Twitter / SteveSGoddard: @borenbears You forgot to mention …
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Mission Accomplished
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
Recent Comments
- Gordon Vigurs on Mission Accomplished
- Disillusioned on Mission Accomplished
- Bob G on Mission Accomplished
- James Snook on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- czechlist on Mission Accomplished
- arn on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Disillusioned on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Gamecock on “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
“forced him to reassess”, huh? A cynic might observe that his outlandish predictions at the Gore hearings were totally for show and he was simply opening his escape hatch.
Alarmists are uproariously comical; unintentionally. Here’s a probable interview with a journalist:
“What research did you conduct for the story you published?”
“re-what?.. what’s that?”
Actually, it’s more than likely that editors are mostly to blame; imposing ludicrous deadlines and instructing their underlings to take shortcuts.
Is that a photo of Seth Borenstein or is it really Groucho Marx. Either way, most amusing spoof.
It’s Gene Shalit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wyXuJqMtBUI
Foot | Mouth :: Foot | Ass
Mr Borenstein’s use of the word “testimony” was interesting:-
Merriam Webster’s on-line dictionary gives the following definitions of testimony
: something that someone says especially in a court of law while formally promising to tell the truth
: proof or evidence that something exists or is true
The dictionary goes on:-
a : firsthand authentication of a fact : evidence
b : an outward sign
c : a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official
d : an open acknowledgment
e : a public profession of religious experience
If we give Mr Hansen the benefit of the doubt in that HE, Hansen, believes he wasn’t lying under oath, then in view of the present evidence, perhaps Mr Borenstein is using definition b (e.g. it looked as if . . ), or even definition e.
This is all too common in modern climate “science”
Getting the headline is all-important, so they offer-up Schneider-ish “scary scenarios”
When the data or models or whatever don’t match the scary headline-grabber, the weasel-worded walk-backs are buried deep in minor reports on page B24
And then they start over again with an even scarier “could-happen”, while the obedient lapdog press dutifully transcribes the pronouncements – without question.
Confluent streams of corruption (or, at least, intellectual laziness)
On a planet of single digit billions, us small band of distantly related brothers march on, nobly and with earned distinction, attempting in each our own way, to avoid mere futurism in favor of realism, today. That we exist allow others to relax on a decadal scale, and the rest, the disposed, the demons, to weave themselves right damn well out of this mortal coil, via criminality and fateful depression. Love of Beauty is the supreme law of humanity, always.
Steve, i guess you have heard the rest of the story regarding that “skeptic” study regarding natural cycles of the sun being solely responsible for any global warming that might be happening. The science publication that used it was shut down and you said it was because a “skeptic” climate study can never get a fair hearing under the “warmist”, my word choice, science peer review system.
Anthony Watt thought the same, but today on WUWT, even he concedes the “skeptic” community got burned on this. Seems the peer review at this magazine for the study was faked. That is the headline anyway, though the editors tried to say otherwise. Watt seems to understand the importance of not touching that third rail, peer review, of science.
It is interesting how few if any peer reviewed “skeptic” studies there are. There are a number of scientist with peer reviewed studies out on the pundit circuit bashing AGW science but their peer reviewed studies were not about how the earth is not warming or if there is warming it is all natural with no man made influence. They recognize the pedigree of being peer reviewed so they tout that, but what they don’t say is that those studies were not related to any of the politically charged pseudoskeptic stuff that is their bread and butter.
IPCC says all glaciers in Himalayas gone by 2035.
So they made a mistake. All scientist make mistakes. They don’t claim to be infallible. But that hardly undermines AGW science. The cryosphere is still is in steady decline in spite of your distractions. A few mistakes in the record of such a large record is hardly equivalent to the problem you “skeptics” have in breaking the credibility barrier of science.
All time record January global sea ice area – is clearly in decline
Cute, but what about the topic I raise.
Pauchari was warned repeatedly about the Himalayan glaciers and chose to publish it anyway.
Antarctic sea ice area above normal for 800 consecutive days. Turney didn’t think it was so cute when he got stuck in the ice.
