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!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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!
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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).
@ur momisugly 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.
=================