Josh writes:
Victor Venema’s comment the other day about needing 30 alarmists posts to balance out a Curry post rang true – skeptic arguments are that good!
Josh writes:
Victor Venema’s comment the other day about needing 30 alarmists posts to balance out a Curry post rang true – skeptic arguments are that good!
I was expecting an old fashioned scale with Curry on one side and 30 very small Mann lookalikes on the other
Truth triumphs over lies.
[snip -over the top -mod]
Enxtim, did you say flies?
JC-30, now with a straw applicator to reach the most stubborn alarmists.
Meh, this is like the popular misconception of what ‘hide the decline’ meant, that is declining temperatures. The popular misconception is actually more useful polemically than the original fact. Victor only meant that so few climate scientists blog that it would take 30 of them before you found one blogging like Judy.
I think the reason this misconception has caught hold so strongly is that it inadvertently pointed out the relative honesty and perspicacity of Judy in comparison to the bulk of climate scientists. The number should actually be a thousand to one, or a million to one. Add in effectiveness to honesty and perspicacity, and we find the ratio incalculable, as Judy is unique.
==============
Science in a can….spray away alarmism today!
Posted at Principia Scientifica .
(The point being , that unless we get our act together the Alarmists will simply overwhelm us with consensus bollix.
Would someone please let us sceptics know who is correct in this matter(discussions between slayers and Roy Spencer) because I refuse to operate on opinion and it is indeed about time for some peer reviewed solid science on the subject of CO2 and its role, if any in CAGW, again, if any!)
As a non scientist , which numbers me amongst say 97% or more of the worlds population (that damned consensus again!)
What I would like to know is this, given that I am a sceptic but that’s a minority and given my ignorance of the subject and that’s probably way over 97%, how on Earth am I supposed to educate friends and associates on the subject when there is such a huge disparity of views amongst the Sceptics?
I have gone from quizzical to sceptic ,moved on to denier and now find myself lost between the luke warmers , some of whom I admire greatly ,Lord Monkton, Jo Nova etcetc and the Slayers view.
I tend to go with the math but where there is a divergence between the likes of Roy Spencer and yourself ,it is extremely difficult for a lay person to deal with.Instinct says go with the slayers for a number of reasons , but some of those would make me equally as hypocritical as some of the Warmistas.
Where to go for best advice?
I have been researching a huge number of sites and particularly like that of Stefan the Denier ,but this fighting is counter productive.Someone please prove the Science so that we can throw peer review back in the faces of the sheep.
And at a fraction of the cost too.
I hope that can of spray is powered by compressed CO2. Prof Lu at the Univ of Waterloo has shown that it is innocuous.
CAGW gatekeeper, Eric Holthaus is terrified. read all:
1 May: Slate: Eric Holthaus: Carbon Dioxide Levels in Atmosphere Reach Terrifying New Milestone
It’s official: Earth’s atmosphere is now in uncharted territory, at least since human beings evolved hundreds of thousands of years ago.
The Scripps Institute at the University of California-San Diego confirmed the news on Thursday:…
Every single daily carbon dioxide measurement in April 2014 was above 400 parts per million. That hasn’t happened in nearly a million years, and perhaps much longer…
That year, the late Scripps scientist Charles Keeling decided to start taking continuous measurements at the top of a volcano in the middle of the Pacific Ocean—about as far from contamination as possible…
His son, Ralph Keeling, now directs the CO2 program at Scripps, and maintains the iconic chart of atmospheric carbon dioxide that bears his father’s name: the Keeling Curve.
I spoke with Ralph on the phone on Wednesday about the new milestone… http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/05/01/mauna_loa_atmosphere_measurements_carbon_dioxide_levels_above_400_ppm_throughout.html
Thanks Josh.
kim says:
May 2, 2014 at 3:15 am
Meh, this is like the popular misconception of what ‘hide the decline’ meant, that is declining temperatures. The popular misconception is actually more useful polemically than the original fact. Victor only meant that so few climate scientists blog that it would take 30 of them before you found one blogging like Judy.
I think the reason this misconception has caught hold so strongly is that it inadvertently pointed out the relative honesty and perspicacity of Judy in comparison to the bulk of climate scientists. The number should actually be a thousand to one, or a million to one. Add in effectiveness to honesty and perspicacity, and we find the ratio incalculable, as Judy is unique.
