First, a bit of a primer. Wikipedia describes a random walk is a mathematical formalisation of a trajectory that consists of taking successive random steps. For example, the path traced by a molecule as it travels in a liquid or a gas, the search path of a foraging animal, the price of a fluctuating stock and the financial status of a gambler can all be modeled as random walks. The term random walk was first introduced by Karl Pearson in 1905.
From the Financial Post: A 2011 study in the Journal of Forecasting took the same data set and compared model predictions against a “random walk” alternative, consisting simply of using the last period’s value in each location as the forecast for the next period’s value in that location.
The test measures the sum of errors relative to the random walk. A perfect model gets a score of zero, meaning it made no errors. A model that does no better than a random walk gets a score of 1. A model receiving a score above 1 did worse than uninformed guesses. Simple statistical forecast models that have no climatology or physics in them typically got scores between 0.8 and 1, indicating slight improvements on the random walk, though in some cases their scores went as high as 1.8.
The climate models, by contrast, got scores ranging from 2.4 to 3.7, indicating a total failure to provide valid forecast information at the regional level, even on long time scales. The authors commented: “This implies that the current [climate] models are ill-suited to localized decadal predictions, even though they are used as inputs for policymaking.”……
More here: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/06/13/junk-science-week-climate-models-fail-reality-test/
h/t to WUWT reader Crispin in Waterloo
Previously, WUWT covered this issue of random walks here:
Is Global Temperature a Random Walk?
UPDATE: The paper (thanks to reader MT) Fildes, R. and N. Kourentzes, 2011: Validation and forecasting accuracy in models of climate change. International Journal of Forecasting. doi 10.1016/j.ijforecast.2011.03.008
and is available as a PDF here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Poptech says:
June 15, 2012 at 11:07 pm
A fan of *MORE* discourse” needs to do better research. It looks like an epic failure for computer modeling (I am not surprised),
Patrick Shanahan, vice president and general manager, Airplane Programs, Commercial Airplanes, adds, “We’ll go back and look at where the model failed to predict this situation (wing stress). And (then) tune them up.”
Sounds like climate modelers.
Ay-up. A bud at the NTSB once told me an aero engineer complained to him that the CG schematics for one particular airplane required attaching sections of composite skin to the aluminum airframe without using rivets, because the composites would de-bond at the rivet holes. Problem was, an adhesive with the requisite temperature + strength + bonding characteristics didn’t exist.
The modeler told him, “You’re the engineer — invent it.”
Next up on WUWT: Afo*M*d checks in with an exposition of how the improved graphics in Flight Simulator XXI demonstrate continuing improvement in climate modeling…
rgbatduke says:
June 14, 2012 at 8:50 am
…
“To which the physics professor then replied, “Not even you with all of your philosophy and the pen in hand can do that — but at least I understand why.”
Who is it, after all, that drops the pen?”
That’s excellent! I wish I could travel back in time and use that on the philosophy prof.!
snaparooni says:
June 16, 2012 at 3:39 am
rgbatduke at June 14, 2012 at 8:50 am: “To which the physics professor then replied, “Not even you with all of your philosophy and the pen in hand can do that — but at least I understand why.”
Who is it, after all, that drops the pen?”
That’s excellent! I wish I could travel back in time and use that on the philosophy prof.!
Actually, the “why” he drops the pen is the province of philosophy. The “how” he drops the pen is the physics prof’s bailiwick.
Unless, of course, the physics prof had previously observed the philosophy prof eating popcorn and realized his fingers were still coated with butter…
skip says:
June 16, 2012 at 1:35 am
Maybe–just maybe Jim–this is why Fildes and Kourentzes affirmed the fundamental science of CO2-induced climate change *and* it’s associated risks–and that this is why we should continue to develop and improve climate models.
You first have to *prove* CO2-induced climate change exists before you can affirm it.
