He cites the AR5 attribution statement, which is another badly flawed piece of logic. By their reasoning method, if their models predict X amount of warming and the measured amount of warming is actually Y, the percentage of measured warming caused by humans is calculated as X/Y, which gets bigger and bigger with smaller amounts of actual warming. So the less warming we have, the more certain they are that humans are causing most of it.
“Eventually the climate will answer all our questions, but unfortunately probably too late for us to prepare if the answer is bad news. So we need to make decisions now.”
I fail to see how attacking businesses and industries that haven’t paid off Democrats and their militant environmental activists will help us prepare for anything. I haven’t seen any environmentalist plans for actually dealing with the “bad things” that may happen. They all focus on prevention through giving Democrats money.
But the future is uncertain. It is assured that bad things will happen because that has been nature’s role from the big bang onward. Focusing only on prevention means that we won’t be prepared for natural disasters, including nature generated climate change. Global warming apocalypse is a maybe. Natural disasters are a 100% certainty.
I’m stumped as to how a temperature rise that slow can alarm anybody. We deal daily with rates of 3C per hour, which is almost six orders of magnitude faster than the rate that haunts their fevered dreams. Every spring we adapt to rates that are about five orders of magnitude faster than their feared temperature apocalypse. Even the yearly and decadenal swings are bigger and faster than what has them worried. Every time we go on vacation we adapt to climate regimes that might as well have us on an alien planet.
Quote from linked article:
“EM: But no one seems to notice that the context is different. This is not the universe at large, this is Iraq, and a very specific site in Iraq where it was suspected that a WMD could be found. A UN weapons inspector goes to Iraq and can’t find any evidence of a WMD — that’s not absence of evidence, that’s direct evidence that the suspected WMDs are simply not there. The way I describe it is that it’s like someone tells you there’s an elephant in the room. You open the door and you look in the room, you open the closets, you look under the bed, you go through the bureau drawers, and you don’t find an elephant. Is that absence of evidence or evidence of absence? I would submit it’s the latter.”
And this is simply not true. As UN inspectors were inhibited from checking the room for the Elephant.
And Saddam did not want the the inspector to reach the conclusion that Iraq had no illegal weapons, as he wanted his enemies to be in doubt of whether he had the ace in his sleeve.
If the UN inspector had got cooperation from the regime, then UN inspector could given declared the wasn’t any Elephants in Iraq- and that would ended it.
The only alternative possibility is UN inspector were being unreasonable in there need of further evidence. They said the needed further inspections order to be sure there was no elephant in one of the rooms- the UN inspector could seem unreasonable in the need and bureaucracies tend to be this way, but if Saddam had thought it was important for UN inspector to give him a clean bill of health, the dictator had the ability to do this. And chose not to.
By the way, Willis Eschenbach had a recent post at WUWT on the Neukom et al paper’s temperature reconstruction, and it was quite entertaining.
The technique this time was to go through just about everything that leaves a record (tree rings, random things in sediment cores, stream flow, etc), run a simple correlation to the modern temperature record, and declare anything that roughly matches the curve to be a “valid temperature proxy”, even though the result of such sifting can just be a selected subset of random curves that happen to meet a particular shape criterion over a short sub-length.
The inevitable result of such a selection is that an average of many such “valid proxies” will indeed match the temperature record over the selected sub-length (they were specifically selected to do that), and average out to near zero everywhere except the sub-lenght because they’re essentially random. If you used the same method to pick “proxies” that matched temperatures from 1400 to 1600 AD, you’d get a flat line prior to 1400 and a flat line after 1600.
This is what passes for science in the published climate literature.
“This is what passes for science in the published climate literature.”
It’s mind boggling. People think they can dispense with the scientific method now that we’re so much smarter and have such great toys compared to previous generations. They have no inkling that, that is precisely what those earlier generations thought, too.
