Changing Climate Debate History

By Andy May

While researching my next book, I found a bit of interesting deception on the Intelligence Squared web site. This is the organization that hosted the famous March 14, 2007 global warming debate on the motion “Global Warming is not a Crisis.” Debating in favor of the motion were the late Michael Crichton, Professor Richard Lindzen (MIT, now emeritus), and Professor Philip Stott (University of London, emeritus). Against the motion were Dr. Brenda Ekwurzel of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Dr. Gavin Schmidt of NASA, and Professor Richard Somerville of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

The debate was held at the Asia Society and Museum in New York City. Their auditorium holds 258 people and, I presume, every seat was filled. The audience was polled on the assertion before the debate and after. According to the verbatim transcript of the debate (one of the tabs on the Intelligence Squared link above), moderator Brian Lehrer, announced the results at 1 hour 37 minutes:

“And now the results of our debate. After our debaters did their best to sway you…you went from, 30% for the motion that global warming is not a crisis, from 30% to 46%. [APPLAUSE]

01:38:58

Against the motion, went from 57% to 42%… [SCATTERED APPLAUSE, MOANS] And “undecided” went from 13% to 12%. The hardcore ambivalent are still among us. [LAUGHTER] So, in terms of opinion change, those in favor of the motion, have carried the day, congratulations to the team for the motion.”

You can hear the debate and the results on an NPR recording as well.

Gavin Schmidt was intensely embarrassed at their clear defeat in the debate. As Anthony Watts wrote in 2018, eleven years after the debate, Schmidt was so demoralized and defeated he still would not appear on stage with skeptical scientists, like Dr. Roy Spencer. Schmidt reportedly said debates are not worthwhile, regardless of the outcome. This is quite shocking to hear, debate is at the heart of scientific research. If you will not debate your points, you are not doing scientific work.

As you can probably imagine, I was nearly knocked to the floor when I clicked on the Intelligence Squared tab for the debate results on 28 December 2020. This was after I had listened to the debate and read the transcript. Under the tab on December 28 and still there January 6th, I read the winner, post-debate, was Against the motion, by 89%! Someone with access to the Intelligence Squared web site had radically changed the results from a win for the climate skeptics to a win for the alarmists. You may still be able to see this when you go to the web site. I wrote to them about this error December 28, and have received no answer.

As Wim Rost found, the Wayback machine shows that the correct results were on the web page December 15, 2016 as you can see below. Use this link to search the Wayback machine yourself. Be patient, it takes a little while to bring up the calendar.

The web page as it existed December 15, 2016 according to the Wayback machine.

There is certainly no excuse for lying about the results of this famous debate, but someone did.

4.9 52 votes
Article Rating
416 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
RegGuheert
January 6, 2021 2:09 pm

Wow! That is really sad!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  RegGuheert
January 6, 2021 3:11 pm

No, it’s outrageous. Sean Hannity says “sad” a lot. The word “sad”really isn’t strong enough for the situation.

It’s an outrage when the public is deliberately lied to for political purposes.

jmorpuss
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 9, 2021 12:11 pm

It’s an outrage when the public is deliberately lied to for political purposes

propaganda
[prɒpəˈɡandə]
NOUN

  1. information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.
  2. “he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda”
  3. synonyms:
  4. information · promotion · advertising · advertisement · publicity · advocacy · spin · newspeak · agitprop · disinformation · counter-information · brainwashing · indoctrination · the big lie · info · hype · plugging · disinfo
  • the dissemination of propaganda as a political strategy.
  • “the party’s leaders believed that a long period of education and propaganda would be necessary”
Gums
Reply to  RegGuheert
January 6, 2021 4:47 pm

Salute!

No problem, as prolly same folks are “deniers” about history, and simply erase what they do not agree with.

Gums sends…

Mickey Reno
January 6, 2021 2:15 pm

One of William Connelley’s little Wikipedia sock puppets evidently got access to the web site.

ResourceGuy
January 6, 2021 2:16 pm

Typical.

Don
January 6, 2021 2:16 pm

Any word as to whether a Dominion voting machine was involved in the recount?

Last edited 6 months ago by Don
Latitude
January 6, 2021 2:19 pm

so…..we’re won nothing

we’ve sat back….let it go on….and the next 4 years we are really screwed

Enginer01
Reply to  Andy May
January 6, 2021 5:00 pm

As Andy says, A significant function of debate is to defend your ideas; science is a process, not a body of fixed knowledge. And if a Wayback machine is needed to preserve those individual ideas for later examination, so be it. An idea should not be accepted or rejected because one debater is a more elegant speaker than another. The idea MUST be preserved for review and reference.

patrick healy
Reply to  Enginer01
January 7, 2021 7:06 am

1984 is getting a bit like ground hog day, history being re written before our eyes. After all the blindingly obvious voter fraud being coverrd up by the Enimedia,I suppose we can anticipate the Way Back Machines being tampered with next.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  patrick healy
January 7, 2021 8:41 am

“Enimedia”

Good one! 🙂 So true!

David A
Reply to  Latitude
January 6, 2021 2:30 pm

I wrote President Trump’s site twice suggesting they initiate P.S.Ds. ( President Sponsored Debates). With CAGW being one of the three most important topics.

It would have been extremely effective.

Ron Long
Reply to  Latitude
January 6, 2021 5:07 pm

Latitude, we might only be screwed for two years as the 2022 mid-terms are likely to restore both the House and Senate to rational hands. I read one comment that if Biden/Harris were smart they would do nothing for 6 months as the vaccine program kicks the virus and the stock market finishes its rebound from the shut-downs.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Ron Long
January 6, 2021 9:12 pm

Elections will not longer be fair, Ron. The fix will always be in. There will be no 2022 recompense.

If anything, they’ve probably learned from the glaring manipulation glitches they left in the 2020 voter trends. In the future they’ll be more careful to hide their tracks.

Garland Lowe
Reply to  Pat Frank
January 6, 2021 10:48 pm

State legislators hold the key to fixing the fraud. Vote for candidates that run on fixing the election mess. It can be done.

Derg
Reply to  Garland Lowe
January 7, 2021 3:13 am

I am with Frank, I don’t see a Republican winning the presidency again and more states turning blue.

Fred Jones
Reply to  Garland Lowe
January 7, 2021 4:50 am

Wishful thinking. State legislatures write election laws but in the SupremeCourt’s refusal to hear the Texas lawsuit, we see that state executives and judges are now free to ignore election laws.

M Courtney
January 6, 2021 2:21 pm

My father (a sceptic scientist) once debated a Jeremy Leggett (a solar power subsidy advocate). The theme was similar to this debate.

At the interval Leggett legged it. He wasn’t going to stick around for more of that embarrassment. He was beaten. Hammered.

Leggett was representing Greenpeace. The next day Greenpeace announced they would no longer engage in public debate of the science.

To this day my father says that overwhelming victory was his greatest defeat. If he hadn’t won so overwhelmingly Greenpeace would have lost many more public battles. That would have been beneficial for the truth.

I would say it was Pyrrhic but I cannot spell that.

David A
Reply to  M Courtney
January 6, 2021 2:33 pm

See my post just above. Imagine what such debates on a national stage would have accomplished!
Additional debates exposing the BLM crowds radical leadership and their lies would be yet another example.

Rational public debate on a national scale is non existent now.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  David A
January 6, 2021 3:23 pm

We can’t have rational debates when one political party controls the Media. The Media form public opinion and when they lie for partisan political purposes, they destroy the Republic, as they are on their way to doing now.

The Lying Media are the greatest threat to our freedoms.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 6, 2021 3:52 pm

Yes, the Media are getting more bold and egregious in their manipulations.
The Fourth Estate has become a Fifth Column!

Mr.
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 6, 2021 5:06 pm

I couldn’t agree more, Tom.
I’ve been pounding this point now for more than a decade.
Family & friends are eye-rollingly tired of my rants now, but as political campaign managers say –

when people are sick & tired of earing your message, they’re only just starting to get it.

Robert MacLellan
Reply to  David A
January 6, 2021 5:51 pm

No one alive has seen a real public debate on politics. Does anyone recall the name of a moderator for the Lincoln-Douglas debates? No. Scripted Q and A sessions are not debates, they demean the term. Modern “debates” are decided when the design is chosen and the questions scripted. The actual event is anticlimax.

George Daddis
Reply to  Robert MacLellan
January 7, 2021 7:39 am

No better example than Kamala’s reply when asked why she did an about face on Biden’s racist views and his sheer incompetence:
“Because it was a DEBATE!” (followed by derisive laughter that the interviewer would be so incredulous!)

jdgalt1
Reply to  M Courtney
January 6, 2021 3:05 pm

We’ll just have to adapt Facebook technology to debates, so the next bad guy will see a different result than everybody else sees. Then maybe he’ll even brag about it and link to it! ;-b

Last edited 6 months ago by jdgalt1
Tom Abbott
Reply to  jdgalt1
January 7, 2021 8:49 am

“We’ll just have to adapt Facebook technology to debates”

I think it is about time that conservatives dropped Facebook and Twitter.

I just heard that Facebook and Twitter have both blocked Trump’s accounts and won’t allow him on their platforms until after the inauguration of the illegitimate president, Joe Biden.

I’ve had a Facebook account for years, and I haven’t used it for years, but now I’m going to formally cancell my account, as a means of protest of Facebooks censorship.

I don’t have a Twitter account so don’t have to cancel that. Twitter never was attractive to me because they initially limited the message to 140 characters. I couldn’t even get warmed up in 140 characters. 🙂

Trump should immediately move himself and all his supporters to Parler.

I hear it is kind of a hassle to withdraw your account from Facebook. Anyone have any pointers on how to do this as painlessly as possible?

I also want to remove a relative’s account who has passed away. I understand that is even more complicated. Any advice would be welcome.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 7, 2021 10:00 am

I also want to remove a relative’s account who has passed away. I understand that is even more complicated. Any advice would be welcome.

It’s not as hard as getting them to stop voting.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
January 8, 2021 4:09 am

Good point. 🙂

RM25483
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 7, 2021 11:46 am

Give a fake name, then have someone else report you. When they ask for identification, refuse. They will suspend and later close your account.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 9, 2021 7:33 pm

It looks like I found a good link that tells how to delete your Facebook account:

https://www.gamerevolution.com/guides/671220-how-to-delete-facebook-account-in-2021-permanently-immediately-computer-mobile

Mr.
Reply to  M Courtney
January 6, 2021 3:35 pm

I recall also that desmog blog & Guardian wallah Graham Readfearn once took on Christopher Monckton on stage in Brisbane (Australia), and left the debate blubbering after his lordship (figuratively) wiped the floor with the lad.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  M Courtney
January 6, 2021 3:50 pm

There is an old caution about winning the battle and losing the war. I also have experience with that.

gringojay
January 6, 2021 2:21 pm

Just sounds like the “new” normal of U.S.A. vote reporting. I mean, come on man, how dare anyone not accept what they’re told!

Latitude
January 6, 2021 2:27 pm

they even changed the pre-debate numbers….

nyolci
January 6, 2021 2:30 pm

debate is at the heart of scientific research.

Exactly. And the right forum for that is peer reviewed literature.

What is not is at the heart of scientific research is

  1. Pretending that outsiders’ opinion (and votes) have any meaning in scientific debates.
  2. Involving outsiders and amateurs in scientific debates. Apart from being a waste of valuable time, it has the unfortunate side effect of giving some kind of legitimizing effect to deniers’ bs. No wonder scientists are rightly reluctant to these debates.
  3. “Scientific research” done by amateurs (eg. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/12/26/why-do-the-hadsst-sea-surface-temperatures-trend-down/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/12/23/ocean-sst-temperatures-what-do-we-really-know/ )
Peter W
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 2:38 pm

In other words, if you are unable to win the debate using facts and logic, try censorship!

nyolci
Reply to  Peter W
January 6, 2021 4:38 pm

if you are unable to win the debate using facts and logic, try censorship!