Bill Tuttle says:
June 15, 2012 at 11:33 am
Phil. says:
June 15, 2012 at 10:48 am
They certainly are better than a random walk, which they haven’t been compared with. In his intro Anthony correctly describes a random walk, however the paper doesn’t compare against a random walk.
The paper *does* say that plotting random numbers — “using the last period’s value in each location as the forecast for the next period’s value in that location” — resulted in a more accurate forecast than those produced by the models.
That isn’t a ‘random walk’, it’s persistence.
***You first have to *prove* CO2-induced climate change exists before you can affirm it.***
I confess I do not even really understand what your point is. Aside from the pointlessness of the distinction between “proof” and “affirmation” in this context, you’re missing the *key* point that Fildes and Kourentzes are more in *dis*agreement with Anthony Watts than Watts realized when he posted the comment about their article.
This of course stems from the fact that Watts *never read* the article but instead relied on secondhand sources–as shown by the fact that he didn’t even get the link right initially.
The subsequent gang-tackling by the readership of this blog–none of whom had read the article either–was simply an all-too-common example of what happens when people rely on (a) a singular source with (b) an agenda, and (c) never critically evaluate that source. This, unfortunately, is what happens to the readership of Wattsup all the time.
But soon enough the “moderator” will begin to detest my exposure of this ugly truth, and I’ll be shortly censored. You all can go back to believing Anthony Watts again undeterred by people who actually investigate the evidence.
[Reply: Anyone that paranoid about WUWT moderation should check under the bed every night. Just in case. ☺ ~dbs, “moderator”]
The most obvious problem, is no one should ever reference Wikipedia since it is a completely unreliable resource that can be edited at will by anyone with an Internet connection. Almost every time I read a Wiki page I find something wrong.
Bill Tuttle says:
“You first have to *prove* CO2-induced climate change exists before you can affirm it.”
Excellent point. CO2=AGW is only a conjecture, not a hypothesis. To affirm it requires empirical evidence verifying that human emitted CO2 causes global warming. No such evidence exists.
And in order to be elevated to the status of a scientific hypothesis, CO2=AGW must be testable. But so far, CO2=AGW is not testable. It may be true [I happen to think that CO2 causes slight – and entirely beneficial – warming]. But it is still only a conjecture.
As for CO2=CAGW, that is the province of lunatics like Algore, and certifiable nutjobs like Joe Romm.
“Wattslings”?? Strike two.
Another pejoritive insult like that and your comments will be deleted. -mod]
[snip]
But I’ll keep reading this blog anyway. Unlike y’all, I actually *care* what the other side says . . ..
[Reply: You are not a mind reader, and despite your claims to that effect you have no understanding about what Anthony thinks. From your very first comment on this site you have been saying you expect to be deleted, then you push the envelope to get what you want in every subsequent comment. I suggest you read up on the site Policy, and abide by it. Scientific comments are always welcome here at the internet’s “Best Science” site, from any point of view. But your deliberately insulting of our host and our readership is not acceptable. Learn some manners or go elsewhere. ~dbs, mod.]
Skip, we all “care” what the other side says, we just make sure to verify their claims which frequently turn out to be bogus.
I also know you believe yourself to be the great “moderate” one. Someone rational in a sea of irrationality. The one who can see what others are missing. You are so “objective” in your mind it defies imagination. You are so above all of us peons. There are a select few popular commentators here who share your delusions of grandeur and follow the pied pipers no matter where it leads,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/05/truth-about-judith-curry.html
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/06/truth-about-richard-muller.html
skip says: June 16, 2012 at 7:45 pm
Let’s see… as near as I can tell, your first post here at WUWT, ever, was around 1:30 this morning and you were already complaining about moderation. You spent a lot of time criticisizing Anthony for linking to an article you seem to think he didn’t read because you interpreted it as not supporting his point of view. Let’s put this in perspective: Anthony posted an article published in the popular press by Dr. Ross McKitrick, who is not exactly a fool, by the way, and then posted a link to the article that McKitrick was discussing but failed to link to in his own article. You seem to think that Anthony should have vetted the article first to be sure that it presented a nice tidy picture. He doesn’t do that. Read the article yourself and form your own opinion. I would suggest that you failed to read the article, “skip”, or failed to understand what it actually said… not un-typical for the semi-educated public that feels compelled to bray its ignorance. Sheesh. Anthony linked to the paper that Dr. McKitrick was apparently referring to in his article, so his readers could judge for themselves, and YOU criticize him for it?
