Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[birdog1960]

 

The supreme irony of the bolded being that that is PRECISELY what global warming activists do.

the personalities of the scientists you know must be much weaker than the ones i do.

Edited January 20, 2015 by birdog1960

[DC Tom]

the personalities of the scientists you know must be much weaker than the ones i do.

Wasn't my point. Point was: when it suits your argument, you suddenly decry a tactic in support of the honesty of the scientific method that you otherwise routinely and consistently support in the suppression of it.

 

If any of the scientists you "know" were to show any skepticism of global warming, you know damn well that you'd be leading the charge to browbeat them with "consensus." You !@#$ing hypocrite.

[birdog1960]

Wasn't my point. Point was: when it suits your argument, you suddenly decry a tactic in support of the honesty of the scientific method that you otherwise routinely and consistently support in the suppression of it.

 

If any of the scientists you "know" were to show any skepticism of global warming, you know damn well that you'd be leading the charge to browbeat them with "consensus." You !@#$ing hypocrite.

some of the greatest scientists made their name bucking consensus. this is a perfect opportunity for a better idea if one exists.

[DC Tom]

And speaking of global warming hypocrisy:

 

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/20/1700-private-jets-fly-to-davos-to-discuss-global-warming/

[Azalin]

so your argument against the fact that many very talented people either have not realized that they have devoted their working life to a lie, have realized it and decided to continue the lie or just don't care is that they are invariably pummeled into submission by the consensus. and their disincentive to bring down a faulty thesis and replace it with a better one of their own is that they feel threatened by the consensus or loss of employment.

 

try again. many of the people you are dismissing are rare intellects that have plenty of alternative opportunities.

You're entitled to interpret what I'm saying any way you choose, but if you care to understand what I'm saying, let me put it another way: scientists, no matter how talented or brilliant they may be, can not reach an accurate conclusion with regard to climate change when they draw the baseline from presumed numbers representative of a time more than a century before their own means of measurement was ever developed. In addition, I am always skeptical of studies that are funded by grants or outside agencies, due to the possible interest on the part of the organization funding the study, and the disincentive to those conducting the study to reach a conclusive end to the project, shutting off the need for further funds.

 

And to focus on consensus is a waste of time. Consensus is not conclusive, except to the intellectually lazy.

[meazza]

And speaking of global warming hypocrisy:

 

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/20/1700-private-jets-fly-to-davos-to-discuss-global-warming/

 

 

 

Davos, which has become a playground of sorts for the global elite, is expected to feature at least 40 heads of state and 2,500 top business executives. Former Vice President-turned-carbon billionaire Al Gore and rapper Pharrell Williams will be there as well; each plans to discuss global warming and recycling respectively.

[birdog1960]

i guarantee that the good folks of davos are worried about the issue. skiing there has been pretty iffy there the last few winters, even at the highest elevations...

 

http://www.onthesnow.com/graubunden/davos-klosters/webcams.html

Edited January 20, 2015 by birdog1960

[Tiberius]

And speaking of global warming hypocrisy:

 

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/20/1700-private-jets-fly-to-davos-to-discuss-global-warming/

I'm sure if we put in a cap and trade system that people would still fly private jets

You're entitled to interpret what I'm saying any way you choose, but if you care to understand what I'm saying, let me put it another way: scientists, no matter how talented or brilliant they may be, can not reach an accurate conclusion with regard to climate change when they draw the baseline from presumed numbers representative of a time more than a century before their own means of measurement was ever developed. In addition, I am always skeptical of studies that are funded by grants or outside agencies, due to the possible interest on the part of the organization funding the study, and the disincentive to those conducting the study to reach a conclusive end to the project, shutting off the need for further funds.

 

And to focus on consensus is a waste of time. Consensus is not conclusive, except to the intellectually lazy.

Right. I'm pretty sure your political outlook completely colors your "scientific" reasoning. You remind me of the people that that tried to claim smoking was healthy because you couldn't prove smoking caused cancer. Hey, some smokers never got cancer! I'm sure you have a point about old stats. Fine, but they don't take away from what they argue about why they believe the climate is changing.

 

Do you also doubt this:

 

Human activities are altering the carbon cycle—both by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and by influencing the ability of natural sinks, like forests, to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. While CO2 emissions come from a variety of natural sources, human-related emissions are responsible for the increase that has occurred in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. [1]

 

[Azalin]

I'm sure if we put in a cap and trade system that people would still fly private jets

Right. I'm pretty sure your political outlook completely colors your "scientific" reasoning. You remind me of the people that that tried to claim smoking was healthy because you couldn't prove smoking caused cancer. Hey, some smokers never got cancer! I'm sure you have a point about old stats. Fine, but they don't take away from what they argue about why they believe the climate is changing.

 

Do you also doubt this:

 

There was nothing of my 'political outlook' in anything I said. All I did was explain the rationale for my skepticism. You can agree or disagree - I couldn't care less.

 

And yes, I doubt any conclusive statements on both climate change and humanity's direct influence on it, both pro and con. Both deniers and alarmists are basing their conclusions on incomplete science.

[meazza]

I'm sure if we put in a cap and trade system that people would still fly private jets

 

 

The whole point is that they are flying their private jets to the Global Warming Summit!

[birdog1960]

 

The whole point is that they are flying their private jets to the Global Warming Summit!

it's an economic summit organized and attended mostly by elites (with private planes). the environmental stuff is window dressing as iare the 1 or 2 lectures by oxfam reps on the prediction that over 1/2 of the worlds wealth will be in the hands of 1% starting next year. they'll likely be 20 reporters and 2 attendees at these talks.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/19/us-davos-meeting-inequality-idUSKBN0KS0SW20150119

Edited January 20, 2015 by birdog1960

[Alaska Darin]

it's an economic summit organized and attended mostly by elites (with private planes). the environmental stuff is window dressing as iare the 1 or 2 lectures by oxfam reps on the prediction that over 1/2 of the worlds wealth will be in the hands of 1% starting next year. they'll likely be 20 reporters and 2 attendees at these talks.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/19/us-davos-meeting-inequality-idUSKBN0KS0SW20150119

So despite a world that enacts more and more of the liberal agenda every single day, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer? Who could have predicted that? /rhetorical

[Tiberius]

The whole point is that they are flying their private jets to the Global Warming Summit!

