Weekend open thread

I’ve got lots of work to do this weekend, so I’ll leave it to you folks to entertain yourselves for awhile.

Be sure to tune in on noon PDT Monday for a special announcement related to Al Gore and TV.

– Anthony

 

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Alan Watt, CD (Certified Denialist), Level 7

You’re such a tease; must be all the TV experience. “… coming up after the break …”

Jeff L

OK, just to get the conversation started, I got a flyer in the mail this week for the annual Warren Miller movie – those of you who are snow sports enthusiasts, you will know this is an annual fall tradition to get you fired up for the coming winter snow play season. I was annoyed to see that this year one of their “corporate sponsors” is the Climate Reality project (“CRP” from here on). See link here for sponsorship info:
http://www.skinet.com/warrenmiller/press/press-release-US
If you don’t already know, the CRP is Al Gore’s AGW political machine. Link for more info if you need it :
http://climaterealityproject.org/about-us/
It’s really disappointing to see Warren Miller bring such a blantantly political sponsor into the movie. If you haven’t been to a Warren Miller movie, it is more of an event than a movie & all the “sponsors” are there – but it’s usually ski manufactures, resorts, etc. Having the CRP there will be a complete buzz kill. The movie is supposed to be about having fun & getting away from the reality of the world (and associated political crap) – this is really stepping away from why it is a fun event to go to.
I am torn between boycotting the movie this year & going and giving Al Gore’s representatives an ear full. If you are a Warren Miller fan, but not a fan of AGW theory, what would you do?

David Ross

Well, if we’re gonna use teasers. I’ll start (just for fun) -a quiz.
Who’s seen the movie The Heroes of Telemark and what’s it got to do with global warming?

geran

Unfortanately CRaP like this inundates our lives. The best way is to enjoy the movie, and the fact that CRP is spending money for your enjoyment!

Mark and two Cats

Any truth to the warmunist claim that the Oregon Petition cover letter was intentionally made to look as though it was an official National Academy of Sciences document in order to lend the petition legitimacy?

R. Shearer

CRP CEO travels all over the world, like Gore, to promote reducing peoples carbon footprint. Now they sponsor Warren Miller Entertainment which promotes traveling all over the world consuming energy to ski. Don’t get me wong,I love skiing but Jeff L sums up the situation nicely.

dayday

[sound of buzzer]
Did the director have the same name as a famous Nobel prize faker.

Gunga Din

Does anyone have a link to a relatively simple timeline of the CAGW? “Who said what when” kind of stuff.
Thanks in advance.

Richdo

@ Jeff L –
Get a WUWT t-shirt and go have fun. It will dirve the gorebots crazy.
http://www.cafepress.com/wattsupwiththat?utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=buyat&utm_term=78888&utm_content=0

So the guy that inquired how to contact you about taking WUWT to the next level bought Current TV and putting WUWT on in some way?

richardscourtney

Mark and two Cats:
At October 27, 2012 at 12:23 pm you ask

Any truth to the warmunist claim that the Oregon Petition cover letter was intentionally made to look as though it was an official National Academy of Sciences document in order to lend the petition legitimacy?

No, there is no truth in it, but so what?
If it were true then that would not affect the nature of the responses. And it is the responses which count.
Warmunists have tried to counter the Oregon Petition by obtaining similar polls which support their cause. All such attempts have failed so they try to smear the Oregon Petition. Your question derives from one such pathetic attempt at a smear.
Richard

Hero’s of Telemark are the Norweigians who blew up the heavy water plant.
Was a harsh winter that year?
Not impressed by the film. Read the book, “Skis Agains the Atom”, much more real.

stamper44

New Zealand maybe positioning itself to “leave Kyoto” at the upcoming Doha round. Lets hope!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/7873305/New-Zealand-may-quit-Kyoto

Hurricane Sandy Geoengineering Update 10-27 and Law Suit

stamper44 says:
October 27, 2012 at 12:44 pm
“New Zealand maybe positioning itself to “leave Kyoto” at the upcoming Doha round. Lets hope!”
Thank the Creator the WUWT community had a major influence in wrecking the Cap and Tax UN carbon credit financing arm of their global governance scheme.

RoyFOMR

Think I read somewhere that in statistics two standard deviations was at a 95% confidence level.
Shouldn’t that be 97% for post-normal numerology?

