2020 climate fails

[gowlerk 1,903]

2 minutes ago, lippy said:

Mann not wanting to waste his breath on random deniers seems equivalent of Bill Booth not opening up his experiment to whuffos with chainsaws.

I don't read brenthutch anymore. This is a really good reminder of why. Thanks.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

47 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Mann won’t show his work to skeptics... case closed

If you are skeptical/deny the work before reviewing it, what would be the purpose of reviewing it?

How long would you spend on convincing a flat earther the world is round? 

[brenthutch 383]

24 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

If you are skeptical/deny the work before reviewing it, what would be the purpose of reviewing it?

How long would you spend on convincing a flat earther the world is round? 

About as long as it took to convince a cosmologists in the early 1900’s that the universe was expanding.  (>97% of “experts” thought the universe was static)

Edited December 23, 2020 by brenthutch

[brenthutch 383]

57 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

If you are skeptical of the work before reviewing it, what would be the purpose of reviewing it?

A better question would be, what would be the purpose of reviewing it if you were NOT skeptical?  Or should Peer Review just be a rubber stamp and an attaboy from your buddies?

Edited December 23, 2020 by brenthutch

[kallend 1,621]

8 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Mann won’t show his work to skeptics... case closed

If Mann was confident in his research, he would have done what Bill Booth did in the early 90’s at Carolina Sky Sports during the Easter or Thanksgiving boogie (I can’t recall which) when he unveiled the Sigma tandem rig.  He explained its features and his reasoning for its design.  He then asked the tandem instructors assembled, to tear it apart and find its faults, shortcomings and potential problems.  After an hour long Q&A (none pre-screened) nobody could find a significant fault and everyone came away impressed.  If climate science could bear the same scrutiny, I could be a convert.

So you STILL can't find anything in either of the articles to which you linked that supports your claim, so off you go on another tangent.

Your intellectual dishonesty is just astounding.

[Phil1111 908]

9 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

If you are skeptical/deny the work before reviewing it, what would be the purpose of reviewing it?

How long would you spend on convincing a flat earther the world is round? 

How long is a generation?

[wmw999 2,116]

10 hours ago, brenthutch said:

A better question would be, what would be the purpose of reviewing it if you were NOT skeptical?  Or should Peer Review just be a rubber stamp and an attaboy from your buddies?

Again, it depends on whether you're wanting to do an honest evaluation, or simply score points. If all a reviewer wants to do is score points, then no, there's no point in letting them review. Honest evaluation both with an without context matter in research just as they matter in politics.

Wendy P.

[jakee 1,254]

10 hours ago, brenthutch said:

About as long as it took to convince a cosmologists in the early 1900’s that the universe was expanding.  (>97% of “experts” thought the universe was static)

And there’s your explanation. When global warming theories started the vast majority of scientists were convinced and it happened very quickly. The people that are left aren’t skeptics in the strict sense of the word, they have made up their mind that they don’t believe Mann. And yet you are here saying that if Mann (who you think is being dishonest because he is biased) showed them all his inner working they would give him a fair hearing and you would believe their verdict on his work, because you think they would set aside their bias. This really precisely demonstrates why there’s no upside to that plan. You have already made up your mind to believe the people who have already made up their mind not to believe him - while you attack him for having already made up his mind. 
 

And as to your impression of when you ‘met’ him at a seminar... get over yourself. Remember, he does this for a living. Every day working on this and speaking to people about it. Do you honestly think at this point a dilettante such as yourself has anything to say that he hasn’t already heard a thousand times before from other amateurs recycling the same objections from the same denier sources? If it appeared that he didn’t give your objections any thought and dismissed them out of hand it’s because he has thought about them and evaluated them so many times before that there’s no longer any useful purpose in doing it again.

[brenthutch 383]

27 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

Again, it depends on whether you're wanting to do an honest evaluation, or simply score points. If all a reviewer wants to do is score points, then no, there's no point in letting them review. Honest evaluation both with an without context matter in research just as they matter in politics.

Wendy P.

What do you mean by “score points”?  Would that be the same as pointing out gaps in reasoning, and flaws in methodology?  Could that include invalidating the entire hypothesis? (GASP!)