This site attracts commenters with far better qualifications than yours, whatever those may be. My CJ majors, (oh yeah… I am a college professor) who are a rather rigid and narrowly-focused lot, generally exhibit a more liberal view. In my experience, Anthony and his moderators treat thoughtfui comments with respect… and ignorant, provocative comments like yours with more respect than they deserve.
Phil. says:
June 16, 2012 at 11:14 am
Bill Tuttle says, June 15, 2012 at 11:33 am: “The paper *does* say that plotting random numbers — ‘using the last period’s value in each location as the forecast for the next period’s value in that location’ — resulted in a more accurate forecast than those produced by the models.”
That isn’t a ‘random walk’, it’s persistence.
I didn’t say that was a random walk, I said “plotting random numbers resulted in a more accurate forecast than those produced by the models.” You haven’t refuted or rebutted that statement, you’ve merely nattered on about the definition of a random walk.
skip says:
June 16, 2012 at 7:45 pm
But I’ll keep reading this blog anyway. Unlike y’all, I actually *care* what the other side says . . ..
You forgot the “/sarc” tag.
skip says:
June 16, 2012 at 2:36 pm
***You first have to *prove* CO2-induced climate change exists before you can affirm it.***
I confess I do not even really understand what your point is.
The point is that someone who makes an unsubstantiated allegation and then draws a conclusion based on the assumption that the allegation has been substantiated merely because he stated it is indulging in a logical fallacy.
Aside from the pointlessness of the distinction between “proof” and “affirmation” in this context,
You consider it pointless because you have no rebuttal to it.
you’re missing the *key* point that Fildes and Kourentzes are more in *dis*agreement with Anthony Watts than Watts realized when he posted the comment about their article.
You’re introducing an external argument in an attempt to nullify my statement, which is further evidence that you can’t think of an effective rebuttal — because you have none. And Robert E. Phelan (June 16, 2012 at 10:45 pm) effectively eviscerated you on your “key point” —
“Anthony linked to the paper that Dr. McKitrick was apparently referring to in his article, so his readers could judge for themselves, and YOU criticize him for it?”
Incredible.
So I am supposed to respond to a multitude of posts even as I am being censored?
The point is that someone who makes an unsubstantiated allegation and then draws a conclusion based on the assumption that the allegation has been substantiated merely because he stated it is indulging in a logical fallacy. –Bill tuttle
Is this what you are claiming I did? OMG . . ..
Bill Tuttle also wrote, in response to my, “you’re missing the *key* point that Fildes and Kourentzes are more in *dis*agreement with Anthony Watts than Watts realized when he posted the comment about their article,” the following:
You’re introducing an external argument in an attempt to nullify my statement, which is further evidence that you can’t think of an effective rebuttal — because you have none.
You’re referring, Bill, I assume, to your statement that there is no evidence that “CO2-induced climate change exists.”
Bill, even so called *skeptics* agree that CO2-induced climate change exists. All they dispute is it’s magnitude.
Bill, you are simply an amazing exemplar of the mindset of the contributors to this blog. You think your arguments are brilliant, when in fact they are boorish. Of *course* I have a response to that, and I would love to go at it with you some time, but you have wildly missed the point of Anthony Watt’s original post–that the Fildes and Kourentzes article supposedly showed that climate models are no better than “random walks”. But in fact the article vigorously *disputes* Anthony Watt’s positions on climate change. Fildes and Kourentzes *agree* with the fundamental science of anthropogenic climate change induced largely by CO2 *and* that there are real risks associated with it. You understand the article so poorly that you seem to think the it should provide evidence of CO2-induced climate change, and proudly “nail” me with the point. This, again, stems from relying on blogs like this instead of original sources.
