Global fry-up.

It's ' Jew '- you prosemitic moron- and only Jewish assholes get treated like assholes. Decent Jews treat them like assholes too.

Still, we're all frying together- good Jews, bad Jews and even prosemitic maggots.
A bit of intended diversion brings you right back to the chemistry of death, scab- to which you are a noted contributor.
 
moon said:
It's ' Jew '- you prosemitic moron- and only Jewish assholes get treated like assholes. Decent Jews treat them like assholes too.

Still, we're all frying together- good Jews, bad Jews and even prosemitic maggots.
A bit of intended diversion brings you right back to the chemistry of death, scab- to which you are a noted contributor.
Click to expand...

[h=1]90% of Israeli Jews call themselves Zionists, Herzl Day poll finds[/h]
https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/9...emselves-Zionists-Herzl-Day-poll-finds-454347


https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/9...emselves-Zionists-Herzl-Day-poll-finds-454347
 
moon said:
Tch, tch. Let's shove the global thermometer up your ass, maggot. You deniers deserve it.
Click to expand...

Eminent atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen's opening statement to a House of Commons committee in 2012. He literally wrote the book on atmospheric physics.


Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.
Click to expand...

https://judithcurry.com/2012/02/27/lindzens-seminar-at-the-house-of-commons/
 
Last edited:
He'll fry along with you, maggot.



Well, well- turns out he's a Jewish coal merchant- right up your alley, maggot

The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now".[76] However, on June 8, 2005 they reported that Lindzen insisted that he had been misquoted, after James Annan contacted Lindzen to make the bet but claimed that "Lindzen would take only 50 to 1 odds".[77]

The Guardian reported in June 2016 that Lindzen has been a beneficiary of Peabody Energy, a coal company that has funded multiple groups contesting the climate consensus.[78]
Click to expand...

Haw, haw.....haw.
 
Last edited:
moon said:
He'll fry along with you, maggot.

Aincha gonna claim he's a mistreated Jew ? Haw, haw.....haw.
Click to expand...

Surprised that you, and that merry bunch of Joo baiters you hang out with, haven't given him the benefit of your vast expertise in all matters climate related!!
 


Yes it’s scorching, but claims that the heatwave is down to climate change are just hot air: June was even hotter when Victoria was on the throne, writes CHRISTOPHER BOOKER

There is at least one thing about this summer of 2018 on which we can all agree: the past months have unquestionably been swelteringly, abnormally hot.
And not just here in Britain, but in many other countries right across the northern hemisphere. In the UK, our own heatwave began in May and has continued relentlessly ever since. In Japan, where one city claimed the highest temperature ever recorded in that country, topping 106 degrees Fahrenheit (41 degrees Centigrade), the heatwave has been declared ‘a natural disaster’.

Meanwhile, wildfires in Greece have killed at least 80 people, leading to claims that this has been the worst disaster of its kind seen in Europe since World War II.
There have been numerous other claims of temperature records being broken, all the way from California to Armenia and Azerbaijan (although here in Britain we have not so far seen anything to equal the 101.3f — 38.5c — that was recorded near Faversham, Kent, on August 10, 2003). But more sober experts have raised question marks over the reliability of these temperature measurements, because of the siting of the thermometers which recorded them. In every case, it turned out, they broke the golden rule that such thermometers must not be placed near heat-retaining structures or surfaces, such as in the centre of large cities, near airport runways or on Tarmac car parks. This is because their readings are then distorted by the so-called ‘urban heat island effect’, which can exaggerate temperatures by up to 2 degrees Celsius or more.

One comical example of this was on June 28, when the UK Met Office rushed to announce that the 91.7f (33.2c) reached at Motherwell made it the hottest temperature recorded in Scotland. Only when it was pointed out that its thermometer was in the middle of a Tarmac car park did the Met Office hastily withdraw its claim, with the rather sad explanation that the reading had been distorted by a ‘car left nearby with its engine running’. But all these excitable little mishaps notwithstanding, it has certainly been abnormally hot. Above all, this raises the question: how unprecedented has this summer’s heat really been? And, secondly, how long was it going to be before certain climate scientists came round to telling us that this was unquestionably proof the world is in the grip of man-made global warming?

