a correlation at multiple scales between climate oscillations and planetary functions, for example those related to the dynamics of the Sun relative to the barycenter of the solar system (e.g.: Charvátová, 1997; harvátová and Hejda, 2013; Fairbridge and Shirley, 1987; Jakubcová and Pick, 1986; Landscheidt, 1989; Scafetta, 2010, 2012b; Solheim, 2013a).
.
The resonance of reinforced vibrations from the trot of a cat can bring down a suspension bridge (in theory) if the perfectly timed.
.
Does anyone know if the Earth’s magnetic field EMF proxies have been compared to ice core proxies for paleo GMST or CO2? Or, is this just dragon slaying?
The resonance of reinforced vibrations from the trot of a cat can bring down a suspension bridge (in theory) if the perfectly timed.
Soldiers are not supposed to march in step across a bridge. Nikola Tesla had the same idea and designed an oscillator with a small moving mass whose oscillation frequency could be controlled. The Mythbusters tried it out. Needless to say, they didn’t bring down a bridge. The bridge would have to have near infinite Q at the critical frequency for a tiny input to build to catastrophic levels. Not happening. There are too many opportunities for dissipation.
Galloping Gertie, the 1940 Tacoma Narrows bridge, collapsed because of wind induced movement, not the vibration of crossing motorists or a Tesla Earthquake Machine.
I strongly mistrust any theories of climate involving connection to planetary position.
I posted this message at Climate Etc and I thought it might be of some interest to a few posting here.
I have been communicating my criticisms of the Karl15 with the authors of that paper and an upcoming one that has been submitted on the subject of whether the New Karl global temperature series shows evidence of a warming slowdown. If anyone is interested I have a link below to a Word document that I have recently sent to the Karl15 authors. It deals with using SSA and EMD to measure trends and CIs for trends, a difference series of the New and Old global temperature series and the important comparison of the recent slowdown with CMIP5 climate models.
kenneth,
So, do you think the Karl et al revision to sea surface temperatures
justified/defensible? Or do you think the Karl et al revision is likely mistaken?
SteveF
the question is which is closer to the truth. Old NOAA or new NOAA.
Hands down new NOAA.
There is more interesting stuff in the other parts of the record..
Steve Mosher,
Ya well, I think you made that pretty clear already. I was hoping Kenneth would provide his answer. In the grand scheme of the universe, the Karl et al adjustment is maybe not so important; the stupid GCM’s still diverge from reality…. even Karl’s reality. I’d still like to hear from Kenneth.
DeWitt,
“I strongly mistrust any theories of climate involving connection to planetary position.”
100% agreed. There are lots of highly implausible influences on climate which are all more plausible than planetary positions… the claims are nothing but data in search of a correlation…. closer to astrology than science.
Massaged and repackaged data with arrogantly refused disclosures that just happens to disappear the hiatus is very likely not an improvement except for marketing purposes.
And now apparently also flies in the face of other climate science opinion leaders.
My bet is old NOAA was just fine, except for the resulting pause.
And the new NOAA is worthless, except for its conclusion.
The sleeping elephant in the room is that if there was a real climate calamity, it would not be so easily missed, nor would it require such heroic effort to find.
More mature commenting at warmist sites [other than Sou] seems to be happening.
Still the odd bit of name calling bat least counter arguments are getting some air, if no attention. TE trying his best.
I prefer to put the facts straight where I see misrepresentation but having been taken to task here as well some facts are obviously not as straight as others.
“The work of Nicola Scafetta (2014) I know is fringe”, or cringe.
I do not get out enough,. Will have a look at it Ron.
A bit like Dragon slayers, have not seen that book either.
DeWitt puts up sensible stuff, we just disagree at times.
Carrick can be good but we just disagree a lot.
“he stupid GCM’s still diverge from reality…. even Karl’s reality. I’d still like to hear from Kenneth.”
1. You have to mask the data properly
2. You have to compare apples and apples.. That means SST and SAT
I havent seen a skeptic yet who can do it right.
When you do that GCM look pretty dang good, given the complexity
if you update forcings, they look even better.
That said, they are still high.
“That said, they are still high.”
Climate Science = where you keep doing what’s obviously wrong over and over.
Andrew
SteveF, I have had numerous email exchanges with the Karl`15 authors concerning the optimum time periods to compare trends in detecting a warming slowdown, using better trend estimating methods like SSA and EMD in place of linear regression, the importance of making the comparison with the CMIP5 model runs and finally explaining in detail the difference series between the Old and New Karl temperature series. I think my suggestion about comparison with the CMIP5 models might be on firmer ground with the Karl authors after the Nature publication: “Making sense of the early 2000’s warming slowdown”.
The Karl 15 authors have not given me any explanation(s) of the breakpoints I have noted in the difference series between the Old and New Karl temperature series in an early email to them. That very linear trend in the differences series over the last 2 decades pretty much demands a detailed discussion of the changes that led to that trend as it is that trend difference that leads to the conclusions of the Karl 15 paper. I have not had an answer to my most recent email in which the linked email I posted here was also linked. I like the idea of groups continuing to look for different approaches to estimating the instrumental temperature. The fact that these attempts so often result in significant changes tells me that the instrumental record and the confidence intervals applied to it are still very much a work in progress.
It might also be of interest to some of you to see the variation in the New versus Old Karl global temperature series for various time periods for the sampling and measurement error (not the trend error) using linear regression and simulations per Karl 15:
2000-2014: New=0.064 Old=0.048 ; 1998-2014: New=0.054 Old=0.039; 1998-2012: New=0.066 Old=0.046
Results are in degrees C per decade.
The plus/minus measurement and error trend confidence limits represented by the numbers above are for the 90% range as determined in Karl 15. It can be seen that the variability in the New Karl global temperature series is greater than that of the Old series and something not discussed, to my recollection, in Karl 15.
While I await answers to my most recent email from the Karl authors perhaps Steve Mosher could attempt to provide some insights on these issues and let us know why he is so confident that New Karl is better than Old Karl.
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #143441)
Mosher repeatedly states that realists should do their own work if they are unhappy with warmist work. (My response to that is that as a taxpayer, I pay for the work and am entitled to professional, transparent work) You try to do it and get no cooperation from the warmists. Maybe Mosher will have a suggestion for you.
According to the editorial, the Corps is trying to strong-arm Cleveland & Ohio into accepting PCBs into Lake Erie. I suspect that it is not quite as simple as set forth in the Editorial, but it could be. My parents owned land in Northern Collier County Florida and had problems with the Corps also.
JD
The superiority of new Karl… Forthcoming..
I like the idea of groups continuing to look for different approaches to estimating the instrumental temperature. The fact that these attempts so often result in significant changes tells me that the instrumental record and the confidence intervals applied to it are still very much a work in progress.”
###$#$#
Are you talking about the satellite record?
“New Karl is better than Old Karl”
To bad no one thought Old Karl was deficient when Old Karl was Current Karl.
Andrew
“Are you talking about the satellite record?”
I am talking about all the instrumental temperature data sets. It has only been recently that estimating better (and larger) confidence limits has been applied to the surface and satellite temperature records. I think this is an evolving process and has not been yet been settled. I would think when the Venema group gets some results from their benchmarking study- if done properly – we will obtain better estimates of the confidence intervals and perhaps even some confidence intervals that could arise from some non climate effects that are now not known exactly but could hypothetically affect the adjustment algorithms.
The confidence intervals for estimating recent period trends from the New Karl sampling and measurement error is not exactly small peanuts.
JD Ohio (Comment #143442)
I have actually obtain a number of good responses from the Karl group. We have several disagreements at this point and I have reiterated my request about the difference series between New and Old Karl in a recent reply to Karl. He has replied to my email with the Word attachment I posted here.
My ongoing complaint with the work of a number of climate scientists and their published papers is that while they do not usually report incorrect findings given their methods, it is the methods I have issues with and those issues are not addressed in their papers. More sensitivity testing by these authors would often point to these issues and make, in some cases, their pronouncements less certain.
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #143448)
Although the situation is not ideal, it does sound like progress is being made, which is a good thing.
JD
JD,
I am a Plain Dealer subscriber and their editorial board is reliably green, with little reflection on the merits of the issue. That doesn’t make them wrong but they certainly need to come with data if they are to be trusted. How much estimated PCB’s are there? How much dilution will they get in the lake? What are the other options?
This issue is similar to the dredging of the Hudson River. Where do you put PCB’s once dredged? PCB’s are heavier than water and will soon be buried in the silt of the lake. Likely they are better there than in a landfill with access to the water table (just like the Hudson).
“No Slowdown” at Tamino’s.
Or the pause that does not exist won’t go away.
What he does not understand is that the more he denies the pause exists, the more people notice that there is a pause/has been a pause out there somewhere.
Better still it is Michael Mann co authoring the latest acknowledgment of a pause.
This should tie in a bit to Ken’s comments to Karl et al
Michael E. Mann Retweeted
Climate Central â€@ClimateCentral Feb 24
“We shouldn’t sweep the early 2000s warming slowdown under the rug” – @MichaelEMann http://buff.ly/1SUMESU
On Wednesday, a group of prominent scientists published a commentary faulting colleagues who have published papers downplaying or dismissing the significance of a 13-year slowdown in warming rates at the planet’s surface.
“We shouldn’t sweep the early 2000s warming slowdown under the rug,†said Penn State meteorology professor Michael Mann, one of 11 authors of the commentary published in Nature Climate Change.
Not surprisingly Tamino has demolished Mann’s work but his followers twist themselves into pretzels trying to accommodate both views at the same time.
Interestingly the link to M Mann’s tweet put up by Hank Roberts and clickable on is still there but no longer directs to Mann’s twitter feed as of 5 minutes ago.
Tamino has delinked it!
Comparing the trends of the global Climate Model temperature series and those of the observed temperature series and the determining the need for adjustment of the model series for reasonable comparison of apples to apples would depend on what observed set is being compared and how the trend data is being handled.
If there are global areas like in HadCRUT 4 where the series does not use data or attempt to extrapolate for missing data then a masking of that area for the model would be required. I do not believe that is the case with the New Karl global temperature series.
If, as the recent Cowtan coauthored paper, “Robust comparison of climate models with observations using blended land air and ocean sea surface temperatures” by Kevin Cowtan, Zeke Hausfather, Ed Hawkins, Peter Jacobs, Michael E. Mann, Sonya K. Miller, Byron A. Steinman, Martin B. Stolpe, Robert G. Way indicates, the CMIP5 data used were air temperature above land and oceans and the observed is air above the land and at the ocean surface and in the ocean for ocean, and further, if the ocean temperature lagged the air temperature in warming, then an adjustment would be required to use ocean surface in the ocean temperatures for the models, or tos as the term is used in CMIP5. The effect here would be in comparing long term trends. On the other hand, if one were comparing the trends in short recent slowdown periods to the longer previous periods where the temperatures were increasing at a faster rate, determining the ocean warming effect on those differences is bit more complicated. One would expect the faster warming periods to show an increased trend in the period, for example of 1976-1999, for the climate models over the observed and then in the latter slower warming period of 2000-2014, the difference in trends due to ocean warming effects while still favoring the climate models should be less. I would think that the ocean warming effect would thus have little effect when looking at a warming slowdown in that manner and might even favor seeing it in the climate models over the observed. The actual effects as observed in the models will be a relatively easy task to determine and I plan to have a look.
Interesting Table S1 results from the Cowtan paper SI linked here http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/2015GL064888/asset/supinfo/grl53276-sup-0001-blendsi.pdf?v=1&s=eecfdd6473f5ca9f894c9821777a41a21a5c59b0. Note that the difference in trends in comparison of 1976-2014 to 2000-2014 remains very much the same for the models whether the air temperatures or blended temperatures (using the sea surface temperature) are used. Which was the point I made above. On the other hand, the observed data sets have very different trends for these same periods and much in line with what I found with the New Karl global temperature series. I prefer to use the periods 1976-1999 in comparison with 2000-2014 as that makes more sense when looking for a warming slowdown, but the difference remains albeit at a lesser degree when the comparison is 1976-2014 to 2000-2014.
Also there is an interesting reference in the Cowtan paper to Karl 2015 from the following link:
“The new dataset of Karl et al. [2015] incorporates adjustments to SSTs to match nighttime marine air temperatures [Huang et al., 2015] and so may be more comparable to model air temperatures. The difference between air and sea surface temperature trends diagnosed here provides support for an increase in temperature trends when using marine air temperatures, as reported in Karl et al. [2015].”
The implication of that comment would be that the New Karl global temperature series as described in Karl 2015 and understood in the Cowtan paper is that New Karl over Old Karl changed trends by, in effect, changing from SST to SAT. I am not sure that the implication is evident from looking at the New and Old Karl difference series.
Anyway I believe the paper and evidence from the Cowtan paper does not change my conclusions concerning the New Karl temperature series showing a statistically significant warming slowdown and a slowdown that is a rare and noise induced occurrence in the CMIP5 climate model runs.
two things , dewitt payne , i would add initial increased winter export to your hypothesis . secondly, many thanks to kenneth fritsch for the time and effort you put into what you do and how you explain it on this blog.
🙂 (I couldn’t just leave a smiley face. “No all caps please”…)
Someone should make a flowchart for detecting Anthropogenic Climate Signals.
Maybe Mosher has one made already.
Andrew
What’s amazing to me is social scientists with zero experience in collaborative projects seem think they have a better understanding of how science works that actual practitioners of science.
I think the take-home here is stupid people own the Earth.
Carrick,
The weird thing is that ‘social scientists’ imagine that their endless leftist politico-rubbish is in some way related to science….. science and social science are as related as hell and heaven. I will leave to you which is which.
Great flowchart- you sum up the circular transparently corrupt practice quite well. That Lew, Oreskes & crew are considered credible for anything except negative examples of academic ethics and practice is symptomatic of deeper underlying problems.
SteveF (Comment #143234)
Lew is an imbecile, and even addressing the nonsense in his ridiculous ‘papers’ is just a waste of time. Nothing but dark humor in his paranoid raging; better to just laugh and move on.”
–
Not an imbecile, He is on a good salary.
Is any publicity “good” publicity for him?
He seems to be on a crusader bent like Don Quixote or McCarthy, filled with good intentions but becoming exactly what he hates and rails about.
In other words he fits the description of a conspiratorial paranoid fixated ideologue.
The funniest part is the contortions more rational warmers have to go through to support his views.
ATTP almost has to give up on transparency on science.
Eli supports his ludicrous surveys where he otherwise demands appropriate standards.
Mind you Eli does not have to move far to do this, not as a less rational warmer but as a very committed crusader himself.
Others who support him completely are blind to the mockery and damage he does to his and their cause.
The more rubbish Lew puts out the more obvious to everyone his nonsense and the more knots his supporters get into.
Heck I would pay to have him put out 4 papers a year, He is one of the best weapons on the skeptic side, evah.
–
The other laugh is the number of times Steve McIntyre is trotted out by the warmists as an excuse to not give data.
Not just with Mann but in the current Lewindowsky kerfuffle.
He is nicknamed the auditor, and attacked nonstop even though he has had nothing to do with Lewindowsky as far as I can recall.
This may be because he only investigates scientific papers.
Or because he is a gentleman.
And there we have it, ladies and gentlemen, a new Global SIA minimum record at 14.365 million km2. 🙂
But no PIOMAS out for 9 days.
What are they hiding?
Global SIA has been setting record lows since February 1. It’s now six days in a row. And it’s not by just a little. The February 6 number was over 200,000 km³ below the previous record low in 2007.
It’s a new year. As I remember, they’re always late for the January volume data. I haven’t seen the AMO Index updated yet either. I expect it didn’t drop like last year.
angech,
PIOMAS just came out for January, earlier than I expected. You would have lost your bet. Volume is increasing, as it always does this time of year, but not very fast. The volume anomaly is trending down, not up. It’s still fourth from the bottom, but closing on third.
DeWitt I cannot find my bet but I am sure you are right. I was hoping PIOMAS would go up a lot.
Neven’s view
“Angech, here is the link to the old DMI 30% graph, but you don’t want to use it because there is clearly something seriously wrong with it, just look at those black trend lines (which is why DMI replaced it, and removed the link, just like they told me a month ago after I asked them about it). I wouldn’t bet too strongly on PIOMAS either, but who knows.”
DMI 30%, now available at Anthony’s sea ice graphs, but no longer at Neven’s has something seriously wrong with it.
It uses a different algorithm to all the 15% products.
The current 15% charts all match each other and seem to miss the build up of ice off Novaya Zemlya currently occurring.
