Ammo For Sale

« « Gun Porn | Home | Fake Suppressor Ruled to Be A Real One » »

Or not

So, the global warming hysteria has reached critical mass and exploded. No warming for 15 years. That’s not a surprise since the guy said that in those emails that everyone said didn’t matter.

Robb: The science is unsettling, not settled. Yup.

27 Responses to “Or not”

  1. Cargosquid Says:

    The science IS settled.

    There has been no warming.

    Settled.

  2. Sebastian-PGP Says:

    Uncle, I love you but you really have taken a disturbing turn toward the intellectually dishonest in re this issue. The fact that TSI reductions and volcanic aersols have temporarily slowed the upward march for a short period of time does NOT indicate AGW has stopped or isn’t happening.

    Why not quote the rest of what Jones said? Like the part where he says that the IPCC is sound and hasn’t been impacted in any substantive way? Or that you can’t possibly explain the warming over the last century without anthropogenic influence?

    Why?

    Because in a fashion that would make the spinsters at Faux News proud, you’re omitting the stuff that doesn’t fit the bullshit narrative you’re selling.

    Sayeth Jones:

    I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

    Why are all the bloggers spouting off about Jones not quoting that part?

    You’re either misinformed or being dishonest. There is no 3rd option.

  3. Sebastian-PGP Says:

    PS: It’s also worth noting that the NASA GISSTEMP figures (not implicated in the Climate-not-a-gate emails) figures show 2005 as the hottest year on record, not 1998 like CRU does…and they’re pretty sure 2008 and 2009 will outstrip 2005.

    The point? You guys (a bunch of folks without grad degrees in the physical sciences or any substantive experience in it) are suggesting that a body of science accepted by many thousands of people who do have expertise in the field is somehow going to be toppled by one (misconstrued) interview given by ONE guy.

    It doesn’t work that way (thankfully).

    It’s like saying the 2A would go away if Dick Heller joined the Brady Campaign.

  4. Sebastian-PGP Says:

    It’s also pretty embarrassing how badly you’re missing the point of what he’s saying–over a short term period like 15 years, you’re not likely to see something statistically significant. The time period is too short.

    This is Stats101, folks. Come on already.

    Harribin- Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming?

    Phil Jones – Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

    You’re misconstruing what he said in an ugly fashion.

  5. SayUncle Says:

    ‘Why not quote the rest of what Jones said?’

    I didn’t quote any of it.

  6. wizardpc Says:
  7. Dan Says:

    Amazing how many people bought into this fraud.

  8. Number9 Says:

    “Uncle, I love you but you really have taken a disturbing turn toward the intellectually dishonest in re this issue.”

    PGP, you fake religion is busted. Why not try Scientology?

    It’s over man, move on.

  9. Hartley Says:

    Lemme see.. Phil Jones admits that some extremely critical parts of the AGW plank are simply untrue, that he isn’t very good at keeping his data clean (or even available) then asserts that “its all true anyway”, like he and his cronies have been doing for decades. Sorta reminds you of Dan Rather’s “fake but true” defense.

    Nobody says it isn’t warming – the world has been warming since about 1820 or so (the end of the “Little Ice Age”) and yes, we should really be preparing for a warmer globe. And I don’t know ANYBODY who thinks putting more CO2 and other pollution (like the particulates that that famously “green” diesel Audi puts out) is a good thing.
    But [further] crippling our economy and enriching various climate fraudsters (like the EU Carbon-trading markets are doing) seem like bad moves to me.

    “Intellectually dishonest”? – I’ll tell you what is intellectually dishonest: “Settled Science” — Science is, BY DEFINITION, skeptical – always questioning assumptions, always looking for flaws or improvements to the theories, no matter how long they’ve seemingly held true. To assert that ANY part of climate science is “settled” is fraud of the first water, IMHO.

  10. Smitty Says:

    As a supporter of the 2nd amendment and a research scientist, I am really disappointed in the Brady-esque denial of the facts going on here. Many, many sources show a global upward trend in the Earth’s temperature. It is real.

  11. Nate Says:

    I think that people would have been a little bit more responsive to the whole “OH NOES!!!!1 the globe is going to boil us ALIVE!” nonsense if it wasn’t put out there as “OH NOES!!!!1 the globe is going to boil us ALIVE! Do whatever we say, don’t question it, your a dumb mouth-breather if you question us”.
    The climate moves in cycles, warming, cooling, warming, cooling etc… Humans driving/eating red meat/controlling our house temps/exhaling more or less won’t change that. Oh and a tip for the next round of trying to control our lives in the name of some farce, making the Goracle your poster boy and having that shitbird talk down to us is a fucking STUPID move….