They won the scientific debate. The scientists. Not the deniers.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 4:53 pm

LIAR
!

MarkW
Reply to  fred250
January 6, 2021 5:20 pm

Its not like the truth benefits him.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 5:20 pm

You are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.
Quote from someone.

The alarmists have lost ever debate they have ever engaged in. That is a fact, even though you will continue to cling to your beliefs.

fred250
Reply to  MarkW
January 6, 2021 8:05 pm

Notice how the loser nyholist is still squirming around, totally avoiding producing any actual real science.

He probably thinks no-one is noticing behind his misplaced egotistical bluster. 🙂

Standard methodology for those who know they are EMPTY.

Its almost as though he/she/it KNOWS that there is no actual science to back up the blathering.

Its just a childish attention-seeking troll-game.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
January 7, 2021 9:52 am

You are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.

Yes of course I’m entitled to my own facts! 😉 Remember, I’m the elite!

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 10:01 am

If you have so many facts, why don’t try presenting some.
So far all you have managed to do is proclaim that only those people you acknowledge as scientists are to be listened to.

Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 10:15 am

beng135
Reply to  nyolci
January 8, 2021 8:26 am

No, you’re not the elite, you’re just one of the many useful idiots that neo-marxism uses.

Last edited 6 months ago by beng135
Reply to  MarkW
January 8, 2021 2:10 pm

“Reality is socially constructed,” from the credo of post-modernism. So, get enough of “society” to construct your whim as real, and the ‘facts’ themselves will follow.

Dave Fair
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 2:51 pm

And the Team picks the peer reviewers.

M Courtney
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 2:57 pm

Not at all. If people are wrong you should expose them to the full glare of debate and leave a record of how they are wrong.

Perhaps they may be right and you will learn something.

But if they are wrong then you have evidence to wave in front of the ill-informed (the majority on any particular subject). Because the ill-informed will eventually stumble on the confused people. That is effective. You stop the rot.

Trying to ignore people who are wrong just leaves them to their self-facing bubbles where people get more persuaded and committed to their error. They then will grow, fester and refuse to accept evidence or argument against their new idol.

A good way to tell a thinker from a zealot is that thinkers welcome debate while zealots consider it a source of heresy.

nyolci
Reply to  M Courtney
January 6, 2021 4:37 pm

If people are wrong you should expose them to the full glare of debate and leave a record of how they are wrong.

The problems is that they were not wrong. Furthermore science and policy got mixed up in the shittiest way.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 4:54 pm

Yep, policy triumphed over reality and over science…

actual real science never got a look in.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 5:22 pm

That the skeptics were not wrong is self evident.
That science and policy have gotten mixed up was the goal of your alarmists from the beginning.

Mr.
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 5:28 pm

<blockquote>Furthermore science and policy got mixed up in the shittiest way.</blockquote>

Now you’ve finally said something of substance.

I could tolerate the hypothesis of agw as an interesting academic conversation, if it weren’t for the accompanying policy idiocy of promoting grid scale wind and solar electricity generation, storage, dispatchability as rational, affordable, sustainable “solutions”.

See “Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds”

Dennis
Reply to  Mr.
January 6, 2021 6:21 pm

Exactly I don’t have a problem with wasting $billions on climate papers and conferences, it’s the $trillions on sunshine and breezes, and worst of all battery storage. An unworkable solution for a non existing problem.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Dennis
January 7, 2021 12:13 pm

I have a problem with the $billions wasted on climate propaganda papers AND the $trillions wasted on sunshine and breezes. Not only due to the waste of money produced by the productive by its transfer to the useless, but because the former leads to the latter.

nyolci
Reply to  Mr.
January 6, 2021 11:54 pm

if it weren’t for the accompanying policy idiocy of promoting grid scale wind and solar electricity generation, storage, dispatchability as rational, affordable, sustainable “solutions”.

I sadly agree. And I always sad that.

Last edited 6 months ago by nyolci
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 12:14 pm

Well what do you know – a light bulb occasionally comes on…

Rory Forbes
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 5:37 pm

It’s clear you know nothing about science in general and “climate science” in particular. Public debate is now and has always been the best way to disperse important subjects. Only the Left wants debate limited to a select few … and behind closed doors. The AGW true believers have never won a debate … ever.

nyolci
Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 7, 2021 4:04 am

Public debate is now and has always been the best way to disperse important subjects.

Modern natural science is simply incomprehensible for the general public without very extensive learning, mostly in higher mathematics. Even when the math is rather simple, most people won’t understand that. Andy May made elementary errors in his calculations that could be explained with a few equations and he still doesn’t get it. You can’t have a meaningful public debate with an audience that don’t understand it. The so called popular scientific literature is a good way to disperse these subjects but that’s necessarily means profound simplification.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 4:53 am

“simply incomprehensible for the general public without very extensive learning, mostly in higher mathematics”

Yes you have made it obvious that you totally lack these things.

You prove that every time you continue making yabbering mindless statements rather than actually producing scientific evidence.

You have NO CLUE if Andy has made any errors, that is just what you read somewhere from one of your fellow INEPT climate cultists. It bears no truth in reality.

You are INCAPABLE of meaningful debate, because you KNOW that you have absolutely no real science to back up anything you say… so all you can do in mindless bluster.

Prove me wrong

Answer these simple questions…. instead of dodging and weaving like a demented chook. !

PRODUCE YOUR SCIENCE…..

or continue to scurry around like a little cockroach.

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 10:03 am

Yet another lie from the master of them.
As to Andy making mistakes, just screaming you’re wrong over and over again, doesn’t make it so.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 10:50 am

Of course you believe that science has become too complex for the “average person” … the hoi poloi. The Left always pretend to have an inside track on understanding. The Lefties promoting the “climate change” fraud are no different.

The fact is, the entire issue of this planet’s many climates and their interface with humanity is far too complex for the computer models that pretend to provide us with meaningful projections of future outcomes. They don’t. They are always wrong and it is a travesty to waste resources and plan our future on such poor speculation.

It doesn’t require a science degree to understand that the state of “climate science” has not even approached a basic standard of reliability. Your post (as expected) is entirely composed of hand waving and gaslighting.

Newminster
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 10:02 am

Who were not wrong? If you lose a debate then either your initial premise was wrong of your arguments weren’t good enough or coherent enough to convince the unconvinced or sway the opposition.

We have seen two examples on this thread of global warming “believers” losing the argument and refusing to debate the subject thereafter. If they are not “wrong” then they might as well be because they aren’t “right” enough to convince skeptics and if you want me to contribute vast sums of my tax money to your as yet still unsubstantiated hyopthesis then failing to prove your case, flouncing off in a pet and then metaphorically (so far!) holding a gun to my head demanding the money anyway, you’d better think again.

And do try to avoid the pathetic arguments that can be debunked by high school student without even breaking sweat. You’re an embarrassment to science.

nyolci
Reply to  Andy May
January 6, 2021 4:12 pm

If you are trembling with fear at debating your opponents

Do I? 😉 Seriously, I’m talking about “opponents” who can’t even understand they are wrong. This is waste of time. You’re a good illustration. Nick Stokes explained to you quite a few times why your results were, khm, the “artifact of your method”.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 4:21 pm

Neither you nor Nick Stokes could use knowledge, reason or logic to find your way out of a paper bag. You never present any facts or reasoning, only BS.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 4:31 pm

Yes you do ..

You COWER away from producing any actual scientific evidence whatsoever.

You are a waste of time… that is for sure.

Nick Stokes is a mediocre hack, who’s explanation carry little to no weight.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 4:43 pm

“who can’t even understand they are wrong.”

nyholist seems to live in a hall of MIRRORS.. but with its eyes shut so he can’t see itself

Use a bit of introspection, you poor gullible anti-science twerp.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 5:24 pm

Once again nyolci displays an ignorance that is utterly impenetrable in it’s perfection.

The idea that he might be wrong is something that his tiny little mind just can’t process. The idea that Andy may be right and Nick may be wrong is rejected out of hand. After all, he agrees with Nick, which proves that Nick is right.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
January 7, 2021 4:31 am

The idea that Andy may be right and Nick may be wrong

Well, here comes the tiny fact that Nick showed (ie. demonstrated) why Andy got his counterintuitive results and also showed what he could’ve done to avoid these errors. And he used extremely simple maths. The fact that you (Andy, whoever) couldn’t grasp it bears witness to your general illiteracy in basic scientific matters.

Last edited 6 months ago by nyolci
fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 4:57 am

WRONG AGAIN

Nick has not “showed” anything.

He doesn’t have that capability….. neither do you.

Nick is only capable of “simple maths”… way below what is required to refute Andy Mays work.

He doesn’t understand it and neither do you.

It is BEYOND YOUR CAPABILITY.

Science and maths….. you have NONE.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 10:05 am

Actually, all Nick did was make a few pronouncements.
None of which were backed up by actual facts.

And once again the elitist declares that anyone who disagrees with it must be really ignorant.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
January 9, 2021 3:05 am

Actually, all Nick did was make a few pronouncements.

Nick has an extremely good but short and revealing post about this. The mathematics involved is the “a(b+c)=ab+ac” kind with a few lines of equations. And he very clearly demonstrated why the signal was masked by essentially measurement artifacts in Andy’s method. Go read it.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 7:02 am

Stokes wouldn’t know how to treat real physical measurements if they bit him on the a***. I seriously doubt your ability to properly treat measurements with math properly too.

Neither of you appear to have been responsible for actually producing anything of value in the business world where measurements determine the viability of the company. You would be measuring a product spec’d to 1/1000th of an inch with a yardstick and insist the Central Limit Theory lets you determine the real physical length if you only do it enough times.

nyolci
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 7, 2021 9:29 am

Stokes wouldn’t know how to treat real physical measurements if they bit him on the a***. I seriously doubt your ability to properly treat measurements with math properly too.

What a balanced and nuanced answer… Well, Andy couldn’t treat measurements with math properly. Nick easily demonstrated Andy’s errors. Furthermore he easily demonstrated that a certain extremely simple transformation makes these data meaningful even for doofuses like Andy without increasing uncertainty that’s already in the data. Actually his method (well, a commonplace method in his field) has a side effect of removing or decreasing systemic bias, etc. So my hunch feeling is that Nick’s ability to properly treat measurements with math is not that bad 😉 FYI I don’t know him.

You would be measuring a product spec’d to 1/1000th of an inch with a yardstick and insist the Central Limit Theory lets you determine the real physical length if you only do it enough times.

Well, no. But anyway, you’ve changed subject. I surely don’t want to measure anything nowadays, I left my field. As far as I know Nick is using already existing data sets (that have been collected by leading experts in measurement, perhaps you? 😉 ) for analysis, his perceived (in)ability you allege to measure -say- length is completely irrelevant.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 4:07 pm

Again nye shows he/she/it is incapable of understanding actual mathematics and science.

Produces yet another mindless SCIENCE-FREE load of pap.

An empty sock, with a mouth.. so funny.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 4:56 pm

See you don’t even know of which you speak. “Nick is using already existing data sets”, that have an uncertainty of at least +/- 0.5 deg for each reading, far outweighing any anomaly of increased temperature.

