This one has to come with an audience advisory … DO NOT attempt to watch the first 30 seconds of this video if:
- your stomach is at all unsettled, and/or
- you are holding/drinking hot liquids, and/or
- you are standing, and/or
- there are any heavy objects at hand that you may reflexively fling in a desperate, instinctual attempt to protect yourself from terminal ignorance.
You have been warned!
Climate Change Denial Crock of the Week “A Natural By-Product of Nature“
Added to the Climate Denial Crock of the Week collection.
Speaking of CO2, this from a new, peer reviewed paper “Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes” being trumpeted at WhatsWrongWithWatts:
“The main conclusion one arrives at the analysis is that CO2 has not a causal relation with global warming and it is not powerful enough to cause the historical changes in temperature that were observed.“
Also from that paper:
2. Data and Methods: The fact that meteorological stations are very few and geographically concentrated in the USA and north hemisphere is well accepted. Their record is very incomplete, mainly during the last three decades; this discontinuation was compensated by systematic and meteorological satellite data acquisition.
The CO2 data is less variable but the data sites, around 42, are concentrated in the North Atlantic; only 10 sites in the south hemisphere, only one in South America and in Africa and none in the large Amazon region.
3. Data Analysis and Results: The volume of data and information is fantastic and one may unwarily select partial data and show bias results. Temperature data are at millions, but not well regionally distributed. CO2 data are scarce.”
Translated by google perhaps? or bablefish?
The pieces start to fall into place when you note that this is Vol 1 no 3 of the “International Journal of Geosciences”, part of “what may be the world’s strangest collection of academic journals.”
None that I saw were more than a year old and a number of them have yet to publish anything at all.
UPDATE: Jan 7/ 2010: From Wikipedia “its journals duplicated papers which had already been published elsewhere, without notification of or permission from the original author.
In addition, some of these journals had listed academics on their editorial boards without their permission or even knowledge, sometimes in fields very different from their own.” which is referencing a Nature article about Scrip. Can’t make this stuff up folks.
For any that think it matters, the paper basically correlates regional weather with solar variation, PDO etc, and then calls it climate.
It’s really too silly to waste any time on, so naturally the Denialosphere will be announcing it as “the final coffin nail” (again).
Do you suppose this is part of the 1% of Denierdom that science would benefit by taking seriously?
There is no way to excerpt this gem of Horatio Algeranon‘s, so I’ll give an entire poem as ‘fair use’
Climate ScreechingAll the talk
Of a “Climate Hawk”
Is like a discussion of fairies.The reality
Is that we will be
More like “Climate Canaries.”Horatio Algeranon
Judith Curry commented on my post “Curry’ed Tripe and other recipes” three times to refute the claims that she*:
- comments without knowing what she is talking about;
- does not respond to specific points;
- is simply dismissive rather than responsive;
- uses ad hominem attacks rather than coherent arguments;
- just runs away when cornered.
Trouble is she:
- does not seem to have actually read the post;
- does not refer to any specific point;
- dismisses all of the criticisms as attempts to slime her;
- writes off her critics as “petty tyrants”;
- has now said that she will not return.
Update: Apparently the many posts critiquing Ms Curry’s behaviour which I listed are either poorly written, of no substance, or incoherent in some other fashion since “if there are one or more interesting or valid points in all of these posts, they are very hard to find.” source Ms Curry.
As I note in responding to her 3rd comment:
“ … sweeping, vacuous dismissals of the criticism that you engage in sweeping, vacuous dismissals of criticism is hardly a very convincing rebuttal.“
Curiouser and curiouser:
More interestingly Ms Curry states “What I dont get is most of this is coming from people who are on the same general “side” as I am in terms of the basics of the science.”
- I was unaware that being “on the same general “side” ” meant you were not to be critiqued and called on it when found to be in error. Indeed isn’t that pretty much what the entire scientific publishing process is about? if not science itself?
- Oddly, being “on the same general “side” has not spared the IPCC or its’ “cadre of scientists … these priests of the IPCC?” from some very harsh criticism. Criticism far more inflammatory, not to mention baseless and without substance, then what has been said about Ms Curry. Does this exemption from criticism work only one way?
*Upon reflection I realize this could not really be true insofar as she clearly did not know what the post actually said, so she could not possibly have been trying to refute the points it actually made.
Probably it would be more accurate to say that she detected that the post was not one of gushing praise (the pictures gave it away?) and hence fired off some generic denials and an irrelevant invitation to visit her blog to “get the truth” (about what?) hoping thereby to fake it. When pressed to say something that was actually relevant and of substance she grew testy, abusive and left.
Mind you, Curry’s dissembling reads like Wittgenstein compared to some of her fans (and down).
CO2 again, this time seriously (no sarcasm)
Climate Denial Crock of the Week draws our attention to:
and Skeptical Science brings us
Even though he is on vacation, Barry Brook (aka Brave New Climate) brings us:
“So, the “significance test” suddenly (almost magically….) goes from being non-significant to significant at p = 0.05 (because Pr is now 0.0338), or 38 times out of 1,000 by chance.
Whereas although the ER test is strengthened, the previous, result that the TREND is the best model (of these two alternatives), doesn’t change. This test is a little more robust, and certainly less arbitrary because no matter what the data, we are always evaluating the strength of our evidence rather than whether some pre-defined threshold is crossed.
You can do the same exercise with GISTEMP, but it’s less ‘interesting’, because GISTEMP shows a stronger trend, due largely to its inclusion of Arctic areas.”
Thththththththat’s all folks ………….
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.