DMI 30% seems to correlate more closely with PIOMAS and Maisie.\
About MASIE produced by NIC (from NSIDC)
The NSIDC Sea Ice Index ice extent is widely used, but the edge position can be off by 10s or in some cases 100s of kilometers. NIC produces a better ice edge product, but it does not reach the same audience as the Sea Ice Index.
Note: Presently, NSIDC Sea Ice Index is showing ~700,000 km2 less ice extent than MASIE.
That’s a lot?
angech,
I compare JAXA and MASIE using a linear transform of the MASIE data. Usually, they’re pretty close. At the moment MASIE adjusted is about 400,000km³ ahead of JAXA, which is, indeed, a lot. Interestingly, the MASIE anomaly time series from the beginning of the data in 1/1/2006 to now shows a significant positive trend. And the anomaly is currently well above zero, close to the top of the band for the date.
I remember you saying something about a bet on PIOMAS, but I couldn’t find it either.
SteveF,
to paraphrase a quote generally used for “climate” and “scientist”:
“putting ‘social’ in front of ‘scientist’ has much the same qualifying effect as ‘witch’ in front of ‘doctor'”
angech (Comment #142370)
“First prediction for 2016. PIOMAS to jump this last month and in the next month.”:
No jump.
Zeke has put a post up on CE.
Admits “fixes to errors in temperature data have effectively doubled the amount of U.S. warming over the past century compared to the raw temperature records.”
raw data being
“The raw database is routinely reconstructed using the latest version of GHCN-Daily, usually each day.
This is not raw data.
@ angech (Comment #143253),
Zeke has apparently desensitized himself to the point of not being able to reflect at all on what he believes. If what he says is accurate, he has bought completely into a circular process that has nothing to do with finding objective knowledge….sort of like what lucia has outlined regarding Lewandowsky.
Basically Lew could do a paper and change the names from Skeptics to Climate believers and it would fit better.
The notions behind it would still be rubbish and as demeaning to those who believe as it is to those who are skeptical.
Which raises a flow chart and behavior problem.
Obviously we cannot see our own flaws of which we presumably have many.
But we could listen to those who point them out and try to obtain some understanding.
I try to be scientific.
I understand that increasing CO2 of itself should raise temperatures in a model planet atmosphere where it is the only GHG [and by extension should raise it in a GHG mixture if there are no other effects].
I understand that if CO2 caused a temperature rise this would have good and bad effects on the world and the climate.
But I also see that these effects which should be obvious and related are not happening.
I see that only the bad things that could happen with both CO2 and temperature rise are emphasized.
The paper that should be written would focus on how mindsets develop which preclude logical thought and introduce arguments based on selectivity.
Both sides guilty in this discussion.
How can good women and men lose sight of their training in science?
It is like they put up Maxwell Smart’s cone of silence and ignore all incoming contrarian evidence.
Z uses confirmation bias to confirm his findings and remains blissfully or deliberately unaware of it.
He happily calls modified data raw data and seems to believe that it is OK to call the modified data raw data.
He admits that the system deliberately lowers temperatures 100 years ago in the USA by over a degree and does not understand that thermometers, no matter how much error the older ones had were never all a full degree out because the readings were taken a hundred years ago and the same thermometers are only 0.5 degrees out when taken 50 years ago.
In fact if you used them today they would match very closely with all the electric sensors now used.
Not perfectly but certainly within a tenth of a degree.
Other good scientists who comment here are supportive of his views.
Yet give them a topic outside of this special interest and they would be as skeptical or more so than the rest of us.
Because they are good scientists.
When arguments get bent into pretzels, when every genuine query is deflected into circular arguments and everyone else can see the contortions and suffers the agony, why don’t they get it?
We can all agree the Arctic has been melting and the Antarctic was freezing up.
No.
We can all see that there has been a temperature rise and then a pause.
No.
We can all see that Climate is incredibly complex and then say that the science of a chaotic system is settled.
No.
We can all see that these contradictions exist.
Yes.
A blast from the past
Did not know it was going to be so funny and percipient 2 years on.
Steven Mosher (Comment #130013)
June 6th, 2014 at 11:36 am
“I see Tom Karl leaning over someone’s desk two or three times per month saying “What happens if we change this X? Oh, well that’s no good. Let’s change that Y. Oh darn, that’s no good either. Well, we have to drop in that new list of stations that Tom Pederson came up with.â€
This is the kind of conspiratorial ideation that skeptics need to avoid to be taken seriously.”
Not a conspiracy at all then.
hunter,
Reminds one of Captain Ahab pursuing Moby Dick.
Only in this case it’s the ever-elusive correct squiggly line that must be perpetually adjusted and presented over and over until… until… victory is won or revenge is had or something.
Andrew
angech,
The AMO Index for January is out. As I speculated somewhere above, it didn’t drop. It was up slightly from December. Hence the record low Arctic sea ice area and extent, if you don’t look at MASIE. But even MASIE has been below its trend line.
angech, you asked:
“How can good women and men lose sight of their training in science?”
In reference to Lewandowsky & gang- big assumption in that question, my friend.
Thanks Hunter
From “The Peer Reviewers’ Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review
Richard D. Morey, Christopher D. Chambers, Peter J. Etchells, Christine R. Harris, Rink Hoekstra, Daniël Lakens, Stephan Lewandowsky,et al”
The Royal Society Science Policy Centre [3] notes that in some cases, publicly releasing data can be ethically problematic. [It may make] the cases possibly identifiable. Research participants who consented to data release among qualified researchers may not consent to public data release. For some specialized research, secure data repositories accessible only by vetted researchers may be a better option than fully open data. Authors and reviewers should weigh the legal and ethical consequences of releasing data in the context of their research.”
Stephan signs his name to this and yet publishes papers identifying and criticizing research participants, many of whom were not even informed that they were being researched.
Has he no shame?
Silly question.
The one thing we can be sure of is that no-one will turn up on this thread to defend Lew.
The Grimes Conspiracy Theory paper (which thanks Lewandowsky for “valuable input on conspiratorial thinking”) still hasn’t had a corrigendum issued even though everyone agrees the methods were hopelessly flawed. Personally I think the paper should be withdrawn, but the lack of even a corrigendum shows that PLoS just isn’t taking this seriously.
“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
From Sou Wednesday, February 3, 2016
“Judith Curry attacks open data advocates and encourages people who try to suppress science
–
No-one will be surprised to learn that Judith Curry supports vicious attacks on scientists who publish on controversial topics . She gave up science for blogging her science denial a few years ago. Now she’s turned her attack onto two people who have been strong advocates for open science, Professor Stephan Lewandowsky and Professor Dorothy Bishop.
–
Openness is one of the central values of science.
–
Richard S J Tol February 3, 2016 at 5:19 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Richard S J Tol February 3, 2016 at 5:25 AM
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sou February 3, 2016 at 4:42 PM
“A few people tweeted they want to know what Richard Tol said. It’s not interesting. He just made up another one of his silly little lies. It’s one of his trademarks.”
–
So much for openness.
–
I wonder if Richard would post his replies here?
It is woeful that someone can write an article on openness and then suppress replies
Sou. Science?
jferguson,
The relationship Sou:science is like which of the following?
.
a) witchdoctor:medicine
b) hell:heaven
c) imbecile:genius
d) communist:libertarian
e) all of the above
e
Nick seems to admire Sou and her tactics.
I did crack up over this “Now she’s turned her attack onto two people who have been strong advocates for open science, Professor Stephan Lewandowsky and Professor Dorothy Bishop.”
Biggest laugh I’ve had in days.
Carrick:
Baffling. Her style is certainly not his.
Carrick,
.
No surprise there; seems to me Nick cares mostly about the (progressive/leftist) public policy consequences of main stream climate science (and he is certainly not alone in that!), which is exactly what Sou is focused on. Two birds of a feather, as they say.
The comment by a certain Nick on the post referenced by angech don’t sound to me like Nick Stokes at all. What is obvious though are the biases of the usual here.
Sou is stark raving crazy if she thinks Lew & crew are for open science. However in her case this latest bit of cognitive dissonance is actually a milestone on a journey she began long ago, and not a frontier that she has suddenly crossed.
OT: Supreme Count Justice Scalia has passed away, apparently natural causes. Just a heads up.
RB. I’m not actually picking on Nick just stating facts. Nick seems to frequent her website and on occasion has posted follow up to her posts on his blog.
I don’t think it’s a question of bias to note her lack of ability and training in physical sciences or to notice some of totally insane things that come out of her mouth.
SteveF my take is pretty close to yours–they have a common political cause.
Carrick,
Much the same could be said of McIntyre and Anthony Watts, for example, despite Watts’ ‘lack of ability and training in physical sciences’. From past statements, they don’t seem to share political leanings and a lot of insane things come out of Watts. But for your (highly likely) misreading the “nick’ on that post though, I don’t think you would have used this occasion to comment on his visiting Sou’s site. Whether Nick’s posts show admiration for Sou’s tactics is not apparent to me, but I don’t plan to waste any more time than I did just now trying to look for such evidence on his website.
RB,
As usual, you go a step too far. You should have left McIntyre out of that sentence. Guilt by association much?
DeWitt,
While I was trying to say that McIntyre linking to Watts’ posts is not an indicator of McIntyre’s political leanings, I understand your urge to stick up for your team.
RB:
Watts is a meteorologist. He does physical science related work. Sou is yet another inept social scientist delving into the physical sciences. I don’t see a parallel.
But I see you’re straining to generate an equivalence with McIntyre and Watts. I know of no similar examples where McIntyre has posted followups of Watts tripe on his own blog.
I’m afraid that’s a fail at the mind reading exercise on your part. I didn’t actually read that post (I just quoted angech’s quote from this blog) so I don’t know which comments you’re referring to.
Once again… I told you I was referring to Nick’s posts on his own blog. Hopefully you’ll be able to make the obvious interpretation from the obvious explanation and not get distracted by irrelevancies again. This isn’t a hard exercise.
Nick has posted generally positive, approving followups to Sou on his own blog. I think the proof is in the pudding.
Since that’s what you’re clearly doing here, I certainly believe you can empathize on that.
Just gonna drop this link right here.
Who killed Justice Scalia? Anthony Watts sets some rules for crazy conspiracy theories at WUWT
“Crazy conspiracy theories”
You can’t see the face I’m making right now but it’s a “how predictable” face.
And also an expression of the most extreme incredulity.
It’s pretty amusing to see a site that endorses conspiracy theories reporting on ones from another blog, that are appear in the blog comments, and are not endorsed by the blog owner.
I’m still waiting for my check from the Koch brothers.
DeWitt Payne:
You may want to get call the hotline number you were given when you joined as a secret member of the fossil fuel conspiracy then.
They may need your correct street address.
DeWitt,
“I’m still waiting for my check from the Koch brothers.”
.
Me too. I can’t be bought though…. at least not for a low price. I’m looking for six figures at minimum.
Carrick,
I think I put the number in my ‘Charter Member: The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy’ coffee mug. I’ll check.
McIntyre site points out problem with paper [Gavin’s in this case by Nicholas Lewis].
Gavin changes paper to reflect problem.
Uses same line as previous people,
We found a few errors by ourselves and fixed them.
–
“I should be clear that we are not claiming infallibility and with ever-closer readings of the paper we have found a few errors and typos ourselves which we will have corrected in the final printed version of the paper. For instance – The F2xCO2 value”
–
No acknowledgment.
Meanwhile McIntyre/Lewis is subject to derogatory comments at other sites where people had swallowed the original paper hook, line and sinker.
A flow diagram would be good here as well.
Poorly reviewed paper, biases ignored, critical [truthful] outside review, Change paper, ignore input.
Other criticisms ignored but relevant , change paper.
At least it was put out online before being fully published.
So retraction not needed.
Simple Climate Model
1. AGW = ‘True’.
2. Call Squiggly Line Drawing procedure.
3. If bad output then call Squiggly Line Adjustment procedure.
4. Goto 1
Andrew
Ta, Andrew.
My mates are going for a bike ride from Shepparton to Bermagui 650 K but I will only do 3 days [450K].
Going around the base of Australia’s tallest mountain, into Deliverance territory.
Wish I was younger and fitter.
Perverse that doing the right thing, getting fitter, carries such risks.
Well that’s a funny coincidence. I hadn’t checked this site in a while, but today I had just managed to recover my RSS subscription list load it onto my new computer. When I did, I saw the above comments about Sou and Nick’s approval of her. What makes this a funny coincidence is I just a few hours before that, I had written my first blog post in a little bit, and it just so happened to be about Sou and her approach blogging.
Specifically, I highlight how Sou constantly engages in unlawful activity on her site to commit theft, and global warming advocates seem to have no problem with that.
http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/02/global-warming-advocates-support-theft/
Brandon,
Strictly speaking, copyright infringement isn’t theft in the legal sense. But what Sou is doing is clearly illegal (read, for example, the boilerplate at the bottom of this page) and she is advising others to break the law as well, which, IANAL, might be considered criminal conspiracy.
Brandon, the twitters you found that link to Sou’s network does directly speak to the approval and/or endorsement of the wing-nut Sou by many so-called establishment scientists, including Gavin Schmidt.
You’re right about her depriving others of their income while still profiting from it herself. Realistically, without WattsUpWithThat, her site wouldn’t even exist.
Carrick (Comment #143291)-The term you want is “moonbat” I believe
Carrick,
She certainly wouldn’t have anything to blog about without Watts up with that!
Sou certainly practices constant copyright violation. But there’s really very little one can do. I know I wouldn’t file a case in New Zealand, and I don’t think there’d be much point in filing one in the US (if that’s possible.) If it is possible (and I don’t know the ins and outs of lodging a suit against a plaintiff in New Zealand) and you won, I don’t think one could easily collect. Collecting might involve filing another suit in New Zealand.
Plus, unless you regularly register copyright, the financial award is damages– which for most blogs would be miniscule.
Archive.is is pretty unresponsive to take downs.
If you self host you can block Archive.is if that’s what you prefer. (I do.) But if your using wordpress or some other free hosting, really, there is practically nothing you can do.
” But what Sou is doing is clearly illegal”
Really? Under what law? Archive sites are well established. Sou does not make or hold the copy.
All WUWT posts (and Sou’s) are already archived on the wayback machine, and many at archive.js. Here is the wayback archive for the Sea Ice page at WUWT. 373 copies. Not all requested by Sou.
Nick,
Archive sites may be well established, but it’s not at all clear that they don’t violate copyright laws. Linking to an archive when the original doesn’t exist any more is probably covered under fair use. I seriously doubt that what Sou is recommending, however, would be considered fair use. That would make it illegal under pretty much everybody’s copyright laws. As lucia points out, however, enforcement is quite another thing. Would Sou respond to a take down request? Dunno.
Google, for example, gets hundreds of millions of take down requests/year.
Nick,
US copyright law that’s what law.
Under US copyright law whether copying is or is not a violation depends very strongly on the purpose of archiving. (Other factors also matter but I don’t see any that would help Sou’s copyright be found ‘fair use’.) In our law, archiving to deprive the copyright of income is a copyright violation. Effect on the ability of the copyright owner to make money on his IT is the main issue under our law.
With respect to the archive site: The wayback is pretty well established. And they obey robots.txt. So it’s very easy to exclude them. Also, if you ask them to take down, they do take down. It’s also pretty clear the wayback’s motivation is not to take away income from the owner.
Whether a person making the request of the wayback to archive is violating copyright can be a separate question from whether the wayback is. (In such circumstances, wayback would be indemnified by DMCA provided they take down when requested. The copyright owner still has the right to pursue the person who requested the copy.)
That other people requested pages doesn’t mean Sou’s behavior is not a copyright violation. Depending on who the other person was and why they requested the copy, it may be that both Sou and the other person are committing violations or it may be that only Sou is.
But as far as I can tell, Sou is violating US copyright laws. Because she is copying precisely to deprive the copyright owner of visits to his site and clicks from visits to his site is an income generating activity for the copyright owner. We know her motive for copying because she tells us. And her behavior is habitual.
Nick,
So you’re saying that the following is meaningless?
DeWitt,
I’m saying that if it means anything, it is directed at the organisation that actually copies and hosts the content. That isn’t Sou. But the Wayback machine has for at least a decade been systematically archiving the web. If it’s illegal, someone would have noticed.
As Lucia says, you can opt out – just by modifying the robots.txt file. If WUWT was bothered about it, I’m sure they could do that.
Nick
Actually, I suspect Sou’s actions do constitute “making” the copy under US law. Given the pattern of constant archiving, it’s almost certain these archived copies come into being when she visits the archive site and she requests the archive site creates a copy.
Under US law this is considered her making the copy. That she does so by submitting a ‘click’ to a site that is set up to send a bot that captures the screen and then does all the processing on that server only means that more than one entity is involved in making the copy. But that means that both she and the ISP that owns/runs the archiving service are potentially liable and both are involved in “making” the copy.