Susan Corwin

Under the “be careful of what you wish for” and “unintended consequences”
it appears that the undercurrent of “it is worse than you said, you pay me”
has now been formalized by the Italians in
    The L’Aquila Earthquake Trial
Regardless of the details, any scientist/technologist/bureaucrat who makes a public statement of anything will now always
    “actuate the negative.”
if the alternative is to be sued/tossed in the clink.
Just look at Irene and Sandy for excellent examples of the bureaucratic CYA version.

richard

have you seen the price of carrots in the shop.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/capital-weather-gang/201210/images/model-tracks-berk.jpg?uuid=e4k4Ph6qEeKc1bVcODiJYg
This is the “models” tracks for Hurricane Sandy offshore of my home here in Charleston. One idiot model has the storm going EAST TONIGHT!
If the “models” can’t tell me where the damned hurricane is gonna be tomorrow, how in the hell are they gonna tell me what the temperature will be in 2015 or 2020??!! Duhhhh………….

DirkH

stamper44 says:
October 27, 2012 at 12:44 pm
“New Zealand maybe positioning itself to “leave Kyoto” at the upcoming Doha round. Lets hope!”
Kyoto expires end of 2012 anyway, so what?

davidmhoffer

stamper44 says:
October 27, 2012 at 12:44 pm
New Zealand maybe positioning itself to “leave Kyoto” at the upcoming Doha round. Lets hope!
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/7873305/New-Zealand-may-quit-Kyoto
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Interesting quote in that article suggesting that 85% of all carbon emissions are not covered by any agreement for one reason or another.
I think the real question about the next round will be less about who may quit, and more about who is left in at all. Even those who sign, will, in my opinion, be signing mostly for show. They’ll drag their feet on ratification waiting to see if
a) any of the players that matter like India and China step up (they won’t) and
b) if 16 years of flat temps turn into 17…18…19…

stamper44

davidmhoffer says:
October 27, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Agreed – the EU are still arguing over their stance at Doha – Poland is being a pain in their side by not buying in to the EU bulls***. Doha will just subside into a promise to meet again at some other nice location; until ultimately no one turns up any more.
Then it will be – oh – by the way – what was all that talk of CAGW about in the early 21st Century?

manicbeancounter

The central issue of evidence for projected catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is how that evidence is evaluated. The “consensus” method, led by the UNIPCC, is to evaluate evidence on how well it fits with the hypothesis. If it fits, then the evidence is accepted (and in cases exaggerated). If it contradicts the CAGW hypothesis, then the evidence is anti-science.
I believe that scientific evidence should be evaluated by more rational and objective criteria. The projected impacts create costs, so assessment criteria needs to be within the realms of economics. For those interested, (and with an understanding of intermediate level economics), I have drafted out how that assessment criteria might look. Please let me know what you think.
http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/10/26/costs-of-climate-change-in-perspective/

Adam Gallon

The Bish notes a new paper, that Briffa’s found the Medieaval Warm Period hiding in his wood.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/10/27/a-warm-welcome-back-to-the-mwp.html

D Böehm

Open Thread goodness from Nigel Farge:

We could use this guy over here!

Jimbo

Can a Warmist please tell me what would falsify AGW as explained by IPCC?
E.g no hotspot, flat temps for 18 years or more, cooling global temps? I just want at least 1 example, that’s all.

Annie

D Boehm @ 1:55 pm Oct the 27th:
Nigel FARAGE?

DirkH

D Böehm says:
October 27, 2012 at 1:55 pm
“Open Thread goodness from Nigel Farge:”
I love how he annoys the despicable Schultz.

clipe

Gunga Din says:
October 27, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Does anyone have a link to a relatively simple timeline of the CAGW? “Who said what when” kind of stuff.
Thanks in advance.

Just finished reading a pdf from Tim Ball – coincidently.
http://drtimball.com/2012/it-occurred-to-me-global-warming-is-another-undelivered-government-promise-polar-bear-propaganda-in-context-a-useful-tool-for-the-promotion-of-environmental-hysteria-and-politicized-science/

Mark and two Cats

richardscourtney said:
October 27, 2012 at 12:41 pm
>> Mark and two Cats:
>> At October 27, 2012 at 12:23 pm you ask
>> Any truth to the warmunist claim that the Oregon Petition cover letter was intentionally
>> made to look as though it was an official National Academy of Sciences document in
>> order to lend the petition legitimacy?
——————————————————
> No, there is no truth in it, but so what?
Thank you for your response Richard. I figured that the claim was bogus, but being a comprehensive skeptic, I want details. I can certainly entertain the notion that an overzealous CAGW skeptic might have acted outside of ethical bounds, as I can equally suspect that the warmunist claims were merely smears. Just looking for the truth.
I don’t seem to be able to find a copy of the cover letter online; can someone point me to one?

