Uh oh, somebody in Germany in a position to influence others in the Green movement has started thinking for himself, shrugging off suggestions from a climate scientist that “its all in his head”.
Pierre Gosselin reports about a story by lefty journalist Harald Martenstein of Die Zeit:
“I was ready to open my home to the Schröders as soon as they would no longer be able to take the 60°C heat in the shade. But instead it got colder and colder. At Uckermark in the wintertime it was -20°C for weeks.”
Martenstein also noticed that Britain had endured its coldest winter in 30 years, Florida got covered by icicles, and the cold seemed to be spreading everywhere. So he pleaded that people should emit more CO2 – so that he could stay warm.
His plea, however, prompted an invitation from a “scientist at a very nice climate institute“:
He showed me tables and graphs that clearly depicted it was getting warmer. He believed that I was just a victim of my own subjective imagination. Memory can fool you. One thinks that during childhood it was warm from May to September, but in reality its was warm only 3 days, and it is those 3 days that one remembers intensively. The tables from climate scientists, on the other hand, do not lie.”
Martenstein then recounts the past winter and how it seemed to him as being the longest and hardest he could remember, but telling himself that it was probably just his warped subjectivity acting up again. He writes:
But suddenly I read in the paper that a number of climate scientists had changed their minds. Now they were saying it is not going to get warmer, but colder, at least in Europe. Whatever happened to the tables I now ask myself.”
This kind of science would never fly in biology or physics, Martenstein writes. ”But with climate science it seems they are allowed to get away with everything.”
Read it all here:
Mother Of German Green Weeklies, Die Zeit, Shocks Readers…Now Casts Doubt On Global Warming!
@fredd — of course, the reason why no one remembers the acid rain scare is that COUNTRIES TOOK STEPS TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM.
in the US the solution adopted, offered by conservatives of the time, was a market solution — cap and trade.
Stan, it was richardscourtney, not me, who brought up acid rain. He seems to think it was a fake scare, but I’ve seen what one smelter can do.
Stan W. says:
“@dbstealey — how do you know the RSS measurements are accurate?”
I posted the Wood For Trees database observations. No one else argues that WFT is inaccurate. You just don’t like it because it destroyed your RSS argument.
And you continue to denigrate Werner Brozek, who is a professor of physics.
What is your C.V., Stan? Post it here.
@dbstealey — WFT merely reproduces the RSS data.
again, how do you know the RSS data is accurate?
it differs significantly from all the other datasets. so how do you know it is accurate?
i haven’t denigrated werner in the least — merely asked him some questions. strange you would classify mere questions in that manner.
@dbstealey — where is werner a professor?
where can i read his research?
Stan W.,
You are avoiding my question:
What is your C.V.?
Post it here.
And RSS does not ‘differ significantly from all the other datasets’. Where are you getting your misinformation from?
@werner — let me remind you to please read carefully.
here is what Santer et al wrote: “Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016263/abstract
do you see the words “at least”?
do you understand that they do not mean “equal to”?
do you understand the concept of a lower bound?
@dbstealey — do you know how to calculate trends?
if so, please post here the 15-yr trends for GISS, HadCRUT4, NCDC, UAH, and RSS.
compare and discuss.
@dbstealey — where is werner a professor? google shows nothing.
where can i read about his research?
Stan W. says:
April 23, 2013 at 5:16 pm
but it differs significantly from the 4 other datasets (GISS, HadCRUT4, NCDC, UAH)
I noticed that you left out Hadsst2 and Hadcrut3, both of which show 16 years of no warming. (GISS and Hadcrut4 show over 12 years of no warming which is not too bad either.)
@ur momisugly Stan W. says:
April 23, 2013 at 2:47 pm
“@ur momisuglyjc — my interest is good science, for which no one pays me a cent.
though i realize people like you like to insinuate otherwise, as a substitute for actual scientific arguments.”
————————————————————————————————————————
Do you think you are cunning? It doesn’t really matter; if you do then your capacity to judge effectiveness of actions on reality is confirmed, and quite possibly your normal circle would view this as a breathtaking achievement, and so your confidence is configured accordingly.