And as for you, Professor Phelan:
. . . you were already complaining about moderation.
Based on an undeniable history of censorship: If you ask AW a question for which the only truthful answer is an embarrassment and any non-embarrassing answer is a lie, you’re post is toast. It’s a fact.
You spent a lot of time criticisizing Anthony for linking to an article you seem to think he didn’t read . . . .
He didn’t read it. And he did not “link to it”. He linked to the wrong journal. That’s how I know he didn’t read it. And I am not “criticizing” him for it. Mr. Watts, on his own blog, can link to any number of legal *porn* sites for all I care. My point is simply that it shows he is not credible as a source of information on climate. He links based on what he *thinks* an article says. If he really knew that the authors of this article do not agree with him on the larger questions of climate change, he would *not* have brought attention to the article.
because you interpreted it as not supporting his point of view.
Do you have an alternative interpretation of the article? Please share it.
Let’s put this in perspective: Anthony posted an article published in the popular press by Dr. Ross McKitrick, who is not exactly a fool, by the way, and then posted a link to the article that McKitrick was discussing but failed to link to in his own article.
That is not what happened. The not-exactly-a-fool Ross McKitrick *also* had the journal title wrong (yes I did read his editorial), which is what screwed Anthony Watts up. McKitrick himself had just quote mined the part of the original research article he liked and Watts simply replicated McKitrick’s double error. Am I “criticizing” either of them for this? Not so much, but I am certainly criticizing anyone who would invest any credibility in either of these men.
This site attracts commenters with far better qualifications than yours, whatever those may be. My CJ majors, (oh yeah… I am a college professor)
A question. Are you suggesting that your status as a professor of criminal justice is a qualification to comment on this blog? Another question: do you think we should base our opinions of climate on what experts say? Finally, if you don’t know what my qualifications are, then how do you know they are inferior relative to other posters?
skip says:
“Incredible. So I am supposed to respond to a multitude of posts even as I am being censored?”
You’re not ‘supposed’ to do anything, and I don’t see you being censored, Crybaby. You don’t know what censorship is. At RealClimate, Mann and Schmidt censor points of view they disagree with, while they’re being on the government payroll. That is official government censorship. All I’ve seen here is a part of your comment being snipped with a warning to abide by the site Policy. Why should Anthony allow a rude pig like you to come barging into his home on the internet, and tell him what he’s thinking? It is to Anthony’s credit that he still allows you to comment here. I would have evicted your obnoxious butt after your first comment.
As for your pseudo-scientific belief system, there is no measurable, quantifiable evidence showing that human CO2 emissions are drivers of global climate change, or even a small part of it. Your citation of a couple of pal reviewed clowns playing with models lacks rigor and proves nothing. Just because those feeders at the public grant trough got their nonsense hand-waved into a journal doesn’t mean they understand what scientific ‘evidence’ means any more than you do.
“Evidence” in science means verifiable, reproducible, testable data, replicable per the scientific method. It does not mean computer models, or IPCC assessment reports, or pal reviewed papers. Evidence has a very specific, rigorous meaning.
There is no ‘evidence’ showing that anthropogenic CO2 is altering global temperatures, because no such testable, reproducible data exists. If it did, the climate sensitivity number for 2xCO2 would be definitively established, and the question of the quantifiable effect of human emissions on global temperature would be decisively resolved and predictable.
