Intelligent Design

Climate Alarmism Has Undermined Science Itself

Spread the love

What inclines me now to think that you may be right in regarding it as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives, is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders.

C.S. Lewis

The “it” to which Lewis was referring was evolution. Today, “it” could well be climate alarmists.

According to this paper the climate alarmists are undermining science itself:

Scientists don’t like this lèse majesté, of course. But it’s the citizen science that the internet has long promised. This is what eavesdropping on science should be like—following the twists and turns of each story, the ripostes and counter-ripostes, making up your own mind based on the evidence. And that is precisely what the non-sceptical side just does not get. Its bloggers are almost universally wearily condescending. They are behaving like sixteenth-century priests who do not think the Bible should be translated into English. . . .

Scandal after scandal

The Cook paper is one of many scandals and blunders in climate science. There was the occasion in 2012 when the climate scientist Peter Gleick stole the identity of a member of the (sceptical) Heartland Institute’s board of directors, leaked confidential documents, and included also a “strategy memo” purporting to describe Heartland’s plans, which was a straight forgery. Gleick apologised but continues to be a respected climate scientist.There was Stephan Lewandowsky, then at the University of Western Australia, who published a paper titled “NASA faked the moon landing therefore [climate] science is a hoax”, from which readers might have deduced, in the words of a Guardian headline, that “new research finds that sceptics also tend to support conspiracy theories such as the moon landing being faked”. Yet in fact in the survey for the paper, only ten respondents out of 1145 thought that the moon landing was a hoax, and seven of those did not think climate change was a hoax. A particular irony here is that two of the men who have actually been to the moon are vocal climate sceptics: Harrison Schmitt and Buzz Aldrin.

It took years of persistence before physicist Jonathan Jones and political scientist Ruth Dixon even managed to get into print (in March this year) a detailed and devastating critique of the Lewandowsky article’s methodological flaws and bizarre reasoning, with one journal allowing Lewandowsky himself to oppose the publication of their riposte. Lewandowsky published a later paper claiming that the reactions to his previous paper proved he was right, but it was so flawed it had to be retracted.

If these examples of odd scientific practice sound too obscure, try Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC for thirteen years and often described as the “world’s top climate scientist”. He once dismissed as “voodoo science” an official report by India’s leading glaciologist, Vijay Raina, because it had challenged a bizarre claim in an IPCC report (citing a WWF report which cited an article in New Scientist), that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035. The claim originated with Syed Hasnain, who subsequently took a job at The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), the Delhi-based company of which Dr Pachauri is director-general, and there his glacier claim enabled TERI to win a share of a three-million-euro grant from the European Union. No wonder Dr Pachauri might well not have wanted the 2035 claim challenged.

Yet Raina was right, it proved to be the IPCC’s most high-profile blunder, and Dr Pachauri had to withdraw both it and his “voodoo” remark. The scandal led to a highly critical report into the IPCC by several of the world’s top science academics, which recommended among other things that the IPCC chair stand down after one term. Dr Pachauri ignored this, kept his job, toured the world while urging others not to, and published a novel, with steamy scenes of seduction of an older man by young women. (He resigned this year following criminal allegations of sexual misconduct with a twenty-nine-year-old female employee, which he denies, and which are subject to police investigation.)

Yet the climate bloggers who constantly smear sceptics managed to avoid even reporting most of this. If you want to follow Dr Pachauri’s career you have to rely on a tireless but self-funded investigative journalist: the Canadian Donna Laframboise. In her chapter in The Facts, Laframboise details how Dr Pachauri has managed to get the world to describe him as a Nobel laureate, even though this is simply not true.

Notice, by the way, how many of these fearless free-thinkers prepared to tell emperors they are naked are women. Susan Crockford, a Canadian zoologist, has steadfastly exposed the myth-making that goes into polar bear alarmism, to the obvious discomfort of the doyens of that field. Jennifer Marohasy of Central Queensland University, by persistently asking why cooling trends recorded at Australian weather stations with no recorded moves were being altered to warming trends, has embarrassed the Bureau of Meteorology into a review of their procedures. Her chapter in The Facts underlines the failure of computer models to predict rainfall.

But male sceptics have scored successes too. There was the case of the paper the IPCC relied upon to show that urban heat islands (the fact that cities are generally warmer than the surrounding countryside, so urbanisation causes local, but not global, warming) had not exaggerated recent warming. This paper turned out—as the sceptic Doug Keenan proved—to be based partly on non-existent data on forty-nine weather stations in China. When corrected, it emerged that the urban heat island effect actually accounted for 40 per cent of the warming in China.