How do you claim to know any facts? You simply rely on Argumentum ad populum with no facts.

nyolci
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 8, 2021 11:23 am

that have an uncertainty of at least +/- 0.5 deg for each reading

You always want to ride this dead horse 🙂 in your characteristic inconsistent way. You proclaimed (editor’s note: elsewhere) that we could never know uncertainty, and then you gave a minimal value for it, a value you apparently pulled out of your ass. You don’t even specify whether it is F or Celsius, the two differ considerably. Even commercial household thermometers have an uncertainty that’s less than this (less than +/- 0.1C), so the above value itself is surely wrong for scientific thermometers. But this fact is almost beside the point. ‘Cos with proper statistical treatment you can of course reduce uncertainty for big datasets.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
January 8, 2021 3:08 pm

Have you been anywhere with 75 deg C? Besides which, if weren’t so intent on disparaging people, you would realize that the F or C doesn’t really matter. The number could be degrees of latitude or longitude, the slope of a hill, or the angle of a quarter round trim piece. The uncertainty interval for each measurement is still +/- 0.5 deg. You obviously have never had to deal with this in a serious manner. Neither have most climate scientists. They just turn the numbers over to a computer programmer who had some math and they proceed as if theses are absolute numbers with no uncertainty at all. Just like in their math books at school.

nyolci
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 9, 2021 3:20 am

Have you been anywhere with 75 deg C?

Yes, when I boil water.

if weren’t so intent on disparaging people, you would realize that the F or C doesn’t really matter.

Okay, that was a bit of hair splitting, I admit. But then

The uncertainty interval for each measurement is still +/- 0.5 deg.

Hm, in other words your uncertainty interval is so arbitrary it has two different lengths 🙂 If I use another scale, would it have a third one too? For 75F and 75C aren’t that different you can’t use essentially the same method or sometimes even the same instrument.

[climate scientists] just turn the numbers over to a computer programmer

I don’t like the constant psychoanalyzing some people do in debates but I have to note you nurse a good deal of bitterness towards those “smarty pants” who think they know everything with their (yak!) stupid mathematics you don’t understand.

and they proceed as if theses are absolute numbers with no uncertainty at all.

All scientific papers have the various error bands carefully published. Have you ever seen even one? I think this is even a formal requirement for peer reviewers to check this.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 7, 2021 12:23 pm

measuring a product spec’d to 1/1000th of an inch with a yardstick and insist the Central Limit Theory lets you determine the real physical length if you only do it enough times.

That is a genuinely beautiful summation of so-called “climate science” as it is being peddled today.

nyolci
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
January 8, 2021 11:29 am

That is a genuinely beautiful summation of so-called “climate science” as it is being peddled today.

He got even the name of it wrong beside other things. It’s correctly the “Central Limit Theorem“.

Last edited 6 months ago by nyolci
Mr.
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 3:25 pm

I might kinda agree with you to some extent, except for the elephant in the peer review room that the reviewers are hand-picked by the journal editors (what outcome do I want?), and the selected reviewers are opaque to the recipients of their critiques.

So there is nothing ‘open’ about this kind of scientific review.

fred250
Reply to  Mr.
January 6, 2021 4:03 pm

I doubt nyholist even knows how “peer-review” is conducted

He just “BELIEVES”

nyolci
Reply to  Mr.
January 6, 2021 4:18 pm

I might kinda agree with you to some extent, except for the elephant in the peer review room
Thx for your answer. Well, the process is far from perfect, that’s true, and very slow anyway. Still, the long term outcome is pretty good.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 4:33 pm

ROFLMAO

Climate change™ peer-review is basically WORTHLESS.

The amount of utter trash that gets through from so-called climate scientists, who are actually nothing but activists, is hilarious.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 5:25 pm

The process preserves the paychecks of the insiders. After all, that’s what it was designed to do.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 5:45 pm

Peer review was intended to benefit the publisher … a form of editorial review making sure all the “t’s were crossed and the “i”s dotted as well as formulae, syntax and spelling checked for accuracy. Eventually it morphed into a way of forcing out smaller publishers and taking over “scientific” publication.
It was NEVER intended to validate the reviewed papers … and it doesn’t. Only open debate and attempted falsification has ever done and will ever do that.

nyolci
Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 7, 2021 4:11 am

Peer review was intended to benefit the publisher … a form of editorial review making sure all the “t’s were crossed and the “i”s dotted as well as formulae,

  1. Peer review is not editorial review in the sense you allege. That kind of editorial review is of course still part of the process nowadays.
  2. In the old days the editorial board reviewed the contents (not the t-s crossed). Peer review replaced this a few decades ago.
  3. Deniers have been unable to publish ‘cos their output was not up to relevant scientific standards.
fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 5:02 am

So , we see that you are also TOTALLY CLUELESS what journal peer-review is for….. so funny.

You are totally ignorant about basically EVERYTHING, aren’t you.

So sad to see someone only capable of mouthy distractions, and so UTTERLY DEVOID of any actual competence in science of any kind.

Your last statement is utter balderdash, and you know it.

Resorting to DELIBERATE LIES just makes you look like even more of the village idiot.

Last edited 6 months ago by fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 5:52 am

Wrong, the peers were unable to understand what they just tried to read.

nyolci
Reply to  Krishna Gans
January 7, 2021 6:33 am

Wrong, the peers were unable to understand what they just tried to read.

You must be a fellow mind reader! Hola comrade! We should carry on with our conversation in the traditional way! I think of something, you read it!

Last edited 6 months ago by nyolci
Rory Forbes
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 10:59 am

I love when you respond to a truncated quotation in order to make your point. You avoided the most important part:

It was NEVER intended to validate the reviewed papers … and it doesn’t. Only open debate and attempted falsification has ever done and will ever do that.

Editorial review is the ONLY useful part of “peer review”, it reduces embarrassment and cuts down on the need for publishing errata. Mostly, today it’s just “pal” review.

nyolci
Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 7, 2021 1:50 pm

Okay, I use the whole quote:

It was NEVER intended to validate the reviewed papers … and it doesn’t. Only open debate and attempted falsification has ever done and will ever do that.

The whole intention of peer review was to guarantee a certain degree of quality, ie. no errors, no trivialities etc. Of course this is a dream, eg. there are (mostly minor) errors in 20% of published mathematical proofs etc. The intention was that what is published in a scientific journal would actually be a reliable source of knowledge. So in this sense the intention WAS validation too.
Anyway, apart from the choice of words, I think our opinions in this point are much closed to each other than they seem to be.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 2:49 pm

We’re not in the least bit “close to each other”. You virtually paraphrased my definition of the real intent of peer review and then slipped in:

The intention was that what is published in a scientific journal would actually be a reliable source of knowledge. So in this sense the intention WAS validation too.

Validation can only be achieved through repetition and attempted falsification (as I stated) . A sound and “reliable” source is not the same as validation or verification. The purpose of peer review has been turned into a means of fire-walling dogma from an open forum … eg. a closed shop.

A “peer”, in the scientific sense, is everybody studying the specific fields encompassing the topic of the paper. It’s an inclusive, not an exclusive process. Science is open to everyone.

nyolci
Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 8, 2021 12:00 pm

Validation can only be achieved through repetition and attempted falsification (as I stated).

Plainly no. Modern natural science is mostly mathematics and that is verifiable (and mostly verified) during peer review. You can’t really repeat experiments during peer review but no one really expects that. However, you can still verify a lot of aspects without actually repeating.

The purpose of peer review has been turned into a means of fire-walling dogma from an open forum … eg. a closed shop.

Peer review replaced the older process of editorial review. One of the reasons was avoiding closed shop, peer review was felt better in this regard.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  nyolci
January 8, 2021 1:40 pm

Plainly no. Modern natural science is mostly mathematics and that is verifiable (and mostly verified) during peer review.

And that is exactly the sort of remark that reinforces our criticism of your lack of science understanding. You need to look up ‘scientific method’ and spend some time learning what it is. If you can’t repeat an experiment, it is invalid. No amount of math can repair a bad hypothesis.

Peer review replaced the older process of editorial review. One of the reasons was avoiding closed shop, peer review was felt better in this regard.

You really MUST do some reading on the basic theory of the scientific method. I can see why you have so many problems understanding the failure of all aspects of the AGW (GHE) pseudo-science.

I’m afraid you simply aren’t cut out for science. Clearly you haven’t any affinity for logic or facts.

nyolci
Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 9, 2021 3:27 am

If you can’t repeat an experiment, it is invalid.

🙂 How do you repeat an experiment that was done in the Large Hadron Collider? Anyway, if you have a well documented experiment a knowledgeable peer reviewer can assert quite a few things.

[peer review replaced editorial review] You really MUST do some reading on the basic theory of the scientific method.

Oops, I was corrected, sorry 😉

Rory Forbes
Reply to  nyolci
January 9, 2021 11:12 am

How do you repeat an experiment that was done in the Large Hadron Collider?

You do a second and a third and a fourth experiment, while confirming the results using other means. Hell, you’re not only slow, you have no imagination.

Oops … you screwed up again. The only “peer review” in the scientific method is the vast body of “peers” within the science community who read and/or try to apply the paper to further experiment. A tiny cadre of “right thinking” reviewers hired by a publisher is clearly fraught with potential bias. Pull your head out of you fundamental orifice.

nyolci
Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 10, 2021 11:52 pm

[How to repeat an experiment in the LHC] You do a second and a third and a fourth experiment
And you publish that in the same paper 🙂 Are you aware of the fact that you’ve just confirmed what I wrote? 🙂 Because this repeating is a thing peer reviewers check (and accept) if it’s documented properly. Rory, I think you should’ve realized so far, that the above doesn’t conform to what you were talking about (let’s call it the “Forbes Repeatability Criteria” for respect for the person who introduced it to the scientific public). There’s no practical way you can independently repeat this as an outsider. Not just this but a sizeable portion of modern experiments. (As for the LHC, it has two different main detectors with two different scientific groups operating them, so in a sense there’s a built in “independent” repeating.)

Rory Forbes
Reply to  nyolci
January 11, 2021 10:59 am

Still confused, I see. Hell, you couldn’t even get your comments on the LHC right.

(As for the LHC, it has two different main detectors with two different scientific groups operating them, so in a sense there’s a built in “independent” repeating.)

“The collider has four crossing points, around which are positioned seven detectors, each designed for certain kinds of research.These experiments are run by collaborations of scientists from institutes all over the world. Each experiment is distinct, and characterised by its detectors.”

If you’re gong to use something as an example … please do at least some research so you get the basics right.

Note: … overall, the LHC has been a resounding failure for the most part. The only exception was an early experiment validating aspects of Svensmark’s hypotheses.

bigoilbob
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 6:50 am

Well, the process is far from perfect, that’s true, and very slow anyway. Still, the long term outcome is pretty good.”

True, and inclusive to boot. They would rather approve a post dog walk baggie like Pat Frank’s 2019 nonsense on error propagation, to be politely ignored in non alt.world, than unduly censor.

nyolci
Reply to  bigoilbob
January 7, 2021 8:01 am

to be politely ignored in non alt.world, than unduly censor.

Agree.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 1:17 pm

You would agree with a nonce who hasn’t got a clue what he is talking about

the big oily blob is barely out of junior high mathematically

Basically TOTALLY IGNORANT.

Pat Frank
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 3:07 pm

You don’t even understand the question, nyolci

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
January 7, 2021 1:16 pm

And the big slimy ignoranty blob adds his worthless ingonrat comments

So funny

Pat Frank
Reply to  bigoilbob
January 7, 2021 3:06 pm

bigoilbob never loses an opportunity to lose an opportunity to display integrity.

You’re a disgrace to intelligence, bob, and a disgrace to the profession.

fred250
Reply to  Pat Frank
January 7, 2021 4:10 pm

I love how his attacks on you have NEVER contained a single point that shows he has even the most basic clue about error analysis.

He is quoting some other idiot’s lack of understand, and pretending he actually understand himself.

That’s how dumb and incompetent he is.

