More Arctic Sea Ice Than 110 years Ago
Posted on July 14, 2014
People are getting stuck in the ice in 2014, but the Northwest Passage was open in 1904.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/14/more-arctic-sea-ice-than-110-years-ago/
Not 97% but .3% of Climatologists agree.
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Posted on July 14, 2014
People are getting stuck in the ice in 2014, but the Northwest Passage was open in 1904.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/14/more-arctic-sea-ice-than-110-years-ago/
Frandcurrents is bringing his crap up on other threads.
Therefore, I will point him to the first paper in this thread.
if you follow the link..
here is the paper...
Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
Abstract
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.
Therefore, I will point him to the first paper in this thread.
if you follow the link..
here is the paper...
Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
David R. Legates, Willie Soon, William M. Briggs, Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
Abstract
Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.
Christopher Monckton is a British consultant, policy adviser, writer, columnist, and hereditary peer. While not formally trained in science, Monckton is one of the most cited and widely published climate skeptics, having even been invited to testify to the U.S. Senate and Congress on several occasions
Being a “Snake Oil Salesman” Who Actually Sells the Equivalent of Snake Oil
Nobody could make this stuff up.
1. Monckton claimed that he has developed a cure for Graves’ Disease, AIDS, Multiple Schlerosis, the flu, and the common cold. This is no joke–he actually filed applications to patent a “therapeutic treatment” in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013. Bluegrue speculates that Monckton is likely filing his applications and then letting them lapse after a year without paying the fees necessary to have the Patents Office take the process forward. That way, he can claim he has filed for a patent, but never has to have the Patent Office determine whether his “therapeutic treatment” is patentable (or pay any fees). Is it homeopathy? Massive doses of vitamin C? The world waits with bated breath.
Inflating His Résumé
1. Monckton represented himself to members of the U.S. Congress as a member of the U.K. House of Lords (the upper house of Parliament.) When people started pointing outthat he doesn’t appear on the official list of members, however, he started saying that he is a member “without a seat or vote.” When queried, the House of Lords responded that there is no such thing as a member without a seat or vote, and Lord Monckton had never been a member because he inherited his title (Viscount) in 2006, after all but 92 hereditary peers had been barred from membership in the House of Lords since 1999. When asked to respond about this misrepresentation by members of Congress,Monckton basically acknowledged that the British government doesn’t recognize him as a member of the House of Lords.
. Monckton claimed to be a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Al Gore and the IPCC because he supposedly sent the IPCC a letter pointing out something that needed to be corrected in a draft report. At one point he said the claim to be a Nobel laureate was all a joke, but it continued to be posted by Monckton in his bio at the Science and Public Policy Institute until early 2012, and the sorts of people who believe Monckton have often repeated the claim with a straight face. (This brings up an important question. On whom was Monckton playing the joke?)
1. John Abraham pointed out a large number of examples where Monckton cited scientific literature that actually refuted his points, or the authors of the papers said that Monckton had misinterpreted their results. This caused His Lordship to FLIP OUT. See “Threatening Those Who Disagree With Him” and “Going Ape” below.
2. Tim Lambert caught Monckton making up stories about one Dr. Pinker, and it turns out that Dr. Pinker says Monckton misinterpreted her work. And is a woman. (Click the link. You’ll see what I mean.)
3. Monckton cited statistics about variations in the amount of incoming solar radiation to come to exactly the opposite conclusion from the authors he cited.
4. He also repeatedly cited statistics about local temperature records and treated them as if they were global. (This is a big no-no.)
5. Lord Monckton totally botched his discussion of ocean acidification, revealing that he doesn’t understand ocean circulation, the significance of pH in aqueous systems, and so on.
6. Monckton published an article on climate sensitivity in a newsletter of the American Physical Society. He has repeatedly claimed that this constitutes a peer-reviewed scientific publication about climate change, but the fact is that society newsletters are not typically “peer-reviewed” in any normal sense, and the newsletter editor appended a notice on Monckton’s article saying it was not peer-reviewed. A single scientist associated with the journal (and not a climate specialist) giving you some comments on a draft isn’t the same thing. Almost 2 years later, Monckton was still claiming the newsletter is peer-reviewed scientific literature, however. In any case, Arthur Smithpicked this article apart and found 125 errors of fact and logic. Tim Lambert provided ashort explanation for why Monckton’s main argument was wrong.
7. Lord Monckton really wants the Medieval Warm Period to have been warmer than today, and will latch onto any piece of “evidence” that seems to support this. For example, he wrote that “There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none.” He apparently got this claim from Gavin Menzies, but it has been shown to be complete garbage.
