The Galloping Beaver
Ahhhh ... Lord Monkton, Viscount of Bullshit. He's been peddling his brand of crazy for quite some time.
Priceless trap. It's nice to see certain sites get their comeuppance.
Too bad they're shameless and couldn't care less. Retraction, apology? Dream on. No, when they fuck up, it's time to ignore it or flush it down the memory hole then move on like nothing ever happened.
Hmm, you know if you really want to be considered as taking the scientific approach, rather than the fanatical one, it would be helpful if you would apply the same scrutiny to the screw ups on your side. As an example, I wonder how many of you were sucked in, or still continue to be sucked in by the notion that 1998 was the warmest year on record. Were you all over it when NASA had to retract its numbers recently?
Yep, didn't think so.
Were you all over it when NASA had to retract its numbers recently?
Why, yes. Matter of fact, yes. Use blogsearch and see for yourself.
We do correct ourselves on this side.
Nice attempt at 'But youuuuu guys do it too', Mr. 5-0DEITY
Ok, Ill take a look, maybe some of you did correct yourselves. We shall see.
With regard to the Monkton paper, it would also be nice if there was a little bit of correction on that as well. I doubt I will see it, but it certainly is due, as the blog here makes a number of serious errors.
1) Monkton is not some loony writing on a blog. He was invited to write the paper for the APS website. The APS itself wanted this debate.
2) His paper was not sent our for peer review, but it was reviewed by the editors colleague who did ask for some revisions to which Monkton agreed. Apparently most of these revisions were to clarify for physicists who were not climatologists the methods of the IPCC's evaluation of climate.
3) The weird disclaimer statement in red above the Monkton article did not appear until recently. In other words, its totally disingenuous to say there was false reporting by AGW non believers since when the Monkton article came to note, there was no red disclaimer statement above it.
As an example, I wonder how many of you were sucked in, or still continue to be sucked in by the notion that 1998 was the warmest year on record. Were you all over it when NASA had to retract its numbers recently?
It's always nice to hear from the uninformed. As FF said, a quick blog search would have quickly dispatched your notion.
The trouble is, of course, that your presumption is wrong. Dead wrong. NASA's corrected numbers refer to the continguous United States - not the Globe.
And no, 1998 wasn't the warmest global year on record. You could do another blog search and find the year. In fact, we'll leave you to figure it out.
In the meantime, the graphic at the top of this post was put there just for you.
>NASA's corrected numbers refer to the continguous United States - not the Globe.
Ha - ha, nice try but no cigar buddy. The NASA numbers were just about the US, I never said otherwise. However since the US numbers are considered hugely significant because of their quality to say "it was just the US" indicates a total lack of familiarity with the significance of the US numbers.
>And no, 1998 wasn't the warmest global year on record.
Ha HA, Right, but you guys were sure saying it was for quite some time until the correction. Weirdly, the warmest year getting corrected back to the 30's isn't touted as much by your side. Wonder why?
>It's always nice to hear from the uninformed. As FF said, a quick blog search would have quickly dispatched your notion.
Yep, and you know what I would find? No shortage of you guys sucked in by the 1998 thing. You know what else? I would quickly find that when the warmest year got corrected, you didn't go on about that quite as much. I mean if you can point me to the blog that says "Hey gee, now that 98 isn't the warmest year, maybe we should re-think AGW" Id be happy to take a look.
Until then, please, your stuff is good for entertainment value, but lets not for a moment pretend you guys act like scientists.
Shorter Book 'im Danno: You guys are sooooooooo not scientists. Lord Monkton, on the other hand, totally a scientist. No, really.
You forgot to mention that Al Gore is fat, Jack ... that always reinforces the denial position.
Oh and by the way Dave, the "Stupid " graphic at the top? Nice to see you proving my point with referencing me to it. I didn't think you could rebut anything without an ad hominum attack. Do you wonder why so many consider AGW believers fanatics?
You might want to actually read the editorial of the APS. Its right here:
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/new...0807/
editor.cfm
Gee, when you read that it sure as hell indicates the exact opposite of virtually everything you say in in this piece.
Monkton was invited, hardly a loony writing a blog. The APS editorial explaining the publishing of the two articles also clearly states:
"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."
So, now that you have tee'd it up that you are so big on correcting your own side when it makes mistakes. Lets see how well you do with this one. To use your own words, you kind of got your diaper pulled down, lets see if you can pull it back up with any sort of grace.
"...I wonder how many of you were sucked in, or still continue to be sucked in by the notion that 1998 was the warmest year on record..."
"...The NASA numbers were just about the US, I never said otherwise. However since the US numbers are considered hugely significant because of their quality to say "it was just the US" indicates a total lack of familiarity with the significance of the US numbers..."
What's your basis for claiming unusual significance for US numbers? I believe the US has 2% of the world's landmass. Not significant. Canada is bigger.
LuLu
>You forgot to mention that Al Gore is fat, Jack
Ok, let me get this straight, I don't bring up an ad hominum attack on Al Gore, you do. And then you ascribe it to me as if it somehow rebuts my position?
You sure you want to pretend much longer that you are on the side of reason or science? You sure don't act it.
Holy Stick
>What's your basis for claiming unusual significance for US numbers?
Because the US is considered to have the longest and most stable record of surface temperature records anywhere on the globe. In other words its considered the highest quality data.