But it is not resolved or predictable, and that is why there is endless debate about it: no such verifiable, empirical, testable evidence exists. SWAGuesstimates range from the UN/IPCC’s preposterous and debunked 3+ºC, to ±1º C, down to ≈≤0.5ºC, down to Dr. Misckolcgi’s 0.00ºC. There is no agreement at all. Why not? Because there is zero evidence that human CO2 emissions have any measurable effect on temperature. All such claims are conjecture, nothing more.
Obviously you get your pseudo-science talking points from the thinly-trafficked alarmist blogs you inhabit. Big mistake, because unlike WUWT, all you ‘learn’ at those propaganda outlets are one-sided pseudo-science ‘facts’. Here, you get both sides of the argument. That’s why WUWT has such high traffic numbers. The government-censoring RealClimate panders to a small handful of true believing head-nodders, and gets very little traffic as a result. You need to run along back to them for some new talking points, because what you’re posting is old and busted.
You won’t get away with your appeals to authority here. Either produce real evidence, per the scientific method, showing that X amount of CO2 emissions verifiably cause Y global temperature increase, or admit that you’re just winging it, and hoping nobody will notice.
Or you can snivel about being set straight by commenters, and throw your juvenile tantrums for being snipped or deleted when you violate Policy and insult the rest of us. Argue the science to the best of your ability instead, and you won’t have to worry about being snipped.
Your comments are as insightful as ever, Smokey.
censored?”
I don’t see you being censored, Crybaby.
Clever as ever, aren’t you, Smokey? Of course you’re not “seeing” censorship, because what I attempted to post was being *censored*.
You don’t know what censorship is . . . .
I dare *anyone* on this site to reprint an example of a thoughtful comment Real Climate censored. Anyone, starting with you, Smokey. If I verify that RC won’t print it, and you’re right, I’ll concede it. On the other hand, I can *prove* that Anthony Watts has personally censored me–for no other offense than asking a *question* for which he had no good answer. I *dare* him to deny it.
rude pig . . . obnoxious butt . . . pseudo-scientific . . .
Insults from you are a compliment, Smokey. Please don’t relent.
There is no measurable, quantifiable evidence showing that human CO2 emissions are drivers of global climate change, or even a small part of it.
I just wonder if Anthony Watts agrees with that statement.
Your citation of a couple of pal reviewed clowns playing with models . . . .
You’re just utterly lost, aren’t you Smokey. These “pal reviewed clowns” were cited by *Anthony Watts*–who couldn’t even *get the citation right*, and who don’t even agree with his fundamental assertions (or yours) about climate change. I wonder how Anthony Watts and Ross McKitrick feel about you calling *their* source “clowns.” Beautifully done, Smokey. Just beautiful.
“Evidence” . . . does not mean computer models, or IPCC assessment reports, or pal reviewed papers. Evidence has a very specific, rigorous meaning.
I have to wonder what Anthony Watts *really* thinks about your posts, Smokey. Nobody said “models” or the “IPCC report” were the evidence. Unprecedented and heretofore otherwise unexplainable late 20th century warming is just one part of the evidence, but that is for a different thread.
There is no ‘evidence’ showing that anthropogenic CO2 is altering global temperatures, because no such testable, reproducible data exists.
How could it, Smokey? We can’t gather data from a parallel universe where no anthropogenic CO2 existed. You’re just parroting what untrained so-called “skeptics” are saying. By your logic there is no evidence for evolution–or do you believe that as well?
If it did, the climate sensitivity number for 2xCO2 would be definitively established, and the question of the quantifiable effect of human emissions on global temperature would be decisively resolved and predictable.
Utterly naive. The article that Anthony Watts so clumsily mis-cited is written by two statistical forecasters who would *vehemently* disagree with you. It you actually believe that a climate sensitivity figure must be precisely nailed for AGW to be true, then you know nothing substantive of the issue.
Here, you get both sides of the argument.
That is, unless you don’t. I know from firsthand experience that AW censors when he is cornered.
That’s why WUWT has such high traffic numbers.