D Böehm

Annie,
Right you are. Thanks.

Almost 2 years dated interview, but just as relevant today.
Really excellent graphic examples in this video.
Rense & Piers Corbyn – Solar Lunar Forecasting

In my research of the climate’s natural variability causes, I need a correct interpretation of a particular problem as outlined in here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CAM-LOD.htm

vigilantfish

I haven’t seen any sign of Smokey lately and I miss his wit, vigour, and graphics links. I hope he’s o.k.

cbltooLemon

Fauxbel Prize Winners
Checking out Michael Mann’s facebook page today, he seems quite miffed that EVERYONE is calling themselves a Nobel Prize winner, but they only attack ME!!!!
Well, I think it’s about time that the love was shared….
Henry Pollack
http://travel.usatoday.com/cruises/post/2012/08/antarctica-cruise-nobel-prize/822879/1
Richard Conant
http://www.qut.edu.au/about/news/news?news-id=32089
Daniel Kammen
http://www.facebook.com/events/468445386519602/
Grace Akumu
http://www2.webster.edu/depts/artsci/Global_Thinking/vol5_issue1/akumu_nobel.htm
Mohan Munasinghe
https://www.britsafe.org/news/british-safety-council-shares-platform-nobel-prize-winner
Rolph Payet
http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/global-community
CU-Boulder Research Faculty
http://www.colorado.edu/news/series/cu-boulder-nobel-laureates
Kevin Trenberth
David Karoly
Bryson Bates
Neville Nichols
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2012/4/nobel-rot
John Houghton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_T._Houghton
Andrew Weaver
http://www.uleth.ca/notice/display.html?b=14&s=11052

Jan P Perlwitz

Mark and two Cats asked in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/27/weekend-open-thread-3/#comment-1125109

Any truth to the warmunist claim that the Oregon Petition cover letter was intentionally made to look as though it was an official National Academy of Sciences document in order to lend the petition legitimacy?

I don’t know what and who “warmunist” supposedly are, but why don’t you check yourself? Here is the cover letter:
http://www.petitionproject.org/seitz_letter.php
It is signed, “Frederick Seitz, Past President, National Academy of Science, President Emeritus, Rockefeller University”.
The Council of the National Academy of Science seemed to think that the presentation of the petition how it was mailed out was sufficiently misleading, to see the need to make clear in an official statement that the NAS didn’t have anything to do with it and did not agree with the content of the petition:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=s04201998
On the homepage of the Petition Project it is asserted with respect to the Oregon Petition:
“31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs”
(http://www.petitionproject.org/)
I consider this statement and the Oregon Petition as gravely fraudulent. It is the deliberate attempt to give the false impression that several 10,000 people who support the petition, were “American scientists”, who allegedly had the scientific qualification and competence to make expert judgements on the validity of scientific theories in the field of climate. This is fraudulent because to be considered as qualified to sign the petition it is sufficient to only have a Bachelor of Science in any field of science. It is not at all required to have worked and published in the specific field of science, i.e, to really have acquired expertise on the theories in the field of climate, it isn’t even required that the signer has worked in any field of science at any point of his/her life. Here I even make the assumption that the minimal required qualification of the signers has been properly verified at least. Whether this assumption is correctly made is only known by the obscure “Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine” where this petition is hosted.
Just to have got some degree at a college in some scientific field at some point doesn’t make the person with this degree a “scientist”. And even possessing a PhD in a scientific field doesn’t make a person qualified and competent to make expert judgements in all other scientific fields.
The Oregon Petition does not have any legitimacy with respect to what the expert views really are on global warming and its causes. I see it as nothing else than a politically and ideologically motivated piece of fake skeptic propaganda.
[Note: Most skeptics consider GISS “gravely fraudulent” -mod]

Physics Major

Mark and two Cats says:
October 27, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Any truth to the warmunist claim that the Oregon Petition cover letter was intentionally made to look as though it was an official National Academy of Sciences document in order to lend the petition legitimacy?

