6 ms·
Citation needed.
by ThisIBereave 11y ago
Citation needed.
- cholantesh 11y agoProbably a long list of ExxonMobil shill sites.
- jasonkester 11y agoHere's a good one: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/ http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-... 44 Climate Models all fighting to out-panic one another, not a single one guessing low enough to predict the actual values for 2012 (when it seems the dataset in question ended) ... and a seemingly more reputable one showing roughly the same thing: http://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator-climate-exposes-errors.html http://phys.org/news/2015-01-peer-reviewed-pocket-calculator...
- Roodgorf 11y agoThe first graph on that second link is a bit confusing and seems pretty disingenuous. It has the "observations" region stretching to 2050. The rest of the article seems much more factual and interesting, but why start with something so misleading if your supposed goal is to debunk misleading projections?
- cholantesh 11y agoI wouldn't call a paper whose lead author is a well-established denier with no scientific training (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Visc...), and which is co-authored by a known practitioner of large-scale scientific fraud for pay (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willie_Soon http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willie_Soon) particularly reputable.
- marcus_holmes 11y agoad-hominem. Who cares who wrote it, what does it say?
- cholantesh 11y agoReally? You think it doesn't matter that the primary author on a paper about climate science doesn't even have an undergraduate-level education in the subject? That the second one credited has a history of accepting large sums of money to write papers endorsing spurious claims DIRECTLY RELATING to climate change?
- Aloha 11y agoAre you going to tell me that every person who has ever written a paper on computer science needs to have a degree in it? While I won't question this guys qualification might be questionable - making a blanket statement that someone must be specifically educated in a subject to write a good paper on it is specious.
- cholantesh 11y agoHow often does it happen that a layman manages to get published in a well-regarded journal? Out of all the papers that laypeople publish anywhere, how many survive scrutiny from experts in the paper's problem domain? And out of those, how many that actively seek to overturn a paradigm succeed? Based on this metric alone, it is highly unlikely that Monkcton is qualified to discuss climate change, and as it happens, his published work tends to be published by fairly obscure journals whose standards of review are questionable, and when they pass the desks of career climatologists, the result is generally unfavourable to him.
- Aloha 11y agoThere is a difference between "layman", "well known expert in their field", "so and so with a degree in $field" "well known expert in their field with a masters in $field" If you read my reply, I don't question the guys qualifications, I was objecting to the blanket statement of "you must have a degree in $field, to be expert" - many papers in technology, are written by people without degrees in that field.
- 11y ago
- Zuider 11y ago> co-authored by a known practitioner of large-scale scientific fraud for pay (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willie_Soon http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Willie_Soon) particularly reputable. Flagged for libel. It is one thing to argue a position you believe, it is quite another to smear another's character.
- cholantesh 11y agoIt wasn't libel the last time you brought it up and it isn't libel this time. Soon failed to disclose non-trivial amounts of funding that he received from parties who have a vested interest in deriding climate science. Given how often his work has failed to pass muster when scrutinized by climate scientists and skeptics, it is hard to fathom how any of this can amount tosimple incompetence.
- Zuider 11y agoThe article you linked to is almost comical in its petty malevolence, well beyond the point of self-satire. This kind of character assassination, however reprehensible, is ultimately irrelevant. If you believe Dr. Wei Hock Soon is wrong, then show where and how he is mistaken.
- cholantesh 11y agoClimate scientists have been doing that for almost 25 years at this point, and Soon's response has pretty much been to complain that he's being bullied and that science is being politicised. I find that to be actually comical, almost as much as the presumption that an intelligent and intellectually honest person could do this for as long as Soon has. And that his association with political and industrial think tanks is a non-sequitur in this regard.
- Zuider 11y agoYou jumped the shark a while back. I find it impossible to take what you write seriously any more. Like I said, comically malevolent.
- themgt 11y agoDo read this criticism of Roy Spencer's methods, which to me do not appear credible: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-decei... http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/05/roy-spencer-grows-even-wearier.html http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/05/roy-spencer-grows-even-we...
- replicatorblog 11y agoNot the most credible looking site, but the graphic seems well cited: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/ http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-...
- cholantesh 11y agoSpencer is pretty out there. He's gone on record to say that warming proponents are advancing an argument that will lead to more deaths than the NSDAP's policies did, and is a signatory to the Evangelical Declaration on Climate Change, which suggests that this is largely a matter of faith for him...
- dnautics 11y agoHe does also maintain one of the satellite records, which does show global warming over the period 1960-2000 (not so much the last 10 years because of the global warming hiatus).
- cholantesh 11y agoAnd other records do not show such a hiatus (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-not-slowing-its-speeding-up.html http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-not-slowing-i...).
- dnautics 11y agoDid you even read the article? look at the university of York dataset, which clearly shows the 1960-2000 warming followed by the 2000-2010 hiatus. Note the York dataset is strictly observationally independent of the UAH dataset.
- cholantesh 11y agoEvidently we were reading different articles,because the author emphatically doesn't concur with your interpetation of the York dataset.
- wnewman 11y agoI think http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/30/implications-for-climate-models-of-their-disagreement-with-observations/ http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/30/implications-for-climate-m... is a reasonably representative informed article on this.