At last this week they have come in on cue, with Peter Stott, head of climate change predictions at the Met Office, and Rowan Sutton, head of atmospheric science at Reading University, both making that point loud and clear. As Professor Sutton told us on yesterday’s BBC Radio 4 Today programme, thanks to climate change we can expect summers like this one to become more frequent. And even if we curb our carbon dioxide emissions in accord with the famous Paris climate agreement of 2015, this will continue for decades to come. Perhaps it is time, therefore, to start looking at some proper historical evidence in order to gain a more balanced perspective on what is really going on.

For a start, here in the UK we have the longest-running set of temperature data in the world, the Central England Temperature Record (CET), which goes back to 1659. And this shows that June of this year was only the 18th warmest June in more than 350 years — the hottest being as long ago as 1846. So this kind of summer heat is far from unprecedented. In fact, as people have begun to observe, the nearest parallel to what has been happening this year was the celebrated ‘drought summer’ of 1976. That was the year when, as older folk vividly recall, the heatwave lasted virtually unbroken for three months, until rain finally came at the end of August. And, according to the CET, those daily temperatures 42 years ago frequently beat this summer’s figures hands down.

But there is another striking parallel between this year and 1976 — as there also is with that other heatwave summer of 2003 when the highest single temperature ever recorded in Britain was set. In each case the cause of the prolonged heat has been a large area of high pressure that has sucked in hot air from the Sahara (when my next-door neighbour returned to Heathrow this week, she found her car covered in this desert sand). This in turn has been caused and prolonged by a movement of the jet stream (which dictates much of the northern hemisphere’s weather conditions) because of cooler ocean temperatures in the Atlantic. This movement has kept lower-pressure weather formations containing moister and cooler air parked further out in the Atlantic to the north-west of Britain and Europe.

Sweltering
Although the causes of this cooler Atlantic are an entirely natural cyclical shift, the global warming-obsessed Met Office became so excited by that heatwave in 2003 that the following year it produced a report based on computer models, called Uncertainty, Risk And Climate Change. This predicted that baking summers would soon be so frequent that by 2040 more than half of Europe’s summers would be hotter than 2003. But the same 2004 report predicted that by 2014, global temperatures would have risen by 0.3c. In fact, during those ten years, temperatures recorded by weather satellites did not rise at all. Neither, until the past few weeks, have we seen a single summer to compete with the sweltering 2003.

We need to recall such facts, if only to remind ourselves that there are those so convinced of their particular theory of how climate works that they will leap on any evidence which seems to confirm that they and their computer models are correct. Although there have recently been claims in the U.S. that America is getting hotter than ever before, more than half the temperature records for the 50 U.S. states were set in the baking ‘dustbowl years’ of the Thirties. Another 13 state records are even older. Indeed, only two state records were set in the 21st century, at a time when — we are constantly told — increases in industrial emissions are causing dangerous warming of the planet.

Drastic
On yesterday’s Today programme, Professor Sutton of Reading University and his BBC interviewer agreed on how important it is that the world should follow the Paris climate agreement by making very drastic reductions in its emissions of CO2. What neither of them seemed to realise was that the much-touted Paris Accord was no more than a wholly non-binding Western wish list. Even at the time, the rest of the world — led by China and India, respectively the world’s largest and third-largest CO2 emitters — made no secret of the fact that it had no intention of reducing its CO2 emissions.

In fact, buried away in the small print of the documents every country had to supply before Paris, it was clear the rest of the world would continue to build coal-fired power stations. China planned by 2030 to double its emissions and India to treble them, to keep their economies growing. Despite all pretences to the contrary, Paris was little more than an empty charade. But the good news is that this may well have not the slightest effect on the world’s climate. We shall continue to have abnormally hot summers from time to time, just as we did in 1976 and 1846, way back before global warming was invented. Meanwhile, we can only keep praying for rain.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor...-was-on-the-throne-writes-christopher-booker/
 
Last edited:
Moron. We're not talking WEATHER- we're talking climatic trend to heat to which there can be NO denial. You've been fucked with the rough end of a pineapple.

Go and commiserate with your Jewish coal merchant.
 
moon said:
Moron. We're not talking WEATHER- we're talking climatic trend to heat to which there can be NO denial. You've been fucked with the rough end of a pineapple.