Unless it just so happens that those archives are getting created magically with no intervention on her part then yes, she does “make” the copy. That’s sufficient to result in copyright violation on her part.
DeWitt
Google also generally obeys robots.txt protocols, they provide a large number of means to communicate with them, they permit you to set pages to “no cache”, they permit a copyright owner to ask them to remove a cache– all fairly simply.
If google doesn’t take down, they can be sued. (Likely the wayback can also be sued.)
Google’s intent for copying is not specifically to deprive the copyright owner of income or potentially income generating visits. So that factor differs from Sou also.
Even though their intent is not to deprive anyone of income, Google has had suits lodged over various types of copying– out of print books, image snapshots and so on. If you do find a book you’ll often find you can only read snippets– for good reason. If they don’t have permission to copy, permitting full reading would (or at least might) have the effect of depriving the copyright owner of sales– so Google can’t do that and don’t.
Nick
If Sou is visiting an archiving service and requesting they archive, they are acting as ISP and under US law she is considered to be copying.
They take down. They permit opt out. Early on they also only showed stuff that was stale.
I don’t know if WUWT is bothered about it. But that doesn’t actually affect whether WUWT would have a right to pursue the case. Also: permitting the wayback wouldn’t require them to permit Sou to do what she does. That’s not the way the law works. So the fact that the wayback intermittently visits and copies in no way makes what Sou does “not a copyright violation”.
If Sou is requesting those copies be made she is the one “making” the copy. If she is doing so to deprive Anthony of hits, she is violating US copyright law.
Anthony the copyright owner is the only one who can pursue it– and I suspect he doesn’t think it worth the bother. But that doesn’t mean Sou isn’t violating US copyright law. It only means the copyright owner doesn’t think it’s worth the bother to pursue.
“Whether a person making the request of the wayback to archive is violating copyright can be a separate question from whether the wayback is.”
DeWitt’s claim was
“But what Sou is doing is clearly illegal”
So it’s not a separate question. It’s his claim.
“In our law, archiving to deprive the copyright of income is a copyright violation.”
If so, the test would be the intent of archive.js. But as you say, the civil law is more concerned about the effect.
“Because she is copying precisely to deprive the copyright owner of visits to his site…”
She isn’t copying at all. Under your huge stretch of the law, anyone who simply clicked on an archive site would be breaking that law, if they did so intending to deprive the archived site of ad income. And what would happen to Adblock users…
Nick
You seemed to be suggesting that if the wayback’s archiving is legal then Sou’s also is. That’s not true. These are separate legal questions.
DeWitt’s claim is Sou’s behavior is a copyright violation. The issue of the wayback is another issue entirely.
In fact: I’m pretty sure Sou’s behavior is a copyright violation under US law. The wayback machine may or may not be.
Wrong. If someone pursued a claim against Sou, the test of whether Sou violated copyright would involve the intent and effect of Sou’s actions. Sou’s action appear to be to: do something that causes a copy to be made. That is copying. Her intent appears to be to deprive WUWT of traffic which could potentially generate income for the copyright owner.
She is almost certainly copying. Archive.is doesn’t send bots around copying unless someone requests, and the circumstantial evidence strongly suggets she is copying.
If she visits this page at archive.is:
http://archive.is/
enters a url in the box surrounded by the red box and clicks “save page” she is copying under US law. I have no idea what Australian law says, but under US law she is copying.
Nonesense. Merely clicking on a link to an already created copy is entirely different from entering a url in that red box and requesting a copy be created, stored on a server and a url be made available for linking so that others can view the copy that has been created.
No. Adblock doesn’t involve copying. Copyright violations require copying.
For info on people who create the copies being the infringers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flava_Works_Inc._v._Gunter
DeWitt Payne, interestingly, copyright violation can amount to a felony in the United States. I don’t think Sou has to worry about since it requires we be dealing with values of something like $2500, but still, actively encouraging people to help promote what would be a felony if one only had more traffic is… incredible.
Carrick, don’t forget Tom Peterson of NOAA, who’s received a lot of attention lately for his work on adjusting the temperature record, chose to publish an e-mail sent to him and his co-authors by Anthony Watts at Sou’s site. I don’t have a problem with him publishing the e-mail given how rude and offensive Watts was in it, but the fact he chose that site speaks volumes.
lucia, if it were necessary, I could post examples of Sou editing people’s comments on her site to replace links with archived copies of the targeted page. I think it would be ludicrous for anyone to suggest she isn’t ordering these copies be made. I get Nick Stokes apparently wants to argue her ordering a copy be made isn’t copying anything, which is neither legally correct nor remotely reasonable, but there can be no doubt she is ordering many copies be made. And then directing people to read those copies rather than the originals.
Also, Nick Stokes is just flat-out wrong when to say:
One may be able to opt out of the Wayback Machine’s archiving, but archive.is explicitly states it ignores robots.txt files. That someone could choose to opt out of one service doesn’t mean another service they cannot opt out of is okay.
“For info on people who create the copies being the infringers:”
That’s an odd one to cite. It was a case where a claim of copyright violation was dismissed. And, according to wikipedia:
“The Court held that Gunter was not directly liable because the copyrighted content was not stored on myVidster’s servers,and was not contributorily liable because there was no evidence that conduct by myVidster increased the amount of infringement.”
There’s a reason I normally don’t care to respond to Nick Stokes. Just look at his above comment. He quotes this:
As though that somehow makes what Sou does okay, yet he conveniently fails to quote things like:
Uploading a copy of a file is no different, in any meaningful sense, than instructing a server to create a copy of it.
“In fact: I’m pretty sure Sou’s behavior is a copyright violation under US law.”
This is civil law. It creates remedies for damage. “Behavior” is not a copyright violation. Sanctioning behavior is what the criminal law is for. And there is no way that Sou could be causing damage if the archive organisation isn’t.
Brandon,
” yet he conveniently fails to quote things like”
The court made no finding that anyone committed a copyright violation. They found that Gunter did not infringe copyright. And a big part of the reason was that he did not actually store the material in question. Nor did Sou.
I could have quoted stuff like:
“The myVidster user viewing such material online is not engaging in copyright infringement, any more than a person “sneaking into a movie theater to watch a movie without buying a ticket” is infringing copyright by seeing the movie”
or
“There are practical and social objections to “stretching the concept of contributory infringement far enough to make a social bookmarking service a policeman of copyright law”.”
“A joint brief by Google and Facebook analyzed myVidster as being at best a tertiary infringer, if even that, a position not recognized as liable in any current theory of law – indeed the law does not recognize “secondary” infringement either. It recognizes three positions: direct infringement, contributory infringement, and non-infringement.”
This is not a finding that supports a stretched view of copyright infringement.
“Uploading a copy of a file is no different, in any meaningful sense, than instructing a server to create a copy of it”
Of course it is. If you upload, you have a copy in your possession. If you enter a URL in a box at archive.js, you are simply suggesting that they add a copy of that page to the billions of others that they make publicly available.
So for example Sou editing someone’s post in her site and replacing their link to WUWT with a link to an archived version of the WUWT page isn’t “Sou causing damage” in your mind?
Nick,
I think you ought to read more carefully.
The case against the named defendant because that entity only linked. But Poster is quite clear: the case was dismissed because the plaintiff sued the wrong people. Posner does say who did copy: The people who uploaded to servers. That would be people who did what Sou did: created copies on a server owned by a host (who wasn’t the defendant).
Those who created the copies were the ones copying. That’s what Sou does.
Nick Stokes, of course the court didn’t make a finding anyone had committed copyright violation. The people it said had done it weren’t involved in the trial. That doesn’t change the fact the ruling labeled them as having committed copyright infringement, which is likely a point lucia was wanting to make with sharing the article.
Which is particularly relevant because the lawsuit dealt with the person who didn’t make copies of anything, whereas in both Sou and archive.is’s cases, they are making copies. Which remains true evn if you want to pretend a person making a copy with archive.is it merely “suggesting” it make a copy, something which could only seem true to a delusional mind.
Now pardon me while I go suggest my copy machine copy things. Because hey, as long as I never had the paper in the machine in my possession, I clearly can’t be copying it when… I press the Copy.button.
Or to be less facetious, you claiming instructing something to make a copy is merely making a suggestion is beyond idiotic.
Nick
Suggesting? No. You are doing and action where by your IP visits the page to be copied with the visit being made through their proxy IP. While your IP is visiting (through a proxy) the page is fetched and copied, then made available on another server.
Good luck claiming you are merely “suggesting” a copy be made to a judge.
Whether archive.is host billions of other pages is irrelevant to the question of whether a particular one they host is a copyright violation. Lots of ‘free image’ sites host zillions of copyright violations. The zillions present doesn’t magically forgive any individual violation in court. A imagine a judge would bust out laughing at such a claim.
But even hosting zillions of legal pages doesn’t make a copyright violation ok. If it did, youtube would be allowed to host copyright violations. They aren’t.
Brandon
Or alternatively, if you hire Kinkos to copy, then you didn’t copy, right? Uhmm… no. Court says you both copied. The copyright owner can sue you, Kinkos or both. Copyright owners used to win these suits against both. That’s why Kinko’s started making people prove they owned the copyright before copying.
lucia, I’m not sure even Nick Stokes would be willing to say paying a store to do something is merely “suggesting” they do it.
“Posner does say who did copy: The people who uploaded to servers.”
The court may be suggesting that Flava is suing the wrong people. But they don’t say that suing the “right” people would succeed. But Posner is clear on what is the element of copyright infringement in uploading (link here):
“But if the uploaded video is copyrighted, the uploader has (depending on the terms of use) infringed the copyright. A customer of Flava is authorized only to download the video (or if he obtained it on a DVD sold by Flava, to copy it to his computer) for his personal use. If instead he uploaded it to the Internet and so by doing so created a copy (because the downloaded video remains in his computer), he was infringing.”
The copying is a breach of the terms of use under which the uploader obtained the product. Supplying a URL to archive.js does not breach any terms of use.
Sou does not instruct or command the archive site to copy. She has no power over them; they have no obligation to her.
Brandon may be entertained by the copies of his own site that archive.js makes available.
For anybody who wants to dig into Oz copyright, here is the Copyright Act of 1968, as amended:
https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2015C00586
Nick,
Archive.is cannot modify US copyright law through their terms of use. Copyright violations have nothing to do with “terms of use” of private parties.
She makes a request and activates a sequence of events that causes a copy to be made. You are bringing up things that are irrelevant to copyright law. You can try to hunt for verbs all you like, but entering a url and clicking that button causes a copy to be made. Plus, she knows it.
lucia:
To be fair, terms of use are relevant in that terms of use may include things that lift some copyright restriction. They could authorize certain types of copies of things be made, or allow people to use copies in specific ways. That doesn’t justify what Nick Stokes said:
As if there are no terms of use for a product, then the full protection of copyright law is automatically in effect, but the distinction might help with Stokes’s poor attempts at parsing this problem away. A person agreeing to a particular ToS could violate copyright laws by breaking that ToS, but that in no way indicates it is fine to make copies when there is no ToS.
Incidentally, I’m inclined to call Stokes’s deranged or a liar for saying:
The site provides an automated service. Anyone who clicks on a button to activate this automated service has clearly instructed/commanded the site to activate the automated service. That a person using an automated service doesn’t have power over people running that service doesn’t somehow mean them using the service is just suggesting the service be used. Heck, the site gives this preface for activating its service:
Users of the site activate its service by saying they want to archive a webpage. But according to Stokes, they’re not archiving or making copies of anything. They’re just suggesting the website make a copy… with an automated service they can activate whenever they want.
For the record, I am not submitting this comment to your site. I am simply suggesting your site process some text I provide. I have no control over your site, and you have no obligation to me, so this is not me actually posting a comment.
Oh, and for the record, the link Nick Stokes provides to supposedly show “the copies of [my] site that archive.js makes available” doesn’t actually do that. It includes results for sites I don’t own, and it fails to include a quite a few copies that have been made.
Apparently he didn’t bother to read the simple examples shown on the page he links to which show how to actually search for copies of pages from a given site. Because it’s really easy to do. That’s why I was easily able to find the ~40 or so copies of my material that have been posted on there when I filed a DMCA notice over the site.
Which caused the owner of the site to ditch one of his service providers because it was located within the United States, and it wouldn’t shield him from copyright complaints like the ones he currently hides behind. Which I’m sure Stokes would say is all meaningless, not an indication the guy knows fully well what he’s doing is illegal.
Brandon,
If what you mean is I can grant a license for people to copy my stuff yes. But that’s not a really “terms of use” issue. That’s granting a license. An entity might be include granting of a license in a document the label “terms of use”, but the copyright is still not strictly a “terms of use” issue. The granting of license is a licensing issue. Licenses can be provisional and require any number of things–giving credit, payment and so on. If people don’t pay, give credit and so on, they haven’t conformed to the agreed on terms of the license.
In any case, Archive.is can’t through its terms of use grant Sou (or anyone) a license to copy my stuff. Nor can they grant anyone a right to copyright anything other than material to which Archive.is holds a copy by any means. Whatever TOS any archive has with their users, that TOS can’t grant their users a license to copyrights the archive doesn’t hold.
It’s very hard not to laugh at the whole idea of “suggesting”. If Archive.is was a gun, the analogous suggestion would be that a person X who aimed a gun at person Y at point blank range and pulled the trigger did not shoot person Y they merely “suggested” the bullet move in the direction of Y. After all: the gun (designed to launch bullets) might misfire. Or there might not be a bullet in the gun. And they had no “power” to force the gun mechanism not to jam and so on. Maybe the gun would have jammed– just as maybe Archive.is’s software would have failed to perform as designed!
Well.. of course if the gun jammed then the person firing it would not have managed to shoot someone. And if Archive.is’s software failed, Sou (or whoever requested the copy) would not have made a copy. But if the software functioned as designed, Sou would make the copy she requested.
Or perhaps a person standing on the top of a building holding a cannon ball in their hand and releasing it over the edge didn’t “drop” the item when they opened their hand. They only ‘ceased to give it support’ and perhaps “suggested” it fall to the earth. After all: the person holding the cannon ball has no control over the earth nor do they control the physical laws of the universe. They can’t force the earth to attract the cannon ball causing it to fall toward the earth. So, by that reasoning, they didn’t “drop” the ball. They just sort of “suggested” or “hoped” or something.
Well, yes. If the law of gravity had failed to operate, a cannon drop would not drop when a person releases a hold on it. And we all agree that mere mortals have no control over the law of gravity. Nevertheless, we do say they dropped things. We don’t say they merely “suggest” things fall to the earth.
Wikipedia is mistaken in this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archive.is
Many can block them with .htaccess, a php script or cloudflare. You just need to know their IPs. They don’t seem to have very many.
Some people can’t block them because they are hosted in ways that give the no control. And you can’t get Archive.is to cooperate in not copying. But if you pay attention, you can block them.
lucia:
Yup. I just brought it up because the court case you reference dealt with a situation where there was a terms of use agreement which was violated by the people doing the copyright infringement. That’s why the judges referred to a terms of use agreement, which is what Nick Stokes quoted.
If there hadn’t been any such agreement, what they did would still have been a copyright violation. The judges just wouldn’t have had to look at what the terms of use granted in the way of licenses for the product which was unlawfully copied and disseminated.
I know, right? Even for Stokes, that one was pretty outlandish.
Of course, archive.is could change IP addresses, in which case they’d no longer be prevented, at least until you blocked any new ones. Wikipedia is wrong in what it said, but it does have the right idea. There is no way to configure your site to stop the archive.is service itself (such as by instructing a crawler not to scrape your site). It just overlooks that blocking access from the site will stop the service from really doing anything.
This is interesting. This post reads as if archive.is is funded through donations. But the owner set up a donation site for “pet rescue” which is used to fund archive.is:
http://blog.archive.is/post/138217315826/isnt-running-archive-is-expensive-thank-you-for#notes
Yes. Evidently, if you click the donate button at archive.is you go here:
https://fundrazr.com/campaigns/4oAq0
Simple Nick Stokes Model
1. Racehorse
2. Goto 1
Andrew
I for one would like to thank Nick for coming here and so amply demonstrating the true reason why so many of the Climate Faithful support Sou and link to her website.
And that Truth is that most of them are just as utterly dishonest as she is. Whether it’s rules lawyer arguments like nick above about how to define ‘copying’ or ‘Hide the Decline’, Gleick Forging documents, GISS Altering Data, Gore’s Movie, Mann’s Nobel, or a thousand other things, the true nature of the Warmists is there to see for anyone willing to dig for the truth. In fact, it’s usually just under the surface.