Pat Frank
Reply to  fred250
January 7, 2021 9:22 pm

Standard for AGW consensus climatologists and their camp followers, fred.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 7:06 am

If peer review is the answer, why so much attention now being given to the replication crisis in so many fields. Peer review by cronies is worthless!

bigoilbob
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 7, 2021 7:39 am

The “replication crisis” is mainly a problem in the social sciences. Yes, if you think “social sciences” is misnamed, me too.

fred250
Reply to  bigoilbob
January 7, 2021 4:12 pm

“Yes, if you think “social sciences” is misnamed,”

So is “climate science”

Should be called “glorified computer games”

nyolci
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 7, 2021 7:59 am

why so much attention now being given to the replication crisis in so many fields

Because this is just another bs you can scream endlessly like “MWP”.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 1:18 pm

You you can live in CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL and IGNORANCE for ever.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 4:15 pm

““MWP””

Facts, data and science mean absolutely NOTHING to you do they, nye..

DENIAL of the MWP is the most childish anti-science meme of the whole AGW farce

… up there with the fantasy of warming by atmospheric CO2.

You know, the fantasy that you keep running away from producing evidence for.

Let’s see you RUN AWAY yet again

its so funny to watch 🙂

Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 5:01 pm

Sorry dude, it a failure in peer review. If you think physical science is immune, show your proof. The Great Barrier Reef controversy in Australia is a perfect example. One side is wrong, either it is dying or it is not. Peer review doesn’t seem able to provide a correct answer by dismissing incorrect studies.

nyolci
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 8, 2021 12:02 pm

The Great Barrier Reef controversy in Australia is a perfect example

The Great Barrier Reef controversy is a good example of a pseudo problem.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
January 8, 2021 3:13 pm

Really? That pseudo problem has gotten one very good professor terminated because of his position. That’s not pseudo!

nyolci
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 9, 2021 3:30 am

That pseudo problem has gotten one very good professor terminated because of his position.

It was very clearly stated that the reason of termination was not because of his (scientific) position but for essentially public libel against colleagues.

commieBob
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 3:58 pm

Pretending that outsiders’ opinion (and votes) have any meaning in scientific debates.

Are you even educated past kindergarten? Do you even understand the concept of a debate? Do you even know that there are basic logical fallacies? Debates are won by facts and logic and not by argument from authority. How about nullius in verba? OMG I do wish Monckton were here to properly lambaste you?

nyolci
Reply to  commieBob
January 6, 2021 4:21 pm

Do you even understand the concept of a debate?

Yes.

Debates are won by facts and logic and not by argument from authority.

Exactly. On the level of facts and logic, science wins. The thing is that most people couldn’t understand a scientific debate. That’s why scientific debates should be done by (actual) scientists.

Last edited 6 months ago by nyolci
fred250
Reply to  Andy May
January 6, 2021 4:58 pm

Yep, we see it every time an AGW “sympathiser/apologist” is asked to present evidence, even for the most basic fallacy of the AGW farce.

A complete and utter FAILURE.

You watch as the nyholist yet again ducks and weaves, and then FAILS UTTERLY and COMPLETELY..

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?

Gee Aye
Reply to  fred250
January 6, 2021 5:12 pm

Oh AndyG you are still grandstanding about something you’ve never bothered to look at yourself. You’ve been shown plenty of times but you just reject it out of hand and then keep demanding the same thing knowing that they are not doing so because there is no point.

fred250
Reply to  Gee Aye
January 6, 2021 5:44 pm

Who are you ?

Not someone who has any evidence, that is for sure

Yes, I had notice just how IMPOSSIBLE it was for any alarmist scank to answer AndyG’s questions

I assume you had notice that to ?

Those questions bear repeating as often as possible, wouldn’t you agree. !

Perhaps YOU would like to try to answer those questions..

I recall that you were never able to when he asked them on other forums.

fred250
Reply to  Gee Aye
January 6, 2021 5:48 pm

I don’t recall ever seeing anyone presenting anything except alarmist propaganda pap when he asked those two questions.

That’s why I like using them…

They are such good questions,

Wouldn’t you agree !!.

They expose the totally bereft nature of actual scientific evidence backing the AGW claims

Perhaps you would like to present some of the evidence you think you have.?

Or NOT.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  fred250
January 7, 2021 9:07 am

Yeah, “where’s the evidence” is a great question! It’s the only question.

And the alarmists have no answer. And they know it, although some of them won’t admit it publicly, or in some cases, to themselves. But they can’t deny, even to themselves, that they cannot provide the required evidence.

There is no evidence for the alarmist to provide, that’s why they have such a hard time with a simple question.

MarkW
Reply to  Gee Aye
January 6, 2021 7:18 pm

Interesting, Gee Aye pretends to be familiar with Andy, yet it can’t even get Andy’s name right.
Another pretentious troll that seeks to validaten itself through the tellig of lies.
Like nyolci, it also assumes that any disagreement with the progressive agenda is proof that one is wrong.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
January 7, 2021 4:22 am

Interesting, Gee Aye pretends to be familiar with Andy, yet it can’t even get Andy’s name right.

I think this is a different Andy ‘cos it was addressed to our chief noise generator, fred250, and he didn’t seem to be surprised and he even used that name himself.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
January 7, 2021 9:10 am

Yeah, I was looking at the names of the commenters and didn’t see an “AndyG” among them. I wondered what the poster was talking about. Still do.

nyolci
Reply to  Andy May
January 6, 2021 6:54 pm

Refusing to debate your opponents is admission that you have no case.

Plainly false. Refusal can have numberless reasons. Richard Dawkins, the famous biologist (who I don’t really like but let’s put that aside) routinely refuses to debate science deniers ‘cos “what they seek is the oxygen of respectability”, and doing so would “give them this oxygen by the mere act of engaging with them at all”. You wouldn’t say Richard Dawkins has no case, would you?

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 7:19 pm

I see that nyolci is actually desperate enough actually believes that as long as it can cite another example of someone refusing to be scientific as proof that his refusal to be scientific is justified.

fred250
Reply to  MarkW
January 6, 2021 8:15 pm

The nyholist is TOO COWARDLY to even attempt to put forward any of the actual science it says it has…. in scientific terms

Only manages to regurgitate blathering AGW mantra.

Too COWARDLY to even attempt to support the most basic premise of its cult religion
That’s pretty darn PATHETIC. !

Let’s see more RUNNING AWAY !!! 🙂

Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
January 7, 2021 12:15 am

I see that nyolci is actually desperate

Do I look desperate? 🙂 It’s entertainment!

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 2:03 pm

Yep , your squirming and eeling about, producing load of technocolor, science-free, empty spew….. are quite entertaining.

In a slop-stick low-level comedy sort of way

Funny thing is that you don’t realise what your COWARDLY avoidance of presenting any actual science whatsoever plays right into the hands of us climate realists.

Thank you for continuing to CONFIRM that there is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE even from the most basic fallacy of the AGW scam.

You are doing a GREAT JOB for the realist side 🙂

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
January 7, 2021 4:14 am

[…] nyolci […] actually believes that as long as it can cite another example of someone refusing to be scientific as proof that his refusal to be scientific is justified.

Well, I did disprove that refusal was necessarily due to lack of case didn’t I? 🙂 ‘Cos my reaction was for that. Mark, you’re changing subject. This must be some kinda fallacy, please look up the relevant one.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 7:28 am

The “lack of case” is not up to you or another debater to judge. The arbitrator of a lack of case is up to the listener to the debate, the jury as it were.

Refusing to debate is claiming the privilege of being both the judge and jury. “You are wrong and I am right, so go away.” Typical response from a censor.

nyolci
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 7, 2021 8:03 am

Refusing to debate is claiming the privilege of being both the judge and the jury

Well, I proudly am! 😉

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 2:05 pm

No , you are just another MINDLESS NO-ENTITY.

Science.. you have NONE

…. otherwise you would produce it rather than mindlessly rambling on with anti-facts and whatever other BS you can come up with at the time.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 1:18 pm

And STILL runs away from producing any evidence

HILARIOUS

! 🙂

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 7:54 pm

“Refusal can have numberless reasons.”



Utter COWARDICE is the main one.

Did you see Gavin Smdit himself when asked to debate Roy Spencer on TV.

It was like a 5 year-old’s tantrum as he RAN squirming off the stage..

Hilarity all round…. 🙂

All most as funny as your continued efforts to avoid simple questions. 🙂

Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

Last edited 6 months ago by fred250
Jim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 7:22 am

Multiple argumentative fallacies.

argumentum ad populum

argumentum ad verecundiam

Quit using other people and their beliefs as backup for yours. You must be able to state the FACTS these people have discovered in your own words and use the personage of others solely as a reference of the discoverer, and not as proof of the discovery.

nyolci
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 7, 2021 8:06 am

You must be able to state the FACTS these people have discovered in your own words

Why? If I don’t state the facts in my own words will that invalidate these facts? I thought facts had a life independent of my mind… Perhaps I was wrong… 😉

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 1:20 pm

Poor nyhilist .. desperate LIES and deceit are the only thing it has.

Village clown wants his job back, because nyholist is ruining the reputation of village clown

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 4:18 pm

You do need to produce actual evidence

….. not continually run away like the COWARD you are..

All you have so far is tantamount to a child’s fairy-tale.

Seems to be all your feeble mind is capable of.

Newminster
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 11:02 am

There’s a wonderful stance for a scientist. I can’t debate with you because you don’t agree with me and some people might believe you rather than me.
I can’t offhand think of a better example of scientific arrogance.

nyolci
Reply to  Newminster
January 8, 2021 12:05 pm

can’t debate with you because you don’t agree with me

Correction: I can’t debate with you ‘cos you’re a charlatan.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 4:37 pm

“On the level of facts and logic, science wins”



So you finally ADMIT that the AGW meme is total scientific farce.

Well done ! 🙂

Pity the so-called “climate scientists™” are too COWARDLY to debate real scientists.

They already KNOW what the outcome would be, and they would , yet again, leave with their tails between their legs and a big LOSER sign tattooed across their forehead

Just like you.

Last edited 6 months ago by fred250
MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 5:27 pm

This reminds me of Obama declaring that the only reason why everyone did not love ObamaCare was that he, Obama, hadn’t expained it well enough to them.

The idea that only things he agrees with are science and only those he agrees with are scientists, is such a strongly held religious conviction with people like nyolci, that he can’t even image a world in which he is ever proven wrong.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
January 7, 2021 12:19 am

love ObamaCare was that he, Obama, hadn’t expained it well enough to them.

Perhaps even you can see that scientific explanations tend to be rather complicated. No wonder it takes years to learn a field. That’s why we should listen to these experts and not to some self-appointed clowns with an agenda.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 3:43 am

little nyholist RUNNING AWAY like a little bee-arch !

So funny

You have no “scientific” explanations

You are a scientific ABYSS.

Yep the “climate change” malarkey is run by self-appointed clowns with an agenda

WELL DONE. !!

Rory Forbes
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 5:49 pm

Clearly you aren’t even able to work out what a “scientist” is and how to become one. Your grasp of this entire topic is so faulty, so filled with utter nonsense I wonder how you even thought that you had something to offer here. Even your pseudonym is silly. Why must you make up a name? What are you afraid of?

commieBob
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 6:31 pm

After a lifetime spent in and out of academia, I can tell you that scientists come in many flavors. Among them are the bafflegab bullshitters. They can’t answer simple questions in a way that indicates they can apply theory outside the context in which it was learned.

My favorite example was the secretary who was usually better at predicting what the patients would do than her psychiatrist boss.

The people I respect can communicate with ordinary humans. By the time the conversation is over, folks feel enlightened.

Tim Ball can talk to farmers about the climate and they love and respect him. I guarantee that wouldn’t be their response to Michael Mann.

People deserve answers and those answers can’t be, “You have to believe me, I’m an expert.”