He cites the AR5 attribution statement, which is another badly flawed piece of logic. By their reasoning method, if their models predict X amount of warming and the measured amount of warming is actually Y, the percentage of measured warming caused by humans is calculated as X/Y, which gets bigger and bigger with smaller amounts of actual warming. So the less warming we have, the more certain they are that humans are causing most of it.
“Eventually the climate will answer all our questions, but unfortunately probably too late for us to prepare if the answer is bad news. So we need to make decisions now.”
I fail to see how attacking businesses and industries that haven’t paid off Democrats and their militant environmental activists will help us prepare for anything. I haven’t seen any environmentalist plans for actually dealing with the “bad things” that may happen. They all focus on prevention through giving Democrats money.
But the future is uncertain. It is assured that bad things will happen because that has been nature’s role from the big bang onward. Focusing only on prevention means that we won’t be prepared for natural disasters, including nature generated climate change. Global warming apocalypse is a maybe. Natural disasters are a 100% certainty.
I’m stumped as to how a temperature rise that slow can alarm anybody. We deal daily with rates of 3C per hour, which is almost six orders of magnitude faster than the rate that haunts their fevered dreams. Every spring we adapt to rates that are about five orders of magnitude faster than their feared temperature apocalypse. Even the yearly and decadenal swings are bigger and faster than what has them worried. Every time we go on vacation we adapt to climate regimes that might as well have us on an alien planet.
After all that’s been written about how they “caved to legal threats”:
http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Retraction_of_Recursive_Fury_A_Statement/812
Quote from linked article:
“EM: But no one seems to notice that the context is different. This is not the universe at large, this is Iraq, and a very specific site in Iraq where it was suspected that a WMD could be found. A UN weapons inspector goes to Iraq and can’t find any evidence of a WMD — that’s not absence of evidence, that’s direct evidence that the suspected WMDs are simply not there. The way I describe it is that it’s like someone tells you there’s an elephant in the room. You open the door and you look in the room, you open the closets, you look under the bed, you go through the bureau drawers, and you don’t find an elephant. Is that absence of evidence or evidence of absence? I would submit it’s the latter.”
And this is simply not true. As UN inspectors were inhibited from checking the room for the Elephant.
And Saddam did not want the the inspector to reach the conclusion that Iraq had no illegal weapons, as he wanted his enemies to be in doubt of whether he had the ace in his sleeve.
If the UN inspector had got cooperation from the regime, then UN inspector could given declared the wasn’t any Elephants in Iraq- and that would ended it.
The only alternative possibility is UN inspector were being unreasonable in there need of further evidence. They said the needed further inspections order to be sure there was no elephant in one of the rooms- the UN inspector could seem unreasonable in the need and bureaucracies tend to be this way, but if Saddam had thought it was important for UN inspector to give him a clean bill of health, the dictator had the ability to do this. And chose not to.
By the way, Willis Eschenbach had a recent post at WUWT on the Neukom et al paper’s temperature reconstruction, and it was quite entertaining.
The technique this time was to go through just about everything that leaves a record (tree rings, random things in sediment cores, stream flow, etc), run a simple correlation to the modern temperature record, and declare anything that roughly matches the curve to be a “valid temperature proxy”, even though the result of such sifting can just be a selected subset of random curves that happen to meet a particular shape criterion over a short sub-length.
The inevitable result of such a selection is that an average of many such “valid proxies” will indeed match the temperature record over the selected sub-length (they were specifically selected to do that), and average out to near zero everywhere except the sub-lenght because they’re essentially random. If you used the same method to pick “proxies” that matched temperatures from 1400 to 1600 AD, you’d get a flat line prior to 1400 and a flat line after 1600.
This is what passes for science in the published climate literature.
blew the link
“This is what passes for science in the published climate literature.”
It’s mind boggling. People think they can dispense with the scientific method now that we’re so much smarter and have such great toys compared to previous generations. They have no inkling that, that is precisely what those earlier generations thought, too.