So what? Why should that influence my thinking on the science, policy matters or stratification of wealth at all??

So despite a world that enacts more and more of the liberal agenda every single day, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer? Who could have predicted that? /rhetorical

So obviously the liberal/socialist agenda isn't stopping economic growth. So what?

There was nothing of my 'political outlook' in anything I said. All I did was explain the rationale for my skepticism. You can agree or disagree - I couldn't care less.

 

And yes, I doubt any conclusive statements on both climate change and humanity's direct influence on it, both pro and con. Both deniers and alarmists are basing their conclusions on incomplete science.

 

No I think it's pretty straight forward. Does co2 help trap heat and increase other factors that trap heat? And is there more co2 in the air? Hard to get past those really basic questions there

[Dante]

And speaking of global warming hypocrisy:

 

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/20/1700-private-jets-fly-to-davos-to-discuss-global-warming/

lol...classic.

 

 

 

So despite a world that enacts more and more of the liberal agenda every single day, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer? Who could have predicted that? /rhetorical

I think they are all meeting there figuring out how to get us even more under their collective thumbs.

[DC Tom]

No I think it's pretty straight forward. Does co2 help trap heat and increase other factors that trap heat? And is there more co2 in the air? Hard to get past those really basic questions there

 

CO2? Don't you mean "carbon?"

 

It's actually very easy to get past those really basic questions. I did so several pages back.

[birdog1960]

So despite a world that enacts more and more of the liberal agenda every single day, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer? Who could have predicted that? /rhetorical

i don't agree with your premise. more and more power is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, just, not coincidentally, like wealth. the hope for the rest of us is that those meeting in davos see that the current course, left unaltered, doesn't end well for them, either.

[Tiberius]

CO2? Don't you mean "carbon?"

 

It's actually very easy to get past those really basic questions. I did so several pages back.

 

Get past them to what? You are proving, say, these guys wrong? http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

 

And why should I believe you and not them?

[Greg F]

or perhaps the majority of organizational members are convinced of the high likelihood of future calamity and are trying their best to change its course.

Actually they are not as Judith Curry points out in her post The 52% Consensus. It would also be a good idea to read Dr. Curry's response to the AMS Statement on Climate Change.

 

your argument discounts the time, effort and innate intelligence required to obtain and maintain a doctoral position at a highly regarded institution like NASA.

So you are apparently unaware of confirmation bias and by extension the reason for the scientific method. For some reason you appear to believe that scientist are immune to such things in spite of overwhelming historical evidence that they are not. How is that the rocket scientist at NASA, who were aware of the vulnerable of the rubber O-rings to failure at low temperatures, allowed the launch of the space shuttle Challenger?

 

The late Dr. Thomas Gold touched on the subject in his essay "New Ideas in Science". Dr. Gold had developed an interest in the workings of the inner ear, specifically tinnitus (ringing in the ear) after WWII. The theories at the time all involved some passive mechanism none of which could adequately explain the phenomenon. Dr. Gold proposed a active mechanism that explained the effect which was simply ignored by the so called experts. It was more than 30 years later that Dr. Gold theory was finally acknowledged to be correct. Dr. Gold referred to this ignoring evidence as the "herd instinct". A quick excerpt:

 

If a large proportion of the scientific community in one field is guided by the herd instinct, then they cannot adopt another viewpoint since they cannot imagine that the whole herd will swing around at the same time. It is merely the logistics of the situation. Even if everybody were willing to change course, nobody individually will be sure that he will not be outside the herd when he does so. Perhaps if they could do it as neatly as a flock of starlings, they would. So this inertia-producing effect is a very serious one.

 

It is not just the herd instinct in the individuals that you have to worry about, but you have to worry about how it is augmented by the way in which science is handled. If support from peers, if moral and financial consequences are at stake, then on the whole staying with the herd is the successful policy for the individual who is depending on these, but it is not the successful policy for the pursuit of science.

 

Staying with the herd to many people also has an advantage that they would not run the risk of exposing their ignorance. If one departs from the herd, then one will be asked, one will be charged to explain why one has departed from the herd. One has to be able to offer the detailed justifications, and one's understanding of the subject will be criticized. If one stays with the herd, then mostly there is no such charge. "Yes, I believe that because doesn't everybody else believe that?" That is enough justification. It isn't to me, but it is to very many other people. The sheep in the interior of the herd are well protected from the bite in the ankle by the sheep dog

.

The late Richard Feynman in his Caltech commencement address in 1974 (Cargo Cult Science) warns scientist to not fool themselves. He gives this historical example:

 

 

We have learned a lot from experience about how to handle some of the ways we fool ourselves. One example: Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of an electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bit bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.

 

Why didn't they discover the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of--this history--because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong--and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number close to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that. We've learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don't have that kind of a disease.

That was 1974 and indeed climate science does indeed suffer from that disease as evidenced by the graph of models vs. reality I posted previously. Scientists are human. They like all other humans are subjected to confirmation bias. If they weren't there would be no need for the scientific method. Consensus is not science, it is politics. The scientific method simply says if the theory doesn't match nature then the theory is wrong.

[Alaska Darin]

i don't agree with your premise.

Of course you don't. You're a !@#$ing drone. When you can't depend on intellect, you can always fall back to a place called "Hope."

[Tiberius]

Actually they are not as Judith Curry points out in her post The 52% Consensus. It would also be a good idea to read Dr. Curry's response to the AMS Statement on Climate Change.

 

 

So you are apparently unaware of confirmation bias and by extension the reason for the scientific method. For some reason you appear to believe that scientist are immune to such things in spite of overwhelming historical evidence that they are not. How is that the rocket scientist at NASA, who were aware of the vulnerable of the rubber O-rings to failure at low temperatures, allowed the launch of the space shuttle Challenger?