What makes Sou different from many of them is that she’s Stupid. She brags about doing what the others at least have the sense to hide. Her Lies are often childishly transparent. Her ‘Debunkings’ usually amount to name calling and variations of ‘but that’s not what the consensus says’. Heck, I remember one time her rebutle to something was literally (and I’m going from memory here, but I’m pretty sure these were her exact words)”but she’s a Denier, so we can safely ignore her word.” Normally someone like her would be ‘put on a bus’ by the leadership of whatever cause she had decided to champion. But the Warmists not only tolerate but encourage and promote her.
The simple fact is, Sou is a great rabble rouser, and the Climate Faithful are usually too blinded by ideology to even notice the glaring inconsistencies.
And she’s inexorably linked to WUWT. There’s something ironic there, but I might be to Skeptical to see it. <¿<
“Her Lies are often childishly transparent.”
schitzree,
I have commented a few times over the years that such things are cries for help.
Andrew
Solution: Throw her in jail for copyright infringement
Under the Trans Pacific Trade Agreement (TPP)
See: Sneaky Change to the TPP Drastically Extends Criminal Penalties
By the way, this is rather off-topic, yet I can’t help but notice similarities between this issue and the discussion happening around a recent post by Dan Kahan about consensus messaging. I’d like to think my post on the topic does a good job of explaining why the paper he refers to is… not dispositive, to put it mildly:
http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/02/deleting-tweets-and-proving-the-obvious/
But reading people’s comments on his post (or the post at Anders’s place) is in many ways more interesting. The study in question asked subjets their views on global warming, then presented the subjects consensus messaging, and then asked their views on global warming again. I think most people can intuitively understand why that does not constitute proof consensus messaging is effective at changing people’s opinions, even if the researchers also asked the subjects about the new Apple Watch and the new Star Wars movie. Yes, that was how they sought to overcome any biases their methodology introduces. I don’t get it either.
Anyway, the point is the problems with this approach should be immediately apparent to people. Yet, for some people, they aren’t. There’s a level of willful blindness, active avoidance and seemingly intentional obtuseness that runs through certain people’s comments on that issue just like there is with Nick Stokes’s on this issue. I suspect if you asked Stokes about this paper, he would behave similarly to them; and likewise, if you asked them about Sou’s massive copyright violations, they’d respond similarly to him.
But perhaps the best part is these people are complaining about how rude and insulting it is for Kahan to compare anyone to Fox News. That sort of faux outrage is hilarious.
(Plus it’s always good for a chuckle when someone deletes tweets to cover up an embarrassment.)
Off topic, but I really wish Lucia would be kind enough to reopen the long missed store and offer those wonderful “Hide the decline” mugs and other excellent Rank Exploits collectibles. It has been far too long. Pretty please, Lucia? 😊
Hunter,
It takes time to create a graphic get it on the mug etc. Then customers are only interested during extremes. If it goes out again (on either direction, using either the AR4 or 5 baseline.) I might make one. That time is not now.
Thanks. Thanks to a minor but tragic kitchen accident I am short your great coffee mug and would like to get another one. But patience is a virtue..
Copyright Flowchart
RB (Comment #143271)
“The comment by a certain Nick on the post referenced by angech don’t sound to me like Nick Stokes at all. What is obvious though are the biases of the usual here.”
Carrick (Comment #143267)
“Nick seems to admire Sou and her tactics.”
“Nick has posted generally positive, approving followups to Sou on his own blog. I think the proof is in the pudding.”
jferguson (Comment #143269)
“Baffling. Her style is certainly not his.”
SteveF (Comment #143265)
“The relationship Sou:science is like which of the following?”
f. Nick:Sou and “McIntyre and Anthony Watts”
DeWitt Payne (Comment #143276)
angech “As usual, you go a step too far. You should have left McIntyre out of that sentence.”
RB (Comment #143277)
” I understand your urge to stick up for your team.”
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #143314)
“lucia, I’m not sure even Nick Stokes would be willing to say paying a store to do something is merely “suggesting†they do it.”
Oh, Brandon.
How utterly sweet and naive.
Nick Stokes (Comment #143308)
” If you enter a URL in a box at archive.js, you are simply suggesting that they add a copy of that page to the billions of others that they make publicly available.”
Nick Stokes (Comment #143315)
“Supplying a URL to archive.js does not breach any terms of use.
Sou does not instruct or command the archive site to copy. She has no power over them; they have no obligation to her.”
lucia (Comment #143317)
” entering a url and clicking that button causes a copy to be made. Plus, she knows it.”
schitzree (Comment #143326)
“I would like to thank Nick for coming here and so amply demonstrating the true reason why so many of the Climate Faithful support Sou and link to her website.”
RB (Comment #143277)
” I understand your urge to stick up for your team.”
DeWitt
everyone is pocking up on the theme I mentioned to you some time back the 30% DMI graphs.
You were not keen on them at the time. Now they have disappeared.
The only reason is the different metrics used show more ice in the Arctic rather than less.
Something MASIE seems to show as well.
Reason given for discontinuation it’s time. Reason for disparity, none!
MASIE is interesting. MASIE 2006 extent is way lower relative to 2016 than JAXA and sets the record low for the current date by a large margin. And rather than record lows, MASIE 2016 extent is close to the middle of the band. They say that the edge of the ice with MASIE can be hundreds of kilometers different than the other satellite results like JAXA. I’ll be curious to see the PIOMAS results for February.
The MASIE people don’t recommend using it for comparisons over time. In the FAQ they say:
“2. When should I use MASIE and when should I use the Sea Ice Index?
Use the Sea Ice Index when comparing trends in sea ice over time or when consistency is important. Even then, the monthly, not the daily, Sea Ice Index views should be used to look at trends in sea ice. The Sea Ice Index documentation explains how linear regression is used to say something about trends in ice extent, and what the limitations of that method are. Use MASIE when you want the most accurate view possible of Arctic-wide ice on a given day or through the week. “
Nick,
That still says that the Sea Ice Index is underestimating current Arctic sea ice extent by a substantial margin, on the order of 400,000km² or about 3%. Part of the problem with trends is that MASIE only goes back to 1/1/2006
I see today that Nick’s Hero has posted a new article on her HotWhooper blog, “Anthony Watts pushes anti-semitic conspiracy theories wrapped up as a climate hoax”
Well, I think, This should be good. Might as well jump right to Godwin’s law. I do read many of the articles over at WUWT, so you’d think I would have noticed Anthony blaming the Jews for anything. let’s just follow Sou down the old rabbit hole and see where see ends up.
OK, skip the rants about Jo Nova and Willis Eschenbach, as they don’t seem to have anything to do with this article (or anything else, really).
“Anthony Watts is surprised by past climate variability” Apparently he posted an article about another warm water ‘blob’ that formed and broke up repeatedly thousands of years ago. Cue Sou to make numerous accusations that Anthony didn’t know that past climate changed. Because obviously He didn’t posted this to counter the constant attempts by the Climate Faithful to insist that there wasn’t a little ice age on medieval warm period and that climate has been a perfectly flat hockey stick for tens of thousands of years. No, Anthony must be the one oblivious to past climate.
“There is no greenhouse effect sez WUWT” Odd, I’m pretty sure Anthony has repeatedly written that he accepts the Greenhouse Theory. Ah, it turns out Tim Ball wrote “The author believes the evidence shows that human CO2 is not causing AGW, that the hypothesis is not proved.” And of course Sou immediately jumps from ‘no evidence that CO2 is causing AGW’ to ‘no greenhouse effect’. Sou then charges into a rant about how Warming must mean AGW and AGW must mean CO2. Apparently because climate can’t change on it’s own… Which, remember, only Anthony doesn’t know about.
Ah, here we go, the meat of the article. “Climate science is a socialist Nazi plot” WAIT, WAIT. I thought Anthony was going to be blaming the Jews, not the NAZI. Well, let’s see. Supposedly Tim Ball is a “Fan of Hitler” because 2 years ago he used a quote from Mien Kompf to explain how large scale organizations can push a ‘big lie’ and manipulate the public. Does this mean if I quote Obama that “energy costs will necessarily skyrocket” that makes me an Obama Fan? Where was I? Accusation by Sou that Tim Ball’s Article about how and why the IPCC and UN are leading to a One World Government is a conspiracy theory. Heh, probably. So Sou proves it’s nuts by making up a list of the conspirators… on her own… that includes Hitler? No, no link to anything on WUWT to explain her list. Hey, Tim’s a Liar because he quotes from a Club of Rome book and somehow switches ‘against whom we can unite’ with ‘to unite us’ and leaves out a bit in the middle of the quote that says that they were wrong and pollution and climate weren’t they enemy but just a symptom. And he got the date the book was printed as 1994 when it came out in 1991. So clearly he’s a big fat liar who lies. Or, alternatively, maybe he has a later printing, and they edited it to make it smother. I’d check that, but the Library thinks this book is so unimportant that it has their only copy in deep storage.
Ah! Finally, we get to the meaning of the Title. Tim believes this is all to the benefit of promoting Global Socialism and The One World Government. That’s sounds the same as the New World Order Conspiracy, which Sou knows is similar to the Illuminati Conspiracy, which is kinda like the International Jewish Conspiracy. BINGO! Sou has successfully played 6 degrees of anti-Semitism. And to help tie all this Conspiring together Sou has to link (repeatedly) to that bastion of Truth, Rational Wiki. (For those who don’t know, Rational Wiki is the Encyclopedia Dramatica of Socialists, Atheists, and Climate Faithful the world over)
I could go on, but from here Sou pretty much has a Lew style Conspiracy Ideation meltdown. it’s really kind of sad to watch.
So, Where’s Nick to help rationalize THIS pile of Warmist mind vomit? I’d just love to see how he justifies and excuses more completely typical behavior from his fellow travelers.
Made a mistake in posting but now it’s fixed. Thank God (or your preferred dispenser of Fate) for post editing.
I hate to say this, because I hate siding with Sou at all, but on this one, she’s more right than you are Schitzree. Tim Ball has flat-out said the greenhouse effect isn’t real on Watts Up With That (or to be precise, that increasing CO2 levels doesn’t cause global warming). And that’s not the only post on WUWT to do it. I don’t even follow the site, but I’ve seen at least four different posts in which the same thing was said. Heck, there was one post where the greenhouse effect was specifically said to contradict elementary physics. (See here for examples.)
That Watts may on some occasions say he accepts the greenhouse effect doesn’t change that he uses his site to promote views which say it isn’t real. Similarly, he co-authors books with people who say, in the same book he co-authors with them, things like we can’t even know the planet has warmed. (See here for discussion.)
And when Tim Ball used a quote from Mein Kampf, he didn’t just use some quote in passing. He directly compared people he disliked to Nazis, repeatedly driving home the comparison in his post. Ironically though, he apparently misunderstood the quote he was referring to because it referred to a supposed conspiracy not by the Nazis, but by the Jews. The result is he painted himself in the role of Adolf Hitler, ranting and railing about a massive Jewish conspiracy to create the global warming scam. (See here for discussion.)
I get it might be nice and easy, and even fun, to just mock everything and just dismiss it out of hand, but there’s a reason she can gain some traction – Watts Up With That regularly posts ridiculous nonsense that should embarrass any “skeptic,” and the best thing that could be done for any “skeptic” cause would be for Anthony Watts to shut it down. No actual skeptic could read WUWT and think it is good or useful.
(Oh, and for the record, Tim Ball is a dragon slayer. Yes, he denies the greenhouse effect.)
Nick Stokes (Comment #143336)
The MASIE people don’t recommend using it for comparisons over time. In the FAQ they say:”*******.
Do you ever think for yourself, Nick.
This is a Kevin O’Neill and Neven standard trot out line.
And it is tragic.
Do you read their stuff and repeat it as a standard formula as a put down to MASIE or do you join with them in promulgating their attack?
Logic, Nick
“2. When should I use MASIE and when should I use the Sea Ice Index?
” Use MASIE when you want the most accurate view possible of Arctic-wide ice ”
The most accurate means the most accurate.
“Use the Sea Ice Index when consistency is important”
what does the most consistent mean?
The most consistently inaccurate for example fits perfectly in this definition.
Personally I would define the most accurate to also be the most consistent [as in closest to the truth] and therefore think MASIE is miles ahead.
You obviously feel that being consistently [as in not able to change to much in response to truthful daily and weekly variation]
wrong is better than being accurate and truthfully variable.
Accuracy is a much better characteristic than consistency for any data to have and for anyone to use that data.
But you do not agree or see this??
Heaven help you.
Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #143340)
“”Tim Ball has flat-out said the greenhouse effect isn’t real on Watts Up With That
Not true [could be if he is a dragon slayer but show the quote]
” What is not fine is to research the greenhouse effect and conclude it isn’t real. That is because the greenhouse effect is beyond dispute.””
True.
If people want to say humans aren’t contributing to the greenhouse effect via our emissions of greenhouse gases, that’s not fine. That’s crazy.
true. but it is not currently warming the world.
“The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change,†Watts Up With That (WUWT), has decided to tell everybody greenhouse gases don’t cause the planet to warm.
Not true.
The first line of a post which went up at WUWT a couple days ago says: ‘ The only place in the world where CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is in climate models, including those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”
True
That’s about as clear a rejection of the greenhouse effect as you’re going to find.
Not true.
–
You are conflating two different things Brandon and then using anger to pretend they are the same.
The greenhouse effect, to be clear, is CO2 in the air causing a rise in the heat of the air when its concentration increases.
The other effects of a rise in temperature could be a rise in humidity [moisture in the air] with an albedo increase that compensates and mostly blocks the greenhouse gas temperature rise.
Called a negative feedback.
You choose to completely ignore this possibility when the fact is that currently “The only place in the world where CO2 increase causes a temperature increase is in climate models” is a completely legitimate statement for the last 18 years on RSS satellite and Manu Loa data.
He is not denying CO2 causes GHG effects in this statement, that is your bias of his bias.
He is merely stating that there has been no warming consistent with a CO2 rise in the period covered by the current climate models.
Spin it any way you want but this is the fact.
Show a statement of his denying GHG effect of CO2, I am sure you have plenty, but do not use this post as it is purely your wrong interpretation.
Sou and ATTP are spin offs of WUWT.
Sou is wonderful, like Lewindowsky she epitomizes everything wrong with people with ideological blinkers.
ATTP is better. He changed his blog name, he has lost some of his fixation on Anthony and writes excellent articles that are thought provoking.
You write excellent articles, I would love to see you commenting at WUWT.
But it is your choice.
Brandon, that ‘to be precise’ is an awful big difference. the Greenhouse effect could be perfectly true, and that still doesn’t mean that doubling the CO2 in the atmosphere will have any noticeable effect on global temps. Convection, Absorption, Changes in Water Vapor, and a whole host of other effects could easily swamp or counteract any warming that would be caused in the perfect world of the models. My own personal theory is that it varies, and that an increase in CO2 that would cause a 2.5’C rise at a global average temp of 14 will only cause a 1’C increase at a GAT of 15, and would cause a -0.5’C decrease at a GAT of 16.
As for what was said ‘in one post’, unlike in the blogs of the Climate Faithful, Skeptics usually prefer to argue with someone and link to data when they think a poster is wrong, not just delete or ‘borehole’ it. A concept I’ve also noted that Sou has trouble wrapping her head around. at least I assume that’s why she thinks she needs to copy each post on WUWT she disagrees with like it’s an exhibit in a court trial.
As for the Hitler Quote, all I can say is most people these days can read that as the Projection it clearly was. Hitler basically spelled out his methods for all to see while accusing his chosen boogiemen of doing it. Just like the Alarmists do. And I’m sorry if hearing the Warmists compared to NAZI’s hurts, but if the 10/10 video fits, WEAR IT.
Now, does WUWT put up some pretty silly thing from time to time? OH SNAP! Well, I guess that invalidates anything ever written there. Conversely, you can try posting a rebuttal and argue your case. And no, you probably won’t change the minds of some of the regulars (cough Willis cough), but you’d be surprise how may of the lurker can follow an argument and tell when one side is blowing smoke. Or maybe that’s your real problem. :p
And Tim? Does he believe in Conspiracy Theories? Sure sounds like it. Guess what, I believe in some Conspiracy Theories too. I believe that Peter Gleick stole Hartland documents trying to catch them doing the same kind of crap the Warmist were doing, and when he didn’t find much he forged a memo to make it look they were. And I believe when he was caught at it the Warmist closed ranks to protect one of their own. I even believe they’re still covering for him, which is why the article on Rational Wiki about it paints him as a hero of the people who uncovered the damning memo that Heartland ‘claims’ is a forgery. I also have a Conspiracy Theory that the Warmists will continue to find new reasons to adjust the warming higher until they are stopped by the end of the CAGW meme. You want to dismiss those theories as crazy? fine. just don’t expect me to change my mind just because you think it’s unreasonable to suspect the Climate Faithful of being dishonest. That ship sailed back in 07.