Graemethecat
Reply to  commieBob
January 7, 2021 4:17 am

Interesting post. I have found that people who have to solve problems in the physical world such as plumbers, electricians, and auto mechanics, have a far better understanding of the Scientific Method than most academic scientists. and certainly far better than nyolci..

nyolci
Reply to  Graemethecat
January 7, 2021 10:01 am

I have found that people who have to solve problems in the physical world such as plumbers, electricians, and auto mechanics, have a far better understanding of the Scientific Method than most academic scientists.

Well, a friend of mine is a plumber, I ask him next time. His father is a plumber too, so we may regard him as a plumber squared. Perhaps we can ask him to be the Resident Plumber here. He can do arbitration then. BTW, I have a lot of car electricians (is this the right English term?) among my friends too.

Last edited 6 months ago by nyolci
nyolci
Reply to  commieBob
January 7, 2021 4:18 am

The people I respect can communicate with ordinary humans. By the time the conversation is over, folks feel enlightened.

This is called popular scientific writing, and yes, it’s needed. As for scientific debates, that need scientific arguments, and that are usually well beyond the abilities of the general public. Here at WUWT you see amateurish attempts and downright bullshit. This is neither a scientific debate nor good at enlightening.

commieBob
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 4:50 am

Read carefully. I said conversation not writing. I’m talking about people who can sit down and have a chat with others on a human to human basis.

nyolci
Reply to  commieBob
January 7, 2021 6:39 am

Read carefully.

I’m pretty careful.

I said conversation not writing.

Any realistic public debate would be in writing or between a very few people who can sit down together and have a chat. We are beyond the small village world for a few decades already. There are a lot of scientists who are eager to explain everything to you but they are much less in number than those they can have a friendly conversation.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 12:55 pm

We are beyond the small village world

The irony of you making that statement is, if we listen to the idiots you champion, we’ll be back to the “small village world” pretty quickly – the rest having starved or frozen to death after the “victory” of legislating fossil fuels out of existence.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 2:12 pm

debate produces EVIDENCE

You are RANTING….. with NO INTENTION of debating.

You come across as a failed lit student, with absolutely no science to back up anything you rant about

Its becomiing your MO .. its what you are

and its hilarious to watch the EMPTY, science-free, GARBAGE just spewing from you.

Newminster
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 11:09 am

What qualifications do you have that allows you to categorise scientific debate, wherever it may be, as “amateurish” or “downright bullshit”?

nyolci
Reply to  Newminster
January 9, 2021 3:33 am

What qualifications do you have that allows you to categorise scientific debate

Oops, how quickly we get back to that scary “authority” thing! MSc. I didn’t finish my PhD. I know I’m a failure.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 2:08 pm

“This is called popular scientific writing, and yes, it’s needed”

Well WHERE IS IT ?

We are all still waiting for you to actually PRESENT some of your “scienceᴸᴼᴸ”

So far all you have produced is mindless, meaningless garbage.

Would you like to try some more of you continual petty distractions and inane rantings……

or will you actually get around to some ACTUAL SCIENCE .??

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?

Last edited 6 months ago by fred250
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  commieBob
January 7, 2021 12:52 pm

Every time somebody pulls the old and tired “appeal to authority” argument out for yet another spin, I can’t help but instantly have the image from the TV Transmission Repair Co. ad pop into my head where the guy at the counter tells the customer “Our mechanics are experts” – while behind him, a bunch of monkeys are beating on transmissions with sticks.

Mike
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 11:47 pm

”The thing is that most people couldn’t understand a scientific debate. That’s why scientific debates should be done by (actual) scientists.

Oh what a load of verbal vomit. This particular debate is very simple. Can it be proved that co2 has caused some or all of the modern warming or not?
We are not talking quantum physics.
If you cannot express your case in simple terms that anyone average person could understand, you don’t understand it yourself.

You talk as one who is monumentally deluded. You convince yourself you know what you’re talking about but you convince no-one else. All you seem to submit are words. Words which have little meaning. Your arguments are less than feeble, yet you believe in them. As I said elsewhere, possibly a psychological disorder.

WHAT IS YOU ANSWER? BACK YOUR ANSWER UP WITH EMPIRICAL EVIENCE.

Last edited 6 months ago by Mike
nyolci
Reply to  Mike
January 7, 2021 4:19 am

This particular debate is very simple. Can it be proved that co2 has caused some or all of the modern warming or not?

Yes. See? That simple.

Paul C
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 5:02 am

No. See? Even simpler. The null hypothesis wins!

nyolci
Reply to  Paul C
January 7, 2021 6:40 am

The null hypothesis wins!

Why? I’m listening. You have to explain a warming of 0.14C/decade without any human intervention.

nyolci
Reply to  Andy May
January 7, 2021 10:58 am

Andy, Andy, I don’t have to got to your place to give you a slap, you come to my place and ask for it 🙂

This is a shifting the burden of proof fallacy or argumentum ad ignorantium.

This is the good thing when I use science. All these things have been settled already. Now it is your turn to (how Willis said that?) poke holes into it. And I have to admit, you determination is great, although your only result so far is making a fool of yourself.

I haven’t seen any other than climate models that are clearly too inaccurate to definitively show a human contribution.

Andy, Andy, you’ve ruined even that minimal, nonexistent respect I’ve had towards you! We have an accurate instrumental record to prove without modelling that recent warming is due to anthropogenic emissions.

Lewis and Curry 2018 is a very good example of contrary observational evidence.

Again, you have kicked your own ass. This study is neither contrary nor observational. They accept AGW, whether you like it or not, regardless of the almost beautified status of Curry among deniers. In other words they take human forcing as given. So you reference this just after asserting that we can’t show the effects of human forcing. You deniers are so happily inconsistent in your arguments I really envy you.
So L&C make a case for a lower ECS but there are papers outside that argue against them, and very likely these latter are right. Anyway, this paper is a very rare example of an actual peer reviewed study from a “contrarian”, although the paper itself is not “contrarian”. Anyway it is a real participant in the actual scientific debate.

Last edited 6 months ago by nyolci
fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 2:22 pm

“This is the good thing when I use science”

And yet you have presented ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the way of actuial science

You are EMPTY.

You cannot really be asking someone to poke holes in science that YOU HAVE NOT PRESENTED.

Let’s talk Grimm Bros fairy tales.. they are about as relevant as your clap-trap. !

Tom Abbott
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 9:31 am

“I’m listening. You have to explain a warming of 0.14C/decade without any human intervention.”

The same magnitude of warming occurred during the period from 1910 to 1940, as occurred from 1980 to the present.

Much less CO2 was in the atmosphere from 1910 to 1940, than is in the atmosphere today (something like 280ppm verses 415ppm) yet it is no warmer today than it was when CO2 concentrations were much less.

So the temperature increased at the same rate in both time periods, got just as warm at the warmest point in both time periods, but one period,1910 to 1940, did it with much less CO2 in the atmosphere than the period from 1980 to the present. Obviously, there is something else besides CO2 involved in determining the Earth’s temperatures.

nyolci
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 7, 2021 11:29 am

The same magnitude of warming occurred during the period from 1910 to 1940, as occurred from 1980 to the present.

Well, no. The two values are 0.57 and 0.73 respectively. And 1910 was the middle of an exceptionally cold period, and 1940 to the contrary, was the middle of an exceptionally warm one.

Much less CO2 was in the atmosphere from 1910 to 1940, than is in the atmosphere today (something like 280ppm verses 415ppm)

No. 300-310 and 340-410+ resp. There’s increase, that’s true but you quoted bad data and the opposite extremes of two intervals.

yet it is no warmer today than it was when CO2 concentrations were much less.

No. It’s warmer by almost 1C now.

So the temperature increased at the same rate in both time periods

No. The rough decadal change is 0.19C and 0.1825C resp, for the whole 1980-2020 period but it’s accelerating now, the last decade’s rate is 0.27C, and that of the last two decades is 0.225C. These are rough numbers but the magnitude is telling. Actually if I play around with the intervals the way you did with 1910-40, I get 0.22C/decade for 1975-2020. I think we can safely conclude that warming is faster now.

Obviously, there is something else besides CO2 involved in determining the Earth’s temperatures.

Obviously we don’t need your plus hypothesis.

Last edited 6 months ago by nyolci
fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 2:42 pm

The two values are 0.57 and 0.73 respectively.

After MANY adjustments.

“No. It’s warmer by almost 1C now.”

No it was FAR warmer during the MWP

NH was same or warmer in the 1940’s

Australia was far warmer in the 1880-1910 period

Now little science-free empty muppet…..

What caused the DROP into the LIA

Why are you SO DUMB that you think the NATURAL warming out of the coldest period in 10,000 years is anything but a huge PLUS for life on Earth.????

And proof of warming by atmospheric CO2

YOU STILL DON’T HAVE ANY !!

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 2:49 pm

“it’s accelerating now,”

Sorry mindless anti-science cretin

Its been COOLING since the 2015 El Nino

Please don’t continue to compound your IGNORANCE by saying El Ninos are cause by human CO2

That would be TOO DUMB even fr you

You do know that the ONLY atmospheric warming in 42 years has come from those El Nino events, don’t you

Two zero trend periods between the last 3 major El Ninos (1979/80, 1998-1999, 2015-2017)

No warming from 1980-1997
No warming from 2001-2015

JUST EL NINO WARMING.

That means that there is ABSOLUTELY NO HUMAN FINGER-PRINT IN ANY WARMING in the satellite era.

That is what happens when you use science and data

Something you are INCAPABLE of doing.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  nyolci
January 8, 2021 4:19 am

Here’s one of your alarmist heroes refuting what you are saying:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

“Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
Phil Jones is director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), which has been at the centre of the row over hacked e-mails.

The BBC’s environment analyst Roger Harrabin put questions to Professor Jones, including several gathered from climate sceptics. The questions were put to Professor Jones with the co-operation of UEA’s press office.

A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world.

CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.
So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.”

end excerpt

nyolci
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 9, 2021 3:43 am

1910-1940 and 1975-1998

Again, you shuffle the intervals around. You were talking about 1980-2020. During the last warming was faster, and if we take the last 30 years (comparable interval) the warming is again faster. But what is more important is that these results from Jones are completely in line with our knowledge of how AGW works.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  nyolci
January 9, 2021 4:33 am

Wrong.

The period from 1910 to 1940 and the period from 1980 to the present, warmed at the same rate, and reached the same level of warmth.

The period from 1998 to the present has not warmed, it has flatlined since 1998, with 1998 and 2016 being statistically tied for the warmest years since 1980. After 2016, the temperatures have cooled by about 0.4C.

nyolci
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 11, 2021 12:04 am

The period from 1910 to 1940 and the period from 1980 to the present, warmed at the same rate, and reached the same level of warmth.

Again, this is simply false. It stays false no matter how often you write it down.

The period from 1998 to the present has not warmed, it has flatlined since 1998, with 1998 and 2016 being statistically tied for the warmest years since 1980.

Again, false. Actually, the top 10 warmest years on record are all after 2000, and 7 of them are after 2010. 2020 is the second just slightly after 2016.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 12:57 pm

Nobody has to explain that – it already occurred, long before there were any humans using fossil fuels to blame it on.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 2:19 pm

poor nyholist continues to fall back on arguements from ITS ignorance

So funny

The real and HIGHLY BENEFICIAL warming out of THE COLDEST PERIOD IN 10,000 years, could have come from any number of real sources.

Solar (grand solar maximum for most of the last 70 years)

Geothermal, (seismic activity correlated with atmospheric temperatures FAR better than CO2)

cloud changes: anti-correlates perfectly with temperatures

CO2 on the other hand, has NEVER been shown to cause atmospheric warming anywhere on the planet.

Prove me wrong.. I bet you can’t.

Produce the “science” that answers these questions

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?