I fully accept that no-one would pay you anything at all to attempt to PRODUCE good science or even to IDENTIFY good science. That would be absurd.
As to having an “interest” in an unspecified way, whatever that might mean given your apparent capacities, this could just as likely be in DISCREDITING good science as anything else. Since your adherence generally to an irrational position and on review of your mechanisms provides evidence for that, that must be the conclusion.
I have tried to communicate that my query does not relate to any “actual scientific arguments”. I really do think it is impossible that anyone with the “brain function” to read and “get” the meaning can have missed that, with all the allowance possible to one operating at the bare minimum level.
So I take it that this is just evidence of dishonesty.
Try again. The question was about “financial advantage” not “pay”, and not limited to any peculiarity of yours that describes your relationship with “science”. It’s about money, or things of material advantage. It is a standard technique of evasion to try to pretend to answer a question by dishonestly limiting the parameters. Ask any Criminal lawyer or Judge. Or perhaps you don’t need to.
So any “financial advantage”. Called whatever it is.
Incremental disclosure is never effective. It just confirms the whole nature of what is hidden and the person hiding it. Better to come clean.
Stan W. says:
April 23, 2013 at 5:17 pm
@werner — where did you ever get the idea that “17 years” is some kind of natural law?
I never suggested it was some kind of a law. It is strictly from Santer’s comment. See:http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml
“Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.“
Stan W. says:
April 23, 2013 at 6:04 pm
i haven’t denigrated werner in the least — merely asked him some questions.
I agree that you simply asked questions.
Stan W. says:
April 23, 2013 at 6:12 pm
@dbstealey — where is werner a professor?
I never was a professor, however after obtaining my engineering degree over 40 years ago, I taught physics and chemistry at the high school level and have proofread high school physics texts for Pearson. So I have decades of experience answering questions.
Stan W. says:
April 23, 2013 at 6:41 pm
do you see the words “at least”?
do you understand that they do not mean “equal to”?
do you understand the concept of a lower bound?
Yes, I see that. So are you suggesting I have to wait for 17 years and 1 month before saying models are wrong? Then of course this is only according to Santer. Others have shown the models are wrong in other ways as has been shown above. For example see:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/
Phil. says:
April 23, 2013 at 3:43 pm
“Forgive me but I’m disinclined to answer such a survey conducted by an anonymous poster, particularly one with such a threatening tone which is only addressed to two posters! Perhaps you should do a wider survey covering every poster here?”
———————————————————————————————————————-
Your concern about being asked a question by an “anonymous” person is strange on a site dedicated to dispassionate appraisal. Clearly your conception of objectivity is predicated and formed by your personal relationships and that defines your relationship with reality. This is certainly a characteristic of a particular type of being, possibly prevalent “where you live”, clearly dominant in the common or garden devotee, but I ask you to try to put that to one side for this purpose. Try to transcend that.
I can’t see why you would translate this as having a “threatening tone”. There can be no “threat” to anyone who is honest and of sincere intent, no matter what their opinions, manner of articulating them, or personal life and financial circumstances are. If someone has income from a particular activity or source this does not in itself invalidate their opinions of even introduce their motives as an issue necessarily. It depends whether they are honest. And do not hide things.
To find this threatening is indicative of a failure in that way.
As to being only two posters – well! I must deal with what is there (called reality) and on this thread, this seems to be the available sample size at the moment. I welcome participation from others displaying the requisite characteristics. The problem is, as I am becoming increasingly aware, that there are actually not large numbers of those who qualify. Although the impression given by the media – under encouragement – is of a multitude, this is simply not true. Ultimately this is of advantage in accountability, since the numbers involved are manageable within Court processes.
Surveying every poster here is obviously nonsensical, since this is concerned to identify – not personally at this stage, that can come later – those who are culpable in the deaths of many thousands of humans and to estimate the number and nature of operations of those, which in the first instance requires identification of deceit, general dishonesty, and pursuit of financial advantage.
This forum, along with others on the internet is invaluable as a record of evidence, with of course the authorities being in a position to identify contributors if required regardless of whether that is volunteered at the time, or whether it is intentionally obscured for reasons that become obvious. There is no disadvantage – and every advantage to those who might otherwise be considered worthy of attention – to be open and honest on this issue.