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong”

Einstein

[billvon 2,384]

3 hours ago, jakee said:

And as to your impression of when you ‘met’ him at a seminar... get over yourself. Remember, he does this for a living. Every day working on this and speaking to people about it. Do you honestly think at this point a dilettante such as yourself has anything to say that he hasn’t already heard a thousand times before from other amateurs recycling the same objections from the same denier sources?

I went to a talk by Naomi Oreskes a few years ago.  Afterwards I asked her about a detail of stratospheric cooling I didn't understand.  She had about a dozen people wanting to talk to her, so she said "that would be a good question for Dr. Strickland over there" who was a physicist.  I asked him and got a good answer.

But if I had an axe to grind I could have reported that "she IGNORED my question because she couldn't even ANSWER it!"

[brenthutch 383]

4 hours ago, wmw999 said:

 

Edited December 23, 2020 by brenthutch

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

I went to a talk by Naomi Oreskes a few years ago.  Afterwards I asked her about a detail of stratospheric cooling I didn't understand.  She had about a dozen people wanting to talk to her, so she said "that would be a good question for Dr. Strickland over there" who was a physicist.  I asked him and got a good answer.

But if I had an axe to grind I could have reported that "she IGNORED my question because she couldn't even ANSWER it!"

Did she insist that question be submitted in writing and in advance (before her lecture) and have her grad student minions screen out any difficult questions?  Mind you, this was first and ONLY time questions were pre-screened in this setting. 
 

Mann has lost his defamation law suits, because he has ignored court orders to provide discovery.

https://www.steynonline.com/10400/the-costs-of-mann-delay

[wmw999 2,116]

4 hours ago, brenthutch said:

What do you mean by “score points”?  Would that be the same as pointing out gaps in reasoning, and flaws in methodology?  Could that include invalidating the entire hypothesis? (GASP!)

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong”

Einstein

It's treating discussion as a zero-sum game -- I can only win if you lose. It's OK in high school debate, but doesn't belong in real knowledge. High school debate is kind of like science fair. If you're just following the rules, you might "win," but you're only winning the game that is its captive environment. You're not winning with actual contribution. That can happen, but generally not by simply trying to win the game.

Wendy P.

[brenthutch 383]

7 hours ago, wmw999 said:

It's treating discussion as a zero-sum game -- I can only win if you lose. It's OK in high school debate, but doesn't belong in real knowledge. 

I’m sorry Wendy, but you could not be more wrong.  Science is not politics. One doesn’t split the difference to preserve someone’s feelings.  We didn’t compromise on the theory of relativity, plate tectonics, natural selection or the expanding universe.  There were the disrupters and the losers, no middle ground. To the extent we mollycoddle the current crop of “experts” we do it to our detriment.

Edited December 24, 2020 by brenthutch

[SkyDekker 1,121]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Science is not politics.

And yet you have been arguing exactly that about any form of climate sciences that don’t agree with your point of view. 

[brenthutch 383]

6 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

And yet you have been arguing exactly that about any form of climate sciences that don’t agree with your point of view. 

Hardly, I have been steadfastly on the side of science. ( real science)

The fact that we have more polar bears and not fewer (as predicted by climate experts) is not my opinion, it is a fact.  The reality that deserts are shrinking is not my opinion, it is a fact.  Record food production is not my opinion, it is a fact. The 95% reduction in climate related deaths in the last hundred years, is not my opinion, it is a fact.  I could go on but you get the idea 

Edited December 24, 2020 by brenthutch

[brenthutch 383]

No evidence that 2020 Hurricane season was record breaking 
https://www.scienceunderattack.com/

“Despite NOAA’s recognition of what has caused so many Atlantic storms in 2020, activists continue to claim that climate change is making hurricanes stronger and more destructive and increasing the likelihood of more frequent major hurricanes. Pontificates Michael “hockey stick” Mann: “The impacts of climate change are no longer subtle. We’re seeing them play out right now in the form of unprecedented wildfires out West and an unprecedented hurricane season back East.”

Clearly, there’s no evidence for such nonsensical, unscientific statements.”