 

The late Dr. Thomas Gold touched on the subject in his essay "New Ideas in Science". Dr. Gold had developed an interest in the workings of the inner ear, specifically tinnitus (ringing in the ear) after WWII. The theories at the time all involved some passive mechanism none of which could adequately explain the phenomenon. Dr. Gold proposed a active mechanism that explained the effect which was simply ignored by the so called experts. It was more than 30 years later that Dr. Gold theory was finally acknowledged to be correct. Dr. Gold referred to this ignoring evidence as the "herd instinct". A quick excerpt:

 

.

The late Richard Feynman in his Caltech commencement address in 1974 (Cargo Cult Science) warns scientist to not fool themselves. He gives this historical example:

 

 

That was 1974 and indeed climate science does indeed suffer from that disease as evidenced by the graph of models vs. reality I posted previously. Scientists are human. They like all other humans are subjected to confirmation bias. If they weren't there would be no need for the scientific method. Consensus is not science, it is politics. The scientific method simply says if the theory doesn't match nature then the theory is wrong.

Question. Do you think you might be suffering from the same herd mentality that scientists are suffering from, as you say? Is it a possibility that the Conservatives are ignoring the science because they can't see beyond the herd? That's a possibility, too, isn't it?

[DC Tom]

So you are apparently unaware of confirmation bias and by extension the reason for the scientific method. For some reason you appear to believe that scientist are immune to such things in spite of overwhelming historical evidence that they are not. How is that the rocket scientist at NASA, who were aware of the vulnerable of the rubber O-rings to failure at low temperatures, allowed the launch of the space shuttle Challenger?

 

That's a little different. The engineers pretty much agreed that there was a significant risk in launching. The bureaucrats overruled them for political reasons (in order to not delay Reagan's "Teachers in Space" launch).

 

That's because that, while the engineers had a solid and empirical basis for estimate, and knew how to use it; the bureaucrats relied on an intuitive sense of risk assessment based on a shallow understanding of the engineering and biased by wishful thinking.

[birdog1960]

Actually they are not as Judith Curry points out in her post The 52% Consensus. It would also be a good idea to read Dr. Curry's response to the AMS Statement on Climate Change.

 

 

So you are apparently unaware of confirmation bias and by extension the reason for the scientific method. For some reason you appear to believe that scientist are immune to such things in spite of overwhelming historical evidence that they are not. How is that the rocket scientist at NASA, who were aware of the vulnerable of the rubber O-rings to failure at low temperatures, allowed the launch of the space shuttle Challenger?

 

The late Dr. Thomas Gold touched on the subject in his essay "New Ideas in Science". Dr. Gold had developed an interest in the workings of the inner ear, specifically tinnitus (ringing in the ear) after WWII. The theories at the time all involved some passive mechanism none of which could adequately explain the phenomenon. Dr. Gold proposed a active mechanism that explained the effect which was simply ignored by the so called experts. It was more than 30 years later that Dr. Gold theory was finally acknowledged to be correct. Dr. Gold referred to this ignoring evidence as the "herd instinct". A quick excerpt:

 

.

The late Richard Feynman in his Caltech commencement address in 1974 (Cargo Cult Science) warns scientist to not fool themselves. He gives this historical example:

 

 

That was 1974 and indeed climate science does indeed suffer from that disease as evidenced by the graph of models vs. reality I posted previously. Scientists are human. They like all other humans are subjected to confirmation bias. If they weren't there would be no need for the scientific method. Consensus is not science, it is politics. The scientific method simply says if the theory doesn't match nature then the theory is wrong.

bias exists. no doubt. the presence of people like curry however, speaks to the fact that there will always be those in science that question whatever is perceived to be the truth at the moment. that's what scientific method is all about. to me, it appears she's had her say in multiple forums including those of the AMS and is still widely considered an outlier. http://climatecrocks.com/2014/01/20/judith-currys-testimony-where-theres-smoke/

 

the o ring example was answered by tom; a set of events i was unaware of. sounds eerily familiar to bush II's stifling of NASA's opinions on climate change during his reign.

 

my colleagues in ENT would be surprised to know that there is only one recognized mechanism for tinnitus. http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/tinnitus/basics/causes/CON-20021487. that would make their job a wehole lot easier.

Edited January 21, 2015 by birdog1960

[birdog1960]

a nice feature article on dr curry in that rag science publication, nature: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.html.

 

some background is often helpful.

Edited January 21, 2015 by birdog1960

[DC Tom]

a nice feature article on dr curry in that rag science publication, nature: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.html.

 

some background is often helpful.

 

 

That's funny. She's of the same stance I am, making the same arguments I do, but you dismiss me and embrace her.

 

Tell me again you're not a hypocritical dipshit.

[birdog1960]

 

 

That's funny. She's of the same stance I am, making the same arguments I do, but you dismiss me and embrace her.

 

Tell me again you're not a hypocritical dipshit.

i don't embrace her. the article i linked was very critical of her imo.

[Greg F]

That's a little different. The engineers pretty much agreed that there was a significant risk in launching. The bureaucrats overruled them for political reasons (in order to not delay Reagan's "Teachers in Space" launch).

 

That's because that, while the engineers had a solid and empirical basis for estimate, and knew how to use it; the bureaucrats relied on an intuitive sense of risk assessment based on a shallow understanding of the engineering and biased by wishful thinking.

While I agree that political considerations drove the decision my personal experience assumed that the NASA managers would have science or engineering degrees. If my assumption was incorrect then you would have a valid point of a "shallow understanding of the engineering". So I did a bit of research to see if my assumption was ill advised.

 

From the record of the investigation and a bit of searching I found the following about the managers responsible for the decision to launch for both NASA and Morton Thiokol (the engineering firm that designed the rocket booster).

 

Morton Thiokol Management

 

1) Jerald Mason - Senior executive who encouraged Lund to reassess his decision not to launch. Had a degree in Aeronautical Engineering from Ohio State University.

 

2) Bob Lund - Engineering Vice President was also an Engineer.

 

3) Joe Kilminster - Engineer in a management position who initially supported the engineering recommendations but changed the recommendation after a heated discussion with the two NASA managers.