It is ironic that Turney got stuck where you “skeptics” all assumed was to be frozen solid. Still, you won’t address why “skeptics” don’t submit to peer review. It would be interesting to see you address the issue seriously as Watts did. Watts is a “skeptic” that takes the competition more seriously than you and is more effective in his presentation. You could up your game taking cues from Watts.
It is interesting how you hide behind peer-review, and fear an open discussion.
You don’t want to talk about what I want to talk about, then what are you talking about. I thought it would be an interesting discussion to get your take on what Watts thinks about the peer review issue of that discreted science journal. Watts is one of the more successful “skeptics” and folks like me respect his opinion, even if I think he is wrong.
Yes, pal review is only a crime when it is committed by skeptics.
The topic you raised is Pure BS! Peer Review does not mean what was produced was real science! CAGW or whatever you want to call the latest fantasy regarding weather patterns is little more than some groups wet dreams and political maneuvering, not science at all.
This is more alarmist projection. They (and Watts) are claiming pal review, which is what warmists use daily. Yawn.
Bad news for you. My analysis of NOAA data tampering is spreading all over the Internet and being seen by millions of people.
You ask why “skeptics” don’t submit to peer review.
“…In response to an e-mail mentioning a recent paper in the scientific journal Climate Research that questioned assertions that the 20th century was abnormally warm, Mann wrote in an e-mail of 11 March 2003:
“I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”…”
or
“…In July 2004, referring to Climate Research having published a paper by “MM”, thought to be Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels, and another paper by Eugenia Kalnay and Ming Cai, Jones emailed his colleagues saying, “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [TRENBERTH] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”…”
Without peer review you have no system of checks and balances of scientific analysis. No system of human beings can be perfect, but the effort must be made. Peer review of all branches of science has been around for hundreds of years.
I recall how when the hypotheses of dark energy came out and was initially laughed off the stage. Ten years of peer reviewed science and today dark energy has reached the status of theory. That means consensus of the science community. The pseudo skeptic community has been trying to discredit AGW for more than 20 years, but consensus among peer reviewed climate scientist is solid.
You have cherry picked a few quotes out of context from several individuals. That hardly discredits the system of peer review. The pseudoskeptic, fossil fuel industry effort to discredit climate science is very noisy, but consensus exist in the science community that global warming is real and that it is mostly man made.
Peer-reviewed studies are worthless when the peer group involved operates in a climate of corruption, exclusion, and groupthink approval. That is the state of IPCC Climate Science today. Either you believe that or you don’t. If you don’t then congratulations you have been successfully brainwashed.
Steve, source and link the data in a user friendly way so one can logically follow your train of thought. You make it difficult to follow back to the original. Don’t monkey with base starting points and time lines. If you change something, don’t leave the NASA or NOAA logo on it as if it were still theirs’. I made an honest effort to follow your data trail but got lost in the weeds. I seem to be able to follow other data trails so the problem is not just me.
The peer of an alarmist is an alarmist.
The peer of a liar is a liar.
Peer review in a nutshell.
So instead of talking, review my analysis and tell me what is wrong with it.
You throw so much spaghetti on the wall trying to get a noodle or two to stick, there is not enough time to keep up with it. I get that it is your calling to look over the shoulder of climate science with a microscope looking for mistakes or what you want to call fraud. Occasionally you find a mistake that is helpful to get corrected in the record, but mostly what you premise is a tortured misrepresentation, or the effect is so small it has no effect on the underlying massive body of science. You like to say there is wholesale fraud but that is impossible with the level of transparency obvious to any honest broker. You intent is not to be helpful as a good faith scientist but to drag down the efforts of people actually trying to be useful. Stop being evil.
Matayaya : The cryosphere is still is in steady decline in spite of your distractions.
Steve : All time record January global sea ice area
Matayaya : Cute
“Cute”? The appropriate word is “Refuted”.
Then you ask Steve to respond to a not-yet-refuted assertion. No one moves the goalposts faster than the appell-vendor
IPCC made a mistake and corrected it 7 years ago. This is what peer review does — corrects mistakes.