  12. Ellen Says:

    I’ve done my share of scientific computer programs. The most disturbing thing of all is the program-with-commentary that was leaked along with the e-mails. Reading that poor programmer’s laments over the code makes it plain that there’s an abundant supply of stupidity and/or mendacity at CRU.

    And as for you, Sebastian – I have a doctorate in nuclear physics. So be a bit more reserved with the insinuations that the commentariat here is a bunch of physical science ignorami.

  13. Sebastian-PGP Says:

    PGP, you fake religion is busted. Why not try Scientology?

    It’s over man, move on.

    When the majority of the physical sciences bodies in the world agree with you, I’ll issue a public statement that you’re right. Do us a favor and hold your breath until they do.

    Lemme see.. Phil Jones admits that some extremely critical parts of the AGW plank are simply untrue,

    Go read what he said. Where did he say that?

    But [further] crippling our economy and enriching various climate fraudsters (like the EU Carbon-trading markets are doing) seem like bad moves to me.

    Cap and trade is dumb. That doesn’t mean the scientific community isn’t in agreement (still) that AGW is the truth.

    To assert that ANY part of climate science is “settled” is fraud of the first water, IMHO.

    You should try reading what actual climate scientists say sometimes. You’ll find they agree with you.

    What they’re saying is that inquiry never stops or is “settled”; but also they’re saying we know things with degrees of certainty, a linear spectrum not a lightswitch, so to speak, and the degree of certainty around AGW approaches the degree of certainty about evolution or atomic theory or the germ theory of disease.

    As a supporter of the 2nd amendment and a research scientist, I am really disappointed in the Brady-esque denial of the facts going on here.

    As a gunblogger (admittedly on hiatus) and RKBA absolutist, I too am saddened to see my compatriots who so readily and handily destroy Brady esque stats chicanery buying into this attack on science so hook-line-sinker-ish a fashion.

    Put another way…some otherwise smart folks are so desperate to believe that AGW isn’t real that they’ll misquote Phil Jones and sell out their own intellectual honesty to misrepresent what he’s saying.

    That’s sad.

    Ellen, congrats on the doctorate. Not sure which insinuation you’re referring to, but thanks for chiming in.

    Even if we toss out CRU’s baby with the out of context bathwater you’re referring to, the NASA GISSTEMP observations are un-impugned, and make an equally strong, if not stronger case for AGW. As a physicist, you know darn well the overwhelmingly gigunda portion of the world’s physical sciences organizations and bodies have accepted IPCC’s conclusions as scientific reality. If you take issue with that, bring it up at the next meeting and let us know how it goes.

  14. Ellen Says:

    Sebastian – the part where you say “You guys (a bunch of folks without grad degrees in the physical sciences or any substantive experience in it)…”

    Mind you, perhaps I should not have said ‘insinuation’. It’s more like ‘flat-out disparagement’. How familiar ARE you with the credentials of the people here?

  15. Sebastian-PGP Says:

    Hereby issued is an unqualified mea culpa that explicitly states I didn’t know you were in the aforementioned peanut gallery.

    Seeing as you hadn’t spoken up yet, I think I can be forgiven for not making clear I wasn’t referring to you. 🙂

    Given the other AGW discussions on Uncle’s page (and yes he didn’t quote Phil, but he did link to and appear to agree with people that are indeed misquoting him and misconstruing what he said, so I stand by my earlier admonishment of him for passing this stuff along without qualifiers, he knows better and is goddamned smart so he can’t feign ignorance on the topic 🙂 ), I assumed it was clear that I was referring to a bunch of people who can’t even tell the difference between the weather report and IPCC AR4.

    Pretty clearly you’re not in that raft that’s rapidly cruising down Misinformation Creek without a propaganda paddle…so my heartfelt thanks for pointing out as much.

  16. Number9 Says:

    “When the majority of the physical sciences bodies in the world agree with you, I’ll issue a public statement that you’re right.”

    Why do we wonder if you will be the very last person to get over the denial?

    Who says the “majority of the physical sciences bodies in the world agree” on Global Warming PGP? Would they have changed the name to Climate Change if they did?

    Explain to the class how “Climate Change”, which has existed before the advent of humans, is caused by or exacerbated by said humans? It has always been, it will always be. How does driving to the bar in my car for a cheeseburger change the damn climate?

    It doesn’t. The climate changes for the same reason it always has. The Sun, the Earth, and the Moon.

  17. JKB Says:

    This is not science, it is statistics. Funny significant warming doesn’t show up until the great station filtering occurred. Of course, if you control for this, the warming drops away. Not to mention the mythical stations created by interpolation between distant real stations. Doesn’t work in objective reality but does in the AGW reality, i.e., temperature variance over distance and topography is not smooth or predictable.