Wrong, Smokey. The reason this blog has such high traffic numbers is the same reason psychic hotlines have such high traffic numbers: people like being told what they want to believe, and for a culture and species inimical to the unpleasant truths of climate change and the implication that we have responsibilities in the face of it, that is exactly what Anthony Watts provides.
You won’t get away with your appeals to authority here.
Again, Smokey, you’re lost in space. I never appealed to any authorities in this thread. I never used their “models” as evidence. You have–as you have before on this blog–unequivocally missed the point, and spent several hundred words missing it.
But happy Father’s Day nonetheless, if you are like me, dad.
(non-sarc)
skip says:
“Of course you’re not “seeing” censorship, because what I attempted to post was being *censored*.”
As if. Out of nearly a million reader comments, yours stands pretty much alone in claiming that your posts are being “censored”. Just like you fail to understand the scientific definition of ‘evidence’, you cannot even understand the definition of ‘censorship’. Censorship is the muzzling of free speech by the government.
You can spend a couple of months searching the WUWT archives, looking for anyone else who claims to be “censored”. Good luck with that. You will find that the very few comments that are snipped – and your comment was no exception, from what I can see – were snipped due to violating site Policy. That does not fit the definition of “censorship”, which refers to government restriction of free speech. That is exactly what your pals at RealClimate do, while they are on the government’s payroll. If you can’t even get a simple definition correct, there is no reason to give the rest of your comments any credibility since you are so far from being up to speed on the topic of computer models.
For example, you flatly denied ever appealing to authority – while repeatedly citing computer modelers Fildes and Kourentzes. No credibility there. You should read what you wrote before making easily debunked claims like that.
As for your naive belief that RealClimate does not censor different points of view, I have in fact personally posted more than a dozen well-reasoned, polite and to the point comments over several years at RC, effectively refuting their various climate alarmist claims. Not one of my comments has ever made it out of moderation. They were censored without comment. So I no longer bother commenting at RC, for two reasons: first, RC’s censorship is deliberate, pervasive, unethical, and shows fear of scientific debate. And second, RC is so thinly trafficked that only a handful of RC’s head-nodding Kool Aid drinkers would even see my comments if they were posted. Now, if you would like to debate science here, such as Mann’s mendacious use of cherry-picked, upside down proxies, or discuss Gavin Schmidt’s hiding out from any new debates after being so badly spanked in the debate he lost a few years ago, I will be happy to oblige. And you will not be ‘censored’ here for expressing a different point of view, no matter how wrong it is.
Many of my comments at RC were made back in the day when they used time/date stamps, providing irrefutable evidence that Gavin and Mann were running RC on taxpayer-funded paid government time. As a U.S. citizen I expect to be afforded my rights under the 1st Amendment when commenting on a government supported blog. Instead, government drones used their official positions to censor my legitimate views. And I am not the only one. Commenters here regularly report that RealClimate has censored their posts, too.
You do not even understand the difference between censorship and site Policy at WUWT, which accepts no government subsidies, or payments, or “big oil” money. And I know Anthony Watts to be uncommonly honest. He is a straight shooter. So when a newbie commenter with a big chip on his shoulder suddenly appears out of nowhere, and from his very first comment starts sniveling about “censorship” like a spoiled William Connolley, I know which one of them is full of it. And it’s not Anthony Watts.
Finally, it is clear that I’m responding to someone deficient in Logic 101. Look up “non sequitur”: “It (sic) you actually believe that a climate sensitivity figure must be precisely nailed for AGW to be true, then you know nothing substantive of the issue.”
Wrong.
Earth to skip: AGW is a conjecture. An opinion. It is not a hypothesis, and it is certainly not a theory. A hypothesis must be testable. AGW is an untestable, unquantifiable conjecture. AGW may be true. Or not. But it is un-measurable, non-reproducible, and un-testable. It is an opinion, based vaguely on radiative physics.