When will you test your pet theories with peer review?
You mean that “voodoo science”, as Pacauri called it, right before the IPCC retracted their propaganda in embarrassment? Great peer review! 😆
“A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.”
http://m.wikihow.com/Play-the-Telephone-Game
Yes a mistake that was picked up and changed — 7 years ago.
Peer review science at work.
Did the mistake refute the central claim that the Himalayas are melting faster than any other glaciers on Earth?
No.
Did it undermine the fact that 90% of the world’s glaciers are in retreat?
No.
Did it derail the other numerous lines of independent lines of evidence for AGW?
No.
Science moves on.
And so should you.
Their mistake was threefold. First, entering unsubstantiated hearsay, second was allowing it to pass the ‘expert reviewers’, and thirdly calling actual science ‘voodoo’.
Your mistake is continuing to listen to those who constantly get their facts wrong. 😆 Which explains your ignorance on Himalayan glaciers.
“New research shows that the world’s greatest snow-capped peaks have lost no ice in the last decade and that polar ice is melting at a much lower rate than warm-mongers say.
The new study was conducted by scientists at the University of Colorado, Boulder, published in the journal Nature and based on satellite observations from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment satellite.
GRACE, which was launched as a joint project between NASA and Germany in 2002, orbits the earth at an altitude of 500 kilometers (315 miles), so it sees everything from the highest peaks down to the mouths of glaciers. The satellite measures gravity, which is related to mass, and would be affected by decreases in polar ice, glaciers or mountain snow packs.
Before the amazing GRACE data, teams of researchers had to measure ice loss at a few easily accessible glaciers and then extrapolate it to the 200,000 glaciers worldwide. Measuring mountain snow packs, glacier mass and the thickness of polar ice was an inexact science prone to overhyping by climate-change enthusiasts with an agenda.
We recall that in its 2007 report the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claimed:
“Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of their disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the earth keeps warming at the current rate.”
As it turns out, the earth hasn’t been warming at all, at least not in the last decade or so, and reputable scientists have said it may continue to cool for decades to come. Even if it was warming, serious glaciologists insist the sheer mass of Himalayan glaciers made such a prediction laughable.
As noted by Bristol University glaciologist Jonathan Bamber, not part of the Boulder study: “The very unexpected result was the negligible mass loss from high mountain Asia, which is not significantly different from zero.” In some quarters the “unexpected” result is an inconvenient truth.
The new study, the first to survey all the world’s icecaps and glaciers made possible by the use of satellite data, acknowledges some glacial melting at lower altitudes. But it also says that over the study period enough ice was added to the peaks to compensate — meaning no net loss of ice.
Some melting of the ice caps covering Greenland and Antarctica is occurring, but not nearly enough to put the world’s coastal cities under water or make it possible to moor one’s boat from the tip of the Washington Monument, as warm-mongers like Al Gore still claim is imminent.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2844690/posts
Really Gator? Your source is the FREE REPUBLIC? Don’t they sell their magazines next to the check out registers in Piggly Wiggly?
I think the ACTUAL study you are looking for is either this one:
Water storage change in the Himalayas from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) and an empirical climate model.
“The GRACE and ECM model indicate an overall negative storage trend of 0.36 ± 0.03 mm/month or 21.91 ± 1.95 km3/yr for the study area (significant at p < 0.1). Given that snow and glaciers are particularly sensitive to temperature change, the negative storage trend could be indicative of warming climate conditions in the region." http://www.nature.com/news/himalayan-glacier-data-shift-to-the-middle-ground-1.11252
Or was it this study?
"The majority of glaciers on the Tibetan plateau and in the surrounding region are retreating rapidly, according to a study based on 30 years of satellite and field measurements. Yao, T., et al. Nature Clim. Change http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/NCLIMATE1580 (2012).
Neither. I don’t play with models, and the study I referenced clearly stated there was no loss if ice.
Borrow your strawman’s brain and read the article again.
Which GRACE / Nature study was that Gator? Your link wasn’t specific (no surprise there seeing as you cited Free Republic). However, my links cite 2 GRACE / Nature studies neither of which seem to support your argument.
