AGW catastrophism Climate Change Global Warming Omniclimate Science Skepticism

Thank you Skeptical Science

Congratulations to myself. I have just graduated to having a dedicated blog post by Skeptical Science no less.

Surely I’m not yet in the Big League (the author over there is only honesty-challenged dana1981) but for the very same reason I can proudly describe myself now as a Big Minion!

As for what SS has to say about my arguments …well, there’s little to discuss. That post sounds more like the umpteenth attempt to rally the usual, tired troops. Good luck with that.

10 replies on “Thank you Skeptical Science”

but you did get a reference from Zeds strznge thingy…the ultimate compliment

It is my sad duty to inform you that the linking by SS had produced not much of a bump in the readership figures for this blog (contrarily eg to the link from WUWT).

I wonder if dana1981 ha chosen that name to indicate how many people actually hang about SS?

For all the moaning and whining about their inability to “communicate ‘the science'” that we’ve heard over the last year – not to mention the futile attempts by the shoot-from-the-lip “Rapid Response Team” – you’d think that they would have learned that sneer ‘n smear is not the best “communication” strategy with which to win friends and influence people.

Yet it seems to be preferred tactic in their “debating” arsenal (supplemented by rote repetitions of various and sundry mantras of the month!)

hro001 – would you ask kangaroos to run, or elephants to somersault? The SS guys, like the vast majority of warmist website owners, are bound to look distasteful and misanthropic. Otherwise, they would not be warmists, would they?

whoops they have painted themselves into a nasty corner here:

“It’s understandable that those who are in denial about anthropogenic climate change are shifting the goalposts now that the BEST results have made the accuracy of the surface temperature record almost impossible to deny.”

Once it occurs to them that the BEST picture makes the hockey-stick untenable, there will be some spectacular back-tracking. Get your screen-shots now!

diogenes – I think dana1981’s problem, as usual, is that he’s not read a single word of what BEST has written. We’ve seen the same issue with Tamino (and Richard Black, and countless other journalists), and only the relative professionality of the RC team has saved Gavin et al from making the same mistake.

What that BEST wrote has dana or Tamino not read? I just wonder where you get this idea?

My thought process is you don’t even have the mathematical capabilities to remotely understand what Tamino is even talking about…


Of course, they should have noticed your blog over here, too. Gotta get those hits up, you know.

As for the arguments, there’s nothing new in the garbage on the SS post. It can be broken down into two major errors:

1) The first half is a stinging slam of those dishonorable deniers. First they all said that BEST would prove them right, then they dissed poor Dr. Muller as soon as the wrong data came out!
Never mind that
a) Most folks I know have always said that we don’t doubt the temperature record’s heating trend in the last 150 years.
b) SS’s selective reporting seems to have missed all of the dissing going on on the AGW side of the tracks for their own reasons.
c) Muller’s initial interpretation of the uncertainty finally shows the true story of the instrument record. It’s about as reliable as a crystal ball once you go back past the last century. We may as well use Mann’s trees and forget about thermometers.
d) The same data, inasmuch as they can be taken from the cloud of error bars, show a much more impressive heating all the way back to Napoleon’s days. Granted, it was probably due to all that CO2 created by the decaying bodies of that bloody century’s wars. Or maybe it was due to man’s exploitation of poor Gaia; after all, we had just passed the Tipping Point of 1 billion people that Doktor Schellnhuber warns us about. Heaven knows we weren’t burning much oil and coal back then. Could have been all those windmills.

2) SS goes through the full reconstruction of the great AGW monologue one more time–just in case you missed it the first time. The supporters are certainly pumping up the volume these days, and it may have something to do with the Fatal Flaw.

You see, what all of the AGW cheerleaders and bandwagon passengers clearly realize is that they have constructed a house of cards. I don’t know if you’ve ever tried to build one yourself, but there is a feature of these structures that becomes obvious on the first try. That is, every single card must do its part in holding up the house. One slip, one card shifted ever so slightly, and the whole thing comes crashing down.
The warmist defense these days is nothing more than an attempt at distraction; they are desperately trying to convince the public that each one of their arguments somehow supports independently the whole AGW theory. Knock one down, all the others still stand in support, right?
So, regardless of temperature data the models tell us the world is warming; a decade of cooling just means we need to add another card to the stack (aerosols, Chinese coal, ocean hide-and-seek, whatever); so what if the hockey stick is broken, we have thermometers. And we always have Physics on our side!

What the warmists must keep us from remembering is that the house of cards falls when even one card is removed. Like all spoiled children (thanks, Donna) they hate that because it is so UNFAIR. Sure would be nice to get the null hypothesis turned around–that’ll show those bully skeptics.

It is a piece of cake tearing down AGW–there aren’t many cards that are stable on their own. Just take your pick and push.

Leave a Reply - Lascia un commento

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.