Or is actually finding REAL SCIENCE to back up your mindless ranting, too much for your feeble little mind ?

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 5:07 am

Well …… Where is your proof.. (AS IF)

Just saying it is TOTALLY MEANINGLESS , just like all your other juvenile non-science rantings.

Come on, ignorant putz…..

Two “simple” questions

We await your “scienceᴸᴼᴸ ”

(while rolling around in LAUGHTER at your clown act.)

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?

But I’m guessing that all we will get is more chicken-little mindless attempts at distraction.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 9:18 am

“Yes. See? That simple.”

You demonstrate just what Mike described with that reply.

Simon
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 12:24 pm

Yes. See? That simple.”
Perfect answer. That is not only true it is funny.

fred250
Reply to  Simon
January 7, 2021 1:21 pm

Simple is the only answer simple simon will ever have

No evidence or science .

just childish garblings.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
January 8, 2021 4:28 am

It’s nonsensical.

Mike
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 6:44 pm

”This particular debate is very simple. Can it be proved that co2 has caused some or all of the modern warming or not?

Yes. See? That simple.”

What a surprise! A still-born answer.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mike
January 8, 2021 4:31 am

nyolci gives a non-answer posing as an answer. I think that is his? stock in trade.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 4:02 pm

No wonder scientists are rightly reluctant to these debates.

Because so-called climate scientists KNOW that they will get absolutely TROUNCED when debating on scientific FACTS

As you have shown time and time again

You have no scientifically provable facts to back up the whole AGW farce..

Lowell
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 4:04 pm

nyloci: If the science was settled we would know:
1) What really caused the ice ages. Sorry the Milankovitch cycles could be just a correlation.
2) Ice records show frequent changes of 1 degree C within less than a hundred. Again were clueless.
3) At the beginning of the interglacial global temperature at least a magnitude faster than it is now. Again we have no clue.
4) The melting of the north America ice sheet should not have been possible with the actual amount of incoming radiation. Again we dont know why.

nyolci
Reply to  Lowell
January 6, 2021 4:34 pm

If the science was settled we would know:

Science is settled for recent anthropogenic warming due to buildup of greenhouse gasses. It doesn’t mean we know everything, neither it means we know all the minute details.

1) What really caused the ice ages. Sorry the Milankovitch cycles could be just a correlation.

And a good one. As far as I know science is settled for this.

2) Ice records show frequent changes of 1 degree C within less than a hundred.

This is really a detail we should consult climate scientists about. Sudden changes in short intervals usually (but not neccessarily) mean internal variation.

3) At the beginning of the interglacial global temperature at least a magnitude faster than it is now.

This is plainly wrong.

4) The melting of the north America ice sheet should not have been possible with the actual amount of incoming radiation.

Again, plainly wrong.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 5:01 pm

Science is settled for recent anthropogenic warming due to buildup of greenhouse gasses”

RUBBISH

not even a low-level AGW apologist can present any evidence for that.

As far as I know science is settled for this.

Ignorance is your only fall-back.

You are PLAINLY WRONG is every other of your response, too..

Your admission of gross ignorance, is not needed, as it has been obvious from the start.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 5:04 pm

“Sudden changes in short intervals usually…blah.blah….”

You mean like the natural and highly beneficial drop in sea ice from the extremes of the Little Ice Age ?

Arctic is LUVING the slight recovery from those extreme levels in the LIA and 1970s.

Not only is the land surface GREENING, but the seas are also springing BACK to life after being TOO COLD and frozen over for much of the last 500 or so years (coldest period of the Holocene)

The drop in sea ice slightly toward the pre-LIA levels has opened up the food supply for the nearly extinct Bowhead Whale, and they are returning to the waters around Svalbard.

https://partner.sciencenorway.no/arctic-ocean-forskningno-fram-centre/the-ice-retreats–whale-food-returns/1401824

The Blue Mussel is also making a return, having been absent for a few thousand years, apart from a brief stint during the MWP.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683617715701?journalCode=hola

Many other species of whale are also returning now that the sea ice extent has dropped from the extreme highs of the LIA. Whales cannot swim on ice. !

https://blog.poseidonexpeditions.com/whales-of-svalbard/

Great thing is, that because of fossil fuels and plastics, they will no longer be hunted for whale blubber for lamps and for whale bone.

Hopefully the Arctic doesn’t re-freeze too much in the next AMO cycle, and these glorious creatures get a chance to survive and multiply.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 5:06 pm

“Science is settled for recent anthropogenic warming due to buildup of greenhouse gasses.”

Only a COMPLETE MORON keeps regurgitating mantras he/she/it KNOWS it cannot present any actual empirical scientific evidence for.

Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

… or are you one of those COMPLETE MORONS.

MarkW
Reply to  fred250
January 6, 2021 5:35 pm

All nyolci has is his deep seated religious convictions. He reminds me of young earthers using quotes from the Bible to disprove geological evidence.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
January 7, 2021 12:22 am

All nyolci has is his deep seated religious convictions.

Now putting aside the fact that you deniers accuse anyone as an atheist commie, why is that religious? Please explain me ‘cos I don’t know 🙂

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 3:45 am

You poor EMPTY sock, nyholist

Your religion is AGW.. its a mindless brain-washed CULT.

And you are TOO DUMB to realise it has snagged your inept little mind.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  fred250
January 7, 2021 8:00 am

Yep, another puppet pops up out of the sock drawer.

fred250
Reply to  fred250
January 7, 2021 6:06 pm

“… or are you one of those COMPLETE MORONS.”

Oh look. little nye continues to produce NO EVIDENCE

… thus proving he is one of those COMPLETE MORONS.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 5:32 pm

Once again, nyolci, the non-scientist, rejects even the existence of the Null hypothesis.
To it, the fact that we don’t know what caused all of the other warm and cold periods from the planets history simply doesn’t matter, because the sacred models have proven that the current warming is caused by CO2.

IPCC said it, I believe it, that settles it.

BTW, I notice that once again, nyolci actually believes that just declaring someone wrong, is sufficient to disprove that persons statements.

nyolci wouldn’t know science if it came up and bit it on the butt.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
January 6, 2021 7:24 pm

rejects even the existence of the Null hypothesis.

I have to admit I’m a sinner ‘cos every day from 5 pm to 6 pm I reject the Null Hypothesis 🙂
I guess your null hypothesis is that the warming (that is observational record but some of the geniuses here deny even that 🙂 ) so the warming is (a) internal variation (b) radiation variation (c) has geothermal origin (d) I don’t know (e) etc. (f) the combination of all these. See, I don’t reject the existence of the null hypothesis, I readily admit it exists. (Okay, seriously, always be careful with your language…) The thing is that these were examined and settled long ago. Radiation and geothermal activity have a very good observational record. Internal variability is a bit more complicated but the mere length of the observational record (30+ years) and the very weak evidence for long cycles (or long term energy buffers) makes this null hypothesis invalid. All the while the “non-null” hypothesis of AGW is a perfect match.

IPCC said it, I believe it, that settles it.

Was it the IPCC? I thought the Pope said that… 🙂

To it, the fact that we don’t know what caused all of the other warm and cold periods from the planets history simply doesn’t matter, because the sacred models have proven that the current warming is caused by CO2.

Huh, again declarations, ignorance and inconsistency. You looked a bit more organized in thought than this clown show. This look turned out to be a mirage. Okay, let’s do some business.

We don’t know what caused all of the other warm and cold periods.

Yes in general, but we have a very good understanding of recent periods and the main driver looks to be incoming radiation changes due to perturbations in Earth’s orbit.

the sacred models have proven that the current warming is caused by CO2.

Bullshit or rather a show of ignorance. ‘Cos this is not even a result of modelling (though modelling results agree with it). We have very good measurements of all variables going back 30-40 years. We know incoming energy, outgoing energy, absorption, etc. The only good hypothesis for observed warming is CO2 induced greenhouse effect.

… simply doesn’t matter, because …

Even this inference is bogus. We don’t necessarily have to know why warming or cooling happened in the past if we can prove it’s happening for this or that reason now.

Last edited 6 months ago by nyolci
fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 7:45 pm

And yet you have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE of warming by atmospheric CO2

You are obviously NOT A SCIENTIST, because a real scientist would admit to the total lack of real evidence.

You are NOTHING but a brain-washed cultist.

“if we can prove it’s happening for this or that reason

now.”



And you CAN’T !!!

Last edited 6 months ago by fred250
Tom Abbott
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 7:45 pm

“The thing is that these were examined and settled long ago.”

Who did this?

nyolci
Reply to  Tom Abbott
January 7, 2021 4:39 am

Who did this?

Climate scientists. The IPCC reports give you a good summary.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 7:38 am

argumentum ad populum

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 1:22 pm

Still running away from presenting evidence

Was a sad empty sock you are.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 4:21 pm

“IPCC”

A POLITICAL summary

divorce utter from actual science.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  nyolci
January 8, 2021 4:34 am

The IPCC changes their “settled” science every time they do a new report.

The science isn’t settled, contrary to your claim.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 7:50 pm

“All the while the “non-null” hypothesis of AGW is a perfect match.”

Blatant misinformation/LIE.

“The only good hypothesis for observed warming is CO2 induced greenhouse effect.”

And yet you cannot provide any evidence

Why is that ???

We know it is BECAUSE YOU DON’T HAVE ANY.

It is a failed and totally destroyed “conjecture”, unbacked by any actual empirical science.

So much so that it is nothing but a leftist political means to an end.

Let’s try again, so you can duck and weave, much to the HILARITY of all present. 🙂

Its great entertainment watching you continually falling flat on your a**e

Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

Last edited 6 months ago by fred250
Rory Forbes
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 8:40 pm

So … once again you demonstrate your ignorance of science by pretending to understand the null hypothesis. Rather than destroy your pathetic effort line by line, I’ll direct you to a rather good paper from this blog … 4 years ago by David Middleton:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/17/the-good-the-bad-and-the-null-hypothesis/

Your continued use of gibberish is just painful to read. You know nothing about “climate science” because you know even less about actual science.

nyolci
Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 7, 2021 2:59 am

So … once again you demonstrate your ignorance of science by pretending to understand the null hypothesis.

Oops, you’ve caught me… 🙂 The null hypothesis here is that there’s no anthropogenic forcing. With this constraint you have to give explanation at least for the last 40 years when we have very good observational data. You failed that. The null hypothesis failed. Not for just the last 40 years but due to increasingly accurate reconstructions for both climate and greenhouse gasses, the time depth got much longer.

years ago by David Middleton:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/17/the-good-the-bad-and-the-null-hypothesis/

This poor fellow had to admit that the MWP was slightly colder than what we have, cos, well, when you try to use science to disprove science, you get self contradictory soon:

While it is possible that the current warm period is about 0.2 °C warmer than the peak of the Medieval Warm Period

He used a single CO2 record (Law Dome) to prove his thesis, all the while we have quite comprehensive reconstructions with error bands, etc.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 3:48 am

You are doing an ABSOLUTE SMACK-UP job of proving to EVERYBODY that it is certainly IS NOT CO2

Please keep ducking and weaving..

Please keep RUNNING AWAY from producing actual evidence

You are one of our greatest assets against the AGW SCAM. 🙂

Current SLIGHTLY warm period is COOLER than the MWP

That is what “THE SCIENCE” says

GET OVER IT !!

Jim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 7:51 am

You have a wrong null hypothesis. It should be “current warming is entirely due to anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide and that natural variation has ceased”.

I’ll bet 99+% of the studies you find assume all the current warming is due to anthropogenic generation of CO2 which automatically assumes that natural variation has ceased.

Proving that natural variation has ceased is essential to the hypothesis of CAGW.

nyolci
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 8, 2021 11:03 am

You have a wrong null hypothesis. It should be “current warming is entirely due to anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide and that natural variation has ceased”.