As one of the original signers, I can assure you that there was no way anyone would be confused about its origin. It was circulated by Dr. Arthur Robinson and his son, Noah. There was a letter of support from Frederick Seitz, a past president of NAS, but there was no other reference to the NAS. But why would anyone sign or not sign based on the “legitimacy” of the source? If I didn’t believe the petition statement to be true wouldn’t sign it, no matter what organization circulated it.
Go to the website at petitionproject.org where everything is explained. While there, you may want to read the Robinson’s paper on the environmental effects of increased CO2.
Robert S. Simpson
BA Physics, Rice University 1968

D Böehm

vigilantfish says:
“I haven’t seen any sign of Smokey lately and I miss his wit, vigour, and graphics links. I hope he’s o.k.”
I miss him, too.

wouldrathernotsay

A chance to go to a real opening of a Warren Miller film? Go! When I was in high school, dad would always rent a Warren Miller film and we’d watch it the night before the first ski trip of the season – to warm up, ya know! Go! (I do like the idea of wearing a WUWT t-shirt.)

Doug Huffman

@JimBo in re falsification. Y’all have allowed adhockery obviating falsification.

doughuffman

@JimBo in re falsification. Y’all have allowed adhockery that obviates falsification.

D Böehm

Jan Perlwitz says:
“I consider this statement and the Oregon Petition as gravely fraudulent.”
And I consider Perlwitz to be an idiot. He is making the preposterous claim that many thousands of PhD’s and professionals like Freeman Dyson, all with degrees in the hard sciences, did not know what they were signing. There are thousands of climatologists, chemists, physicists, engineers, etc. And they could not sign the petition by email — they had to download the petition, print it out, sign a hard copy, and mail it in. It is amazing that more than 31,000 well educated professionals took the time and effort to do that. They clearly felt strongly about the corruption endemic to GISS and similar government agencies. And they know what they are talking about; they went out of their way to take action, by the tens of thousands.
Perlwitz is just stung by the irrefutable fact that the real scientific consensus is on the side of skeptics who question the “carbon” scare that people like Perlwitz are always flogging — with no empirical evidence. They have all signed the OISM Petition stating that CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere. And the ultimate Authority, Planet Earth, supports their view. When Perlwitz claims that they were so gullible as to be taken in by a straightforward cover letter, he denigrates their intelligence, and the intelligence of the average WUWT reader. Only a dope would make such a silly claim.

oMan

Jeff L: I loved those Warren Miller movies (and for a time we lived a few doors away from Warren’s son in Boulder CO, and went to the movie with him). I think you should go, and bring your climate game. Don’t pick a fight, just challenge anything PRC people say. And make sure the producers (and other sponsors!) know that you think it is completely inappropriate to inject climate politics into what should be a simpleminded blowout of amazing athletics, adrenaline, sunshine, steep and deep, and the joys of teasing gravity. And, no question, no matter how demurely PRC may position itself as a sponsor, it is stinking up the whole experience. Find out how much they kicked in, and offer to find replacement donors next year. Make it easy for the producers to ease these jerks out before they ruin the whole thing.

David Ball
David Ball

Jan P Perlwitz says:
October 27, 2012 at 3:10 pm
So it’s ok when the 97% number is emblazoned all over the freakin MSM? Your bias is showing again.