____________________________
Except that there aren’t 1 million climate scientists, or 1000. There aren’t even 30 of them that are doing real science. There aren’t really any.
Heh, Alan, it’s clear Victor Venema can’t do math.
============
They know they can’t win on either the science or the truth, so the only weapon they have left is to try to wear skeptics down through sheer exhaustion. They wish. That tactic may have worked in the bad old days, but there are too many of us now.
That Victor Venema is a truly funny guy. Josh should follow him carefully, as he looks to be a bottomless well of potential ‘toon subjects.
Catch this comment of Venema’s, from the 30:1 post over on Judith’s blog:
Hilarious!
And I bet he has a million of ’em.
Dynamo1 on Judith Currie’s site observed:
“30 Curries? One picocurry has more content than all the alarmists combined.”
Brilliant!
After reading the original post here at WUWT I clicked on the link to that new web-site (the one that did not Curry as a contributor). I was surprised by the effort they have invested and in the lack of comments on their stories (which are all alarmist). It seems as though they (CAGW alarmists) have entirely lost their audience.
Her strength is as the strength of thirty
Because her heart ain’t dirty
Although there is an “F” in skeptic factor, there is no “F” in global warming.
Ok I’m going.
With the Truth, she’s oh, so flirty;
Tempts us all, seduction early.
===========
Oops, almost missed the last sign: Burma Curry!
===========
Nice cartoon, Josh. You might do another in which she is instructing thirty kindergarteners in empirical methods in a lab setting. That image is why I call her Saint Judith.
I like her slapping a shaving cream pie in Michael Mann’s face.
======
pat says:
May 2, 2014 at 4:00 am
“CAGW gatekeeper, Eric Holthaus is terrified. read all:
1 May: Slate: Eric Holthaus: Carbon Dioxide Levels in Atmosphere Reach Terrifying New Milestone
It’s official: Earth’s atmosphere is now in uncharted territory, at least since human beings evolved hundreds of thousands of years ago.”
Notice that all such headlines are political rather than scientific. Compare it to the claim that “Weapons of Mass Destruction Available to Terrorists Reach Terrifying New Milestone.” The number of claims containing “Reach Terrifying New Milestone” is indefinitely large and all of them are trivially true.
I wonder how Dr. Curry would look dressed as Wonder Woman? 😉
kim
May 2, 2014 at 6:04 am
I’ll join you on a road trip anytime!
“It’s official: Earth’s atmosphere is now in uncharted territory, at least since human beings evolved hundreds of thousands of years ago.”
He left off the obligatory: “Women and Minorities Hardest Hit!!!”
I’m a bit behind. Who is Mr. Venema and where did he make his comment? Thx.
*ahem* it is the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/
However, the statement about atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is factual. I love this graph, it makes the hockey stick look benign!
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/7koomey.png
CRS, DrPH says:
May 2, 2014 at 8:25 am
However, the statement about atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is factual. I love this graph, it makes the hockey stick look benign!
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/7koomey.png
————————————–
That is indeed a cool graph. It would be a little more honest if it started at 0 ppm rather than 100 ppm.
It was also interesting to see how close we came to “End Of All Life On Earth” levels of CO2 multiple times in the past.
The funny part of this whole thing is that Dr. Curry is not even a “skeptic”, but a luck warmer. Yet she is still causing so much angst whithin the hocky team.
pat says: May 2, 2014 at 4:00 am
That year, the late Scripps scientist Charles Keeling decided to start taking continuous measurements at the top of a volcano in the middle of the Pacific Ocean—about as far from contamination as possible…
Apart from Kilauea on the SE part of the Island, which started in 1983. If I remember correctly, the trade winds blow from that direction.
“Carbon dioxide is released when magma rises from the depths of the Earth on its way to the surface. Our studies here at Kilauea show that the eruption discharges between 8,000 and 30,000 metric tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each day. Actively erupting volcanoes release much more CO2 than sleeping ones do.”
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html
Oh, a shout-out to Dr. Venema, one of the earlier critics of Watts et al. (2012) who pointed out to us things that needed to be accounted for, such as TOBS, a stricter hand on station moves, and MMTS equipment conversion.
