Sunday, December 13, 2009

The Climate Change Hockey Stick, or Scythe, or "W", or Rollercoaster, or Heartrate monitor


Cedric Katesby said...

Hmm, let's see now.
Getting science from some no-name denialist blog?

Mention of an endlessly repeated P.R.A.T.T point?

Anonymous said...

Sooooo. . . which is better?

To get science from a no-name blog?

Or to get big-name liers and their lies?

One of them might be telling the truth. You guess which one.

It's like the joke, "What's the difference between a lawyer and a sperm? One of them has a one-in-a-billion chance of becoming a human."

Maybe I should change "lawyer" to "climatologist scientist".

B Woodman

ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

Welcome back Cedric. We missed you.

Hmm, let's see now:
Making sure all skeptics regardless of credentials are characterized as "deniers" and denied govt funding?

Making sure your junk science is only "peer" reviewed by your fellow warmistas?

Mention of an endlessly repeated cliche "consensus"?

Sorry, Cedric old sod. It's unraveling.

Cedric Katesby said...

To get science from a no-name blog?

Does that sound like a sensible thing to you?
Would you get your medical advice from a no-name blog?

Or to get big-name liers and their lies? really believe that NASA is lying to you? Seriously?
Do you have any idea how big NASA is?
How do they keep a conspiracy like that going without other scientific communities ratting them out?
Or...or...(gasp)...are THEY in on the conspiracy too?

Cedric Katesby said...

Leon, the idea is to make a statement and then back it up with a reference.
Try to connect the statement to the link.

Making sure all skeptics regardless of credentials are characterized as "deniers" and denied govt funding?

Gosh, “skeptics” denied government funding? Wow. Sounds terrible. Yet your statement is not actually...supported...what you said.
Sadly, when I clicked you link, all I got was a rather mild-mannered video of Al Gore and a Times article.
No evidence of mislabeling “skeptics” as deniers. No evidence of deniers being denied government funding.

"Now every crackpot with a perpetual motion carburetor claims their genius is being censored by a cabal of oppressors of one form or another. That some of the crackpots have bad proposals and silly ideas for climate research is neither surprising nor noteworthy. So how do we distinguish the crackpots from the legitimate whistleblowers?
The obvious and simple way to provide evidence of the alleged conspiracy is to publish the research proposals that were turned down. Let the world see how the applications were rational, robust proposals for solid science. This is such a no brainer that the Deniers naturally published them …. nowhere that I know of.
Does anyone? has anyone ever seen one of these? Apparently not. Apparently we are supposed to take it on faith that they were good science that should have been funded."

Making sure your junk science is only "peer" reviewed by your fellow warmistas?

Once again, we have a naked assertion that fails to be supported by the link.

Your link goes to Michaels and his complaining about the scandal on the journal “Climate Research”.
He’s what he said…
One series of these e-mails called out the journal Climate Research, which had the audacity to publish a paper surveying a voluminous scientific literature that didn't support Mann's claim that the last 50 years are the warmest in the past millennium. (..) they then cooked up the idea of boycotting any scientific journal that dared publish anything by a few notorious "skeptics," myself included.
Their pressure worked. Editors resigned or were fired. Many colleagues began to complain to me that their good papers were either being rejected outright or subject to outrageous reviews — papers that would have been published with little revision just a few years ago.

Well, that's not what actually happened.
Plenty of people were there at the time. It’s all very official and open and well documented. If you look a little harder, it’s easy to see that “Climate Research” was dealt with fairly and that the editors themselves were fully involved in the process.

Mention of an endlessly repeated cliche "consensus"?

You linked to the San Francisco Chronicle.
Don't you have anything more concrete than just some newspaper article?
You could do something simple and check out Wikipedia, but that would only CONFIRM a scientific consensus. A scientific consensus that covers every single scientific community on the planet.
Every single last one.

So how do you explain this conflict with reality to yourself?
Well, it's a conspiracy of course!
A global conspiracy of fantastic proportions. Millions of scientists crossing ALL nationalities, and encompassing ALL political and religious leanings and covering ALL of the physical sciences. It’s really very impressive how they manage to maintain cohesion. Not a SINGLE scientific community has broken ranks anywhere.
What’s even more astounding is that no denier has even the faintest clue as to HOW they keep it all together.