And if you want to convince me that Tim Ball is a ‘Dragon Slayer’ you’ll need to link to something PROVING it. He might be one for all I know, but Sou style ‘he said THIS, which sounds like THAT, so he must believe SOMETHING ELSE’ strawman arguments aren’t going to cut it. Try an actual quote. Or Don’t. I frankly don’t care much what a Sou defender thinks is a logical argument.
“And if you want to convince me that Tim Ball is a ‘Dragon Slayer’ you’ll need to link to something PROVING it.”
He (co-)wrote the book.
“Do you ever think for yourself, Nick.”
Yes. But when looking at an issue of fact, I don’t just rely on my opinion, as you do. I consult the documentation. And that is what I was quoting.
Nick posted: “he (co) wrote the book”
Now, you see that? THAT’S how you count some coup in Climateball. Brandon, take notes.
A number of Authors on that book. I suppose it might be remotely possible that Tim might have been arguing some point about negative feedbacks countering the greenhouse effect, but unless someone else feels like digging further or Tim himself comments I’m satisfied that he’s a full blown Dragon Slayer.
Nick Stokes
“Do you ever think for yourself, Nick.â€
Yes.
But,
i.e. No.
Shame.
“when looking at an issue of fact, I consult the documentation.
And that is what I was quoting.”
Even when the documentation is misleading/wrong?
think for yourself, Nick
When it says MASIE is more accurate
would you use a CT Scan for diagnosis of a lung cancer which is more accurate , or a Chest X Ray which is more consistent but alas lacks accuracy?
Do you want to know where the ice really is [MASIE] or where some obviously botched up, under evaluating, 15% algorithm consistently tells you it might be?
By the way, you should admit if something is more accurate it is really more consistent anyway?
Consistent in being right that is.
Schitzree, I think Nick Stokes pretty much trashed your entire comment with that single line. I mean, I can’t believe you actually questioned that Tim Ball is a dragon slayer, but I gave you the opportunity to do so because I wanted to see if you’d really be that foolish. You were. I’m not sure there’s anything more that needs to be said.
Though I will just highlight this part of your comment:
Defending comparing people to Nazis is about the best way one could possibly show reasonable discussion isn’t possible with you. It’s also a great way to make this remark hilarious:
Angech,
“Do you read their stuff and repeat it as a standard formula as a put down to MASIE or do you join with them in promulgating their attack?”
Do you read at all? “Their attack”? Who do you think “they” are. I’m quoting MASIE documentation.
“Sceptic”: “But the good people at MASIE say ice is nothing special this year.”
Me: “But their documentation says…”
“Sceptic”: “Why are you always quoting rubbish from leftist warmunists?”
Nick.
They are Neven and Kevin.
Don’t pretend you do not know them.
Neven used the same MASIE documentation over at Ron Clutz’s Science matters blog attacking MASIE by the way [see
Happy Arctic Ice Year! Posted on January 1 by Ron Clutz in the older blogs section]. NevenA · January 1
For those of you who hate my style there is a lot of interaction with Neven, Neven wins but the polar bear picture is very cute , almost as good as Lucia’s cat.
and variations at Paul Homewood’s blog – DMI’s Missing Graph [“on fake skeptic blogger Paul Homewood’s blog Not a Lot of People Know That” is Neven’s lovely classy description]
NevenA permalink February 20, 2016 10:43 am [Nick’s favorite phrase used in entirity] February 21, 2016 11:12 am “I call everyone who comes with bold statements and conspiracy theories a liar,”
Pethefin permalink February 22, 2016 12:33 pm “Neven, you are the only one talking of conspiracy which BTW has become somewhat of a standard defense for alarmists when their dogma is being questioned ” seems a pertinent comment on this thread.
Kevin O’neill trotted up under a pseudonym at WUWT to do much the same.
Saying “Posted at WUWT – let’s see if it goes through:
oneillsinwisconsin February 22, 2016 at 2:51 pm
I used Walt’s email reply to Jim, but didn’t link anything in the comment so that AW couldn’t use it as an excuse to snip.
Posted by: Kevin O’Neill | February 22, 2016 at 23:59.
Shades of Peter Gliek.
And now you parrot it.
Oh well.
Great company you keep.
Dragon Slayer = pejorative (like Nazi).
Easier than having to prove AGW I guess.
Andrew
Andrew_KY,
Ok Andrew_KY. You want to wave around the word Nazi as if that’s supposed to scare us into thinking there is something wrong with using the term “Dragon Slayer”.
It’s true that the word “Nazi” became a pejorative. That’s because people who called themselves Nazi’s did contemptible things and people can to believe them contemptible. The word “Nazi” did not become an inaccurate label in the process. Hitler was a Nazi — we get to use the term. We aren’t required to not apply the term to Hitler himself merely because the Nazi came to have a perjorative meaning owing to the the action of Hitler himself and his followers (i.e. “Nazis”.)
Dragon Slayers aren’t “Nazis”, but if you want to engage the analogy we can discuss the extent to which the analogy applies. The extent is: We get to apply it to people who are “Dragon Slayers”.
The “Dragon Slayers” certainly applies to those who wrote the book. Thos authors are
“by John O’Sullivan (Author), Hans Schreuder (Author), Claes Johnson (Author), Alan Siddons (Author), Martin Hertzberg (Author), Joseph Olson (Author), Charles Anderson (Author), Tim Ball (Author) ”
It also applies to those who are “followers” of those authors and promulgate their ideas.
So: Dragon Slayer has come to mean “those promulgate, or harbor the ideas are reflected in the chapters of that ‘Slaying the Dragon'”.
Many think that means the ideas are kookie (at least from the POV of science) — and so the people who associated themselves with the book by becoming authors are kooks (wrt to science and the scientific method.). So, when someone is identified as a “Dragon Slayer”, many people will think that person is a kook or harbors kookie ideas about scientific facts and conclusions.
But the fact that many people think those who are “Dragon Slayers” are kooks and being a kook is considered sub-standard doesn’t mean we don’t get to use the word to describe the people who believe in and promulgate the ideas in “Slaying the Dragon”. We do get to use words to describe things.
If you want to redeem or defend their ideas, they you have to explain what is correct about them. (Many are clearly just kookie. Claes’s Johnson’s chapter alone is enough to make any mechanical engineer’s head spin.)
Now, wrt to Tim Ball: it may be that one of the authors didn’t quite “get” what was happening when the book was written. Or maybe he mis-expressed himself. But if he wants people to believe that he doesn’t believe or promulgate the ideas in that book, he needs to say so clearly. Though normally people aren’t required to criticize others, in this case, by virtue of adding his own stuff to “Slaying the Dragon”, to convince people he isn’t promulgating everything in the book he not only has to clarify his chapters, he has to tell us that he doesn’t believe or promulgate the stuff in the other chapters.
Because if he does believe or promulgate those ideas he is a Dragon Slayer. You might think there is nothing wrong with believing or promulgating that stuff– if so, bully for you. But those who believe or promulgate it are Dragon Slayers. So you don’t get to say we can’t call them that.
And even if we don’t use the word, those who believe or promulgate the ideas in that book are– from a science point of view– kooks. The book title conveniently supplied a word– but they notion that they are kooks or harbor kookie ideas springs form the action of promulgating the ideas in the book, not from the word.
“You want to wave around the word Nazi as if that’s supposed to scare us into thinking there is something wrong with using the term “Dragon Slayerâ€.
I didn’t say there was anything wrong with using ‘Dragon Slayer’. I just pointed out it’s being used in the same way ‘Nazi’ is used. I don’t complain about the use of Nazi either, for that matter. I believe in freedom of expression. I don’t have to agree with what’s expressed.
It just needs to be recognized that it’s a common smear tactic to associate people who disagree with an Unsavory Group Of People rather than actually arguing a scientific position (which isn’t as easy).
Andrew
So calling people by a title they gave themselves is equivalent to calling people Nazis. I’d like to say that’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard all day, but… it’s not. Just look at this piece at Bishop Hill about how people (supposedly) rejected the idea of peaceful protests in favor of thuggery:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2016/2/24/going-down.html
As an added bonus, you get to see me labeled a partisan hack who will defend anything from the warmist side!
“a title they gave themselves is equivalent to calling people Nazis”
I suspect Nazis gave themselves their own name, too.
Andrew
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/8843158/Why-Hitler-hated-being-called-a-Nazi-and-whats-really-in-humble-pie-origins-of-words-and-phrases-revealed.html
“Opponents seized on this and shortened the party’s title Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, to the dismissive “Nazi”
“Opponents seized on this and used a shortened variation of the book’s title “Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory”, and applied it to dismiss people who similarly questioned the theory.
Andrew
Andrew_KY,
The problem is that the book doesn’t slay the sky dragon. Nor is it the Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory. It’s tripe. No, wait. You can eat tripe. The pages of Slaying the Sky Dragon might possibly be fit for lining a bird cage or wrapping fish guts for disposal, but only if someone gave you a copy.
Andrew_KY,
Each word is being used as terms to describe groups of people believe a certain constantlation of ideas and who share certain behaviors. We could say the similar things about other group terms like “Christians”, “Heathens”, “Community Organizers”, “Farmers” or any number of group terms. Are some of these sometimes used pejoratively? Yeah. Would that mean that two terms that happen to be used ‘pejoratively’ are being used “similarly” to the extent that both are being used “pejoratively”…. uhmmm… Yeah.
So what? Black, white, yellow and green are all used “similarly”: as adjectives to describe color. Observing they are used “similarly” is a pretty trivial and mostly meaningless “insight”. Yours about “Nazi’s” being a group term that applies to a group many people look down on and “Sky dragons” being a term for a group term that applies to a group many people look down on. Well… yeah. That’s because the behavior and beliefs of both groups cause others to look down on them.
Andrew_KY
Of course. That’s why people call Nazis Nazis. The group turned the term they call themselves into a perjorative by behaving in ways others disdain. If your observing the same fate for the term “Sky Dragons”… well all rightie then.
Brandon said: “Schitzree, I think Nick Stokes pretty much trashed your entire comment with that single line.”
(Sigh) No Bandon, Nick didn’t trash my entire comment. What he did was provide some actual proof the Tim Ball is a Dragon Slayer, something you failed utterly to do yourself. (And no, I’m not buying that you didn’t provide it to set a clever trap for me. Save the ‘I was only pretending to be stupid’ lines for 4chan) The fact that Tim is a Dragon Slayer doesn’t disprove any of the main points of my comment however, which is why I said in the ending “He might be one for all I know”. The fact that Tim is apparently clueless about this aspect of physics doesn’t prove:
1) That he didn’t know that climate changes.
2) That he believes in Conspiracy Theories. (The fact he writes about them does that 😉
3) That he is a ‘Hitler Fan’ or anti-semitic.
The only thing it proves is
4) That he doesn’t believe in the Greenhouse Effect.
But even if they were ALL true, that wouldn’t prove that Anthony or WUWT were any of those things. Which, remember, was the actual point of Sou’s article. And Anthony has repeatedly said he accepts the Greenhouse Effect. So all you’ve got is guilt by association on the Dragon Slayer one.
Now me, personally? I’m all for some guilt by association. Anthony letting Dragon Slayers post articles at WUWT, even if they are about something else like Conspiracy Theories, doesn’t really look good. Not nearly as bad as when the Climate Faithful defend Mann, Gleick, or Sou, but still. And I don’t think that Anthony distancing himself from their beliefs while promoting their writings is enough. It sends the message ‘I think this belief isn’t important to the discussion’. Anthony should probably stop posting articles by Tim until he either repudiated the Dragon Slaying belief or at least distances himself from them.
So, come on Brandon! If your going to defend Sou’s article as ‘more right then me’ you’re going to have to come up with a lot more proof then what you’ve given us. So far you’ve only gotten a half point on one out of four accusations.
Oh, wait. That was Nicks. So far all YOU’VE done is complain.
Since the thread is going in this direction anyway…
Brandon said: “Defending comparing people to Nazis is about the best way one could possibly show reasonable discussion isn’t possible with you.”
Well, how about comparing the Khmer Rouge to the NAZI. Or the Stalin era Soviets, apartheid era South Africa, or the last 50 years in North Korea.
I mentioned the 10/10 video for a reason, Brandon. At best it was Climate Faithful snuff porn, fantasizing about being able to just blow up anyone that didn’t accept their Decree on what and how we should be doing things. At worst it was an explicit threat. And it was hardly a lone example. I’m not going to link to all the time a Warmist has called for ‘Deniers’ to be punished or thrown into reeducation camps for not believing the right thing. I know you’ve seen them all too.
Yes, there is a tendency to reach for the NAZI label too quickly. But that doesn’t mean we must muzzle ourselves when we see this kind of behavior being not just displayed, but actively promoted. That’s how the original NAZI’s came to power.
What truly frightens me is that the Warmists should know these things too. That they think they’re so secure and above criticism that they can do things that will inevitably bring NAZI comparisons should frighten everyone.
Re: angech (Comment #143350) February 24th, 2016 at 5:40 am
My ears were burning, so here’s the interview I did with Walt Meier (NASA/ex NSIDC) on the DMI/MASIE “controversy”:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/02/dmi-masie-and-the-sea-ice-index-an-interview-with-walt-meier/
Just in case you were wondering, MASIE doesn’t get his vote for determining trends.
schitzree:
Uh… what? Why would it be stupid of me not to provide proof Tim Ball is a Dragon Slayer? One generally doesn’t provide proof of obvious things like that. It’d be like providing proof Hilary Clinton is a member of the Democratic party. That someone “failed utterly” to provide proof of something which is common knowledge isn’t a reason to criticize them.
And yes, I actually did consider pointing out he co-authored that book. I also considered pointing out he’s an active member of the Sky Dragon community. I decided not to because I felt it was pointless, figuring only the most biased of individuals would challenge such an obvious truth. Which is exactly what you did.
You’re acting as though pointing out a host repeatedly runs material of a certain nature and/or by a certain person is merely “guilt by association.” No. Leaving aside that I gave at least one example of the same sort of thing being written by another person at WUWT, it is not guilt by association to assign responsibility to a person for the material he routinely runs on his site.
I don’t think you could more intentionally misunderstand/misinterpret what I said. There’s a thing called context, and when one ignores it, it tends to be easy to paint what people say as wrong. I’m not going to waste my time explicitly clarifying every statement I make to try to prevent people like you from doing this, especially not when you’re going to say insane things like:
You’re deranged. And you’re in good company. I’ve started seeing people suggest people like the #heathrow13 will start engaging in terrorism, going so far as to suggest they might blow up planes. It’s crazy, and so are you.
Sorry about the double post there; I have no idea how that happened. I even thought the WordPress software is explicitly designed to prevent it.
Anyway, I should point out I did just learn something entertaining about Tim Ball I had never noticed before. While “skeptics” like to make a lot of hay about how Michael Mann has sued Ball for libel, it turns out Ball himself filed a libel lawsuit half a decade before that, long before anyone had sued him for libel. He hadn’t liked what a person said about him (somebody Johnson?) when criticizing his credentials on climate science, so he filed a libel lawsuit. He then dropped it because there was no actual grounds for it.
So… yeah. Mann suing Ball may be wrong, but what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. People who resort to libel lawsuits because they don’t like what others say about them, then refuse to actually pursue those lawsuits deserve criticism. That goes for both Michael Mann and Tim Ball.
Okay, this will probably be my last comment about Tim Ball. I happened to find a link to the chapter he wrote for the Dragon Slayer book on his site, with the file aptly named dragon-slayers-chapter.pdf, further showing why it is silly to complain about people about people calling him a Dragon Slayer. That’s not the important part though. During the chapter, Ball talks about how he gave a presentation of scientific facts to a government committee, and he uses their reaction to claim the politicians don’t understand how science works. That’s not really surprising as he says:
Which isn’t actually true. While confirmation/verification by other scientists is always good, it is also acceptable for one to test his own hypotheses. Regardless, what matters is he then immediately lists the “scientific facts” he presented to the committee:
I’m pretty sure it is crazier than even his normal conspiratorial rantings are, and it turns out he’s promoted this same viewpoint at WUWT as well.
So your opinions are so self evidently right you don’t need to provide proof. That’s really the defense you’re going with. Really.
