Well, this is boring. Steve runs off to play snowman and we’re stuck with more insanity in the blogosphere. Well, when the cat’s away……..
What I learned last week……….
Much was made over the “Agreeing” posts at Curry’s and Lucia’s blogs. For those not familiar, they basically laid some tenets of CAGW/CC/(whatever they call it today) theory. Ostensibly, in hopes of finding common ground on which we could all agree and further the discussion from there. CAVEAT!! I haven’t wandered to the blackboard, and I won’t. I’ve had enough of Curry’s blog to fill myself of circular arguments and more.
What’s the more, you ask? Glad you did. The appeal to authority that was a caveat added after the discussion had started!!! yehokfine. Except, it has to be known that we skeptics disagree with the “authorities” that posit such ludicrous assertions with such certitude. (Please note, this isn’t a criticism of Dr. Curry, but a criticism of the particular posting.) Skeptics come in all varieties and sizes. I don’t find many people that are skeptical for the same reasons I am. Even in this blog, I find skeptics that aren’t necessarily here for the same reasons. There are a few though. So, a long story, slightly shorter, skeptics took issue with #5 of Curry’s tenets.
To quote, The majority of the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations since pre-industrial times is due to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. This is confirmed both by the isotopic signature of the carbon and the fact that concentrations rise proportionate to emissions.
yehokfine……except not. Show me where this has been demonstrated! Well they didn’t. They didn’t show me, they didn’t show Latitude, they didn’t show Lucy, they didn’t show anybody questioning #5. As Lat stated, “Lucy, you say things so much better than I do…”. Which can be true at times. Boiled down, this was the reply to Lucy……..”“A serious minority hypothesis”, no there isn’t, there are just a bunch of internet cranks with some pretty screwy science.
No one of any substance in the debate questions the source of the increase of CO2.”(emphasis mine)
Oh, did I mention the caveats put in after the discussion started?
“Epistemic levels
When an individual is assessing these, the epistemic level of the assessor is relevant. I propose the following levels:
1. Research scientist publishing papers on relevant topics
2. Individual with a graduate degree in a technical subject that has investigated the relevant topics in detail.
3. Individual spending a substantial amount of time reading popular books on the subject and hanging out in the climate blogosphere
4. Individual who gets their climate information from talk radio”
During my discussions with some of the alarmists, a recurring message was, “A #1 said X, therefore it is true.” yehokfine…………Except……… Didn’t we just finish a discussion of “Hide the decline”? And the subsequent discussions of Mann’s hockey stick that was thoroughly slapped down by Steve Mac? Well, yes, yes we did. Can two contradictory truths exist? If #1 is true, then Steve Mac should never had been published. Up until the time of his first publishing, his epistemic level was a #3! Suddenly and magically, Steve Mac was transformed, according to the Epistemic levels from a person of the lower end of the spectrum to the elite! But, it wasn’t just Steve, was it? No, there are Jeff ID, Ryan O, and many others! But, for the purposes of the conversation, the thoughts of 3s weren’t very valid according to the caveats. But how can this be if some 3s were suddenly propelled to 1s by way of being published?
So what weight can we ascribe to a #1? Let’s see……Mann? Was MBH98 valid? No, not really. Steve Mac broke that stick. What about Briffa’s? Well, we beat that to death. But that’s just dendrochronology. Perhaps that’s the only field that being published doesn’t carry much weight, so much so, that it allows a #3 to be escalated to a #1……… Hm, let’s think on that for a second. It seems to me that we’ve ventured out beyond dendrochronology…..when and where did that happen???……..hmm……Oh yeh!!! Now I remember! It was ES09 and RO10!!!! Now, I know this is still a point of contention with many people, and I’d like to set things straight. The word duplicity was assigned to some of the statements ES made. On the surface, this seemed to be true. His statements seemed duplicitous. They really weren’t. I’d invite all to go to both sites to see the various contentions. The problem arose because of very different perspectives. Forgoing the re-hash of the debacle, I’ll assert that when Steig proposed a change, he didn’t understand that it was an insistence to change the methodology. The exposed history and subsequent statements bare this out. In Steig’s own words, he states he’s not a statistician. Oddly, Steig09 is basically a work of statistics….uhmm….err..wtf? In a view that can only be described a charitable, he was brought to be a reviewer because he was an expert on the issues O’Donnell, et al were addressing.
I think, given the evidence, a #1 is ~ a #3. Except, I’m told, we are most assured of the statement #5. This, by golly, we are really super duper sure of……yehokfine. During my discussion with some pleasant, and some not so pleasant people (Tobis) who I didn’t really mention because of the parenthesis, I was informed that this is “known”, that if we don’t “know” this, we don’t know anything. Their proof? Ice cores! And they are valid because #1s said so. yehokfine……..except, there was something I remembered (thanks to Robb) that had been stuck in the recesses of my memory. Jaworoski! What seems like a lifetime ago, I’d read the paper Robb cited during a different discussion.http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2006_articles/IceCoreSprg97.pdf I’m sure I have it on one of my many PCs that I’ve gone through since, but it hasn’t been at the forefront of my mind for many years. As of this writing, a Ferdinand Engelbeen actually proactively thought of Jaworoski and gave me a link, (this is to his credit) http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html , which I haven’t read yet. I missed this, but later I asked all others if Jaworoski had been credibly refuted……….crickets chirping. But then the question is why wouldn’t we skeptics focus on Jaworoski’s paper?
Why? Jaworoski seems to refute ice core samplings! Here’s why……https://realclimatescience.com/2011/02/27/romm-joke-part-2/
The lunatics keep us so preoccupied by their assinine assertions that it is impossible to focus on one issue. I want to tackle ice cores, but some #1 idiot blathers about the “worst evuh” when it is so blatantly false that one can’t help but address that first. The problem is, it never ceases! Steven has shownproof that Romm is misleading his readers with hyperbole and falsehoods. But, they persevere. Prior to that, it was a freezer door opened that caused warm generated cold. Before that, #1 alarmists, with pinpoint accuracy, showed us how they knew the U.S. SW would be stricken with drought…….well…err…no, they didn’t show us. Nor does any paper show us how they know where drought will occur if CO2 reaches X level. They can’t do it now if CO2 remains constant, which, BTW, it never has. The fact that the U.S. SW is a freaking desert is lost on many. What’s a desert? Look it up!Maybe MSN will show us another video of a polar bear and a penguin in natural harmony again.
