Finally.

[pjclarke]

Oreskes. Famous for her intellectual prowess, has three weapons in her arsenal

1. shut down debate by calling people a denier
2. shut down debate by telling people they are not climate scientists
3. she can out-stare a garden gnome

Naomi, top tip - cash in on the climate scam while you still have your looks

Classy.

Oreskes is Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, I think she knows the way scientific debate works as least as well as you.

http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doub...942/ref=sr_1_1

[EternalOptimist]

Classy.

Oreskes is Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, and she calls James Hansen, the father of CAGW a denier

<gasp>
James Hansen...a DENIER ??


omg. rats in a sack

[BlasterBates]

The issues with the graph are statistical, so someone studying for a doctorate in econometrics is more than qualified to point out the errors. Indeed anyone doing GCSE science knows that any result must be presented with an estimate of the uncertainties.

Here's the first problem…

"For starters, where are the confidence intervals? I don't mean the pseudo-intervals generated by the CMIP5 ensemble (those are really just a spread of the individual trend means across all of the climate models). I mean the confidence intervals attached to each trend estimate*. Any first-year statistics or econometrics students knows that regression coefficients come with standard errors and implied confidence intervals. Indeed, accounting for these uncertainties is largely what hypothesis testing is about: Can we confidently rule out that a parameter of interest doesn't overlap with some value or range? Absent these uncertainty measures, one cannot talk meaningfully about rejecting a hypothesis. I have therefore reproduced the above figure from M&K's poster, but now with 95% error bars attached to each of the "observed" HadCRUT4 trend estimates.
…
As we can see, there is complete overlap with these error bars and the ensemble range. M&K's bold assertion that we should reject climate models as failed mathematical hypotheses does not hold water. At no point can we say that the observed trend in temperature is statistically different from the trend predicted by the climate models."

And as you played the man rather than the ball, did you read down Michaels' CV to the point where his 6-figure income from the oil and coal industry are discussed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patric...fuel_companies

Patrick Michaels: Cato's Climate Expert Has History Of Getting It Wrong | ThinkProgress

So if I make a prediction of a 4 degree rise plus or minus 10 degrees my prediction will always be correct. I think Pat Michaels with a long list of published work behind him is aware of error bars. If he was so wrong wouldn't his papers have been rejected ?

The more observations deviate from your predicted path the higher the probability that your predictions are "bunk", particularly when the tropospheric temperatures have been flat for the last 16 years.

[BlasterBates]

Aren't we doing that at the moment?

It was 16c here yesterday there as normal December temperatures are around 5c, and it keeps bloody raining.

So a very similiar December to the one we had 28 years ago.

https://weatherspark.com/history/287...United-Kingdom

It was interesting, some colleagues at work in their late 20's, early 30's were commenting on how warm it was. In their youth it was much colder, but actually there have been plenty of years in the 1980's 1990's where it was exceptionally mild in December and January.

1992 springs to mind, in the UK 17 degrees in January.

[pjclarke]

<gasp>
James Hansen...a DENIER ?? omg. rats in a sack

For anyone vaguely interested in the reality, Oreskes at no point used the word denier, nor is she talking about science denial, this refers to disagreement over solutions, specifically whether nuclear needs to be part of the mix, with Hansen and three others publishing a pro-nuclear article last week and Oreskes responding today. Her exact words were:

There is also a new, strange form of denial that has appeared on the landscape of late, one that says that renewable sources can’t meet our energy needs.

Not perhaps the best choice of language, but ho hum. Personally I side more with the Hansen camp, but this is a discourse about future energy planning, not science denial. No rats, no sack and no need for casual sexism.

There is a new form of climate denialism to look out for – so don't celebrate yet | Naomi Oreskes | Opinion | The Guardian

[LucidDementia]

did you read down Michaels' CV to the point where his 6-figure income from the oil and coal industry are discussed?

Never see you mentioning the tens of billions (speaking conservatively) being spent on your alarmist attack on humanity. Many orders of magnitude beyond what you bleat about the oil and coal industries spending.

Follow the money. Qui Bono?

[DodgyAgent]

You can invite him to the annual agents shindig to give a talk. Don't know his cost though.

Agents don't listen to anyone other than themselves so he should fit in well

[DodgyAgent]

For anyone vaguely interested in the reality, Oreskes at no point used the word denier, nor is she talking about science denial, this refers to disagreement over solutions, specifically whether nuclear needs to be part of the mix, with Hansen and three others publishing a pro-nuclear article last week and Oreskes responding today. Her exact words were:



Not perhaps the best choice of language, but ho hum. Personally I side more with the Hansen camp, but this is a discourse about future energy planning, not science denial. No rats, no sack and no need for casual sexism.

There is a new form of climate denialism to look out for – so don't celebrate yet | Naomi Oreskes | Opinion | The Guardian

And then there is the " solution denial" of which you are guilty

[BlasterBates]

For anyone vaguely interested in the reality, Oreskes at no point used the word denier, nor is she talking about science denial, this refers to disagreement over solutions, specifically whether nuclear needs to be part of the mix, with Hansen and three others publishing a pro-nuclear article last week and Oreskes responding today. Her exact words were:



Not perhaps the best choice of language, but ho hum. Personally I side more with the Hansen camp, but this is a discourse about future energy planning, not science denial. No rats, no sack and no need for casual sexism.

There is a new form of climate denialism to look out for – so don't celebrate yet | Naomi Oreskes | Opinion | The Guardian

[Zero Liability]

One thing is for sure that the backdoor attempt by socialist control freaks to extort money from me won't work

Like this...

Even if the global warming scare were a hoax, we would still need it - Telegraph

Ok, a Keynesian, but close enough to socialist to count.

Last few paragraphs are telling.