8. A New York Times reporter fact-checked Monckton after a debate by asking experts in the relevant fields to comment. The experts said that Monckton was in fantasyland about polar bear populations and global temperature histories. As an aside, I mentioned above that I had shown Monckton tended to erroneously use local temperature records in place of global ones, which is another thing he was criticized for in the Times.
9. Alden Griffith showed how Monckton has cherrypicked data when discussing trends in Arctic sea ice extent.
10. Skeptical Science has now posted Monckton Myths, a page that collects links to all of Monckton’s main pseudo-scientific arguments, and scientific rebuttals. Since Monckton recycles his arguments ad nauseum, long after they have been shown to be flatly wrong, this should be a valuable resource for many years!
Making Up Fake Data
1. Lord Monckton made up data on atmospheric CO2 concentration and global mean temperature that he claimed were IPCC predictions. The CO2 projections were similar to the real ones, but significantly corrupted, and the temperature projections were the product of inputting the corrupted data into an equation not meant for this purpose. This has been addressed several times by Gavin Schmidt, John Nielsen-Gammon, Lucia Liljegren, and me. After I posted my critique, Monckton issued a blanket response to all those who criticized him for this, in which he claimed he was justified in attributing the fake projections to the IPCC, because that’s what they SHOULD HAVE gotten if they had done theirs right. I’m not kidding.
Abusing Scientific Equations
It doesn’t take much effort to plug some numbers into a scientific equation and solve it. Scientists have to learn to plug the right numbers into equations appropriate for the problem at hand, and it usually requires considerable experience for this principle to sink into students’ brains. Before it sinks in, students often tend to use the wrong equations for a given scenario, or plug the wrong kinds of values into the right equations. Monckton does both.
1. He attacked mainstream estimates of climate sensitivity by a misapplication of the Stefan-Bolzmann equation.
2. Monckton made some wild claims about climate drivers after he misinterpreted the work of Rachel Pinker and colleagues. He essentially plugged the wrong kind of numbers into an equation that converts a change in radiative forcing into change in global mean temperature.
3. He frequently uses an IPCC equation for the EQUILIBRIUM temperature response of climate models to calculate TRANSIENT temperature response. The IPCC publishes the transient responses, as well, but Monckton refuses to use that data, because he says the IPCC has monkeyed with their models to make the transient response agree better with global temperature data. In the past he has just substituted in the equilibrium values and plotted them as if they were time-series. However, in response to criticismhe says he’s going to correct the equilibrium values–seemingly by multiplying them by a factor of 0.8 instead of looking at the actual model output.
Being an All-Purpose Extremist
1. It’s a good thing Monckton has developed a cure for AIDS! In 1987 he suggestedrounding up all AIDS-sufferers and isolating them for life. Since nobody took his sage advice, he later acknowledged that the problem had gotten too big for his suggestion to be feasible.
2. Monckton suggested it might be a good idea to require scientists to have some kind of religious certification before being allowed to practice in a field like climatology. You know, because scientists are a pack of atheists who think lying is ok.
3. Monckton claimed that, as a member of Margaret Thatcher’s policy unit, he suggested spiking the Argentines’ water supplies with a “mild bacillus” so the British troops could more easily win the Falklands War. He said he believed Thatcher had followed his advice, even though this would clearly have been a violation of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention.
https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/
Him and jem could be twins, in so many ways.
Last edited:
Oh, and then the other author of what jem thinks is good science? Willie Soon. Hmmmm, let's see what he is all about.....
In 2003, Willie Soon was first author on a review paper in the journal Climate Research, with Sallie Baliunas as co-author. This paper concluded that "the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium."[23][24]
Shortly thereafter, 13 scientists published a rebuttal to the paper.[25][26] They raised three main objections: (1) Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; (2) they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric mean temperature anomalies; and (3) they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends.[25][26] Soon, Baliunas and David Legates published a response to these objections.[27]
After disagreement with the publisher and with other members of the editorial board, Hans von Storch, Clare Goodess, and two more members of the journal's ten-member editorial board resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal.[8][28] Otto Kinne, managing director of the journal's parent company, eventually stated that "CR [Climate Research] should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication" and that "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."[29]
Soon and Baliunas have also been criticised because their research budget was funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute.[30][31][32]
2011: Funding controversy[edit]
In 2011, it was revealed that Soon received over $1,000,000 from petroleum and coal interests since 2001.[33] Documents obtained by Greenpeace under the US Freedom of Information Act show that the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation gave Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005–06 and again in 2010. Multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totalled $274,000, and grants from Exxon Mobil totalled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010. Other coal and oil industry sources which funded him include the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute. Soon has stated unequivocally that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research" and "would have accepted money from Greenpeace if they had offered it to do my research."[34]
On February 21, publications including The Guardian and the New York Times reported that Soon had failed to disclose conflicts of interest in at least 11 papers since 2008, and alleged that Soon had violated ethical guidelines of at least 8 of those journals publishing his work. Charles R. Alcock, director of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, described the disclosure violations as "inappropriate behavior" that they would "have to handle with Dr. Soon internally".[2][9] On the same day, Nature reported that the CfA had launched an investigation into whether Soon had properly reported the funding arrangements shown in the documents. Alcock said "We want to get the facts straight. If there is evidence of failure to disclose, yes, we have a problem."[38] He said that the contract with Southern preventing disclosure of their funding "was a mistake", and in a later email reply to questions said "We will not permit similar wording in future grant agreements".[42] The Smithsonian announced that its Inspector General would investigate, and in addition there was to be a full review of the Smithsonian's ethics and disclosure policies about sponsored research,[11][43] led by former NSF director Rita R. Colwell.[44]
****************************************************************
^And that is just a sample.