 

4) Alan McDonald - Director of the Solid Rocket Motors project- refused to sign the official launch authorization and appealed to NASA management not to launch.

 

NASA Management - Marshall Space Flight Center

 

1) Larry Mulloy - manager of the space shuttle solid rocket booster program. challenged the engineers' decision not to launch. He has a B.S. in engineering from Louisiana State University.

 

2) George Hardy - deputy director of science and engineering. He Was also project engineer on the Saturn 1B booster. His degree was from Georgia Institute of Technology B.C.E. in civil engineering.

 

An interesting read concerning the disaster. The section "The Night Before the Launch" I think is most relevant.

 

All the managers involved had the requisite educational background and experience to understand the issue at hand so I will have to disagree that they had a "shallow understanding of the engineering". Richard Feynman during his testimony demonstrated with a very simple experiment that the rubber O-ring material at 32 degrees F lost its resiliency. Feynman demonstrated the low temperature problem with the O-ring's in a way that even a politician could understand.

 

I think it is hard for people to understand why someone would plow ahead ignoring the obvious evidence right in front of them (or lack thereof). Some years back I was working in R&D at a small company that manufactured industrial instrumentation. I was responsible for the complete redesign of a measurement probe and the associated code for the probe. When the initial design was done my manager (who was also an engineer by the way) called the design elegant. We then proceeded to test the design, the results were beyond expectations. The new design was an order of magnitude better then the old design. Except for one little detail, every once in a while the data would just get weird for a few minutes. It would go days without a glitch and then all of a sudden weird data. You know what we did? We ignored the bad data. My manager and I, wanting to move on to other parts of the design so we created our own herd of two and marched happily on to newer things. Just weeks away from product release we proceeded to final testing. And guess what? The weird data we had wished away reared its ugly head. The potentially of loosing your job is a powerful incentive to wake you up to reality that there is some inconvenient data that you better damn well fix. After 3 days of mind numbing review of the code I found a bug. Problem fixed. Big relief.

 

It is impossible to teach the knowledge you gain from experience. When I was a young man I knew intellectually that every human is prone to ignoring inconvenient facts. I also knew when I was young, or I should say I thought I knew, that I was an exception. The experience above (which is by no means the only one) made me acutely aware that I can be very stupid. That I was not an exception. That I was just like everybody else. What I know from experience is if there are no consequences it becomes very easy to ignore inconvenient facts.

 

So what are the consequences for being wrong in climate science? The only consequences I see is when one stops following the herd.

[Dante]

And speaking of global warming hypocrisy:

 

http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/20/1700-private-jets-fly-to-davos-to-discuss-global-warming/

More hypocrisy.

 

http://dailysurge.com/2015/01/pollution-pimp-pharrell-williams-wants-fight-climate-change/

[B-Man]

The View from Davos

 

 

 

Convening to ring the alarm about global warming, our putative betters and would-be rulers convened in Davos, Switzerland, filling the local general-aviation hangars with some 1,700 private jets. Taking an international commercial flight is one of the most carbon-intensive things the typical person does in his life, but if you’re comparing carbon footprints between your average traveler squeezed into coach on American and Davos Man quaffing Pol Roger in his cashmere-carpeted intercontinental air limousine, you’re talking Smurfette vs. Sasquatch. The Bombardier’s Global 6000 may be a technical marvel, but it still runs on antique plankton juice. The emissions from heating all those sprawling hotel suites in the Alps in winter surely makes baby polar bears weep bitter and copious baby-polar-bear tears.

 

{snip}

 

The people who gather at Davos are wildly successful. And while some of them are simply self-serving and self-aggrandizing twits, the great majority of them genuinely want to help others lead happier, richer, more secure lives. Whatever Bill Gates is about, it’s a safe bet that he’s not in it for the money at this point. But billionaire entrepreneurs in sufficient number become as intellectually homogeneous a group as any university women’s-studies department.

 

People whose profession is the crafting of legislation or the application of regulation reflexively (and understandably) assume that if you want more of something, then the thing to do is to pass a law mandating it, and that if you want less of something, then the thing to do is to pass a law punishing it. The bigger picture — that laws and regulations and other aspects of policy interact with one another in unexpected ways — is generally invisible to them. If you are a lawyer, then you understand most social questions as a matter of law; if you are an economist, you understand them as questions of economics; if you are a teacher, you think that the answer to many social problems is better schools. This habit is only natural.

 

The hypocrisy and material self-indulgence on display at Davos may rankle, but the deeper problem is the unspoken assumption that the sort of people who gather in Davos are the sort of people who have the answers to social problems. Historically speaking, there is little evidence to support that proposition. And that is why conventions like that in Davos end up being so frequently counterproductive. When elites get together to talk about the big issues, the discussion consists mostly of very similar people asking themselves what people like them can do. The answer is: A whole lot less than you think.

 

 

.

[B-Man]

Wow A.P. thats a hell of a clarification....................................lol

 

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d7375a310ef6475c9841accc756c4ba4/heat-noaa-nasa-say-2014-warmest-year-record

Clarification: Hottest Year story

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a story Jan. 16, The Associated Press reported that the odds that nine of the 10 hottest years have occurred since 2000 are about 650 million to one. These calculations, as the story noted, treated as equal the possibility of any given year in the records being one of the hottest. The story should have included the fact that substantial warming in the years just prior to this century could make it more likely that the years since were warmer, because high temperatures tend to persist.

 

The story also reported that 2014 was the hottest year on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA, but did not include the caveat that other recent years had average temperatures that were almost as high — and they all fall within a margin of error that lessens the certainty that any one of the years was the hottest.

 

An earlier version of the story quoted Rutgers University climate scientist Jennifer Francis as noting that the margin of error makes it uncertain whether 2014 was warmest, or the second, third or sixth warmest year. She said that regardless, the trend shows a "clear, consistent and incontrovertible" warming of Earth. That reference to the margin of error was dropped in later versions.