    Sebastian – Science does not work by consensus. Here’s a list of real science that was ruled out by the consensus when first introduced. If you can’t trust the academy to recognize real science when it is demonstrated, can we trust their opinion on a subject with so much funding riding on it?

    John L. Baird (television camera)
    When the first television system was demonstrated to the Royal Society (British scientists,) they scoffed and ridiculed it.

  18. Sebastian-PGP Says:

    Why do we wonder if you will be the very last person to get over the denial?

    One of the perks of my position–I don’t have to. When all those pesky scientists change their position, I’ll change mine.

    Who says the “majority of the physical sciences bodies in the world agree” on Global Warming PGP?


    Would you like to see the list
    ? Where’s your list of dissenting organizations of similar caliber?

    And the name hasn’t changed. One is what’s happening, one is a descriptor of why it’s a problem. Nobody denies that the earth is getting warmer, even the skeptic minority. They just dispute the cause or that we can do anything about it…and their arguments aren’t compelling to most of their colleagues.

    Show me where a bunch of scientists got together and said “hey let’s change what we call this thing” and maybe you’re onto something.

    The moon is causing it? That’s a new one. Awesome! I’ll get right on that.

    JKB–you’re right, science works by examining and reexamining empirical data and drawing conclusions. The problem you’re having is that try as they might, the contrarians can’t seem to come up with empirical data to support a conclusion other than AGW.

    Controlling for variables is good science, in re: your first point. There are so many proxies that concur that even the skeptics like Singer and Lindzen aren’t trying to argue the planet isn’t actually getting warmer.

    And yeah, the problem is you contrarians are trying to use a stats manipulation here…as though 15 years would disprove AGW–when it’s you folks arguing that 150 years of observations aren’t enough! Hypocrisy.

  19. Number9 Says:

    “The moon is causing it? That’s a new one. Awesome! I’ll get right on that.”

    STOP.

    You have no credibility. If you do not understand tides, how can you possibly understand anything?

    Where do you think the tides come from? Cars?

  20. Nate Says:

    Probably cow farts, so stop eating 5 guys burgers.

  21. Number9 Says:

    “Probably cow farts, so stop eating 5 guys burgers.”

    Mystery of tides revealed. It’s the cows.

  22. Old Doctor Weasel Says:

    All the warm mongers rely upon data that got filtered through people & organizations tainted with dishonesty. Sebastian’s supposed consensus is not based on everybody looking at the raw data, especially since they now claim they can’t find it.

    Jones can still claim there’s warming, but how does he explain his backpedaling? First it was a crisis and every year was getting hotter, now there has been no significant warming since 1995? He has been caught changing his story drastically. That’s all I need to know if I want to evaluate him as a source.

    And for Sebastian’s sake, my PhD is in engineering, so I’m not exactly a climate scientist, but I know my way around the scientific method. That method clearly was not the basis for the AGW scare.

  23. Old Doctor Weasel Says:

    (repeated from Robb Allen’s site:)

    All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident. (Arthur Schopenhauer)

    In two years, nobody will admit to ever having believed in man-caused Global Warming.

    Even Sebastian-PGP will be too embarrassed to admit it. Kind of like his belief in astrology, voodoo, and socialism. He’ll never admit to them.

  24. Madrocketscientist Says:

    One of the Problem with AGW is that the data is bad.

    Take a look at this photo. See that surface temperature station? See where it is? How can that get good data?

    Source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/14/christy-and-mckittrick-in-the-uk-times-doubts-on-station-data/

  25. Madrocketscientist Says:

    And Sebastian, my degrees are in Engineering Physics (fluid dynamics) and Computer Science, so I know of what I speak. The climate predictor models suffer from two key faults: 1) They make vast assumptions regarding what affects the climate and how sensitive the climate is to these various effects, and 2) They have no good way to validate those models except to observe the climate.

    These are not like the models we use to predict subsonic airflow around an aircraft, models that use well known theories and math, and that are confirmed in the wind tunnel and during flight tests.

    As for the data and the proxies, trees are not good proxies (things other than temperature affect tree growth, things which are difficult to control for in the wild). Ice & mud cores are the best proxies (and they do show warming trends, but not nearly as severe as we’ve been told). Surface temperature stations are poorly located, and poorly maintained, which skews the data and forces adjustments for each individual station. Each adjustment allows for error to creep in. Satellite data is better (and it too shows a very gradual growth, not a disastrous rise).

  26. Sailorcurt Says:

    Did someone say that the GISS temp data is “un-impugned”?

    Hmmm.

  27. Sailorcurt Says:

    And it only took them 2 years and the threat of a lawsuit to get NASA to release the data under the FOIA act.

    I wonder why?