Go and commiserate with your Jewish coal merchant.
Click to expand...

Yes I am sure that your Bullshit Award (BA) in Gender Studies comes in very handy.

The perils of ‘near-tabloid science

Posted on July 22, 2018 by curryja | 214 Comments
by Judith Curry

A remarkable essay by esteemed oceanographer Carl Wunsch.

While doing a literature survey for my paper on Climate Uncertainty and Risk, I came across a remarkable paper published in 2010 by MIT oceanographer Carl Wunsch, entitled Towards Understanding the Paleocean. The paper is remarkable for several reasons — not only that it was published but that the paper was apparently invited by journal editor. The paper is well worth reading in its entirety, for a fascinating perspective on paleo-oceanography and paleoclimatology. Here I provide excerpts of relevance to the sociology of climate science:

Introduction

From one point of view, scientific communities without adequate data have a distinct advantage: one can construct interesting and exciting stories and rationalizations with little or no risk of observational refutation. Colorful, sometimes charismatic, characters come to dominate the field, constructing their interpretations of a few intriguing, but indefinite observations that appeal to their followers, and which eventually emerge as “textbook truths.”
Consider the following characteristics ascribed to one particular, notoriously data-poor, field (Smolin, 2006), as having:

1. Tremendous self confidence, leading to a sense of entitlement and of belonging to an elite community of experts.

2. An unusually monolithic community, with a strong sense of consensus, whether driven by the evidence or not, and an unusual uniformity of views on open questions. These views seem related to the existence of a hierarchical structure in which the ideas of a few leaders dictate the viewpoint, strategy, and direction of the field.

3. In some cases a sense of identification with the group, akin to identification with a religious faith or political platform.

4. A strong sense of the boundary between the group and other experts.

5. A disregard for and disinterest in the ideas, opinions, and work of experts who are not part of the group, and a preference for talking only with other members of the community.

6. A tendency to interpret evidence optimistically, to believe exaggerated or incorrect statements of results and to disregard the possibility that the theory might be wrong. This is coupled with a tendency to believe results are true because they are ’widely believed,’ even if one has not checked (or even seen) the proof oneself.

7. A lack of appreciation for the extent to which a research program ought to involve risk.

Smolin (2006) was writing about string theory in physics. Nonetheless, observers of the paleoclimate scene might recognize some common characteristics.
Smolin’s (7) is perhaps the most important in his list. Good scientists seek constantly to test the basic tenets of their field–not work hard to buttress them. Routine science usually adds a trifling piece of support to everyone’s assumptions. Exciting, novel, important, science examines the basic underpinnings of those assumptions and either reports no conflict or, the contrary–that maybe it isn’t true. Imagine Darwin working hard to fit all of his observational data into the framework of Genesis (today we laugh at the so-called intelligent design community for doing just that).

The Hope for a Simple World

As both human beings and scientists, we always hope for explanations of the world that are conceptually simple yet with important predictive skills (in the wide sense of that term). Thus the strong desire that box models should explain climate change, or that simple orbital kinematics can explain the glacial cycles, or that climate change is periodic, is understandable. But some natural phenomena are intrinsically complex and attempts to represent them in over- simplified fashion are disastrous. The pitfall, which has not always been avoided, is in claiming–because an essential element has been understood–that it necessarily explains what is seen in nature. Extension of a simplified description or explanation outside of its domain of applicability is of little or no concern to anyone outside the academic community–unless it begins to control observational strategies or be used to make predictions about future behavior under disturbed conditions.

But strikingly little attention has been paid to examining the basic physical elements of “what everyone knows.”
The model problem

[General circulation] models now dominate discussions of the behavior of the climate system. As with future climate, where no data exist at all, the models promise descriptions of climate change–past and future–without the painful necessity of obtaining supporting observations. The apparent weight given to model behavior in discussions of paleoclimate arises, also, sometimes simply because they are “sophisticated” and difficult to understand, as well as appearing to substitute for missing data. That models are incomplete representations of reality is their great power. But they should never be mistaken for the real world.

If a model fails to replicate the climate system over a few decades, the assumption that it is therefore skillful over thousands or millions of years is a non sequitur. Models have thousands of tunable parameters and the ability to make them behave “reasonably” over long time intervals is not in doubt. That error estimates are not easy to make does not mean they are not necessary for interpretation and use of model extrapolations.