[DC Tom]

Wow A.P. thats a hell of a clarification....................................lol

 

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d7375a310ef6475c9841accc756c4ba4/heat-noaa-nasa-say-2014-warmest-year-record

Clarification: Hottest Year story

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a story Jan. 16, The Associated Press reported that the odds that nine of the 10 hottest years have occurred since 2000 are about 650 million to one. These calculations, as the story noted, treated as equal the possibility of any given year in the records being one of the hottest. The story should have included the fact that substantial warming in the years just prior to this century could make it more likely that the years since were warmer, because high temperatures tend to persist.

 

The story also reported that 2014 was the hottest year on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA, but did not include the caveat that other recent years had average temperatures that were almost as high — and they all fall within a margin of error that lessens the certainty that any one of the years was the hottest.

 

An earlier version of the story quoted Rutgers University climate scientist Jennifer Francis as noting that the margin of error makes it uncertain whether 2014 was warmest, or the second, third or sixth warmest year. She said that regardless, the trend shows a "clear, consistent and incontrovertible" warming of Earth. That reference to the margin of error was dropped in later versions.

 

650 million to one? "Based on our calculations, seeing this pattern in 120 years of data is so unlikely that it hasn't been seen since the Permian extinction."

 

What frickin' genius did that calculation?

[Taro T]

650 million to one? "Based on our calculations, seeing this pattern in 120 years of data is so unlikely that it hasn't been seen since the Permian extinction."

 

What frickin' genius did that calculation?

 

It appears to be a pretty simple, the Earth is ~6.5B years old, if each year could be the hottest, then the odds of hitting the last 10 as the hottest is 650MM to 1. (That's realistic, right? And excellent usage of statistics. ) Kind of disappointed they didn't use the universe's age of ~15B for their basis. The odds of this are 1.5 BILLION to 1!!! There is clearly no possible way for this to NOT be a man-induced phenomenon.

 

But in fairness to the guy that came up w/ it, pretty sure he'd told the paper their premise was flawed but these are the #'s that result.

[/dev/null]

It appears to be a pretty simple, the Earth is ~6.5B years old, if each year could be the hottest, then the odds of hitting the last 10 as the hottest is 650MM to 1. (That's realistic, right? And excellent usage of statistics. ) Kind of disappointed they didn't use the universe's age of ~15B for their basis. The odds of this are 1.5 BILLION to 1!!! There is clearly no possible way for this to NOT be a man-induced phenomenon.

 

But in fairness to the guy that came up w/ it, pretty sure he'd told the paper their premise was flawed but these are the #'s that result.

Actually the Earth is more like 4.5B years old. And the first billion or so years the planet was molten and pummeled by asteroids so there wasn't much atmosphere until about 3.5B years ago.

 

There's that magic number again

[OCinBuffalo]

You are from Buffalo? He is the channel 4 weather dude. He explained the pause and it makes sense

 

Can I ask you and all the other denies a question? Why would this guy lie? Or is he just stupid?

He explained the pause by saying something that has been called impossible by environtologists for years: a temporary cooling period could possibly pause the disaterous effects of AGW warming. This cannot be true...for the environtologists have told us nothing can stop AGW....except the Kyoto Treaty. (Um, how many years now?)

 

That's because AGW warming has to be overwhelming. It has to be...so that the political/$ machine can derive enough fear(remember that quote form my thread last year?) to get what they want. So, Don Paul, the weather guy...has now made a serious refutation of the claims of the AGW cult! Don Paul is lucky he is irrelevant, or, there'd be hell to pay.

 

Lie? This isn't about lying. Once again(as I predicted, years ago), this is about save-ass. They know they have a problem, now, they are coming up with ways to save their asses. Inevitable. Don Paul is playing save-ass with his explanation, which is yet another speculation.

 

Prevarication. Dissembling. Not lying. Read this: http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/my-life-as-a-climate-lukewarmer.aspx

 

Hmm. Do you see the behavior? The # of people who have serious doubts about the "settled" science, and have 0 "fear" of people like you, has reached critical mass, and Matt Ridely knows it. Nobody is scared of you calling them a "denier", because now? It's literally like a bum...calling me a loser. Both you and the bum are laughable.

 

Thus we have the Science Editor of The Economist(who started all of this schit 26 years ago), the first and biggest supporter of AGW, playing his own version of save-ass.

 

Behavior. Forget the talk. Observe the behavior: Why was this article written? Life could have gone on without it. But, he had to write it, and, it was relevant enough to be posted on the front page of RCP. Why would RCP do that? Why does a seemingly random blog post from somebody you don't know, merit the front page? RCP knows why: it's a body blow to AGW "believers". That's why it's there. Have you learned anything about behavior today?

 

Instead of doing what most of the environtologists are doing, fighting the contradictory evidence that is piling up againt them, by increasing the level of their invective?

 

Ridley's going the other way: defining himself, now, as a "lukewarmer". How convenient. After years of attacking every other skeptic, now he becomes the victim of these "other people" who have been using the word "denier"(as if the Economist never used the term). After years running article after article on the immediate peril of AGW, and casting aspersions on anyone who dared to be skeptical....he's not so sure, and now? He's being "victimized" for it. This...is merely his save-ass tactic == "It wasn't me! It was these other guys, and see, now they're doing it to me!".

 

To dumb it down to your level: Matt Ridley is yet another new enemy for you. He used to be one of your leaders, but now he is a traitor. You must destroy him at all costs.

 

IF Don Paul and Matt Ridley are allowed to continue, the entire machine may fall apart, and then all of you will be playing your own version of save-ass.

 

Is the greenhouse effect of CO2 linear or logarithmic?

Fact is, most of those denying climate change are doing it for political/lobbying/industry interest reasons and the conspiracy charges against the scientists that believe is stupid.

Fact is, most of these alarmists are doing it for political/lobbying/their personal investments in green industry/grant money/speaking tour/book money/publish or perish/personal interest reasons.

 

The fact that you used the phrase "against the scientists that believe" says it all.