You still seem to have trouble with the concept of “evidence”.
How many years have you been at this science hobby of yours?
The study that stated no ice mass loss for the last ten years in the Himalayas. Are you thick?
My hobby started during the ice age scare in the seventies as a geology student, then continued as a climatology student during the desertification scare, and formal education ended with a Remote Sensing degree right before the great global warming swindle. That is why I had enough formal educational background to say ‘bullshit’ the first time I heard someone claim that natural cycles had been replaced by man’s insignificant contribution of CO2.
Have you ever found a single peer, or pal, reviewed paper refuting natural variability as the cause of recent, or any global climate changes? I have asked you for this paper for years now, and not once have you presented such a thing.
How stupid are you? 😆
Oh “The Study”.
Well, I didn’t realize you meant “The Study that stated no ice mass loss for the last ten years in the Himalayas.”
Unfortunately that study doesn’t exist (other than in your imagination and in the low class blogosphere).
But this one does:
Recent contributions of glaciers and ice caps to sea level rise
Thomas Jacob, John Wahr, W. Tad Pfeffer & Sean Swenson
AffiliationsContributionsCorresponding author
Nature 482, 514–518 (23 February 2012) doi:10.1038/nature10847
Received 28 July 2011 Accepted 09 January 2012 Published online 08 February 2012
From the extract:
“Our results are based on a global, simultaneous inversion of monthly GRACE-derived satellite gravity fields, from which we calculate the mass change over all ice-covered regions greater in area than 100?km2. The GIC rate for 2003–2010 is about 30 per cent smaller than the previous mass balance estimate that most closely matches our study period2. THE HIGH MOUNTAINS OF ASIA, IN PARTICULAR, SHOW A MASS LOSS of only 4?±?20?Gt?yr?1 for 2003–2010, compared with 47–55?Gt?yr?1 in previously published estimates2, 5. For completeness, we also estimate that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, including their peripheral GICs, contributed 1.06?±?0.19?mm?yr?1 to sea level rise over the same time period. The total contribution to sea level rise from all ice-covered regions is thus 1.48?±?0.26?mm??1, which agrees well with independent estimates of sea level rise originating from land ice loss and other terrestrial sources6.”
Less than previous estimates, but only for the HIGH peaks.
Gator, Gator, Gator — always an inch short and a pound light.
Drewski, please contact numerous news sources that no such paper ever existed, they can easily be found along with the paper that reports the recent ’10 year’ trend of no ice mass loss found easily with a google search. Or are you not that bright? 😆
And when you hurry back, be sure to be ready to refute NV, and the fact that ice melts and water freezes.
Night little guy. 😉
So Gator,
We are back to me finding references for your crazy assertions. (Deja vu all over again) And you want me to do this by looking through “news” sources for scientific papers.
As I stated earlier, you really have no clue as to the concept of “evidence”.
“As I stated earlier, you really have no clue as to the concept of “evidence”.”
Great projection little guy! I am claiming NV, and have nothing to prove, you and your buds are those that make unsupportable claims.
Can’t find EITHER paper? 😆
RE: “As I stated earlier, you really have no clue as to the concept of “evidence””
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7386/full/nature10847.html
And you sir, have no clue how to take a perfectly good citation and translate that to a link. May you have a more informative day…
Ben,
I provide the study title; the authors, the date it was published; the publication; and the issue of the publication that it was published in. I even provided the extract.
And you are upset about what exactly?
Gator,
You can’t find a reference to your outlandish claim that no ice has been lost in the Himalayas over the past decade and yet “we” are the ones who make unsupportable claims?
And I am the one who is projecting.
It appears, that along with evidence, you also have no clue as to the concept of logic.
What are you smoking, tonight?
Drewski,
RE: “We are back to me finding references for your crazy assertions.”
For some reason you were averse to taking Gator’s citation and looking at the peer reviewed literature the citation referenced.
I wasn’t referring to your citations, but to your aversion to investigate gators citations. The citation wasn’t a news link, it cited a peer reviewed paper in Nature, which I easily converted into a link for you.
