• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.

Climate scientists

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #51
    Somebody should invent a new doom we can worry about. GW, Giant meteor, sun expansion, super volcano in Jellystone park, black hole from CERN, rift in space time continuum, the 2nd coming, computers taking over the world, portal to an evil dimension, incurable plague, zombies exploding from graves - all been done.

    Anyone think of a new one?

    Mine is an otherwise benign parasite that infests many species and carries stem cell DNA from one to the other. You wake up in the morning and find your left ear is sprouting an oak tree. Put your baby to bed and next morning he has eight legs and is eating flies. Very credible I think.
    bloggoth

    If everything isn't black and white, I say, 'Why the hell not?'
    John Wayne (My guru, not to be confused with my beloved prophet Jeremy Clarkson)

    Comment


      #52
      I like the idea of a house on stilts. You'd get a better view.
      Originally posted by MaryPoppins
      I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
      Originally posted by vetran
      Urine is quite nourishing

      Comment


        #53
        Originally posted by d000hg View Post
        I like the idea of a house on stilts. You'd get a better view.
        But it might go and join a circus.

        Comment


          #54
          Originally posted by pjclarke
          The editor of the journal now says the paper was, to quote a certain CUKer, a heap of sh*te.
          And that editor has now resigned.

          You guys are anti science, and its catching up with you




          (\__/)
          (>'.'<)
          ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

          Comment


            #55
            Originally posted by pjclarke
            The editor of the journal now says the paper was, to quote a certain CUKer, a heap of sh*te.
            He was pressured to leave. It´s because those who believe in AGW are losing the debate:

            ...Aand so I’m not willing on that basis to spend trillions of dollars trying to stop in America for instance, the emissions of CO2.
            Mitt Romney, presidential candidate.

            At some point in the forseeable future there will be a US president who will reject climate change.


            ...that´s why you´re all "gnashing" your teeth...

            I'm alright Jack

            Comment


              #56
              Originally posted by pjclarke
              Hardly a nonbeliever in AGW.
              hmm so what made him change his mind, could it be the temperature trend:



              ...or possibly the decling sea level

              I'm alright Jack

              Comment


                #57
                Originally posted by pjclarke
                And from Roy Spencer's UAH temps page, the source of the 'trend' graph



                I for one, am royally entertained
                You´ll love this one then:




                Hansen´s predictions.

                I'm alright Jack

                Comment


                  #58
                  Steve Goddard? The guy even Anthony Watts no longer lets write guest blogs? Puh-leeze.

                  Hansen's projections, made almost a quarter-century ago using an early model you could run on a 386 today, did a remarkable job. Recently they diverge from observations mainly because his climate sensistivty parameter was too high. This divergence is good evidence that the modern estimate is accurate.

                  Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
                  My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

                  Comment


                    #59
                    For those of you who are semi interested, but not following this too closely
                    here is EO'S take on what has happened

                    A journal that publishes bona fida peer reviewed science, published a paper that blew a big hole in the CAGW theory. basically claiming that they were out by a factor of 2.

                    Of course the sceptics were made up. another nail in the coffin..etc etc. (me included, Im a sceptic). Some parts of the main stream media went into overdrive. Just like they do for every CAGW horror story.

                    so far so good.

                    Then, for no apparent reason, the editor trashes the paper. He is not an expert in the field, and gives no scientific reason for his opinion. Then he regrets that his journal has has such a big shockwave, 35k downloads, and says the peer review panel was weighted with sceptics. It was set up and run properly, but it was weighted with sceptics.

                    you have to think about that for a while.


                    So, because his journal published a crap paper (in his non expert opinion), and because the panel was not mainstream (in his opinion) - he has resigned.



                    does this mean that only CAGW believers are able to peer review climate papers?
                    does this mean that all editors who publish crap papers are to resign ?
                    does this mean that the process of comment and retraction is dead ?
                    (usually when a bad paper is published, it is discussed in comment, trashed, then retracted)
                    why is climate science so special that it has its own unique process?
                    If the science is settled what is the big deal about a paper that pokes a hole in the theory ?
                    If there is a concensus on CAGW amongst climate scientists, where on earth did the editorial team come up with a 100% membership(3 reviewers) of sceptics for the review panel?
                    In 2004, when Phil Jones said 'we will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” - is this what he meant ?


                    (\__/)
                    (>'.'<)
                    ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

                    Comment


                      #60
                      Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Post
                      For those of you who are semi interested, but not following this too closely
                      here is EO'S take on what has happened

                      A journal that publishes bona fida peer reviewed science, published a paper that blew a big hole in the CAGW theory. basically claiming that they were out by a factor of 2.

                      Of course the sceptics were made up. another nail in the coffin..etc etc. (me included, Im a sceptic). Some parts of the main stream media went into overdrive. Just like they do for every CAGW horror story.

                      so far so good.

                      Then, for no apparent reason, the editor trashes the paper. He is not an expert in the field, and gives no scientific reason for his opinion. Then he regrets that his journal has has such a big shockwave, 35k downloads, and says the peer review panel was weighted with sceptics. It was set up and run properly, but it was weighted with sceptics.

                      you have to think about that for a while.


                      So, because his journal published a crap paper (in his non expert opinion), and because the panel was not mainstream (in his opinion) - he has resigned.



                      does this mean that only CAGW believers are able to peer review climate papers?
                      does this mean that all editors who publish crap papers are to resign ?
                      does this mean that the process of comment and retraction is dead ?
                      (usually when a bad paper is published, it is discussed in comment, trashed, then retracted)
                      why is climate science so special that it has its own unique process?
                      If the science is settled what is the big deal about a paper that pokes a hole in the theory ?
                      If there is a concensus on CAGW amongst climate scientists, where on earth did the editorial team come up with a 100% membership(3 reviewers) of sceptics for the review panel?
                      In 2004, when Phil Jones said 'we will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” - is this what he meant ?


                      Hit the nail on the head, the "editor" in question wasn´t a hands on editor; the editor who got it published is still there. So the fact that an editor, who isn´t even an expert in the subject resigns means absolutely nothing, other than he wanted to save his academic career.

                      As the AGW lose the argument, this is the only way they can respond. At the very least, if it was "a heap of sh*te" as a certain CUK´er would say, you would expect a retraction.
                      I'm alright Jack

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X