 

Religion is about belief. Science is about observation confirming theory. The observed global temps DO NOT confirm the AGW theory, no matter how hard you "believe". They do not, because, as I've already said: the high CO2 sensitivity assumption simply cannot be right. We have dumped far more CO2 into the atmosphere than expected, and still the observations are off by...a lot(keeping it simple for you). The most likely outcome now is: CO2 sensitivity has been significantly overestimated. Anything that is produced going forward that continues to rely on that overestimation is the opposite of science. It is belief.

your argument discounts the time, effort and innate intelligence required to obtain and maintain a doctoral position at a highly regarded institution like NASA. these individuals had years to decide if what they were studying was legitimate. most all of them have the skills and drive necessary to change career path then or even now. why would they choose to make their life's work about lies?

 

Yes, because I've never met or heard of a physician who has put in time, effort, and possed the innate intelligence required to become a physician....

 

....ever massage his data to get his drug/treatment/device though clinical trials and on to FDA approval. Why would he spend his entire life on a lie? It wouldn't be because if that drug gets approved, he gets public noteriety, significant recognition from his peers, and a boatload of cash would it?

 

I mean, that physician has the skills and the drive necessary to change his career path then or even now. Why would he choose to lie about his new thinger? This never happens. All of these guys are beyond reproach.

 

You are pretending something that occurs in your profession, every single day, first, does not occur, next, cannot occur in another profession, for reasons passing understanding.

 

i don't agree with your premise. more and more power is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, just, not coincidentally, like wealth.

You mean like with Obamacare? Common Core? The ridiculous EPA making laws, but calling them rules? Dodd Frank? The IRS and its bad behavior? Trickle down government in general? Defined: we pay DC $1.00, they take their cut, the state takes their cut, and our teachers have to go through hell to apply, and then compete for a grant for the $.40 remaining. IF we left that $1.00 in the school district instead of concentrating it, and the rest of the dollars taken, in hands of the few(in power), so they can spend it on their ever-growing feifdoms, and the serfs who support them...none of whom have ever been able to show net positive results of their involvement, or an ROI on their cut?

 

Education in this country would improve by an order of magnitude.

 

Ironic is your word for this thread. Look it up. You are literally oblvious to your own irony.

 

Question. Do you think you might be suffering from the same herd mentality that scientists are suffering from, as you say? Is it a possibility that the Conservatives are ignoring the science because they can't see beyond the herd? That's a possibility, too, isn't it?

No. The difference is: we don't "believe" in things.

 

We analyze things.

 

I analyzed the behavior of the "lukewarmer" above. Seems to me that his behavior is very telling. He's no fool, and he's found what seems to him to be the least painful way to get off the sinkiing ship.

[birdog1960]

Yes, because I've never met or heard of a physician who has put in time, effort, and possed the innate intelligence required to become a physician....

 

....ever massage his data to get his drug/treatment/device though clinical trials and on to FDA approval. Why would he spend his entire life on a lie? It wouldn't be because if that drug gets approved, he gets public noteriety, significant recognition from his peers, and a boatload of cash would it?

 

I mean, that physician has the skills and the drive necessary to change his career path then or even now. Why would he choose to lie about his new thinger? This never happens. All of these guys are beyond reproach.

 

You are pretending something that occurs in your profession, every single day, first, does not occur, next, cannot occur in another profession, for reasons passing understanding.

 

 

 

 

 

here's the problem. we're not talking about a single physician in this analogy. we're talking about indicting an entire specialty group like the ACP, AHA, ACC. it's the fringe players that are willing to bet heavy on taking on the establishment views of groups like this. occasionally, they're correct and can prove it. much more often they're just nuts trying to make a name for themselves or doing some benefactors or investors bidding. very rarely, they are thought leaders and become the establishment rather than bucking it: https://www.ted.com/speakers/eric_topol. this is exactly what i believe is happening in climate science. i don't believe dr curry = dr topol, however. far from it.

Edited January 27, 2015 by birdog1960

[OCinBuffalo]

Yes, because I've never met or heard of a physician who has put in time, effort, and possed the innate intelligence required to become a physician....

 

....ever massage his data to get his drug/treatment/device though clinical trials and on to FDA approval. Why would he spend his entire life on a lie? It wouldn't be because if that drug gets approved, he gets public noteriety, significant recognition from his peers, and a boatload of cash would it?

 

I mean, that physician has the skills and the drive necessary to change his career path then or even now. Why would he choose to lie about his new thinger? This never happens. All of these guys are beyond reproach.

 

You are pretending something that occurs in your profession, every single day, first, does not occur, next, cannot occur in another profession, for reasons passing understanding.

 

 

 

 

 

here's the problem. we're not talking about a single physician in this analogy. we're talking about indicting an entire specialty group like the ACP, AHA, ACC. it's the fringe players that are willing to bet heavy on taking on the establishment views of groups like this. occasionally, they're correct and can prove it. much more often they're just nuts trying to make a name for themselves or doing some benefactors or investors bidding. very rarely, they are thought leaders and become the establishment rather than bucking it: https://www.ted.com/speakers/eric_topol. this is exactly what i believe is happening in climate science. i don't believe dr curry = dr topol, however. far from it.

here's the problem: I wasn't talking about a single physician either. Where did I say 1(one) guy?

 

In fact, this is a pervasive problem amongst physicians...and every other health care worker. Don't forget: we collect the data for all of the above.

 

Without us, MOST health care workers doctor their books in some way, largely because they don't want government/insurance/civil punishment, and have no way to document the process fully, the way they need to do it, or of fixing the mistake/oversight/whatever(largely because you only use 40% of the software you bought 3 years ago == national average). We allow them to document everything their own way, and nobody else's, and allow them to change that way at any time.

 

Especially what they did to fix a F up, and what they are doing, right now, to keep it fixed...rather than them just recording the happy ending as they normally do, and not the beginning or the middle of the F up. Or the bad beggiing, but the good middle, and the ho-hum end, etc., and then, praying that nobody finds an inconsistency. That's because we are the only outfit that a.) understands the true meaning of the word workflow, and b.) brought that understanding, but modified it, after years of intesive feasibility studies(read: properly), to suit health care. Everyone else has failed because they don't know a, how to do b, or both.