If you have any further difficulties with citations , we will be here to help.
May you have a more informed day.
You guys are wasting your time. You jumped into the pigsty with a pig that love mud.
Ben
In the adult world, if you make an assertion, it is your responsibility to provide evidence to support it.
What is so difficult about this concept?
PROJECTION!!! 😆 We have a winner!
Refute NV, denier. 😆
RE: “provide evidence”
You are now one click away from the evidence you requested. We are looking forward to reading your comments on the Nature paper now.
What did you think?
So now we move to chapter 2 of the sCeptic handbook:
Chapter 2 page 7: “A novice sCeptic must recognize the time to go from making unsupported and outrageous assertions into making outlandish distractions when forced to abandon said outrageous assertions. The novice succeeds when “the target” becomes frustrated and fails to see the purpose of the distraction.”
Good try Gator, but I have seen this move all too often.
Bottom line, you can not provide evidence for this statement “the study I referenced clearly stated there was no loss if ice.”
I think we should re-arrange the letter AGW to AWG (Always Wrong Gator).
AWG — something we can all agree with.
Epic Fail again, grasshopper. My claim is nature. Disprove it or admit you are wrong.
Should be simple, right? 😆
Ben,
The only reference Gator cited was to Free Republic which did not link to the actual study. The actual study I found and have posted along with the extract (and you have provided the link). This study clearly is at odds with the assertions made by Gator. He refuses to acknowledge the discrepancy and now is off on one of his numerous side trips.
Same old, same old.
Here is what alarmist pal review puts forth as science.
http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/PressRelease/pressReleaseId-110147.html
The claim is that moss exposed for the first time in thousands of years means the current warming is unprecedented. Nonsense. It only means that previous warnings ceased before enough ice was melted to expose these mosses. The current warming only added to the loss of previous warmings, which if one considers the Viking colonization of Greenland, were actually greater than present.
If I take a block of ice and melt it in 100 degree heat and then return it to sub zero, and later melt it further in 50 degree heat, does that make 50 degree heat unprecedented and hotter than 100 degree heat? Utter nonsense, and yet ‘peer reviewed’.
Science is about seeking truth through logic and critical thinking, it is not about social networking, circles of jerks, and synchronized head nodding.
What should have been highlighted there is that the past was much warmer than our hyper-inflated present temperatures.
It was warm enough in the past for that moss to grow. Without glo-bull warming from all that eeeevilll CO2!!!
Alarmist pal review just ensures fact-free emotional content is published. They feel that what they are doing will “save the planet”, thus anything goes.
In particular, the facts go out the window. And the tripe goes on to be published.
The peer of a nitwit is a nitwit, and their ‘peer’ review process assures nonsense will be published for fellow nitwits.
I prefer investigating the facts on my own. Others prefer nitwit review.
The authors make the simple point that moss is exposed in places, due to the current warmer weather, that were previously encased in ice . And some of these places haven’t been ice free for 44,000 years — until now that is.
What is difficult to understand?
BTW, I loved this thought bubble of yours: “If I take a block of ice and melt it in 100 degree heat and then return it to sub zero, and later melt it further in 50 degree heat, does that make 50 degree heat unprecedented and hotter than 100 degree heat? Utter nonsense, and yet ‘peer reviewed’.”
Classic Gator.
Sorry Drewski, but that comment was for the thinkers in the crowd. Sheep like you just don’t get it.
What I got is that there is absolutely no evidence behind your statement that there were periods of 100 degree melt followed by 50 degree melt in those areas that were studied. In fact, the only verifiable evidence which exists is that moss is now uncovered in areas that were previously in ice — and some of these areas had been in ice for 24 to 48,000 years. Until now, of course.
You confuse “thinking” for delusion.
Drewski’s strawman has a larger brain! 😆
Matayaya seems to be confused by the terms ‘peer review’ and ‘pal review’. Pal review is used to promote CAGW by Warmistas. Peer review is used in evaluating Scientific Research and Hypotheses, it is not applicable to CAGW beliefs.
+1