[brenthutch 383]

A little video which sums it up quite nicely 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/02/10-failed-predictions-video/
 

Before everyone gets their panties in a bunch, the video just lays out what the predictions were who made them and what actually happened.  After viewing the video myself, I was reminded of the H.L. Mencken quote,

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

It is truer today than it ever was.

[lippy 765]

48 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

A little video which sums it up quite nicely 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/02/10-failed-predictions-video/
 

Before everyone gets their panties in a bunch, the video just lays out what the predictions were who made them and what actually happened.  After viewing the video myself, I was reminded of the H.L. Mencken quote,

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

It is truer today than it ever was.

No panties in a bunch (going commando today) but if you haven't figured out by now that nobody  here is going to take anything from 'wattupswiththat.com' seriously, you haven't been paying attention. 

[brenthutch 383]

11 minutes ago, lippy said:

No panties in a bunch (going commando today) but if you haven't figured out by now that nobody  here is going to take anything from 'wattupswiththat.com' seriously, you haven't been paying attention. 

Obviously your virtual panties have been bunched and your head is in the sand.  Don’t be afraid, view the video. If I can read HuffPo and Daily Kos, you can look at something that may be in conflict with your worldview. (Or can you?)  I look forward to your critique.

Edited January 3, 2021 by brenthutch

[lippy 765]

13 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Obviously your virtual panties have been bunched and your head is in the sand.  Don’t be afraid, view the video. If I can read HuffPo and Daily Kos, you can look at something that may be in conflict with your worldview. (Or can you?)  I look forward to your critique.

I'm not afraid and I don't have my head in the sand, but I've given wattsupwiththat the benefit of the doubt and checked out a couple of links you've posted here...in doing so I've seen enough of what they're all about: bullshit quasi-science propaganda posing as 'the truth that the mainstream media doesn't want you to see'.  

 

ETA: I'd never heard of Daily Kos. I've been aware of HuffPost but never went there until just now when I checked out both sites for an idea of what you consider 'the other side's point of view'.  It looks like a bunch of clickbait   Wattsupwiththat?

Edited January 3, 2021 by lippy

[brenthutch 383]

The quasi-science is debunked in the video. For example, “In 1986, scientists at the EPA predicted Florida would see two feet of sea level rise by 2020”. Actual rise....three inches, and much of that is from subsidence.

If you still can’t muster the courage.....

https://junkscience.com/

may be more you speed.

Edited January 3, 2021 by brenthutch

[lippy 765]

19 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The quasi-science is debunked in the video. For example, “In 1986, scientists at the EPA predicted Florida would see two feet of sea level rise by 2020”. Actual rise....three inches, and much of that is from subsidence.

If you still can’t muster the courage.....

https://junkscience.com/

may be more you speed.

Dude, the guy behind junkscience.com still hasn't acknowledged that second-hand smoke is harmful...I guess it's a good analog for how long it'll take some stubborn people to acknowledge climate change.

Steven Milloy of junkscience.com

 

[brenthutch 383]

53 minutes ago, lippy said:

Dude, the guy behind junkscience.com still hasn't acknowledged that second-hand smoke is harmful...I guess it's a good analog for how long it'll take some stubborn people to acknowledge climate change.

 

Who doesn’t acknowledge climate change?  Ice ages, Holocene Optimum, Roman Warm Period, Midieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and the modest warming we are currently experiencing?   All examples of climate change.  I question the apocalyptic predictions that have repeatedly failed to materialize and the notion that we can control bad weather if we just pay a carbon tax, build some windmills and put up some solar panels.

https://www.perspectaweather.com/blog/a-look-back-at-global-tropical-activity-and-us-tornadoes-in-2020global-tropical-activity-below-normalus-tornado-activity-below-normal-and-no-reported-ef-5s

Edited January 3, 2021 by brenthutch

[mistercwood 287]

16 hours ago, brenthutch said:

The quasi-science is debunked in the video. For example, “In 1986, scientists at the EPA predicted Florida would see two feet of sea level rise by 2020”. Actual rise....three inches, and much of that is from subsidence.

It's finally occurred to me that the reason you love these things as "evidence" is that you never, ever factor in that they're almost always based on things proceeding business-as-usual.

Pretty sure behaviours have changed a wee bit over the last 34 years. Might've changed the outcome a smidge.