The central problem with the CO2=AGW conjecture is that the real world is not responding as predicted. All of the predictions made by the alarmist crowd have come crashing down: there is no ‘tropospheric hot spot’ [the “fingerprint of global warming”]. The Arctic has been routinely ice-free during the Holocene, thus the current cycle is well within past parameters. And the Antarctic, home of 90% of polar ice, has been steadily gaining ice, thus debunking the putative role of “carbon”. Some glaciers are retreating – but some are advancing; I did not realize that CO2 was so selective. Coral bleaching is due to natural cycles; they are recovering even as CO2 continues to rise. Tuvalu and other coral atolls are not sinking as predicted. The sea level rise is decelerating – fast. The planet is greening in lockstep with rising [harmless, beneficial] CO2. And despite the ≈40% rise in CO2, the global temperature has been declining. And there has been no temperature acceleration despite the big rise in CO2. The long-term rise from the LIA is unchanged.
All the predictions made by the climate alarmist crowd have been falsified. None withstand scrutiny. But the true believers cannot admit they were wrong about every prediction. Their ego gets in the way, with the result that they look ever more foolish as more real world data becomes available. Planet Earth – the ultimate Authority – is falsifying their belief system.
skip says:
June 17, 2012 at 3:38 am
The point is that someone who makes an unsubstantiated allegation and then draws a conclusion based on the assumption that the allegation has been substantiated merely because he stated it is indulging in a logical fallacy. –Bill tuttle
Is this what you are claiming I did? OMG . . ..
I’m not *claiming* you did — I cited the actual quote. Are you now saying you *didn’t* make an unsupported assumption and then proceed to draw a conclusion based on that assumption?
You’re referring, Bill, I assume, to your statement that there is no evidence that “CO2-induced climate change exists.”
Bill, even so called *skeptics* agree that CO2-induced climate change exists. All they dispute is it’s magnitude.
You’re making another unsupported assumption. Skeptics agree that *climate change* exists, that it’s natural variation causing it, and that changing CO2 levels are the result, not the cause. Skeptics examine the evidence, and all the evidence shows that the supposition that increased CO2 causes an increase temperature is flat-out wrong. Instead of making assertions that CO2-induced global warming exists, show some proof. Point out the mid-tropospheric hot spot — ooops, it’s not there. Point out the increase in the overall altitude of the tropopause due to expansion by warming of the troposphere — ooops, it isn’t happening. Point out the inexorable rise in global temperatures accompanying the observed increase in CO2 levels — ooops, it isn’t happening.
Bill, you are simply an amazing exemplar of the mindset of the contributors to this blog. You think your arguments are brilliant, when in fact they are boorish.
Translation: “I have neither the background nor the knowledge to dispute you, so I’ll settle for calling you names and hope you’ll be too angry to think straight.”
Of *course* I have a response to that, and I would love to go at it with you some time…blah, blah, blah, desperately returning to the point I’ve already been taken down on but am too stuck on to drop…
Translation: “Again, I got nothin’.”
You understand the article so poorly that you seem to think the it should provide evidence of CO2-induced climate change, and proudly “nail” me with the point. This, again, stems from relying on blogs like this instead of original sources.
You keep claiming I’m “missing the key point that Fildes and Kourentzes *agree* with the fundamental science of anthropogenic climate change induced largely by CO2 *and* that there are real risks associated with it” and *you* keep ignoring the point that there *is* no fundamental science involved with AGW — it’s all conjecture and consensus, neither of which have jack to do with science. Show the proof. Prove that CO2 causes warming, and that elevated CO2 levels have been causing the temperatures to rise *continuously* from the onset of the Industrial Age until today.
Stop with the emotional crap and produce some hard evidence.
Oh, yeah — happy Father’s Day!
. . . yours stands pretty much alone in claiming that your posts are being “censored”.