 

So please, spare me the one guy bit. Remember who you are talking to. There are literally ~20k, probably a lot more, health care workers of all stripes F'ing around with their documentation in this country right this minute, and it's largely based on self-interest/self-preservation, or personal gain. You aren't going to find any "patient centered" idiot platitudes at this time of night, all the babblers are sleeping...

 

....and don't tell me you don't know that. That 20k+ is an "entire group", and don't tell me you don't know that a whole new "entire group" will start doing it next shift change, either.

 

And to continue the analogy: if you asked 1 of the 20k, if they thought the other 19,999 were doing it too, they'd say "Of course, what choice do we have?". So, there you have it, an entire group of people, all working the same way, doing the same things, knowingly wrong.....because? They believe they "have to".

 

Then some MD/RN comes along, with yet another dopey study/book(which is not a solution, merely another whack at problem definition), and says "we aren't doing this right!" And, she is either lauded, or ridiculed....and ultimately: ignored. Why? Becaue we've all "believed" that F'ing around with the paper is the only real way to avoid punishment, and we are afraid of bucking the trend/group think/whatever. (Just like these researchers all "believed" in their own climate models).

 

However, if some hardass kid comes along and says, "No, you bastards, I have evidence. I have a new way that works, and I am going to titty twist you(in reality, charm you) until you admit that it's better.." Most of the time said hardass still has to fight like hell with the very people who know they are doing it wrong. You are damn right I am indiciting the entire group: I have the evidence from my clients to prove what they were doing vs. what they are doing now.

 

And, if I go into any health care outfit in the world tomorrow, I will find "doing it wrong". Period.

 

Now, tell me that this isn't happening in Global Warming research. And tell me that it isn't worse for the "trend buckers" today than it's ever been. And why? Because the "establishment" can see the cracks in their entire foundation. They can eiher attack bigger and badder and hope that the center holds, or, they can skimp away like the newly created "lukewarmer" has.

 

And once again: I will direct your attention to BEHAVIOR. RNs F around with paperwork for the same reason scientists do: they don't want to stand out. As long as things look "right", that's all that matters.

[3rdnlng]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-30905267

 

"Nature experts have discovered a remarkable submerged forest thousands of years old under the sea close to the Norfolk coast."

 

I wonder what man made global warming schit did this way back then? Maybe it was the striking of flints?

[birdog1960]

here's the problem: I wasn't talking about a single physician either. Where did I say 1(one) guy?

 

In fact, this is a pervasive problem amongst physicians...and every other health care worker. Don't forget: we collect the data for all of the above.

 

Without us, MOST health care workers doctor their books in some way, largely because they don't want government/insurance/civil punishment, and have no way to document the process fully, the way they need to do it, or of fixing the mistake/oversight/whatever(largely because you only use 40% of the software you bought 3 years ago == national average). We allow them to document everything their own way, and nobody else's, and allow them to change that way at any time.

 

Especially what they did to fix a F up, and what they are doing, right now, to keep it fixed...rather than them just recording the happy ending as they normally do, and not the beginning or the middle of the F up. Or the bad beggiing, but the good middle, and the ho-hum end, etc., and then, praying that nobody finds an inconsistency. That's because we are the only outfit that a.) understands the true meaning of the word workflow, and b.) brought that understanding, but modified it, after years of intesive feasibility studies(read: properly), to suit health care. Everyone else has failed because they don't know a, how to do b, or both.

 

So please, spare me the one guy bit. Remember who you are talking to. There are literally ~20k, probably a lot more, health care workers of all stripes F'ing around with their documentation in this country right this minute, and it's largely based on self-interest/self-preservation, or personal gain. You aren't going to find any "patient centered" idiot platitudes at this time of night, all the babblers are sleeping...

 

....and don't tell me you don't know that. That 20k+ is an "entire group", and don't tell me you don't know that a whole new "entire group" will start doing it next shift change, either.

 

And to continue the analogy: if you asked 1 of the 20k, if they thought the other 19,999 were doing it too, they'd say "Of course, what choice do we have?". So, there you have it, an entire group of people, all working the same way, doing the same things, knowingly wrong.....because? They believe they "have to".

 

Then some MD/RN comes along, with yet another dopey study/book(which is not a solution, merely another whack at problem definition), and says "we aren't doing this right!" And, she is either lauded, or ridiculed....and ultimately: ignored. Why? Becaue we've all "believed" that F'ing around with the paper is the only real way to avoid punishment, and we are afraid of bucking the trend/group think/whatever. (Just like these researchers all "believed" in their own climate models).

 

However, if some hardass kid comes along and says, "No, you bastards, I have evidence. I have a new way that works, and I am going to titty twist you(in reality, charm you) until you admit that it's better.." Most of the time said hardass still has to fight like hell with the very people who know they are doing it wrong. You are damn right I am indiciting the entire group: I have the evidence from my clients to prove what they were doing vs. what they are doing now.

 

And, if I go into any health care outfit in the world tomorrow, I will find "doing it wrong". Period.

 

Now, tell me that this isn't happening in Global Warming research. And tell me that it isn't worse for the "trend buckers" today than it's ever been. And why? Because the "establishment" can see the cracks in their entire foundation. They can eiher attack bigger and badder and hope that the center holds, or, they can skimp away like the newly created "lukewarmer" has.

 

And once again: I will direct your attention to BEHAVIOR. RNs F around with paperwork for the same reason scientists do: they don't want to stand out. As long as things look "right", that's all that matters.

firstly, this is total bs. i certainly don't fall into the category you descried. nor do any of my direct colleagues. we dictate and scan almost all of our documentation because we feel it avoids just what you're alluding to. each note is unique. and we meet meaningful use. the cookie cutter notes are a direct product of an EHR industry that is still not ready for primetime. it's the maker of the square hole that so many providers are forced to push round pegs into. the entire industry has been complicit in generating an historic, epic fail. i'd be ashamed to associate myself with it.

 

secondly, nuances in documentation are a far cry from questioning the basis of the science of medicine. the analogy i would think of in medicine as compared to climate science is sterile technique. people didn't understand microbiology. they didn't even know the bugs existed. but midwives had much lower infection rates than doctors of the time. because they were cleaner. more hygienic. and then louis pasteur and others figured out why that was important.