Concluding remarks

Some of the published exaggeration of the degree of understanding, and of over-simplification is best understood as a combination of human psychology and the pressures of fund-raising. Anyone who has struggled for several years to make sense of a complicated data set, only to conclude that “the data proved inadequate for this purpose” is in a quandary. Publishing such an inference would be very difficult, and few would notice if it were published. As the outcome of a funded grant, it is at best disappointing and at worst a calamity for a renewal or promotion. A parallel problem would emerge from a model calculation that produced no “exciting” new behavior. Thus the temptation to over-interpret the data set is a very powerful one.

Similarly, if the inference is that the data are best rationalized as an interaction of many factors of comparable amplitude described through the temporal and spatial evolution of a complicated fluid model, the story does not lend itself to a one-sentence, intriguing, explanation (“carbon dioxide was trapped in the abyssal ocean for thousands of years;” “millennial variability is con- trolled by solar variations”; “climate change is a bipolar seesaw”), and the near-impossibility of publishing in the near-tabloid science media (Science, Nature) with their consequent press conferences and celebrity. Amplifying this tendency is the relentlessly increasing use by ignorant or lazy administrators and promotion committees of supposed “objective” measures of scientific quality such as publication rates, citation frequencies, and impact factors. The pressures for “exciting” results, over-simplified stories, and notoriety, are evident throughout the climate and paleoclimate literature.

The price being paid is not a small one. Often important technical details are omitted, and alternative hypotheses arbitrarily suppressed in the interests of telling a simple story. Some of these papers would not pass peer-review in the more conventional professional journals, but lend themselves to headlines and simplistic stories written by non-scientist media people. In the long-term, this tabloid-like publication cannot be good for the science–which developed peer review in specialized journals over many decades beginning in the 17th Century–for very good reasons.
Click to expand...


https://judithcurry.com/2018/07/22/the-perils-of-near-tabloid-science/
 
Last edited:
Maggot- many paragraphs of trollshit is still trollshit. It's just LOTS of trollshit.

Go and commiserate with your Jewish coal merchant.
 
moon said:
Maggot- many paragraphs of trollshit is still trollshit. It's just LOTS of trollshit.

Go and commiserate with your Jewish coal merchant.
Click to expand...

So you think your gender studies BA outsmarts world class climatologist Judith Curry or leading oceanographer Carl Wunsch? How arrogant and pathetic you are, cockroach.
 
Too late to do much now.

We must encourage the youth to NOT procreate and expose further generations to this increasingly unlivable planet.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Too late to do much now.

We must encourage the youth to NOT procreate and expose further generations to this increasingly unlivable planet.
Click to expand...

Yes there should be Sandmen like in Logan's Run, Moontwat of course would be one of the first into the Carousel. The biggest problem facing the word is population, reduce the rate of increase and everything else falls into place. Maybe it's about time we ditched political correctness and told Muslims and Catholics to stop having so many children?
 
Take ' world class climatologist Judith Curry or leading oceanographer Carl Wunsch ' with you and go night swimming off Cornwall, maggot. Haw, haw.....haw.
 
You can always find an expert contrarian. When 98 percent of climate scientists say it is a big problem and man is a huge contributor, I tend to lean their way. Sorry. People who do not want to accept the facts can always find an excuse. But this expert does not balance with all the rest. Temps are at highest levels recorded and have been 15 out of last 16 years.
 
Nordberg said:
You can always find an expert contrarian. When 98 percent of climate scientists say it is a big problem and man is a huge contributor, I tend to lean their way. Sorry. People who do not want to accept the facts can always find an excuse. But this expert does not balance with all the rest. Temps are at highest levels recorded and have been 15 out of last 16 years.
Click to expand...

There's always some clown to repeat that 97% canard even though it has been thoroughly debunked, not least by Richard Tol who worked on the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Working Group II. It just goes to prove that Mark Twain was right when he said a lie can be halfway around the world before the truth has even got its boots on. By repeating that load of tosh you've revealed that you know little about climate change beyond what you've been fed.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2014/jun/06/97-consensus-global-warming
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top