Great argument, Smokey. Have you considered that maybe this is because most people who study climate think this blog is a joke, and the vast majority of this blog’s participants are people such as yourself—who cannot, for example, even grasp the simplest point of a debate thread? (See below)
Just like you fail to understand the scientific definition of ‘evidence’, you cannot even understand the definition of ‘censorship’. Censorship is the muzzling of free speech by the government.
No Smokey. It need not be only by the government. Consult a dictionary, please. And in any event, even if the word *was* linguistically inappropriate, this blog still engages in its equivalent: exclusion of threatening ideas.
your comment was [snipped] due to violating site Policy.
I have no doubt of that. Unofficial (but preeminent) policy on this blog is that Anthony Watts may never be shown to be in error.
For example, you flatly denied ever appealing to authority – while repeatedly citing computer modelers Fildes and Kourentzes.
Oh . . . my . . .God. You still don’t get it, do you, Smokey. I *never* appealed to their “authority”. They were *Anthony Watts’s* source! Do you still not grasp this? I beseech the administrator of this site: Mr. Watts, do you believe Smokey grasps the dispute on this thread? Please answer that simple yes or no question.
As for your naive belief that RealClimate does not censor . . . .Not one of my comments has ever made it out of moderation.
Smokey, there is no way to say this nicely. Based on my interactions with you on this forum, and your repeatedly demonstrated inability to follow even the simplest chain of argument, I strongly suspect *that* is the reason your comments were declined: they were not perceived as threatening, there were perceived as valueless. This is *not* to say I think you’re a bad person; for all I know you’re a great guy outside scientific discussions; only that your obvious inability to grasp even the point of this thread discussion suggests the quality of your submissions to RC were rejected for similar reasons.
And you will not be ‘censored’ here for expressing a different point of view, no matter how wrong it is.
Except I have. I *dare* Anthony Watts to deny it.
And I know Anthony Watts to be uncommonly honest. He is a straight shooter.
Great. Then I challenge you to ask him to be honest about this. He censored me on the Tsunami thread when all I did was ask him a direct question to which he had no good answer and I called him on it. That’s your straight shooter for you, Smokey.
AGW is an untestable, unquantifiable conjecture. AGW may be true. Or not. But it is un-measurable, non-reproducible, and un-testable. It is an opinion, based vaguely on radiative physics.
And an opinion which is shared by every major scientific organization in the world—but you know better, don’t you Smokey—even though you *can’t even follow the discussion on this thread.*
And on you go with the rest of your post—the tired and foolish talking points of those who cling to pseudo-science to deny reality: the missing hot spot, etc. Incredible.
And of course all this your attempt at a distraction from my key points, which I challenge you to specifically deny:
1. AW [unsuccessfully!] linked to an article *he had not even read*.
2. The authors of said article *don’t even agree with his position on climate change.*
3. The readership of this blog—none of whom had read the article either—accepted AW’s portrayal of the article (as demonstrating that computer models of climate have no value—which is not even exactly what the authors were saying, but that is another point) without question and without investigating the quality and perspective of the source themselves. This says quite a bit about both the administrator and the readership of this blog.
Direct question, Smokey: With of the above assertions do you dispute?
Poor skip are you new to this game or just naive?
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001180a_little_testy_at_re.html
http://www.nationalcenter.org/Z031507=realclimate_climate_censorship.html
http://climateaudit.org/2005/10/29/is-gavin-schmidt-honest/
A whole website was set up just because of the censorship at RealClimate,
http://rcrejects.wordpress.com/
Skip, I don’t think there’s another poster here who’s continually proven himself so devoid of intellectual honesty, logical consistency, or just plain civility as you are. Your continued presence is proof that you’re not being censored.
skip says:
June 17, 2012 at 11:34 am
And on you go with the rest of your post—the tired and foolish talking points of those who cling to pseudo-science to deny reality: the missing hot spot, etc. Incredible.
You do realize, of course, that you just called one of the major tenets of your religion “pseudo-science.”
On second thought, no, you probably don’t realize it…