These things have pointed out to jerm multiple times but he continues to use these kind of frauds and fools to support his lies.
In short jem is a fucking liar. Knows he is lying, and continues to do it and yet he thinks he is a good Catholic.
And now he will come back with some fake outrage and call me troll and seem amazed I could be saying this.
POS liar is all he is.
In 2003, Willie Soon was first author on a review paper in the journal Climate Research, with Sallie Baliunas as co-author. This paper concluded that "the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium."[23][24]
Shortly thereafter, 13 scientists published a rebuttal to the paper.[25][26] They raised three main objections: (1) Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; (2) they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric mean temperature anomalies; and (3) they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends.[25][26] Soon, Baliunas and David Legates published a response to these objections.[27]
After disagreement with the publisher and with other members of the editorial board, Hans von Storch, Clare Goodess, and two more members of the journal's ten-member editorial board resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal.[8][28] Otto Kinne, managing director of the journal's parent company, eventually stated that "CR [Climate Research] should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious formulations before publication" and that "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."[29]
Soon and Baliunas have also been criticised because their research budget was funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute.[30][31][32]
2011: Funding controversy[edit]
In 2011, it was revealed that Soon received over $1,000,000 from petroleum and coal interests since 2001.[33] Documents obtained by Greenpeace under the US Freedom of Information Act show that the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation gave Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005–06 and again in 2010. Multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totalled $274,000, and grants from Exxon Mobil totalled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010. Other coal and oil industry sources which funded him include the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute. Soon has stated unequivocally that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research" and "would have accepted money from Greenpeace if they had offered it to do my research."[34]
On February 21, publications including The Guardian and the New York Times reported that Soon had failed to disclose conflicts of interest in at least 11 papers since 2008, and alleged that Soon had violated ethical guidelines of at least 8 of those journals publishing his work. Charles R. Alcock, director of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, described the disclosure violations as "inappropriate behavior" that they would "have to handle with Dr. Soon internally".[2][9] On the same day, Nature reported that the CfA had launched an investigation into whether Soon had properly reported the funding arrangements shown in the documents. Alcock said "We want to get the facts straight. If there is evidence of failure to disclose, yes, we have a problem."[38] He said that the contract with Southern preventing disclosure of their funding "was a mistake", and in a later email reply to questions said "We will not permit similar wording in future grant agreements".[42] The Smithsonian announced that its Inspector General would investigate, and in addition there was to be a full review of the Smithsonian's ethics and disclosure policies about sponsored research,[11][43] led by former NSF director Rita R. Colwell.[44]
****************************************************************
^And that is just a sample.
These things have pointed out to jerm multiple times but he continues to use these kind of frauds and fools to support his lies.
In short jem is a fucking liar. Knows he is lying, and continues to do it and yet he thinks he is a good Catholic.
And now he will come back with some fake outrage and call me troll and seem amazed I could be saying this.
POS liar is all he is.
sooo.... without a lot of data it really is all speculation. Evolution vs creation is also all speculation. The evolution people have huge trappings of science in their arguments but oddly enough all the evidence confirms the Genesis story!
All these arguments prove is that introverts populate our universities, medical, and legal systems to where nobody else can get an idea out. Introverts JUST CANNOT BE WRONG. I've been studying this shit for a long time now and this idea bears out in reality and is backed by personality science. Generations of them have to die off before a new idea can get into their systems.
So my assumptions about the world are better than most. I blow off all the introverty shit, a good logical argument has good assumptions and good logic so my life should be better than most and indeed, on almost all levels it is.