davidmhoffer

Jan P Perlwitz;
This is fraudulent because to be considered as qualified to sign the petition it is sufficient to only have a Bachelor of Science in any field of science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You and I have had more than one spat in this forum Jan. Putting aside who won or who lost each one, you responsed to the issues I raised, sometimes in considerable detail. Apparently I know enough to bother debating with? You could try arguing that you won all of our exchanges, but I think you know that’s just not true.
I have no degree at all, despite which I’ve put more than one PhD with supposed credentials in their place on multiple issues. Your arguing from authority. You are attempting to define yourself as a climate scientist whose opinion counts, and to exclude the opinion of anyone you define as “not” being a climate scientist.
But the thing is Jan, a lot of climate science is pretty basic stuff. Collecting all the temperature data from all over the world is a lot of work, but it certaintly isn’t the stuff a PhD thesis is made of. Calculating a trend from that data? Are skills beyond the use of an Excel spreadsheet required? Combing through the station data and arriving at adjustment criteria for UHI and other factors is a bit more complicated, but again, hardly the stuff PhD thesis are made of. In fact, I submit to you that the average high school student ought to be able to understand the false science of smearing land based temperatures over the ocean, or smearing one station’s data over hundreds of kilometers. Do you really suppose that things such as these require skill specific to climate research?
Do you suppose one needs a PhD to understand the IPCC prediction of a “hot spot” and to be able to look at the data and see that it isn’t there? How much direct experience in climate research does it take to understand that the IPCC ranks the level of scientific understanding of uncertainties in radiative forcing to be “low” of “very low” in 9 of 14 categories. Does one need a degree of any sort to look at the Total Cyclone Energy over the last few decades and see that it is falling, not rising?
How much does one need to know about science to look at sea level data and see that sea level rise is decelerating, not accelerating? Does one need a degree in much of anything to jump on Wood For Trees and plot trends of temperature data showing that nothing significant has happened for the last 16 years? How hard is it to hit the Trends in Carbon Dioxide site to compare temperature trends to CO2 trends and see that they aren’t correlated?
Does one need anything more than high school, nay, GRADE school, to understand that Briffa’s temperature reconstruction was predicated 50% on a single tree in Siberia and cannot possibly be representative of global temperature? How much must one know about science to conclude that Mann’s code produced a hockey stick graph from red noise which is about as scientific as just drawing it by hand and claiming it means something? How much science background is required to examine SST data and see that much of the ocean areas are cooling? Does one need background in climate science in particular to conclude that the “missing heat” is unlikely to have been sequestered in the ocean depths without passing through the Argo buoy’s?
The fact of the matter is Jan, that collecting much of the data surrounding climate science is hard work. The work that had to be done to make satellites collect the data they do is, obviously, the domain of some highly qualified people. But the fact of the matter is Jan, than once the data has been collected and made available, it can be analyzed with considerable skill by those with nothing more than good math skills. We know this to be true because we’ve seen countless examples of poor quality science being exposed for what it is by people with backgrounds in other fields.
When your last refuge to support your position Jan is “well, they aren’t climate scientists” you’ve descended into argument from authority that simply doesn’t stand up. The vast bulk of climate science, provided that one has the data, is well within the grasp of anyone who has a degree in the hard sciences, and within the grasp of many who don’t have a degree at all.
No wonder the likes of Mann and others have worked so hard to keep data from the public eye. Once we get to see it, spotting the complete and totaly bogus analysis that results from it is pretty straight forward.
You and your ilk have been caught with your hand in the cookie jar so many times that you’ve taken to claiming that only you know how to eat cookies.

richardscourtney

Friends:
In his post at October 27, 2012 at 3:10 pm Jan P Perlw1tz says:

The Oregon Petition does not have any legitimacy with respect to what the expert views really are on global warming and its causes.

I defy anybody to read his entire post and to reach any other understanding of his words I quote than the following sentence.
Only people who – like Perlw1tz – are making a living from the AGW-scare can have a valid opinion on AGW whether or not they have any training in the sciences.
The taxpayers who put the feed in his trough may not agree with his assertion.
Richard

nutso fasst

I see the ENSO meter has taken a strong reversal toward El Nino. Is it likely this trend will now continue into the northern winter?

JPeden

Jan P Perlwitz says:
October 27, 2012 at 3:10 pm
“31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs”
(http://www.petitionproject.org/)
I consider this statement and the Oregon Petition as gravely fraudulent.

Ok, Dr. Perlwitz, for the sake of argument. But since mainstream Climate Science seems to think that “consensus” is the most critical part of the scientific method – when consensus has nothing at all to do with establishing the validity of real scientific hypotheses – and thus instead of employing the real scientific principle of falsifiability, for example, via mainstream Climate Science’s own 100% failed prediction rate: then where can we find what you would consider a valid mainstream Climate Science “consensus”, perhaps at least recorded in the same way the Oregon Petition establishes its consensus but by producing the actual signatures of the “real” mainstream Climate Scientists agreeing with whatever their critical “tenets” or empirical claims are?
Until mainstream Climate Science actually documents and produces a credibly formed “consensus” – and instead of, say, just using the “97%” survey which winnowed down ex post facto the replies of thousands of Earth Scientists to a mere 75/77 of Climate Scientists and involved only some watered down generalities – your brand of “science” doesn’t even have its alleged “consensus”!