Well, I’m glad you didn’t decide THIS one was so obvious you didn’t need to prove it, because your proof was wrong. The link showed clearly that, once again, you took a quote of someone saying CO2 isn’t causing warming anywhere but in the models, and deciding that means they don’t believe in the Greenhouse Theory. Do we need to explain again why that isn’t true?
You seem to be really bad about jumping to conclusions and then expecting everyone else to accept them without proof. It really doesn’t help your position any.
Right, context. Which is apparently another one of those things you think are so obvious you don’t need to try to explain them.
You claim comparing people to NAZI is somehow undefendable. I give you a concrete, we’ll documented, unmistakable example of how the Warmists have in the past behaved in a way that is utterly comparable to NAZI behavior (10/10 video), and the best you can come up with is to call me deranged and to throw up some strawman about how some group I’ve never heard of isn’t going to blow up planes.
You want to know what I think, Brandon? I think the real reason you don’t try to prove your oh so obviously correct opinions is because you usually got nothin’.
So, just a reminder. These are the bullet points from the Hotwhopper Article where Brandon thinks ‘Sou is more right then me’.
-“Anthony Watts pushes anti-semitic conspiracy theories wrapped up as a climate hoaxâ€
-“Anthony Watts is surprised by past climate variabilityâ€
-“There is no greenhouse effect sez WUWTâ€
-“Climate science is a socialist Nazi plotâ€
Now as I’ve said, I’m willing ti give you a half point on the third one because, while WUWT (in the form of the article Sou doesn’t actually link to) never ‘sez’ there is no Greenhouse Effect, that does appear to be Tim Ball’s position. And I’ve made some (so very subtle) hints that there’s another one of them I’d be willing to give at least another half point on. Oh, what the heck. Let’s just agree that number 4 is a given. Although the whole NAZI thing was pure Sou. Ironically I don’t think Tim himself has actually brought up NAZI’S since the thing 2 years ago.
That still leaves you short at least a full point, Brandon. Got anything else? Beside opinions I’m just supposed to accept because you say so?
“science works by presenting a hypothesis, which is then tested by other scientists
–
Which isn’t actually true.”
–
Funny, sounds perfectly true and logical to everyone else here.
Wait.
A caveat
“it is also acceptable for one to test his own hypotheses.”
This is also true but cannot make the first statement untrue.
Same with poor Tim’s other comments.
3 valid true scientific facts suddenly worth nothing because Tim Ball mentions them.
a. The mass extinctions BTW might have accidentally “coincided
‘ with the magnetic field flips ie it is a true statement.
b. I had this recently with a lovely fellow at our university of the third age. CAGW is true because scientists say so. Pointed out Judith Curry and qualifications.
Suddenly scientist wasn’t the issue but denier was.
Whatever Tim’s views are does not mean every comment he makes is false or has to be attacked, but….
Anyone checked out the happy polar bear photo?
Perhaps someone could ask Ron to put it up here no captions if Lucia agrees
Not sure why we’re still flogging Tim at this point. But I’ll bite.
Ya, I’ve read that before. Something like a fraction of a second per year I think. The Earth is supposed to end up Tidal Locked with the moon in a Hundred Million Years of so, just like the Moon is with it. Did Tim say way he was bringing this before government? I doubt any of them would still be in office when this starts to be an issue. ;p
Heard that one too. Add to it that, the last time I checked, the amount that the Earths Magnetic Pole ‘drifts’ had been increasing significantly. The 120 years part sound like one on my pet peeves, ‘project the trend line until it goes off the graph’. Which is almost as bad as ‘project the curve until it hits vertical’. But ya, the Earth is about due for a Magnetic Field crash and possibly a Pole Reversal. There’s evidence of past Pole Reversals (proxies based on coral growth if I remember right), but I don’t think they were ever able to work out how often the Magnetic Field might go down but come back up in the same polarity. Expected to happen ‘soon’ (Geological speaking).
I’ve seen speculations to this effect, but that was all they were. About on par with the speculations for the effects of a 2C warming, frankly. The last timeline I remember seeing had to assume their were two non Pole Reversal Magnetic Field collapses (which don’t show up in the Pole Reversal proxies) to explain mass extinctions that happened ‘in between’ Pole Reversals. I think you also had to define ‘mass extinction’ and ‘occurred’ somewhat loosely. Ah well, proxy science. What can you do. 🙂
Well, that depends. If you mean those ideas are crazy, then no. They’re actually pretty mainstream for their branches of science. If you mean it’s crazy to be worried about them, oh GOD yes. The first won’t even be noticeable for thousands of years and the second might not happen for nearly as long, and we have no idea what (if anything) it could effect when it does.
I can say however that at least these aren’t Conspiracy Theories. Not unless it’s the Earth doing the conspiring. ^¿^
schitzree:
My opinion that people who label themselves Sky Dragons, going so far as to co-author the primary book of the Sky Dragon movement, are in fact Sky Dragons is so self evidently right I don’t need to provide proof. Yes. I think most people can agree when a person is a leading proponent of a cause, it is obviously acceptable to label him a proponent of the cause.
Sure, by all means, argue about how Tim Ball saying greenhouse gases aren’t causing warming isn’t actually disputing the greenhouse effect as he could possibly just be saying some opposite force completely counteracts it. And then when I point out Tim Ball regularly says things like:
I’m sure you can argue he’s not disputing the greenhouse effect, he’s just disputing that carbon dioxide has any role in it. I guess the distinction between denying the greenhouse effect and denying the existence of a greenhouse gas might be important to some people.
Of course, given the book Tim Ball says proves CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas says backradiation isn’t real, meaning the greenhouse effect would be impossible, it’d take semantic parsing on the level of Nick Stokes to figure out how Tim Ball could be not disputing the greenhouse effect. He co-authors a book which denies the greenhouse effect and directs people to it as proof CO2 isn’t a greenhouse effect, but he isn’t denying the greenhouse effect…
I think most people would just be able to read between the lines of Tim Ball’s posts and figure out he’s endorsing the rejection of the greenhouse effect. This is supported by the fact most of the commenters on Tim Ball’s post discussed that idea, not the idea CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas by other things are or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but there’s an exactly equal and opposite feedback counteracting it.
But sure, make whatever fine distinctions you want regarding exactly what crazy beliefs Tim Ball holds and Anthony Watts allows him to repeatedly promote at his site. And defend Tim Ball comparing people he dislikes to Nazis because there are incredibly rare occasions when someone can fairly be compared a Nazis. And sure, claim a horrible propaganda video shows people are fantasizing about being able to murder anyone they disagree with.
As ridiculous as that all is, I still don’t think it tops you suggesting it was stupid of me not to provide proof Tim Ball is a Dragon Slayer.
Oh, to be clear, I am intentionally not responding to much of what was said in that comment. Please don’t take that as me accepting anything in it is correct or even just not having a response to it. I simply got tired of responding to this sort of nonsense:
Remember, the first thing this guy demanded I provide proof of is that Tim Ball is a Dragon Slayer. That is the sort of thing he apparently feels I should have to provide proof of. In fact, he goes so far as to suggest I should have provided proof of it before anyone even asked me for any, as though the idea Tim Ball is a Dragon Slayer is so extreme anyone stating it should be expected to provide proof at the same time.
Combine that with him defending Tim Ball labeling people Nazis, and, well… I don’t think anything really needs to be said.
I’ll remind you that you didn’t provide any evidence for any of that. Heck, I honestly don’t even believe YOU knew about Tim being a co-author of the Sky Dragon book before Nick brought it up. All this spleen venting and outrage reeks of ass covering.
Well, if he regularly says things like that, you shouldn’t have any trouble linking to one. Because I sure ain’t taking your word on anything by this point.
Well, my capacity to argue such a point might be slightly inhibited by the fact that I already agreed Tim is a Dragon Slayer. Remeber? It was back when Nick provided actual proof. (And MY GOD, it was beautiful. A real OH SNAP moment. I bet after hitting the ‘Submit!’ button he whipped out a pair of sunglasses and turned to walk away from an explosion in slow motion)
See, that’s how we do things in the real world. We provide proof of what we believe, not just assertions. And we sure don’t claim we had the proof after the fact but we just didn’t give it because we think it should be common knowledge.
And as for that book you just happened to find his chapter from right now even though you knew all along he wrote it, did you happen to notice anywhere in it in between all the ‘crazy’ science where he actually says himself that he doesn’t believe in the Greenhouse Effect? Because while I’m satisfied that if he’s co-authoring a Dragon Slayer book he’s probably a Dragon Slayer, I’d still like an actual quote. Proof is good. More proof is better. Incontestable proof is best.
Well, I sure wouldn’t want to accuse you of just making things up by this point, but that isn’t what I remember ‘most’ of the comments discussing. I seem to recall most of them arguing the actual topic of that article, which was Socialism and Conspiracy and whether ‘environmentalism’ was the new religion of the left. So just to be sure I went back to the article (which wasn’t easy since, as was mentioned, Sou doesn’t actually link to it) and sure enough, endless arguments about whether National Socialism is Socialist, how George Soros wants to rule the world, the perceived shortcomings of religion in general, and a truly ridiculous number from richardscourtney calling anyone who disagrees with him a fascist, ect. ect. Pretty much what one would expect from such an article. But I did find a handful discussing that line from Tim about “The author believes the evidence shows that human CO2 is not causing AGW, that the hypothesis is not proved.” And guess what? Not a one I could find mentioned that there is no Greenhouse Effect. A few might have implied it, by claiming that there’s been no increase in water vapor or the tropical hot spot or something, but it’s just as likely they meant what I’ve said before, that negative feedbacks are reducing any AGW to level it’s swamped by natural variability.
Or maybe they all are Dragon Slayers, but hide their opinions behind other terminology because, despite what you’ve implied, Anthony really does come down on outright Dragon Slaying.
You know what? I could keep going on and on with this, but it’s clearly pointless. You can’t even conceive that one of your opinions might not be correct, and the only defense you’ve come up with for not providing the proof that Tim was a Dragon Slayer (that you supposedly already had) is that it MUST be obvious because Tim is a Dragon Slayer. Pure circular reasoning.
In other words, I was right. I really didn’t need to know what a Sou defender thinks is a logical argument.
How does the collapse of the earth’s magnetic field lead to mass extinction? Won’t animal magnetism keep us going? Mutual attraction?
Oddly, this came up at my place yesterday in a required entry in a magnetometer/accelerometer calibration program. Alas, there does seem to be a dwindling in the earth’s magnetic field
jferguson,
The Earth’s magnetic field acts as a shield from charged particle radiation from the sun and cosmic rays. No magnetic field, no shielding. That’s a point they left out in the movie The Martian, as Mars doesn’t have a magnetic field. In fact, they’re working on magnetic shielding for spacecraft.
The Earth’s magnetic field reverses approximately every million years. That was used as part of the proof of continental drift. The reversals were recorded in the deposits at the mid-oceanic ridges. The mechanism isn’t well understood and the 120 year prediction is speculation as is the possibility of mass extinction.
The rotation of the Earth is indeed slowing and the distance from the Earth to the Moon is increasing because of tidal effects. At some point, the Moon will be far enough from the Earth and the rotation of the Earth will have slowed enough that it will always be above the same point on the Earth, i.e. tide locked. But the sun will probably become a red giant before that happens.
I’m actually not surprised that Brandon appears to be unaware of this.
As far as when the next field reversal will occur, 120 years is, in fact, a possibility. See this article, for example. Field strength appears to be declining much faster than previously thought. There is no evidence, however, of mass extinctions from field reversal.
“We could say the similar things about other group terms like “Christiansâ€, “Heathensâ€, “Community Organizersâ€, “Farmers†or any number of group terms.”
Indeed. “Warmers” (short for “Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis Believers) is one too. The people in that group cling to some weird beliefs and exhibit some dubious behaviors like cutting security fences and blocking airport runways, written crazy claims and generally have wasted a lot of people’s time and money.
Andrew
DeWitt Payne, do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say things like:
Even though you have absolutely no basis on which to believe I am unaware of anything you said?
The first “scientific fact” I quoted from Tim Ball is a trivial truth. The second statement is highly questionable on its time-scale as the actual rate of the decline in Earth’s magnetic field is difficult to discern, and more importantly, is just wrong as the Earth’s magnetic field would not disappear during a reversal. The third statement is where things get crazy though, as it is just a wild fabrication based upon no actual evidence.
I happen to be quite familiar with this topic due to my IT interests as there has been a lot of hype and scare promoted about things like this (and massive solar flares, etc.). I’ve had a copy of the paper the article you link to is about on my hard drive for over a year. Your belief I’m unaware of these things, when you even acknowledge was way wrong on one of the points, is absurd.
I wouldn’t be surprised if I happened to know more about the Earth’s magnetic field reversing than anyone else here, but that hardly matters, as anyone who knows the topic at all would know two of the three things Tim Ball said are “scientific facts” aren’t even true.
The things I supposedly don’t know today are incredible. DeWitt Payne decided I was unaware of things I’ve known and discussed for years, and schitzree is saying:
Because I said Tim Ball is definitely a Dragon Slayer without pointing out he co-authored their seminal book, Because apparently he feels it was necessary for me to explain why it is unquestionable Tim Ball is a Dragon Slayer, rather than just stating what is common knowledge:
Seriously. If I said Al Gore supports action to combat global warming, I would apparently have to provide links to prove that too. Because that’s apparently “how we do things in the real world.” Whenever we say anything, no matter how widely known or easy to verify, we provide proof. We don’t say things we expect everyone to know with the plan of providing proof if asked for it by someone not familiar with the topic.
I guess. I mean, I don’t really know. After all, I know nothing apparently.
“See, that’s how we do things in the real world. We provide proof of what we believe, not just assertions.”
he asserted.
“See, that’s how we do things in the real world. We provide [evidence ] of what we believe, not just assertions.”
More correct, but still a self defeating, sentiment.
“More correct, but still a self defeating, sentiment.”
…the Warmer asserted.
Andrew
DeWitt,
” At some point, the Moon will be far enough from the Earth and the rotation of the Earth will have slowed enough that it will always be above the same point on the Earth, i.e. tide locked.”
.
As you suggest, Earth and Moon will both have been engulfed and vaporized by the Sun in it’s red giant phase long before then. But in a mere million millennia the Sun will have warmed to the point the Earth will become inhospitable to life unless much of the sunlight is being blocked by intelligent life….. now that’s real global warming.
asserting that an assertion is an assertion is self evident.
there is a legal phrase for this.
Mosher:
Steven Pinker was able to expand something like this into an entire chapter in The Language Instinct. I didn’t find that part instinctive. Maybe you did.
“there is a legal phrase for this”
Assertively speaking.
Andrew
“there is a legal phrase for this”
Tortology.
Nick, thank you for the best groan of the day!
Ooh, burned. 🙂 I’ll admit, I’m not that good at backing up my assertions myself. I do most of my blogging by phone and don’t really have links already handy, so if I want to provide one I have to Google it up right then and there. Still I do TRY to find a link supporting my assertions when somebody calls me on one, not just endlessly whine that I shouldn’t of had to.
Well Brandon, maybe it’s because you do things like post lists of scientific facts that someone you disagree with apparently holds, which many of us here knew are either true or currently open to debate, and then declare them ‘crazier then conspiracy theories’ without saying what part you specifically find crazy.
So? Trivial doesn’t mean False. It sure doesn’t mean Crazy. I think Global Warming from Anthropogenic CO2 will be trivial. That doesn’t mean I think the Greenhouse Effect is false. It does mean I think Climate Crisis hysteria is crazy. Actually explaining what you think helps others to understand your position.
Hey, Here’s a link to some evidence right now!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal
And it seems I was wrong about some of the things I posted earlier about Pole Reversals (or at least the science has advanced since the last time I looked into it. I’m no self declared Expert in it like Brandon) It seems they now have proxies not just for polarity by field strength too. And these show that while the last true Pole Reversal did happen nearly three quarters of a Million years ago, there was a Magnetic Field ‘blip’ about 41,000 years ago where the Field decreased to 5% of it’s normal strength, flipped poles for about 250 years, flipped back, and then re stabilized. And the whole thing took around 440 years. So while the 120 year thing is probably still an example of extending a trend to the edge of the graph without actually knowing what might effect it, it at least now has some precedent.
And Brandon, if the Field does drop to one twentieth it’s strength, saying that claims it disappeared is ‘just wrong’ may be splitting hairs. It sure took a lot less then that for a reduction in the Ozone layer to make claims there’s a ‘hole’. But whatever.