I sure ain't worrying about the sea levels rising or whatever, not that I give a shit, I'm inland from that. I don't have to filter every thought through evolutionary shit, what a waste of brain cpu cycles that is! I laugh out loud when some assholes try to show me how dinosaur bones were preserved, without fossilizing, with some meat still on them, for 65 million years! Cut me some mfing slack with that fantasy land shit for godz sake. I'd rather talk to Native Americans about natural history, I can get more reality from that then a university full of idiots.
So anyhow, I'm sitting here drinking some coffee laced with Aniracetam, Noopept, and inositol to help assimilate the choline I took earlier and planning really good stuff for myself and mine... I'll leave the GW arguments and all the rest of it to people that like to argue with idiots from Fantasyland...
Remember: Universities, the Legal System, the Medical System are all introvert territory and they are all very bad for your mental and physical health. I'm still struggling to get over damage done by a fluoroquinolone antibiotic last year, I just lose my balance every so often. Some baking soda in water would have cured me but doctors are not allowed to recommend things like that. These people that are never wrong are prescribing fluoroquinolone for everything nowadays, the other antibiotics don't work anymore and they have to sell shit to make their $ and keep customers coming back. Originally fluoroquinolone was for last ditch efforts only, the side effects were known, some of them at least. Big Pharma has to sell shit so now the side effects are not well known among doctors. What perfect little corporate drones introverts are! I cannot figure out how to escape their clutches really. If a person is admitted to a hospital and wants a second opinion the introverts can make themselves his conservator! They are found doing that to get children with rare disorders to experiment on sometimes.
If I figure out how to get my freedom back I'll post it here.
All these arguments prove is that introverts populate our universities, medical, and legal systems to where nobody else can get an idea out. Introverts JUST CANNOT BE WRONG. I've been studying this shit for a long time now and this idea bears out in reality and is backed by personality science. Generations of them have to die off before a new idea can get into their systems.
So my assumptions about the world are better than most. I blow off all the introverty shit, a good logical argument has good assumptions and good logic so my life should be better than most and indeed, on almost all levels it is.
I sure ain't worrying about the sea levels rising or whatever, not that I give a shit, I'm inland from that. I don't have to filter every thought through evolutionary shit, what a waste of brain cpu cycles that is! I laugh out loud when some assholes try to show me how dinosaur bones were preserved, without fossilizing, with some meat still on them, for 65 million years! Cut me some mfing slack with that fantasy land shit for godz sake. I'd rather talk to Native Americans about natural history, I can get more reality from that then a university full of idiots.
So anyhow, I'm sitting here drinking some coffee laced with Aniracetam, Noopept, and inositol to help assimilate the choline I took earlier and planning really good stuff for myself and mine... I'll leave the GW arguments and all the rest of it to people that like to argue with idiots from Fantasyland...
Remember: Universities, the Legal System, the Medical System are all introvert territory and they are all very bad for your mental and physical health. I'm still struggling to get over damage done by a fluoroquinolone antibiotic last year, I just lose my balance every so often. Some baking soda in water would have cured me but doctors are not allowed to recommend things like that. These people that are never wrong are prescribing fluoroquinolone for everything nowadays, the other antibiotics don't work anymore and they have to sell shit to make their $ and keep customers coming back. Originally fluoroquinolone was for last ditch efforts only, the side effects were known, some of them at least. Big Pharma has to sell shit so now the side effects are not well known among doctors. What perfect little corporate drones introverts are! I cannot figure out how to escape their clutches really. If a person is admitted to a hospital and wants a second opinion the introverts can make themselves his conservator! They are found doing that to get children with rare disorders to experiment on sometimes.
If I figure out how to get my freedom back I'll post it here.
Troll playbook.
When you can't produce any science, just do a character assasssination.
Then after you are done lying call the other guy a liar even though he is the only one of the two showing peer reviewed science. .
Then when that doesn't work... assume you know something about the posters choice of religion and attack that too.
Do all that instead of admitting you have no peer reviewed science showing man made co2 is causing warming.
When you can't produce any science, just do a character assasssination.
Then after you are done lying call the other guy a liar even though he is the only one of the two showing peer reviewed science. .
Then when that doesn't work... assume you know something about the posters choice of religion and attack that too.
Do all that instead of admitting you have no peer reviewed science showing man made co2 is causing warming.
Last edited:
So, to sum up, jerm has in the last few pages posted a fraud chart and the fraud paper of two known frauds and cannot, will not acknowledge the obvious glaring lies that are the content of his posts. Even after being shown, in no uncertain terms the lies that they are, he continues to stand behind them.
Because jem is a POS liar. It comes so easily to lawyers.
Because jem is a POS liar. It comes so easily to lawyers.
I understand why you may be skeptical of science. Hopefully with time you will heal.