Note to Anthony: In terms of reasonable discussion, VV is way up there. He actually has helped to point us in a better direction. I think both Victor Venema and William Connolley should get a hat-tip in the paper (if they would accept it!) because their well considered criticism was of such great help to us over the months since the 2012 release. It was just the way science is supposed to be, like you read about in books.
That also means that your decision to pre-release in 2012 was extremely wise and it worked wonderfully for all the reasons you gave at the time.
REPLY: No doubt the criticisms were valuable, but the condescending way those two guys went about it was less than professional (better descriptions exist but I’m not going to start a flame war). – Anthony
It’s actually a stain removing power that Curry has. She is using it to remove the CG1 team’s stain from climate science.
The removal of the IPCC’s stain is an ongoing work as well.
It’s working.
John
This reminds me of the pamphlet published by the NAZIs, “A Hundred Authors Against Einstein.” Einstein’s response was something like: If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!
Jeff in Calgary says:
May 2, 2014 at 9:00 am
The funny part of this whole thing is that Dr. Curry is not even a “skeptic”, but a luck warmer. Yet she is still causing so much angst whithin the hocky team.
In that vein, neither Anthony, nor Dr. Spencer, or many of the other prominent opponents of CAGW are skeptics. None of them argue for instance that “there is no greenhouse effect.” Quite the contrary their approach is a moderated – “nuanced” as a diplomat would say – approach. They simply say there is no grounds for forcasting at catastrophe due to CO2 emissions, That is really just common sense, but it doesn’t (usually) inspire appallingly bad movies – “The Day After Tommorrow” has been replaying, or any sense of fear and responsibility, which CAGW encourages so loudly.
Yes, what we are skeptical of ISN’T that climate changes (it changes constantly), that carbon dioxide has some (infinitesimal, unmeasurable but technically existent) effect on climate, or than man has some (again infinitesimal globally, but certainly local) effect on climate, or that there is a greenhouse effect (yes, the atmosphere as a whole, 99.96 percent of which is substances other than CO2, and contains on average about 50 times as much water vapor, as CO2, does measurably warm the Earth) – what we are skeptical of IS the faux “science” that relies on empty assertions (models), false assumptions (CO2 is the master driver, over and above obviously enormously more potent factors like the Sun, and its effect increases linearly with concentration), an Orwellian-style rewrite of the historical and geological records (“we’ve got to get rid of the MWP,” and “hide the decline”) and the ignorance and gullibility of uninformed people.
As to the faux “science” and its political purposes in the hands of its purveyors – I am resolutely skeptical thereof, and resolutely opposed thereto.
evanmjones says:
May 2, 2014 at 9:19 am
“I think both Victor Venema and William Connolley should get a hat-tip in the paper (if they would accept it!) because their well considered criticism was of such great help to us over the months since the 2012 release.”
William M. Connolley is responsible for the climate-scientific propaganda section of the wikipedia. Some fine fellas you have there.
All well and good but of course Dr. Curry is exactly the foot dragging “skeptic” that has prolonged to “debate” for decades and still is a useful tool in obfuscating the political and power agenda behind greenshirt authority politics. She’s the David Brooks of climate skeptics as if this all greenshirt authority can accept, just as the NYTimes can only wish the limits of the GOP are represented by David Brooks. In short, it’s a farce on both fronts.
A fellow green wanted George Moinboit arrested for his pro-nuclear views the other day, does that make Moinboit rational on climate? No, it doesn’t.
Dr. Curry has been very caught up in massive twitter bashing from the “team” lately but her obfuscations regarding AGW political motives remain a disgrace and counter productive to the eventual full rejection of the meme driving AGW pseudoscience academia. She’s no Whittaker Chambers of climate science to this point.
Greens control the narrative and the parameters of dissent, Dr. Curry prominence among many skeptics indicates that. The bar needs to be raised as she is a poor example of the overall skeptical argument which if you follow her statements she doesn’t even support. The logical “middle” of this debate still leads to a prison planet ruled by experts under a common good totalitarian system. So she in fact is a hazard not a solution, hence she is acceptable for public discussion with the Greenshirt consensus while actual skeptics are blackballed into as Orwell phrased it “nonpersons”.
I cast my lot with the nonpersons left from AGW radicalism not the panderers and mollifiers.