I actually mostly agree with you here. I’ve always found the evidence for linking EMF collapses with extinction events to be highly speculative. The problem is they aren’t TIM’S wild fabrications. They are based on numerous peer reviewed papers that are promoted by some of the same wild eyed alarmists that are also warning us about Climate Change, Ocean Acidification, Peak Oil, and a host of other civilization ending catastrophes that are just over the horizon. Good luck on convincing the believers that something is crazy because it’s based on nothing but wild conjecture and unproven models. I’ve been fighting that battle for years. :p
From what I’ve read if there’s any fallout from an EMF collapse then it will probably be from the effects on our Electrical Grid. And even there the reports I’ve seen run from ‘end of civilization’ to ‘it might effect some of our older infrastructure, in a few places, maybe’ Oh well, we’ll have decades to figure it out, and most of the things we’d do to protect ourselves we should be doing anyway to protect ourselves from the next Carrington Event, which happen a hell of a lot more often the EMF collapses, and with MUCH shorter notice.
Personally I think they threw the Mass Extinctions in there because there is a certain percentage of the population, a ‘green’ percentage let’s call it, that will start salivating like Pavlovs dog when they hear one of their political master’s catch phrases. It’s the same reason every college course from quantum physics to basket weaving now mentions Climate Change. (And no, I’m not linking to an example to prove that. Maybe because it’s Brandon level self evident. Maybe because I just pulled it out of my assertion)
You’re still going on about this? Fine, here’s another ‘scientific fact’ you can think is ‘crazy’ (and no, I’m not going to bother to look up a link to it ;p
Most humans, by the age of four, have internalized the concept that just because THEY know something, that doesn’t mean everyone else knows it as well.
Regardless of how ‘common knowledge’ you now claim Tim’s position among the Dragon Slayers is, it was on you to provide evidence of it when you first took up that argument. But instead of mentioning the book you claim you knew all about you said:
And then linked to an article were Tim didn’t actually say that, but said something else that you thought you could claim means the same thing. Something that, frankly, I’ve said myself despite that I clearly do believe in the Greenhouse Effect.
You didn’t start this whole crazy dispute about Tim’s status as a Dragon Slayer by stating it was common knowledge. You started by trying to prove it… badly.
You know what else most people learn before they leave elementary school? That when someone repeatedly claims, after the fact, that they not only already knew about something but are probably the biggest expert in the room, and they just didn’t say anything because they think it was just so obvious or that they were just testing you, then that person is probably just spreading Bullshit. (Woot! Connection to the last thread topic. +5 points)
Oh, quick note. While I’m still skeptical of the ‘EMF Collapse causes Mass Extinctions theory, there are more reasons for it then just the increase in solar radiation getting in. A lot of migratory animal (like Canadian Geese) can sense the Earths Magnetic Field and use it to navigate during their long migrations. What happens to them when the Field greatly reduces in strength, or flips, is still unknown to the best of my knowledge. Obviously the ones that survived the Laschamp Event 41,000 year ago adapted, but I don’t know how many species didn’t survive it. Just a thought.
DMI
“angech pointed out this graph problem some time ago, over on Lucia’s.â€
Thanks for remembering , Steve
“Still, he will never understand that DMI don’t owe him or Anthony an explanation.â€
Do DMI owe an explanation to anyone?
Yes,
To me or Anthony, no.
Small fry.
Perhaps to Scientists, Arctic researchers, Climate scientists, Meteorologists and the Danish people.
Perhaps not.
“you are damned if you ever make a mistakeâ€
Usually reserved for big mistakes, like Enron.
“and now you are damned if you apologize.â€
Only if you are the Catholic church.
The Chart went “wrong†6 months ago.
It started to show higher amounts of ice, it must be wrong.
No comment at any stage from 6 months ago that there had been a change in the way of presenting graphs. The graph was not updated before Christmas for 2-3 weeks, people noticed.
The DMI said “The person [singular] responsible for the graphs was away for 2 weeks holiday.
Convenient?
Most other ice sets were late updating as well so just no one in the office.
15 % came on line, then 30%
Anthony links to it on his sea ice charts, hundreds of people notice it and talk. It runs for 1 week? and then disappears.
The reason “it’s an outdated graph and due to take downâ€
It had been running happily, ice getting slowly higher for 2 years.
People fuss and another reason pops up out of the blue.
Very good logically on the maths
Make a reason for that increase.
Volkswagon cleverness
†We are using a new mask giving greater ice area.â€
Problems
Why take 7 months to explain,
‘Why hide behind rubbish excuses originally
Why update 7 months ago an outdated graph unless you meant to keep on using it.
Why splice a new graph onto the end of an old graph 7 months ago.
Lance Armstrong [I like Lance by the way, absolutely crucified],
Volkswagen,
Climate science malfeasance.
A perfect trifecta.
Why bother with a conspiracy theory when you have real crooks .
There is too much absurdity to the comments I’ve been seeing the last couple days. I’m sick people. I don’t have the energy to properly scoff at all this. For instance, I was supposedly trying to prove Tim Ball is a Dragon Slayer in a comment where I wrote four paragraphs discussing him and his views then said:
I had just written about how Tim Ball denies the greenhouse effect, then I added a parenthetical noting he’s a Dragon Slayer while repeating that he denies the greenhouse effect. And apparently I did all that because I was trying, badly, to… prove Tim Ball is a Dragon Slayer?
And because I was trying to prove Tim Ball was a Dragon Slayer, it was apparently very important I provide proof he is a Dragon Slayer because anyone who doubted my statement would obviously take my failure to do so as some critical failing, not a normal statement of common knowledge people could ask questions about if they wanted information/clarification.
And I’m apparently I was claiming I’m the biggest expert in the room, not on just one topic, but all topics… because I said I wouldn’t be surprised if I knew more about a subject than anyone else here. It couldn’t be that I don’t view myself as any expert at all, or simply that I suspect most people here haven’t taken any real time to look at the issue. I’m clearly posturing and posing, pretending I know things like Tim Ball co-authored the seminal Dragon Slayer book.
I might be mixing some topics here, but honestly, I stopped even trying to figure out anything this guy was saying after he said:
There were three supposed “scientific facts” in a list. I called the list crazy. I then said one of the items in the list is a trivial truth and didn’t discuss it any further while I went on to explain things wrong with the other two statements.
Now, one could view that as me acknowledging not every item on the list was crazy even as I called the list as a whole crazy. Or one could view me saying an item on the list is a “trivial truth” as some attempt on my part to claim that item is false and crazy.
I can’t even laugh as much as I want to about this stuff because every time I try I start coughing too much and nearly grey out. I think if I get labeled a “Sou defender” one more time I might die due to not being able to catch my breath!
So yeah, I just want to let people know I’ll be excusing myself of any further discussion of Sou and the stuff arising from it on this page. I just made a super, hilariously awesome discovery, and I don’t care to distract myself from it when more of this inanity.
Because seriously, this thing is too hilarious.
Well Gee, you called someone a Dragon Slayer (in parentheses). That should have been enough for me, since I’ve never seen a warmist call someone a Dragon Slayer before without them having written a book on it. It’s not like you had right before that just made up a quote that Tim never actually said about the greenhouse effect not being real, as you’ve done repeatedly in this thread, and then linked to the article that proved that wasn’t what he said. I don’t know how I could have ever doubted your word on such a topic.
Clearly when Brandon makes declarations like these we must all accept them as Gospel, regardless of whether any link he may, in his wisdom, choose to share with us actually supports or outright contradicts him. For Brandon is all wise and all knowing.
Alternatively, Brandon may simply be full of it, and blindly assume that anyone holding an opinion that differs from his is not just wrong, but crazy.
As I already explained above, the ‘crazy’ list:
1) true, but trivial. Not Crazy
2) probably true. Semantics over whether 1/20 counts as disappear. Not Crazy
3) probably not true, but an opinion apparently held by a sizable part of the Geomagnetic community. Are they all Crazy? I have no idea.
Well, worry not! Since the Hotwhopper Article I originally brought up was mostly about calling Anthony and Tim anti-semitic Hitler Fans who don’t know climate changes (as I’ve mentioned repeatedly) and only briefly touched on belief in the Greenhouse Effect, I can in all honesty say that you have not in fact defended Sou. So breath easy.
no one analysed this yet.
http://www.thegwpf.com/planet-is-not-overheating-says-uk-statistician/
Statistics prove global warming will stop now. From the GWPF.
Bugs,
There are many nutty claims made about global warming (eg 1+ meter sea level increases by 2100, atmospheric CO2 levels of >850 PPM by 2100, “back radiation violates the second law”, etc.), on both sides of the political divide. This is just one more. I particularly liked the part about the mathematical methods being unusually applied in economics (AKA the dismal science)…. talk about lowering credibility!
“I don’t have the energy to properly scoff at all this.”
Yet… 400 or so more words.
Andrew
Well, Ball usually struck me as reasonable but with opinion.
( Everyone on this issue is opinionated, because regardless of science, everyone is mindful of the back end – policy ).
.
But Brandon has done me a service because I didn’t realize his claims which do a disservice to science and rational decisions about CO2. As such, Ball needs to be called out. The radiative forcing from additional CO2 is quite calculable. The actual resulting retention of heat may be moderated somewhat by motion of the atmosphere, but that by no means contradicts testable processes of radiative transfer.
.
By making these ridiculous claims, Ball degrades the credibility of those who would point out very real reasons for inaction. Those include:
.
The limited degree of warming.
.
The lack of harm from observed warming.
.
The lack of a physical basis for climate change other than warming.
.
The secular tendency toward reduced CO2 emissions that occur without policy.
.
The secular tendency toward rapidly decelerating population growth – also without policy.
.
etc. etc.
.
Yes, Virginia, there is warming.
No, Virginia, it is not a problem.
“The radiative forcing from additional CO2 is quite calculable.”
That’s quite assertive, TE.
Andrew
.
The physical properties of CO2 are repeatably measured in a laboratory.
.
Those properties are applied in radiative transfer codes.
.
Applying those radiative transfer codes to the atmosphere as it exists implies less energy lost to space.
.
Arguing that CO2 doesn’t cause warming is about as off the mark as those who argue it’s a problem without demonstrating why.
“Arguing that CO2 doesn’t cause warming”
TE,
When climate science presents a graph that goes up (warmer) and down (cooler) repeatedly, and they all do, the C02 can’t be causing warming during the periods when the line goes down.
Andrew
.
Yes, there are fluctuations in the amount of energy in/out of the oceans, and certain circulations change earth albedo by changing average cloud amounts in ways that probably aren’t resolvable yet.
.
But that doesn’t change the radiative influence of increased carbon dioxide.
.
The only significant way earth balances incoming energy is by radiating it away in the infrared.
“But that doesn’t change the radiative influence of increased carbon dioxide”
Ah. You are changing your tune. Now it’s not necessarily warming, but influence. That’s an entirely different goalpost on a different football field than warming.
Trying to get people to be a little clearer in their positions.
Andrew
“no one analysed this yet”
Gavin did!
.
Hmmm – the influence is of warming.
.
But I diverge from the insane climate posse in this way.
Temperature is not a term in the equations of motion of the atmosphere. Warming is slow, small, and not a source of significant climate change, because circulation of the atmosphere doesn’t have anything to do with the global temperature of the atmosphere.
“the influence is of warming.”
OK. And when it’s not warming, it has no influence. It’s intermittently influential.
Andrew
CO2 is always doing the same thing. It is the anthropomorphic projections of the climate believers that change from ice age to Venus runaway….
hunter,
I’m guessing in the interests of scientific understanding, a C02 Influence graph is forthcoming. The temperature anomaly graph is entirely inadequate to visualizing what C02 does moving through time.
Unless its a flat line. That would be disappointing.
Andrew
Brandon,
I don’t care if you, or anyone else for that matter, take me seriously or not. In fact, I don’t care what you think about anything or anyone and try to not read your posts. If there were a way to block them, as there was back in the days of USENET, I would.
Andrew_KY:
I know, incredible, right? Hundreds of words wasn’t even close to enough to describe the level of mockery people are deserving!
And DeWitt Payne, I suggest in the future you try harder. It might help you stop saying so many stupid things.
Brandon,
You end up arguing with everyone. That should tell you something. I doubt it will.
TE writes
Apart from changes in albedo, you mean?
TTTM,
It depends on the definition of incoming energy. If it’s energy that’s already absorbed, then TE is right. And you could say that albedo modifies the incoming energy at the top of the atmosphere rather than balancing it with outgoing energy. Lindzen’s Iris hypothesis was an attempt to link temperature to albedo in a negative feedback loop. There doesn’t seem to be much evidence that it’s correct, though.
If you’re paranoid, this should really freak you out:
The new mind control
The internet has spawned subtle forms of influence that can flip elections and manipulate everything we say, think and do
by Robert Epstein
I like how the author thinks that Silicon Valley is libertarian. How naive.
I suppose it depends on were you’re coming from. richardscourtney claims the Democrats are Right Wing.
When you’re at the bottom of a well, even the ground is up.
Dewitt writes
I dont think Lindzen’s Iris hypothesis was about albedo, cirrus clouds impact on DLR, not reflected solar radiation.
Re: bugs (Comment #143393) February 26th, 2016 at 5:52 am
Nick – So did Anders!
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/02/23/the-gwpf-is-funny/
Sometimes all you can do is larf.
Bottom line; he used basic time series analysis to develop models that he could then use to make forecasts of future temperatures. Was there any physics, I hear you ask? The answer, as I’m sure you’ve guessed, is no.
@ Andrew_KY (Comment #143406)
My reference to “anthropomorphic” was very deliberate.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/…/anthropomorphic
Merriam‑Webster
1 : described or thought of as having a human form or human attributes 2 : ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things
.
As noted above, I was referring to any amount absorbed, not changes in absorption.
.
However, in the seasonal cycle, albedo appears to decrease from winter to summer, so I’m not sure that there’s a case to be made for global warming increasing albedo.
.
I find that the case against alarmism is not that warming is unlikely, it is that the warming has been exaggerated in extent, and the result of that warming is not all ilk of undefined climate change ( climate depends on motion and motion depends on the gradient of temperature which will remain largely the same ), and that the impacts on humans and ecosystems are also small and perhaps of net benefit.
TE,
Your last paragraph is pretty much the expanded definition of the Lukewarmer position.
SteveF, it tells me a number of things. I have no idea what you might think it should tell me though. I don’t even know for sure if you have something specific in mind.
But I find almost everything in this world tells us some things, so yes, that does tell me something 😛
Dewitt notes “Your last paragraph is pretty much the expanded definition of the Lukewarmer position.”
Its certainly reflective of my position.
Its a pretty bleak outlook to assert a warmer climate is a worse climate IMO.
TTTM,
A warmer climate can have negative consequences…. for example warmer ocean surface temperatures can bleach, and even kill, corals. Certainly rising sea levels could cause problems in low lying coastal regions if the extreme increases (1 to 2 meters over <100 years) some of the more wild eyed have projected were to happen. (I think 16 inches by 2100 is a more plausible "high" rate, FWIW… hardly catastrophic.) But even acknowledging potential negatives, there are lots of potential positives as well, which are always ignored by the climate alarmed…. more productive farming, greening of semi-arid regions, greater biological productivity, warmer winter nights at mid to high latitudes, longer growing seasons, etc. If you put aside the really crazy stuff (we are all going to die when the ecosystems collapse!) the disagreement boils down to a philosophical difference of opinion on values, costs, risk, and benefits…. AKA politics.
Jim Hunt (Comment #143415)
“he used basic time series analysis to develop models that he could then use to make forecasts of future temperatures. Was there any physics, I hear you ask? The answer, as I’m sure you’ve guessed, is no.”
“models to make forecasts of future temperatures.”?
The answer must be yes.
Good to see you engaging here.
The results hurt your sensibilities?
Sorry.
The physics showed that there is no warming to see here.
So move along.
Next.
where is the ice on Novaya Zemlya?
There ought to be ice.especially at a true 15% concentration.
Not mentioning PIOMAS until it comes out!
“where is the ice on Novaya Zemlya?”
I’ve asked it for some years already from myself, some experts and on several different sites. I’ve not received any satisfactory answer. If the reason for ice melt in the arctic is GLOBAL warming then why has the loss of ice almost exclusively concentrated to one area – the Barents Sea west of Novaya Zemlya? In all other areas the loss is really insignificant. Year after year.
I don’t think one can underestimate the importance of politics.
From one of Judith’s recent posts is a gem of a quote from Gavin with regards the hiatus – a threat to scientists dedicated to “the cause”.
https://judithcurry.com/2016/02/24/nature-making-sense-of-the-early-2000s-warming-slowdown/
Gavin Schmidt: Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, is tired of the entire discussion, which he says comes down to definitions and academic bickering. There is no evidence for a change in the long-term warming trend, he says, and there are always a host of reasons why a short-term trend might diverge — and why the climate models might not capture that divergence. “A little bit of turf-protecting and self-promotion I think is the most parsimonious explanation,†Schmidt says. “Not that there’s anything wrong with that.â€
Gavin now has a budget and real people he’s responsible for. No longer can he simply let the science fall where it may. He is truly lost.
