Is he the Greenpeace mascot? Or perhaps it’s the bow ornament of one of their scows after which this poster chooses to name himself? Is it just a coincidence that when anyone tries to tell the truth, he pops up and throws his quano in their general direction? And why is he so eager for puny anti-civilization interests to be heard? Is it because misery love company? I have a feeling that if this mystery were to be solved, we would be no more the wiser for our wasted efforts than that pathetic drone “Hellhound” ever is.

Yet the Register chose to continously enlighten us with his views on climate change without criticism, Is he perhaps having some connection to IT professional John Atkinson, who was allowed to post a similarly incoherent article on the Register? Is it just a coincidence that someone using the moniker “John A.” pops up regularly on the blog of Stephen McIntyre, who works in IT as well and is known for making powerful oil interests heard?

REPLY: I wouldn’t know, are unclear comments typical for you?

When a communication fails, the reader asks for clarification, and the writer refuses, do this prove that the reader is stupid or that the author is evasive?

REPLY: No I’m just waiting for the light bulb to come on for you. Personally I think you are overanalysing it. I figure that if you don’t see it by now, you probably won’t.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=18075

The USGCRP’s solution to this conundrum was to alter the temperature color scale by eliminating yellow and green, and extending the color orange into negative temperature ranges as low as -1.0°F, thereby implying warming, when in fact the models were showing no temperature change or cooling for some localities.

The problem with this sentence is that the two clauses constitute a non sequitur. The first clause talks about the color scale, while the second clause asserts that the applied colors did not match the underlying temperatures. There’s no logical relationship between the two clauses. Moreover, you seem to have three actual complaints:

a. the colors yellow and green were eliminated. Is this an aesthetic criticism? Do you have some special attachment to yellow and green?

b. the color orange has been extended below 0 degrees Fahrenheit to -1 degree Fahrenheit. This criticism is justified — but hardly serious given the displayed range of some 20 degrees Fahrenheit.

c. You imply that there exist points on the map whose temperature differentials are not correctly represented by the applied colors. Is this in fact your claim?

REPLY: Nope, still missed it

However, I can also see somebody point out that cool colors imply cooling and that therefore the color range should be adjusted so as to have warm colors indicating warming and cool colors indicating cooling. This is exactly what the right-side graphics appear to do, although they do suffer from a problem with the transition from warm colors to cool colors: first, they jump directly from orange to blue, and second, the transition occurs at -1 degree Fahrenheit rather than 0 degrees Fahrenheit.

Unless I am greatly misunderstanding the claims made in this article, I think the criticism offered is unjustified.

REPLY: Yes you’ve completely misunderstood it.

The second one overplays warming and shows that there is a lot occurring, and the first underplays it, masking the warming. However, of the two, I believe the first one was innocent, done to maximize contrast, and the second one was deliberately done to emphasize warming. Why? Because there is a full spectrum of colors that is expected on weather maps, ranging from purple in the extreme cold to red in extreme heat. Eliminating any color on the rainbow causes confusion, especially eliminating the neutral green and warm yellow colors, skiping straight to the orange.

A better scale would be
< -3 degrees = Blue – Cooling
+/- 3 degrees = Green – Really no change
< 6 degrees = Yellow
9 degrees = Red

That would assume that God is necessarily concerned with earthly wellbeing.

All the believers think he/she/it is.

What if, as is commonly believed, life on earth is a mere, brief testing ground for a soul’s destiny in eternity? Then goodness or badness, justice, injustice, and early, arbitrary death are irrelevant in the long run. It would all be wrapped up in what one does with what time one has.

What if, it’s not. Really, Evan, this is just philosophizing. No one knows or can know one way or the other, which is the whole problem. You know that religion is a means of controlling the populace, nothing more.

Or to put it another way, your teacher would care a lot whether you score well on the SAT but would not be overly concerned if the AC wasn’t working during the test. He’d care about how well you did, not how comfortable you were during the three hours of the test.

Sorry, but how does this equate to an all-powerful, all-knowing being who seems concerned enough about the “sweet savour” of roasted, unblemished male rams we all must sacrifice, but no one does? Concerned enough that we shouldn’t eat pork, must stone rape victims to death because they just shouldn’t have been out in the city, concerned enough to torture an old man into killing his son only to call “psych” just before the deed? Come on, Evan, you know it’s all a bunch of crap.

I am a nonbeliever, but seemingly arbitrary death and disaster is perfectly well accounted for by every major religion.

Of course it is. They’d have been out of business long ago if they couldn’t answer why bad things happen to good people. And the answers are bogus.