Chad Wozniak says:
May 2, 2014 at 10:45 am
I have no trouble with the cartoon as such, I just think that Dr. Curry as a skeptical “champion” is utter nonsense with even marginal inspection. She’s middle of the road statist and authoritarian who only differs with radical statist’s and authoritarians on “degree(s)” of social engineering and central planning. The David Brooks syndrome of collaborating dissent and an essential issue for actual skeptics who understand the core AGW meme drivers.
The last thing skeptics need is a Judenrat headed by the Dr. Curry’s of the world;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judenrat
If you think “adaptation” social terrorism couldn’t meet almost all the totalitarian designs that are guaranteed under “mitigation” policy you live in the land of unicorns and you really don’t understand AGW at all. Supporters of Dr. Curry are often the most delusional among imagined “skeptics”. The choice isn’t between a 10 year plan to eliminate human freedom (The Mann design) or a 50 year slide into the abyss (the Curry eventuality).
@ GHowe(p)
Yr: “Who is Mr. Venema…”
Well, given my limited interaction with the gent on another blog, I can tell you this about ol’ [trimmed]
30 to 1 is probably too low given the volumetric increases of shill alarm even during recent cold weather and related winter records. Alarmists enjoy a high inflation factor on the order of cosmic inflation. It is a testament to their get-out-the-shill vote effort.
Some like it hot. Some like it very hot, and some like it with no Curry at all.
from the CCNF, where the inital exchange occured:
“Our website, ClimateChangeNationalForum.org, has been featuring an open dialogue by a growing community of scientists since its debut on January 2, 2014,”
From reading the comments intolerant of dissenting views from other scientists, “open dialogue” is the furthest thing the CCNF promotes. Too few in the scientific community stand up to this bullying. Bullying is being called out among children, perhaps the adults will follow suit at some future time commensurate with their emotional and social intelligence.
kim says:
May 2, 2014 at 3:15 am
Victor only meant that so few climate scientists blog that it would take 30 of them before you found one blogging like Judy.
Assuming he did mean that (as utterly senseless as it sounds): you actually believe that? I call “bullshit.”
kim says:
May 2, 2014 at 3:15 am
Meh, this is like the popular misconception of what ‘hide the decline’ meant, that is declining temperatures. The popular misconception is actually more useful polemically than the original fact.
Meh, the original fact is that “Hide the Decline” was about hiding the decline in the proxy signal, which showed tree rings to be unreliable proxies for temperature; such anti-scientific behaviour you are apparently quite comfortable with.
Definitely adds new meaning to the phrase “slapstick humor”!
Mike:
I suppose that I should be listed on that wall of great praise also.
Funny idea though; a completely shameless character describes others as being shamed. I’d much rather feel shame than to be shameless.
Courtesy of Merriam-Webster
shame·less adjective \ˈshām-ləs\
: having or showing no shame
Full Definition of SHAMELESS
1: having no shame : insensible to disgrace
2: showing lack of shame
Makes me proud!
As for as anonymous, ha! Friends know my preferred IDs well. I don’t give a rats ass whether anyone else knows; especially as I’m not dependent financially nor emotionally on keeping the green scam going.
David, UK, you’ve slightly misunderstood me. I’m perfectly aware both of what decline was being hidden, and of how hoi polloi understands the odious phrase. Uniformitarianism Forever, or until the Twelfth of Never.
AtheoK, slap shock and make it stick crook.
Tom J., my charts and maps have hippographs.
=================
Oops, always an error to read from the bottom. David, UK, sure, I paraphrased. Go read what Victor said for the ungracious meaning within it.
==================
By the way, David, UK, I write purposefully so as to be misunderstood. I’m grateful for your skill.
=========
(y)
Just got back from Vienna and EGU 2014 !
Time to decompress.
😉
A delight!
mike says:
May 2, 2014 at 11:43 am
Thanks for the laugh. I might take a few whacks at that wall to see what sticks. It sounds like a honorific place to be.
re: Dave in Canmore says May 2, 2014 at 12:10 pm
from the CCNF
What? Another stab at a scientific-focused ‘debate site’? What happened with the last one (a year or two back) where the washed and un-washed were kept segregated on separate virtual ‘boards’? Did that site implode?
.