The fact is, land mass is not a factor. If you have a huge land mass and poor temperature records, you really have very little in comparison to a smaller country with excellent temperature records.
Trying to deny the significance of this, as some have done, on the basis of land mass is a little silly, given the quality of US records. Its pretty much like saying 100 high school students doing a physics experiment is more significant than Stephen Hawking doing an experiment, because there will be 100 reports issued instead of one.
You might want to actually read the editorial of the APS
Again, that's not the journal of the APS. It's a frigging free-for-all. This is the site of the APS journal. What you linked to is not subject to review. It's an opinion place. The APS made it clear that they do not support the newsletter forum's view.
The fact that Christopher Monkton writes in that forum and anyone takes him seriously is a joke. Monkton is no scientist. He is a journalist with no scientific credentials at all.
He has also been profoundly wrong on a number of issues but particularly his view that heterosexual AIDS was a myth. His solution was ridiculous and, as we have learned from previous and subsequent episodes on a wide variety of subjects, completely unsupported by the scientific community.
So, yeah, Monkton is a loony, and a liar.
As for this assertion:
The NASA numbers were just about the US, I never said otherwise
This is what you said:
I wonder how many of you were sucked in, or still continue to be sucked in by the notion that 1998 was the warmest year on record. Were you all over it when NASA had to retract its numbers recently?
No suggestion that you were talking about a mere 1.6 percent of the Earth's surface and that you were dismissing all other data outside that taken in the US. You didn't move that goalpost until you were called on it.
So, you're done here. Babble at will. You have no audience.
>Again, that's not the journal of the APS. It's a frigging free-for-all.
Sorry, I think you are simply going to have to accept you got caught here. It is on the APS website, it is entitled editors comments and it proceeded the introduction of the two articles. Its a newsletter in which the articles appeared and the editors introduction to them. The point is, it can hardly be considered absurd to treat them with some seriousness. Your assumption that a newsletter of the APS is something without any merit and the equivelent of a blog is what should be laughed off.
>No suggestion that you were talking about a mere 1.6 percent of the Earth's surface
Um yeah, right, and before the NASA correction, I sure dont remember you guys going on about how the numbers only reflected 1.6% of the earths surface. Now all of a sudden you do?Excuse me while I laugh.
Oh, but wait, it gets better, now you talk about moving goal posts. What does that mean? Kind of like going from Global Warming, to Climate Change?
>You didn't move that goalpost until you were called on it.
Um no Dave, I never established a goalpost, you did. You were the one who asserted the NASA numbers were only about the US. I was the one who said big deal, I never said they werent. Thats not moving a goal post, thats simply not putting up with sillyness on your part.
And please, if you want to have any sort of scientific credibility whatsoever, dont try and deny the signifigance of the US numbers with this land mass thing. I mean its a little absurd, as I have pointed out previously.
Anyhoo, care to try again? You are 0 for 3 on this latest one, but if you want to keep going Im game!
Wow Dave, missed your little sign off.
>So, you're done here. Babble at will. You have no audience.
Good lord Dave, I sure hope this isn't the supposedly rational scientific mind you bring to the debate with this sort of logic.
I have no audience? Why certainly I do. My audience is you. You responded to me twice, therefore obviously at least you are listening.
Look, its simple, you said AGW non believers were buffoons for taking what you insisted was a blog with any seriousness.
I posted the link, showing the editors comments clearly indicate that the articles were not only solicited, but were submitted to them and not posted at will. It may be a newsletter, but it is certainly not a blog.
Sorry Dave, you have been caught, for that is not a blog in any sense of the term. Thus your comments calling others stupid for paying attention to it are without merit. That's bad enough for someone who wants to be taken seriously on this issue. The fact that you laid on all the personal invective, starting with what is now the quite ironic "stupid" graphic considering your circumstances at this point, makes it all the more silly for you to go on as you do.
frustrating, aint I?
Jack,
You're clinging to a non-scientific article and a single corrected error in one analysis in the history of CONUS annual temperature averages as your justification for dismissing global warming/AGW/pick your name.
None of this is relevant to the fact the empirical evidence suggests that things are warming up. In order to credibly attack AGW, you need to account for things like record losses of summer sea ice, warming of deep ocean currents in the Southern Hemisphere, collapsing iceshelves, changes in animal migration patterns and formerly stable food chains, etc, etc. You need to disprove the correlation between GHG atmospheric concentrations and temperature rise indicated in not one, but several hockey stick graphs that were each arrived at through different methodologies.
You also need to account for why deniers like (Dr.) Tim Ball mislead people about their scientific pedigree.
The list goes on.
By clinging to a few error corrections and photos of broken or poorly sited Stevenson shelters, you are really pecking at meaningless scraps of flyshit in a vast sea of pepper. The data, arrived at from many different points by thousands of people, is against you.
What audience you do have here, is laughing at you.
This is denial at its finest. It it any wonder why we don’t take them seriously?
John Baird, don't you have a date with an Albanian soccer player tonite? Go on, get yourself lubed and leave us alone.
for a more detailed (and more scientific - but easily understandable) look at this issue, check out:
http://climateprogress.org/
the first two blogs/articles are about the APS and Lord Numbnuts.
Commenting by HaloScan