Sven and angech,
IMO, what we are seeing is the result of a northern shift in the North Atlantic Gyre. The same thing happened in the early twentieth century with water temperature increasing near Svalbard enough that it was no longer ice bound for most of the year. Coal mining on Svalbard became possible. That went away in the 1940’s and started again in the late 1970’s.
Interestingly enough, this cycle corresponds closely to the AMO Index. If that is indeed cyclical, we should see a shift back southward in the next ten years or so and something of a recovery in sea ice extent in the Barents Sea west of Novaya Zemlya. We should also see a reduction of ice being flushed through the Fram Strait during the summer.
My ocean current hypothesis is supported by the fact that ice on the eastern side of Svalbard persists longer than the ice to the North, West and South.
Conspiracy theories strike at Eli’s
Kevin O’Neill said..
“Yes, all the other sea ice extent graphs are wrong. Only the DMI 30% is correct.”
Well you said it Kevin.
Note I did not say this. Anywhere, anytime, and certainly not in this blog stream.
So you chose to make up, fabricate an idea.
Then ascribe it to another person, in this case me.
Then make up a conspiracy theory and ascribe it to me.
Great style, appreciated.
“Now, you can either believe in a vast conspiracy”- No I don’t.
In your conspiracy thought stream you say.
“This requires that all the satellite operators be in on it. All the other sea ice extent data compilers be in on it. All the people who collect in situ observations be in on it. The people who do ice area and ice volume be in on it.”
In on what?
Yes, all the other sea ice extent graphs are consistent.
Europe’s National Meteorological Services and, by extension, the International Users and Science Community, share data from the 30 different satellites. 10 American including NOOA [5], 6 European,5 chines, 2 Russian, 2 Japanese etc. Everyone likes cooperating.
Galileo 7 & 8 launched on 27 March from Europe’s Spaceport in French Guiana on top of a Soyuz rocket.
The CDOP-2 consortium is constituted of Meteo-France, as host institute, and of the following co-operating institutes : MET Norway (Norway), DMI ( Denmark), Ifremer ( France), KNMI ( Netherlands).
The Ocean and Sea Ice Satellite Application Facility (OSI SAF) supplies the 15% product to DMI.
DMI do not even touch it other than to put their name on it.
All I said was that the 30% product which uses a different Algorithm, which was being actively updated, and had nothing wrong with it, unless you believe a major stuff up to split a new data graph on an old data graph was done, was withdrawn when it did not match. the other, ubiquitous 15% graph.
This was a nucifragous summary of your pithy argument, Kevin
DeWitt, I am pleased to see a theory emerge from you. Very radical of you. Thanks. 🙂 Here is one even more radical, but interesting I think.
.
Scafetta and others hypothesize EMF could affect ocean current patterns that could, in turn, affect GMST. The ocean is an electrolyte after all, a non-homogeneous one since temperature is a direct factor for conductivity. Various depths thus have varying conductivity.
The work of Nicola Scafetta (2014) I know is fringe, but it makes some sense. The 11-12-year solar cycle has a better chance of becoming synchronized with Jupiter and Saturn’s orbital period and magnetic fields than some other hypotheses, like pregnant women getting in sink with tidal forces and giving birth on full moons, for example.
.
The AMO thought by some to be charting a 60-year cycle with 20-year steps. It just so happens, as Scafetta points out, that an alignment of Jupiter and Saturn happens about every 20 years, and processes 120 degrees every Great Conjunction, arriving back to complete the 360 degree celestial cycle every 60 years.
Scafetta 2014:
.
The resonance of reinforced vibrations from the trot of a cat can bring down a suspension bridge (in theory) if the perfectly timed.
.
Does anyone know if the Earth’s magnetic field EMF proxies have been compared to ice core proxies for paleo GMST or CO2? Or, is this just dragon slaying?
Soldiers are not supposed to march in step across a bridge. Nikola Tesla had the same idea and designed an oscillator with a small moving mass whose oscillation frequency could be controlled. The Mythbusters tried it out. Needless to say, they didn’t bring down a bridge. The bridge would have to have near infinite Q at the critical frequency for a tiny input to build to catastrophic levels. Not happening. There are too many opportunities for dissipation.
Galloping Gertie, the 1940 Tacoma Narrows bridge, collapsed because of wind induced movement, not the vibration of crossing motorists or a Tesla Earthquake Machine.
I strongly mistrust any theories of climate involving connection to planetary position.
I posted this message at Climate Etc and I thought it might be of some interest to a few posting here.
I have been communicating my criticisms of the Karl15 with the authors of that paper and an upcoming one that has been submitted on the subject of whether the New Karl global temperature series shows evidence of a warming slowdown. If anyone is interested I have a link below to a Word document that I have recently sent to the Karl15 authors. It deals with using SSA and EMD to measure trends and CIs for trends, a difference series of the New and Old global temperature series and the important comparison of the recent slowdown with CMIP5 climate models.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jqvu1j4k2w8i7an/Karl_New_EMD_Analysis.docx?dl=0
kenneth,
So, do you think the Karl et al revision to sea surface temperatures
justified/defensible? Or do you think the Karl et al revision is likely mistaken?
SteveF
the question is which is closer to the truth. Old NOAA or new NOAA.
Hands down new NOAA.
There is more interesting stuff in the other parts of the record..
Steve Mosher,
Ya well, I think you made that pretty clear already. I was hoping Kenneth would provide his answer. In the grand scheme of the universe, the Karl et al adjustment is maybe not so important; the stupid GCM’s still diverge from reality…. even Karl’s reality. I’d still like to hear from Kenneth.
DeWitt,
“I strongly mistrust any theories of climate involving connection to planetary position.”
100% agreed. There are lots of highly implausible influences on climate which are all more plausible than planetary positions… the claims are nothing but data in search of a correlation…. closer to astrology than science.
Massaged and repackaged data with arrogantly refused disclosures that just happens to disappear the hiatus is very likely not an improvement except for marketing purposes.
And now apparently also flies in the face of other climate science opinion leaders.
My bet is old NOAA was just fine, except for the resulting pause.
And the new NOAA is worthless, except for its conclusion.
The sleeping elephant in the room is that if there was a real climate calamity, it would not be so easily missed, nor would it require such heroic effort to find.
More mature commenting at warmist sites [other than Sou] seems to be happening.
Still the odd bit of name calling bat least counter arguments are getting some air, if no attention. TE trying his best.
I prefer to put the facts straight where I see misrepresentation but having been taken to task here as well some facts are obviously not as straight as others.
“The work of Nicola Scafetta (2014) I know is fringe”, or cringe.
I do not get out enough,. Will have a look at it Ron.
A bit like Dragon slayers, have not seen that book either.
DeWitt puts up sensible stuff, we just disagree at times.
Carrick can be good but we just disagree a lot.
“he stupid GCM’s still diverge from reality…. even Karl’s reality. I’d still like to hear from Kenneth.”
1. You have to mask the data properly
2. You have to compare apples and apples.. That means SST and SAT
I havent seen a skeptic yet who can do it right.
When you do that GCM look pretty dang good, given the complexity
if you update forcings, they look even better.
That said, they are still high.
“That said, they are still high.”
Climate Science = where you keep doing what’s obviously wrong over and over.
Andrew
SteveF, I have had numerous email exchanges with the Karl`15 authors concerning the optimum time periods to compare trends in detecting a warming slowdown, using better trend estimating methods like SSA and EMD in place of linear regression, the importance of making the comparison with the CMIP5 model runs and finally explaining in detail the difference series between the Old and New Karl temperature series. I think my suggestion about comparison with the CMIP5 models might be on firmer ground with the Karl authors after the Nature publication: “Making sense of the early 2000’s warming slowdown”.
The Karl 15 authors have not given me any explanation(s) of the breakpoints I have noted in the difference series between the Old and New Karl temperature series in an early email to them. That very linear trend in the differences series over the last 2 decades pretty much demands a detailed discussion of the changes that led to that trend as it is that trend difference that leads to the conclusions of the Karl 15 paper. I have not had an answer to my most recent email in which the linked email I posted here was also linked. I like the idea of groups continuing to look for different approaches to estimating the instrumental temperature. The fact that these attempts so often result in significant changes tells me that the instrumental record and the confidence intervals applied to it are still very much a work in progress.
It might also be of interest to some of you to see the variation in the New versus Old Karl global temperature series for various time periods for the sampling and measurement error (not the trend error) using linear regression and simulations per Karl 15:
2000-2014: New=0.064 Old=0.048 ; 1998-2014: New=0.054 Old=0.039; 1998-2012: New=0.066 Old=0.046
Results are in degrees C per decade.
The plus/minus measurement and error trend confidence limits represented by the numbers above are for the 90% range as determined in Karl 15. It can be seen that the variability in the New Karl global temperature series is greater than that of the Old series and something not discussed, to my recollection, in Karl 15.
While I await answers to my most recent email from the Karl authors perhaps Steve Mosher could attempt to provide some insights on these issues and let us know why he is so confident that New Karl is better than Old Karl.
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #143441)
Mosher repeatedly states that realists should do their own work if they are unhappy with warmist work. (My response to that is that as a taxpayer, I pay for the work and am entitled to professional, transparent work) You try to do it and get no cooperation from the warmists. Maybe Mosher will have a suggestion for you.
JD
Since the Army Corps of Engineers works hand in glove with the EPA, some of Lucia’s readers may be interested in the Cleveland Plain Dealer editorial entitled: “Army Corps to Cleveland: Drop dead” See http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/03/army_corps_to_cleveland_-_drop.html#0
According to the editorial, the Corps is trying to strong-arm Cleveland & Ohio into accepting PCBs into Lake Erie. I suspect that it is not quite as simple as set forth in the Editorial, but it could be. My parents owned land in Northern Collier County Florida and had problems with the Corps also.
JD
The superiority of new Karl… Forthcoming..
I like the idea of groups continuing to look for different approaches to estimating the instrumental temperature. The fact that these attempts so often result in significant changes tells me that the instrumental record and the confidence intervals applied to it are still very much a work in progress.”
###$#$#
Are you talking about the satellite record?
“New Karl is better than Old Karl”
To bad no one thought Old Karl was deficient when Old Karl was Current Karl.
Andrew
“Are you talking about the satellite record?”
I am talking about all the instrumental temperature data sets. It has only been recently that estimating better (and larger) confidence limits has been applied to the surface and satellite temperature records. I think this is an evolving process and has not been yet been settled. I would think when the Venema group gets some results from their benchmarking study- if done properly – we will obtain better estimates of the confidence intervals and perhaps even some confidence intervals that could arise from some non climate effects that are now not known exactly but could hypothetically affect the adjustment algorithms.
The confidence intervals for estimating recent period trends from the New Karl sampling and measurement error is not exactly small peanuts.
JD Ohio (Comment #143442)
I have actually obtain a number of good responses from the Karl group. We have several disagreements at this point and I have reiterated my request about the difference series between New and Old Karl in a recent reply to Karl. He has replied to my email with the Word attachment I posted here.
My ongoing complaint with the work of a number of climate scientists and their published papers is that while they do not usually report incorrect findings given their methods, it is the methods I have issues with and those issues are not addressed in their papers. More sensitivity testing by these authors would often point to these issues and make, in some cases, their pronouncements less certain.
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #143448)
Although the situation is not ideal, it does sound like progress is being made, which is a good thing.
JD
JD,
I am a Plain Dealer subscriber and their editorial board is reliably green, with little reflection on the merits of the issue. That doesn’t make them wrong but they certainly need to come with data if they are to be trusted. How much estimated PCB’s are there? How much dilution will they get in the lake? What are the other options?
This issue is similar to the dredging of the Hudson River. Where do you put PCB’s once dredged? PCB’s are heavier than water and will soon be buried in the silt of the lake. Likely they are better there than in a landfill with access to the water table (just like the Hudson).
“No Slowdown” at Tamino’s.
Or the pause that does not exist won’t go away.
What he does not understand is that the more he denies the pause exists, the more people notice that there is a pause/has been a pause out there somewhere.
Better still it is Michael Mann co authoring the latest acknowledgment of a pause.
This should tie in a bit to Ken’s comments to Karl et al
Michael E. Mann Retweeted
Climate Central â€@ClimateCentral Feb 24
“We shouldn’t sweep the early 2000s warming slowdown under the rug” – @MichaelEMann http://buff.ly/1SUMESU
On Wednesday, a group of prominent scientists published a commentary faulting colleagues who have published papers downplaying or dismissing the significance of a 13-year slowdown in warming rates at the planet’s surface.
“We shouldn’t sweep the early 2000s warming slowdown under the rug,†said Penn State meteorology professor Michael Mann, one of 11 authors of the commentary published in Nature Climate Change.
Not surprisingly Tamino has demolished Mann’s work but his followers twist themselves into pretzels trying to accommodate both views at the same time.
Interestingly the link to M Mann’s tweet put up by Hank Roberts and clickable on is still there but no longer directs to Mann’s twitter feed as of 5 minutes ago.
Tamino has delinked it!
Comparing the trends of the global Climate Model temperature series and those of the observed temperature series and the determining the need for adjustment of the model series for reasonable comparison of apples to apples would depend on what observed set is being compared and how the trend data is being handled.
If there are global areas like in HadCRUT 4 where the series does not use data or attempt to extrapolate for missing data then a masking of that area for the model would be required. I do not believe that is the case with the New Karl global temperature series.
If, as the recent Cowtan coauthored paper, “Robust comparison of climate models with observations using blended land air and ocean sea surface temperatures” by Kevin Cowtan, Zeke Hausfather, Ed Hawkins, Peter Jacobs, Michael E. Mann, Sonya K. Miller, Byron A. Steinman, Martin B. Stolpe, Robert G. Way indicates, the CMIP5 data used were air temperature above land and oceans and the observed is air above the land and at the ocean surface and in the ocean for ocean, and further, if the ocean temperature lagged the air temperature in warming, then an adjustment would be required to use ocean surface in the ocean temperatures for the models, or tos as the term is used in CMIP5. The effect here would be in comparing long term trends. On the other hand, if one were comparing the trends in short recent slowdown periods to the longer previous periods where the temperatures were increasing at a faster rate, determining the ocean warming effect on those differences is bit more complicated. One would expect the faster warming periods to show an increased trend in the period, for example of 1976-1999, for the climate models over the observed and then in the latter slower warming period of 2000-2014, the difference in trends due to ocean warming effects while still favoring the climate models should be less. I would think that the ocean warming effect would thus have little effect when looking at a warming slowdown in that manner and might even favor seeing it in the climate models over the observed. The actual effects as observed in the models will be a relatively easy task to determine and I plan to have a look.
Interesting Table S1 results from the Cowtan paper SI linked here http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/2015GL064888/asset/supinfo/grl53276-sup-0001-blendsi.pdf?v=1&s=eecfdd6473f5ca9f894c9821777a41a21a5c59b0. Note that the difference in trends in comparison of 1976-2014 to 2000-2014 remains very much the same for the models whether the air temperatures or blended temperatures (using the sea surface temperature) are used. Which was the point I made above. On the other hand, the observed data sets have very different trends for these same periods and much in line with what I found with the New Karl global temperature series. I prefer to use the periods 1976-1999 in comparison with 2000-2014 as that makes more sense when looking for a warming slowdown, but the difference remains albeit at a lesser degree when the comparison is 1976-2014 to 2000-2014.
Also there is an interesting reference in the Cowtan paper to Karl 2015 from the following link:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/grl53276.pdf
“The new dataset of Karl et al. [2015] incorporates adjustments to SSTs to match nighttime marine air temperatures [Huang et al., 2015] and so may be more comparable to model air temperatures. The difference between air and sea surface temperature trends diagnosed here provides support for an increase in temperature trends when using marine air temperatures, as reported in Karl et al. [2015].”
The implication of that comment would be that the New Karl global temperature series as described in Karl 2015 and understood in the Cowtan paper is that New Karl over Old Karl changed trends by, in effect, changing from SST to SAT. I am not sure that the implication is evident from looking at the New and Old Karl difference series.
Anyway I believe the paper and evidence from the Cowtan paper does not change my conclusions concerning the New Karl temperature series showing a statistically significant warming slowdown and a slowdown that is a rare and noise induced occurrence in the CMIP5 climate model runs.
two things , dewitt payne , i would add initial increased winter export to your hypothesis . secondly, many thanks to kenneth fritsch for the time and effort you put into what you do and how you explain it on this blog.