The “null hypothesis” is the other way around, ie. anthropogenic forcing has no role, so anything that happened since -say- 1975 is entirely due to natural causes.

I’ll bet 99+% of the studies you find assume all the current warming is due to anthropogenic generation of CO2 which automatically assumes that natural variation has ceased.

And you’ll bet wrong.

Proving that natural variation has ceased is essential to the hypothesis of CAGW.

You’re eager to be plainly wrong. Furthermore scientists are eager to explain these things to you.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
January 8, 2021 3:38 pm

No show me a paper predicting warming from CO2 that has an allowance for natural variation. They all assume all the warming has been due to increased CO2. Therefore, the null is that natural variation has ceased.

Reply to  Andy May
January 7, 2021 9:30 am

It all boils down to resolution. 99.9% of “unprecedented” climate change claims involve an observation from high resolution instrumental data, not being observable in low resolution proxy data.

nyolci
Reply to  Andy May
January 8, 2021 11:13 am

0.2 degrees is very small and below even modern estimates of error using existing thermometers and data.

0.2 degrees is around the estimate of decadal warming during the 2000s. It looks small but it is not, and it’s readily measurable regardless of the fact that individual thermometers have lower resolution. You have to use proper mathematical treatment for those time series etc. Ask Nick, he looks knowledgeable in this.

thus you lower the variability, lose the peaks and valleys and smooth the record

If it is the case then this is another proof that the MWP was anything but global and/or (temporally) persistent. Moreover, our current estimates for the MWP peak is 1C lower (not 0.2) than what we have today. We reached MWP levels in the 60s.

Comparing temperatures from the last twenty years to temperatures from 1,000 years ago

… is completely possible with good scientific work.

mkelly
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 9:58 am

“The null hypothesis here is that there’s no anthropogenic forcing. “

Nyolci, you showed yesterday that there isn’t no such thing as forcing.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 10:23 am

“Oooops”, yourself. Either properly read Dr. Middleton’s paper or step back and allow people who do understand it to discuss the topic without your trolling. Your hand waving comes nowhere close to falsifying his thesis.

This poor fellow had to admit that the MWP was slightly colder than what we have, cos, well, when you try to use science to disprove science, you get self contradictory soon:

What he actually said was:

While it is possible that the current warm period is about 0.2 °C warmer than the peak of the Medieval Warm Period, this could be due to the differing resolutions of the proxy reconstruction and instrumental data:

and:

The climate of the Holocene has been characterized by a roughly millennial cycle of warming and cooling (for those who don’t like the word “cycle,” pretend that I typed “quasi-periodic fluctuation”):

He illustrates each point with graphs.

It is obvious from Dr. Middleton’s paper that there has been no evidence based falsification of the null hypothesis. All inference that there is a strong anthropogenic signal within the noise of natural variation is founded on conjecture, speculation and sociopolitical flatulence.

Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 10:28 am

Law Dome is the only pre-instrumental CO2 record with a resolution comparable to the modern instrumental record.

nyolci
Reply to  David Middleton
January 9, 2021 4:01 am

Law Dome is the only pre-instrumental CO2 record with a resolution comparable to the modern instrumental record.

Law Dome is only one of the proxies used to reconstruct CO2 levels. This is especially important when you try to correlate the record with the reconstruction of other variables (as you did). Other proxies have very different runs precisely around the onset of current warming trend.

Garland Lowe
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 11:08 pm

The only good hypothesis for observed warming is CO2 induced greenhouse effect. You’re saying the science is settled based on the “only good hypothesis”? In your mind there are no other possibilities? There’s are real scientist. I guess question everything is out of the question.

nyolci
Reply to  Garland Lowe
January 7, 2021 6:48 am

The only good hypothesis for observed warming is CO2 induced greenhouse effect.

Yes. Very good match.

In your mind there are no other possibilities?

In my mind there are. But we all have to face reality. The above hypothesis got confirmed. You know after a while things settle. An illustration: after thousands and thousands of experiments, the hypothesis of Energy Conservation was confirmed. There are no other possibilities. Actually, we can fantasize about divine intervention etc. but no one seriously questions this law.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 1:25 pm

“Yes. Very good match.”

No a FAILED conjecture

You KNOW you can’t produce any evidence

Look at the hilarious and MANIC twisting and turning you go through to avoid and distract from actually producing what you KNOW you haven’t got

Try again, putz

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 2:57 pm

“The above hypothesis got confirmed”

RUBBISH…

You can “say” it but you CANNOT produce any actual evidence

How handy for a scientific NON-ENTITY like you.

Ignorance of the realities of atmospheric physics totally elude you, poor mouth- muppet. !

CO2 IS NOT A POSSIBLITY

The laws of thermodynamics exclude warming by atmospheric CO2.. again.. (you only deal with AGW mantra pap, so you wouldn’t understand basic physics.).

Warming by atmospheric CO2 has NEVER been observed or measured anywhere on the planet

Prove me wrong

PRESENT EVIDENCE , not just more mindless pap.

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?

Or you could just continue your mindless anti-science zero-evidence yabbering.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 4:23 pm

“Yes. Very good match.”

More UTTER BS

NO MATCH AT ALL. over most of the last 10,000 years

comment image

No match over the COOLING period from 1940-1970

No match over the ZERO TREND period from 1980-1997 or 2001-2015

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 6:10 pm

“But we all have to face reality”

But you DON’T…

….. all you have is mantra propaganda

REALITY is not even in your horizon !!

Laws of energy conservation preclude warming by atmospheric CO2.

Sorry your “science” understanding is SO WOEFUL that you can’t comprehend that.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 5:58 pm

If the science was settled we would know:

Science is settled for recent anthropogenic warming due to buildup of greenhouse gasses. It doesn’t mean we know everything, neither it means we know all the minute details.

Wrong. Science is never “settled” under any circumstances.

1) What really caused the ice ages. Sorry the Milankovitch cycles could be just a correlation.

And a good one. As far as I know science is settled for this.

That’s the problem with you. You know nothing so you’re happy to accept nonsense.

3) At the beginning of the interglacial global temperature at least a magnitude faster than it is now.

This is plainly wrong.

No it is plainly correct. According to several proxies, the post Younger Dryas warming immediately preceding the Holocene Thermal Maximum warmed many times faster than the post LIA warming. That is not theory. That is factual.

Your grasp of the basics of climatology are so minute, I again wonder why you are entering this debate.

fred250
Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 6, 2021 8:57 pm

“Science is never “settled” under any circumstances.”

As soon as ANYONE says that “science is settled”…

….. you KNOW that are NOT A SCIENTIST…… of any sort.

A low level propagandist.. at best.

It is probably THE MOST IGNORANT statement the AGW cultists have ever made.

So it is obviously one that the nyholist would choose to use.

nyolci
Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 7, 2021 6:15 am

Wrong. Science is never “settled” under any circumstances.

🙂 I like these declarations. Okay then. How about the Law of the Conservation of Energy? Is that not settled either? Be careful! Questioning certain things in science will put you into the flatearthers’ camp 🙂

According to several proxies, the post Younger Dryas warming immediately preceding the Holocene Thermal Maximum warmed many times faster than the post LIA warming. That is not theory. That is factual.

Yes, several proxies show extreme rapid warming but the overall, global rate was quite evenly 0.05C/decade, less than half of what we have today.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 9:33 am

“I like these declarations. Okay then. How about the Law of the Conservation of Energy? Is that not settled either? Be careful! Questioning certain things in science will put you into the flatearthers’ camp.”

The beautiful thing about science is that everything is open to question … even the laws of science. But of course, for you, “climate science” is a doctrinaire religious experience.

“Yes, several proxies show extreme rapid warming but the overall, global rate was quite evenly 0.05C/decade, less than half of what we have today.”

More nonsense. There is evidence of the effects of the Younger Dryas and recovery in Greenland, Asia, South America, Australia and Antarctica … very GLOBAL. What post LIA warming we have experienced is rather insignificant and all arguably natural.

“Isotope data from the GISP2 Greenland ice core suggests that Greenland was more than~10°C colder during the Younger Dryas and that the sudden warming of 10° ±4°C that ended the Younger Dryas occurred in only about 40 to 50 years”.

nyolci
Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 9, 2021 4:07 am

[Topic: laws of thermodynamics] The beautiful thing about science is that everything is open to question … even the laws of science.

Thank you. Please go question these laws. The French Academy was the first that declared (in 1775) it would no longer deal with submissions about the perpetuum mobile. Waste of time.

More nonsense. There is evidence of the effects of the Younger Dryas and recovery in Greenland, Asia, South America, Australia and Antarctica … very GLOBAL.

Please try to counter what I claim not what you think I claim. I didn’t claim it wasn’t global. I only claimed the global rate was whatever while at certain places it was extremely fast.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  nyolci
January 9, 2021 11:19 am

Please try to counter what I claim not what you think I claim.

I have countered and falsified everything you have claimed … book, chapter and verse. You’re just too dim to realize it. You still haven’t falsified the null hypothesis. You need to get busy with that before you embarrass yourself further.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 1:28 pm

Your display of outright ignorance continues to the hilarious laughing of EVERYONE

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?

Everyone is watching you slither and slime like the demented eel that you are, as you avoid presenting any actual evidence.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 3:03 pm

“flatearthers’ camp”

You mean like Trenberh et al ?

Law of conservation of energy showed those dolts were “creating” energy from nowhere.. fantasy physics…

Conservation of energy PROVES that the CO2 nonsense is a failed conjecture right from the very outset.

Warming from Younger Dryas was FASTER and much more sustained than the very slight warmingwe have fortunately had since the coldest period in 10,000 years.

You have now been reduced to desperate LIES and MISINFORMATION .. as you sink further and further into the slimy green sludge of your brain-washed, nil-educated, ineffectual, malfunctioning mind.

Notanacademic
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 4:39 pm

Your second point ” involving outsiders and amateurs in scientific debates” firstly the debate is no longer scientific it’s political because politicians use science as a front to close down debate. Second the outsiders and amateurs pay higher taxes and inflated utility bills, they have every right to question and debate why they are worse off. Third a well informed outsider and amateur would give you a bloody good hiding.

MarkW
Reply to  Notanacademic
January 6, 2021 5:36 pm

At his core, nyolci is very much an elitist.
He actually believes that only those who have been properly anointed should be permitted to do science.
An who does this anointing? Obviously, only the existing high priests are qualified to anoint new scientists.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
January 7, 2021 6:55 am

At his core, nyolci is very much an elitist.

Well, I’m the elite 😉

He actually believes that only those who have been properly anointed should be permitted to do science.

No. I actually believe that only those who have been studying these fields (beside being properly anointed) should be permitted to do science. And the fact is that this is the case, it’s not just my belief. You wouldn’t get an appointment to any meaningful scientific research institute or body without a proper degree (and relevant publications).

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 8:03 am

Upvoting your own posts?

How pathetic.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 1:31 pm

You aren’t even an elite as a village clown.. very low-level

You have proven you are a mathematic and scientific NON-ENTITY. !

You are so egotistical, that you don’t even realise that you are FAILING SCIENCE at every post you make

Its hilarious watch you duck and weave

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 3:06 pm

ROFLMAO..

so Einstein wasn’t allowed to do science

You are such a moronic putz !!

nyolci
Reply to  Andy May
January 7, 2021 6:57 am

Exactly! Politics corrupts science absolutely

Exactly. Good illustration is this site.

once politics and government money enters the sphere, science stops.

Most basic research is done with government financing. Even today.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Andy May
January 7, 2021 1:32 pm

throws our government money down the toilet.