” Climate Dialogue” – maybe this is the site I was thinking of …
The circle is complete; on curryja site CE I found this:
Jim Cripwell | April 27, 2014 at 10:37 am | Reply
When Marcel Crok started Climate Dialogue, I had an exchange of views with him, as to why I thought it would not survive using the ideas he was suggesting. I suspect I was right. There has been nothing new on Climate Dialogue for months. It needs a nice funeral.
…
@cwon14 at 11:35 a.m. –
I’m not sure what you were referencing in citing my post at 10:45, but I agree with you that Dr. Curry isn’t really a skeptic – you may recall from my post on another thread, that I believe that while she may be distressed by the faux aspect of alarmist “science,” she is hoping that the AGW theory will still eventually be substantiated, which would mark her quite indelibly as not a skeptic.
I also agree with you (if I understand your point correctly) that we skeptics must not concede any sort of superior authority to alarmists – indeed, I believe strongly that we must not be content to coexist with them but must aggressively and unforgivingly pursue our case. My other point is that wars do not require absolute uniformity of opinion among the good guys to be won – they just require the will to win.
Your analogy with the Polish Judenrat – in the Lodz ghetto in WWII – is telling, and should be a warning to all of us fighting the good fight. We cannot settle for merely being allowed to exist, because that assures that we will in time not be allowed to exist.
William M. Connolley is responsible for the climate-scientific propaganda section of the wikipedia. Some fine fellas you have there.
I know exactly who he is. But it is he and VV that gave us the valid criticism we needed to complete the task. It will have saved us no end of trouble in the long run and it will be a better paper, too.
The Josh and Judy show – two class acts!
Judith Curry
It’s thirty to one and the battle is set
The talk is all done and the forces have met
The thirty have run, so unnerving the threat
And Curry has won without breaking a sweat
Eugene WR Gallun
From a comment by Judy on her site:
@Mike 11.30am
So you and VV got along quite well then?
re: rogerknights says May 3, 2014 at 1:11 am
Note the update at: May 2, 2014 at 8:49 pm was in response to that comment by curryja.
To wit:
Jim Cripwell | April 27, 2014 at 10:37 am | Reply
… There has been nothing new on Climate Dialogue for months. It needs a nice funeral.
Perhaps curryja simply sees/would rather see things (e.g. climate research progress) moving (and rightfully so, in her perspective) at a ‘glacial pace’ (not that there is anything wrong with that, to paraphrase a standing Seinfeld joke) rather than a break-neck, hell-bent-for leather pace* as our modern ‘world’ (and publishing schedule; on the presses by 3 and ‘film at 11’) seem to demand?
* http://www.word-detective.com/2009/10/hell-bent-for-leather/
.
From what she wrote I don’t think it’s fair to say that she’s happy with its pace. She seems, rather, happy with its format and potential.
As I am. I think consensus types won’t participate unless we scruffy types are kept in a roped-off section. (I think consensus types, who have begged off due claiming to be too busy, should be paid to participate.)
What Venema was implying with his 30:1 ratio is that 97% of climatologists were on the opposite side. So here’s how I’d have labeled (in part) the can in the cartoon:
“Cut through the Crud with Curry’s 3% Solution.”
Chad Wozniak says:
May 2, 2014 at 8:50 pm
Chad, my main point is that Dr. Curry isn’t a “skeptic” and is an expert authoritarian which is a basic premise of greenshirt authority (an underlying of greenshirt morality and AGW religious views). So she is a perfect tool for skeptic mollification which is as central a disease as Michael Mann torturing tree rings for the green thugs. Bolsheviks deserve most of the blame of 1917 but don’t kid yourself, armchair social “reformers” equivocating behavior in London and the West deserve much of the blame of the 20th century results. They were both part of the decline and the results. So Dr. Curry and her admirers are PART OF THE PROBLEM.
Dr. Curry knows which way the wind is blowing in the same way “Patriots” crawled out of the wood work in 1781 but were scarce to find in the winter 1776. She’s played every-side against the middle for years. That many think her a skeptic hero speaks volumes about the incoherent political views of many “skeptics” and why the losses have been so great and this will drag on for decades more.
How many left dead in Africa/Asis due to idiotic energy rationing as being “green” in the west while this farce plays out?
Anthony Watts, could you maybe remove the worst transgressions from this comment of mike?
[noted. mod]