 

such changes are rare. and they're generally brought about by brilliant people. i don't see any climate change deniers meeting that criteria.

[OCinBuffalo]

firstly, this is total bs. i certainly don't fall into the category you descried. nor do any of my direct colleagues. we dictate and scan almost all of our documentation because we feel it avoids just what you're alluding to. each note is unique. and we meet meaningful use. the cookie cutter notes are a direct product of an EHR industry that is still not ready for primetime. it's the maker of the square hole that so many providers are forced to push round pegs into. the entire industry has been complicit in generating an historic, epic fail. i'd be ashamed to associate myself with it.

 

secondly, nuances in documentation are a far cry from questioning the basis of the science of medicine. the analogy i would think of in medicine as compared to climate science is sterile technique. people didn't understand microbiology. they didn't even know the bugs existed. but midwives had much lower infection rates than doctors of the time. because they were cleaner. more hygienic. and then louis pasteur and others figured out why that was important.

 

such changes are rare. and they're generally brought about by brilliant people. i don't see any climate change deniers meeting that criteria.

I said 20k people were F'ing with their records last night, and nowhere do you deny it, in fact you confirm it. So, by definition it cannot be total BS, or even a little bit BS.

 

I didn't ask you about you and a few of your pals. Remind me who is talking about "entire groups", and who is talking about 1 person now? "You don't fall into that category"

 

Oh, I'm fully aware of the peg/hole problem. That's why I designed what I desgined. EHRs have been around since the 1970s, so when exactly does your primetime begin?

 

I know. Period. I have seen the data model of a supposedly "SQL-based" EHR company. They took took their old AS400 database and transferred it directly into SQL. 345 tables, and 2(two) foreign key relatioships? :lol: I know that, because it is obvious to anyone like me. It's always a fun story at the airport bar. Flat files masquerading as a normalized data model. And you dipshits just keep dumping money into it. Hell Obama put $650 million into this crap.

 

No it isn't a far cry at all. When we cut the crap/demographics, etc., medical records are by definition comprised of 3 things: observations, goals and tasks performed in an effort to achieve the goals, then back to observations.. The tasks are performed either as a result of the observation, or, as part of a larger methodology(we always check vitals because we always check vitals). Just like with climate change, nobody wants their observations, goals, or tasks to stand out. Japanese proverb: the nail that sticks out gets hammered down. Well, I prefer the American: the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

 

Consider: Where is the squeaky wheel here? Or, why have ALL of the predictive models failed...the same way? Why didn't 1 or 2 get it right? Think about that. No, really think about that. You have to be at least a little bit familiar with statistical analysis. Given a normal distribution, in this case a bunch of supposedly unrelated people who supposedly are all working on their own/in their own team to create their own models, shouldn't we expect at least some of the models to have been accurate, and some of the models to be much worse than the "average"?

 

But they aren't, are they? They all follow the same pattern(I can draw a line on the chart for you), and they all fail the same way. This is not even close to a normal statistical outcome. Why? Once again: behavior. Global Warming team 1 doesn't want to deliver anything that is too different than Global Warming team 2, because if they do? Then there are questions to answer. Explanations required.

 

Nobody wanted to have questions, because "consesus" was the real goal. If they all went into this thinking the same thing/expecting the same outcome? As has been said above: this is merely confidene bias. These people may have not known each other at all. But that doesn't matter, if they began with an expected outcome, and then tried to model for that outcome. It's still a conspiracy. It's just one of thought, instead of the TV show version. The IRS scandal is the same thing: it doesn't matter if direct orders came from the WH. The WH put out the thinking: "Citizens United = bad", and Lois Lerner and the Justice department hag could very easily have acted in support of that thinking all by themselves.

Edited January 27, 2015 by OCinBuffalo

[birdog1960]

 

 

Oh, I'm fully aware of the peg/hole problem. That's why I designed what I desgined. EHRs have been around since the 1970s, so when exactly does your primetime begin?

 

no point in reproducing all that garbage. the answer to your question is when the programmers/designers realizre that they need to build sytems around the way medicasl professionals have been taught to think for generations not the way these nonclinical people believe we should think. they should have first studied how clinicians process/disseminate/collate and historically have documented information and designed a system around that, not designed around how they think it should be done and then have the clinicians adapt. oh, and how bout a bit of artificail intelligence in the prorams so they can parse the info on their own? it also seems no one designing these things has experience with a search function. i've yet to see a system with even a primitive one allowing search for a specific test or series of tests of even a keyword in notes.

 

so the answer to your question is they'll be ready for primetime when you and your collleagues decide to make them. they're not even close now. they're embarrisingly rudimentary and simplistic.

 

and most people aren't using these things like cookie cutters because they don't want to stand out. they do it because the programs are designed to produce cookie cutter results. the desigers were no where near sophisticated enough in medical matters to produce anything else. stop blaming the victims (clinicians forced to use these pos tools).

Edited January 27, 2015 by birdog1960

[DC Tom]

no point in reproducing all that garbage. the answer to your question is when the programmers/designers realizre that they need to build sytems around the way medicasl professionals have been taught to think for generations not the way these nonclinical people believe we should think. they should have first studied how clinicians process/disseminate/collate and historically have documented information and designed a system around that, not designed around how they think it should be done and then have the clinicians adapt. oh, and how bout a bit of artificail intelligence in the prorams so they can parse the info on their own? it also seems no one designing these things has experience with a search function. i've yet to see a system with even a primitive one allowing search for a specific test or series of tests of even a keyword in notes.

 

so the answer to your question is they'll be ready for primetime when you and your collleagues decide to make them. they're not even close now. they're embarrisingly rudimentary and simplistic.

 

and most people aren't using these things like cookie cutters because they don't want to stand out. they do it because the programs are designed to produce cookie cutter results. the desigers were no where near sophisticated enough in medical matters to produce anything else. stop blaming the victims (clinicians forced to use these pos tools).

 

This is cute. A user thinking computers are magic. Arguing with an engineer who thinks the users should just do what he says.