Fixed that for you.

nyolci
Reply to  Andy May
January 9, 2021 4:10 am

Government funded research is a useless waste of money. It also takes some of our best minds away from research that can better our lives as opposed to research that simply throws our government money down the toilet.

Why is that this libertarian mindset correlates almost perfectly with being a science denier? I know, correlation is not causation…

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 3:11 pm

“Good illustration is this site.”

Yep, it shines a light on how much politics has CORRUPTED climate science.

Most basic research is done with government financing..”

Yep.. good for BASIC research.. ie several levels above anything you have done

Anyone with any real nous can earn far more and do far better work in the non-public sector

nyolci
Reply to  Notanacademic
January 7, 2021 6:52 am

debate is no longer scientific it’s political because politicians use science as a front to close down debate

If politicians use science as a front to close down political debate, I can only support them. It is well known and well documented that deniers have been bankrolled by (mostly) big oil with the intention to claim “doubt” about science. Now this is unacceptable.

Notanacademic
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 11:41 am

A politician using science or any other appeal to authority to close down debate is hiding something (you support that ) otherwise why wouldn’t they welcome debate it’d make them look good, or at least a bit better than they normally look.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 1:37 pm

More LIES and deceits to cover up your IGNORANCE and INCOMPETENCE.

So funny

Most REALIST SCIENTIST are not funded by big oily blobs.

Let’s see if you can answer a simple question

What do we DENY that you have solid scientific proof for.

Let’s watch your puerile and ignorant mind come up with more pathetic fantasies

Don’t forget.. you have to actually PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE

Something you have been TOTALLY INCAPABLE of doing in any of your mindless rants as yet.

Here’s your chance to show you actually know what “SCIENCE ” is.

I bet you FAIL UTTERLY yet again

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 5:19 pm

I can show your conjecture is false by showing that I have never received 1 penny of reimbursement from “big oil”. Besides which, you are the denier because you are denying that natural variation has any part in CAGW. Even Stokes’ Global Average Temperature is used to show that all warming is due to CO2 only with no natural variation occurring at all.

nyolci
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 9, 2021 4:17 am

I can show your conjecture is false by showing that I have never received 1 penny of reimbursement from “big oil”.

Because you haven’t tried hard enough! 😉 I’m not talking about you. Most of the people here are basically cannon fodder in the debate. A few who actually and very likely know what he or she is talking about are the ones who in some way get the money and support. McI1 and McI2 know very well what they do is shit. Judith Curry talks shit on her blog but carefully avoids any denier idiocy in her scientific publications. I’m not sure about Watts, he sometimes appears genuinely stupid not just dishonest.

mikebartnz
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 4:48 pm

The trouble is that peer review has become pal review. You really are an idiot.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 5:19 pm

Once again the warmunist declares that science can only be done by those who have received the proper anointing from fully recognized authority figures.
What we are doing here is better peer review than what is done in any of the once vaunted science journals. Peer review in the so called science journals has become pal review, where friends an allies of the papers authors are selected to do the reviewing.

1) Once again, the warmunist declares that only those that it recognizes as scientists have opinions that matters. nyolci doesn’t want science, it wants an ordained priesthood who protects their beliefs from all outsiders who would challenge the sacred texts.
2) According to the warmunist, the mere fact that the so called insiders have lost every single debate they have ever engaged in has nothing to do with the fact that they now refuse to debate. Apparently debating with those who disagree with you is a waste of time. The true purpose of science is to protect what you wish to believe from those who have different views.
3) According to the warmunist, if one non-insider produces a report that the insiders consider to be second rate, that is proof that all non-insiders must be ignored.

Once again, the warmunist, while thinking it is protecting “science” from the uninitiated, instead proves that there is no science in climate science. There is only group think and a deep seated desire to cancel anyone who disagrees with them.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
January 7, 2021 7:19 am

only those that it recognizes as scientists have opinions that matters.

Exactly, with a small correction: only those who are scientists in the relevant field.

lost every single debate they have ever engaged

Small correction: They didn’t lost.

if one non-insider produces a report that the insiders consider to be second rate, that is proof that all non-insiders must be ignored.

Well, being outsider means the expectation is that you produce shit. And outsiders live up this expectation with extremely rare exceptions. And if you think hard (pls at least try!) you can understand why. You have to learn for years any stem subject (well, mostly the mathematical model of these subjects and the relevant mathematical fields to understand these models). An outsider usually has a very vague or entirely missing understanding of the models, mathematical tools and general knowledge of subjects. No wonder he/she produces second rate reports. This is entirely expected.
NB. a mathematical model of a subject is not that scary modelling you usually speak about. Quantum Mechanics is a mathematical model of Physics. General Relativity is another, incompatible one, to make things confusing for outsiders like you. In everyday practice we use the Newtonian model of Physics, that is a good approximation of both the above models at certain energy levels, sizes and speeds.

Last edited 6 months ago by nyolci
fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 1:40 pm

Still at puerile, trivial and IGNORANCE meaningless and irrelevant attempts to argue from lack of authority

Science is about EVIDENCE

and you are a scientific ABYSS. an NULL, and EMPTY SOCK. !

Not one bit of scientific evidence in any of your ranting, ignorant posts

Jim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 5:32 pm

Your remarks are stupid. Climate is very complicated and requires a broad variety of scientific knowledge to encompass all of the necessary components. This broadly includes, physicists, chemists, geologists, etc. How many so called climate scientists have advanced degrees in these areas and subareas that can discuss the in and outs of all the interactions in a coupled non-linear chaotic system? Why is it so hard to find multi-disciplinary authors involved real studies of how the atmosphere works?

Look at Dr. Happer who has been trashed by CAGW gurus such as yourself. He is an award winning academic who has spent his career researching the very things that are pertinent to climate interactions. But instead of being lauded, his position on CO2 makes him a stupid old man that just doesn’t understand that the science is already settled according to you. Great position to take for someone who has no background in his specialty at all.

nyolci
Reply to  Jim Gorman
January 9, 2021 4:26 am

How many so called climate scientists have advanced degrees in these areas and subareas

Was this supposed to be a serious question? Lemme answer with two questions. (1) How many scientists have multiple degrees in any field? FYI in modern science each and every field has quite a few overlapping fields. (2) In any scientific field how many researches are there who came from other, related fields?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 5:34 pm

Peer review has absolutely NOTHING to do with debate. It is nothing more than means to vet prospective candidate’s work before publication. Peer review has nothing whatever to do with validating the paper’s premise. It merely benefits editors.
Furthermore, until very recently “amateurs” were the mainstay of all serious research, because they did it for the “love” of the discipline, not for remuneration. Publishing and money has turned much of science into a mockery today.

fred250
Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 6, 2021 6:51 pm

“Peer review has nothing whatever to do with validating the paper’s premise.”

Yippee !..

Someone who ACTUALLY UNDERSTANDS the purpose of peer-review for journal publication

Rory Forbes
Reply to  fred250
January 6, 2021 8:25 pm

I have told true believers that fact so often even I’m bored with it. You know their pitch … “that paper isn’t peer reviewed” … or the variation; “oh, THAT publication only uses denier reviewers!”.
What they ACTUALLY mean by “peer review” is an appeal to authority … but only their authority. With these people one needn’t even touch on much of the science. Simply citing their particular choice of logical fallacy destroys their argument.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 5:46 pm

The identity ‘nyolci’ must be another outsider, otherwise he/she wouldn’t be here debating other outsiders.

nyolci
Reply to  Chris Hanley
January 6, 2021 7:45 pm

The identity ‘nyolci’ must be another outsider

Exactly. That’s why I listen to the trained and experienced experts (ie. climate scientists) of this field.

otherwise he/she wouldn’t be here debating other outsiders.

I don’t debate you. I bury you.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 8:43 pm

“I bury you.”

In loads of total BS

NO SCIENCE INVOLVED.. not anywhere.

Its hilarious that you think your EMPTY BLATHER wins anything ! 🙂

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  fred250
January 7, 2021 8:07 am

Now he sounds like Nikita Krusteyev.

A Watermelon, through-and-through.

fred250
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
January 7, 2021 4:25 pm

I was thinking Bill Nye.

The baseless arrogance and egotism is there.

…and the massive Dunning-Krugger effect.

nyolci
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
January 8, 2021 12:06 pm

Now he sounds like Nikita Krusteyev.

No. I sound like Nikita Krushchev.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  nyolci
January 6, 2021 10:38 pm

The identity ‘nyolci’ must be another outsider

“Exactly. That’s why I listen to the trained and experienced experts (ie. climate scientists) of this field.”

Gotcha, Nancy … you rely on the “real” science guys, like Bill Nye and Al Gore. No wonder you’re so informed. As Fred said, you “bury” us in BS. Debating isn’t part of your skill set.

nyolci
Reply to  Rory Forbes
January 7, 2021 7:05 am

you rely on the “real” science guys, like Bill Nye and Al Gore.

No. I rely on scientists. Like Michael Mann.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 9:55 am

you rely on the “real” science guys, like Bill Nye and Al Gore.

“No. I rely on scientists. Like Michael Mann.”

Yeah … we know you do. LOL That’s why we know you haven’t the vaguest idea about climate science. Mann was a “useful idiot” for their cause. History will not be kind to him. His hockey stick is proven science fraud.

nyolci
Reply to  Andy May
January 8, 2021 12:08 pm

Is this the same Michael Mann that used manipulated data, invalid statistical methods (EOFs), reached invalid conclusions and then attempted to hide the evidence? That Michael Mann?

No, a different one. The Real Mann.

nyolci
Reply to  Andy May
January 9, 2021 4:43 am

Let’s compare Mann’s hockey stick with a more modern and substantiated reconstruction by Christiansen.

I’d like to quote Ljungqvist who introduced the method used:
“Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. AD 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology.”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 11:05 am

“No. I rely on scientists. Like Michael Mann.”

That’s where you went astray. You have put your faith in make-believe.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 1:42 pm

nyholist licks mickey mann’s butt yet again

SO IGNORANT that he can’t see what a disgrace Mann is as a scientist, mathematician,, and particularly as a person.

Worshiping a third rate fraud and a low-level mathematician.

Just your type.. when is the wedding ???

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
January 7, 2021 4:28 pm

Until co-opted to fabricate the fraudulent hockey stick….

….. Mickey Mann was a total non-entity.

His one claim to fame is proven statistical malpractice and blatant scientific fraud.

He is still NOTHING but a low-level con-man and anti-science hack.

Just the sort of person you would worship.

fred250
Reply to  Andy May
January 7, 2021 4:41 pm

Mickey Mann’s data WITHOUT his fraudulent (or statistically incompetent, you chose which)… application of tree ring data

Again.. from a REAL scientist.

comment image

Only a rabid anti-science cultist takes known incompetence (or blatant fraud) over the SCIENTIFIC work of thousands of other studies.

Ignoring science, in preference to fraud, seems to be nye‘s way.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  fred250
January 8, 2021 4:38 am

“Mickey Mann’s data WITHOUT his fraudulent (or statistically incompetent, you chose which”

I’ll go with fraudulent.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Andy May
January 8, 2021 4:37 am

It looks like a comparison of two Hockey Stick charts.

nyolci
Reply to  Andy May
January 9, 2021 4:43 am

Christiansen and Ljungqvist (2011).

I’d like to quote Ljungqvist who introduced the method used:
“Our temperature reconstruction agrees well with the reconstructions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) with regard to the amplitude of the variability as well as the timing of warm and cold periods, except for the period c. AD 300–800, despite significant differences in both data coverage and methodology.”

nyolci
Reply to  Andy May
January 11, 2021 12:11 am

He is either very wrong or you’ve quoted him out of context. See plot above.

Okay, he is very wrong here with the comparison (huh, how can this be out of context? 🙂 ) but very right with the results. This is very suspicious with regard to consistency, this is my hunch feelin’…