So I await your reconsidered response
wbrozek,
Please excuse me for the misunderstanding. But here, teaching physics is a professor’s job. In any case, your experience far surpasses the average [and I am still waiting for Stan’s C.V.].
Teaching physics for forty years provides a basic understanding of the subject; an understanding sadly lacking in the average commentators’ posts.
fredd:
At April 23, 2013 at 5:36 pm you say to the other troll
That is a classic ‘red herring’.
1.
You posed the mistaken assertion that the end of the scare would be seen in journals.
2.
I explained how and why journals would be the last place to see it.
3.
I cited ‘acid rain’ as an example of where journals were the last place to see evidence of a fading scare.
4.
Your response to having had your suggestion disproved is to try to change the subject; i.e, standard trolling.
Richard
PS, I did work on that fake scare so if I were the kind who grabbed at red herrings then I would have grabbed yours.
@dbstealey — keep waiting;
my c.v. is none of your business.
this is about scientific arguments, not personal accusations.
werner:
“So are you suggesting I have to wait for 17 years and 1 month before saying models are wrong?”
is that what i said? no.
is that what Santer said? no.
you seem determined to mangle the science into saying something it doesn’t say. that raises questions about your objectivity.
@werner — i too have decades of experience answering questions.
so what?
especially if your answers are of the quality given here, which do not present an objective view of the science.
Stan W. says:
April 24, 2013 at 8:29 am
you seem determined to mangle the science into saying something it doesn’t say
I know what it says. Now I want your interpretation of it. Specifically, for how many years and months does the slope have to be 0 on any data set before we conclude that models are wrong?
Troll posting as Stan W.:
At April 24, 2013 at 8:30 am you say
Nobody doubts that but what everybody wants to know is if you ever gave an honest answer to any of them. And on the basis of your performance in this thread nobody can know an answer to that whatever you say.
Richard
Stan W says:
“i too have decades of experience
answeringdodging questions.”There. Fixed it for you.
Here is a good example of Stan’s dodging and evading a question asked repeatedly:
Stan says: “my c.v. is none of your business.”
Conclusion: Stan is trolling, pretending to be knowledgeable about the subject. If Stan possessed any kind of background that qualified him to be the least bit expert, he would have proudly posted it here.
Werner and others are destroying every one of Stan’s really lame arguments, all of which amount to Stan’s assertions, nothing more.
Prove me wrong, Stan. Post your mythical C.V. We want to see if you have any credibility at all.
jc says:
April 23, 2013 at 8:54 pm
I can’t see why you would translate this as having a “threatening tone”. There can be no “threat” to anyone who is honest and of sincere intent, no matter what their opinions, manner of articulating them, or personal life and financial circumstances are.
And yet you appear to want to gather evidence to be used in some sort of future court proceedings:
this is concerned to identify – not personally at this stage, that can come later – those who are culpable in the deaths of many thousands of humans
It’s unclear to me how pointing out scientific errors by another poster could lead to such a proceeding, or how one’s financial interests would be relevant, I have not falsified anything and supported my statements with scientific papers.
Also your implication that posting science that supports the concept of global warming leads to “culpability in the deaths of many thousands of humans”. If the IPCC projections come to pass would you propose a similar tribunal for those who oppose the adoption of a reduction in the use of fossil fuels? What if the weather shift this winter in the UK is the result of melting sea ice due to CO2 then who would you suggest are culpable in the excess deaths there?
If financial disclosure was required for posting on this site I’m sure many might reconsider posting here, your insinuation that those who post a contrary position on here are being dishonest and are motivated by financial interests is offensive, just as it is when it’s suggested that Anthony is in the pay of Big Oil!
dbstealey says:
April 24, 2013 at 9:28 am
“i too have decades of experience dodging questions.”
Indeed you do!
Prove me wrong, Stan. Post your mythical C.V. We want to see if you have any credibility at all.
Why don’t you lead the way and post your CV, your credibility is frequently called into question?
For someone who once maintained a dual identity on this site you have some nerve