There was the Scandinavian lake sediment core that was cited as evidence of sudden recent warming, when it was actually being used “upside down”—the opposite way the authors of the study thought it should be used: so if anything it showed cooling.

There was the graph showing unprecedented recent warming that turned out to depend on just one larch tree in the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia.

There was the southern hemisphere hockey-stick that had been created by the omission of inconvenient data series.

There was the infamous “hide the decline” incident when a tree-ring-derived graph had been truncated to disguise the fact that it seemed to show recent cooling.

And of course there was the mother of all scandals, the “hockey stick” itself: a graph that purported to show the warming of the last three decades of the twentieth century as unprecedented in a millennium, a graph that the IPCC was so thrilled with that it published it six times in its third assessment report and displayed it behind the IPCC chairman at his press conference. It was a graph that persuaded me to abandon my scepticism (until I found out about its flaws), because I thought Nature magazine would never have published it without checking. And it is a graph that was systematically shown by Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick to be wholly misleading, as McKitrick recounts in glorious detail in his chapter in The Facts.

Its hockey-stick shape depended heavily on one set of data from bristlecone pine trees in the American south-west, enhanced by a statistical approach to over-emphasise some 200 times any hockey-stick shaped graph. Yet bristlecone tree-rings do not, according to those who collected the data, reflect temperature at all. What is more, the scientist behind the original paper, Michael Mann, had known all along that his data depended heavily on these inappropriate trees and a few other series, because when finally prevailed upon to release his data he accidentally included a file called “censored” that proved as much: he had tested the effect of removing the bristlecone pine series and one other, and found that the hockey-stick shape disappeared.

In March this year Dr Mann published a paper claiming the Gulf Stream was slowing down. This garnered headlines all across the world. Astonishingly, his evidence that the Gulf Stream is slowing down came not from the Gulf Stream, but from “proxies” which included—yes—bristlecone pine trees in Arizona, upside-down lake sediments in Scandinavia and larch trees in Siberia.

73 Replies to “Climate Alarmism Has Undermined Science Itself

  1. 1
    Box says:

    Global temperature update: no warming for 18 years 6 months.

    For 222 months, since December 1996, there has been no global warming at all.

  2. 2
    Mapou says:

    The GW hoax is embarrassing on the face of it. It’s hard to imagine that such a vast enterprise of deception can even work for so long. The evil powers that rule the nations of the world have miscalculated badly. This is a crime against humanity.

    One can only imagine the evil reasoning behind this elaborate but ill-advised scam. But the whole thing is blowing up in their faces. It’s not very nice to lie to the whole world. We don’t like to be deceived.

  3. 3
    mjoels says:

    It is a statistical shell game. Using proxy data synthesized into adjusted temperatures to make data sets that are blatantly false. The whole thing is bad science. Just use the damn thermometer people. Simple. Foolproof. Except the thermometer says we are cooling off with the solar cycle, so they would lose funding.

  4. 4
    Seversky says:

    Anybody can do cherry-picking:

    Over the past 130 years, the global average temperature has increased 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit, with more than half of that increase occurring over only the past 35 years. The pattern is unmistakable: The 12 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998 and every one of the past 37 years has been warmer than the 20th century average.

    Detailed measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels have been taken continuously for more than 50 years. The data show that CO2 levels have steadily increased every year. Today they are 25 percent higher than in 1957.

    What’s more, scientists have detailed records of past CO2 levels from ice core studies, which show that CO2 levels are higher today than at any point since our distant ancestors began migrating out of Africa 800,000 years ago.

    Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.

    The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

    Like I asked before, what will convince you that there’s a problem, when most of Florida is submerged?

  5. 5
    Seversky says:

    And I bet you won’t see this book cited in of of BA77’s C&P cascades:

    @

    The denial industry
    For years, a network of fake citizens’ groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon’s involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story

    ExxonMobil is the world’s most profitable corporation. Its sales now amount to more than $1bn a day. It makes most of this money from oil, and has more to lose than any other company from efforts to tackle climate change. To safeguard its profits, ExxonMobil needs to sow doubt about whether serious action needs to be taken on climate change. But there are difficulties: it must confront a scientific consensus as strong as that which maintains that smoking causes lung cancer or that HIV causes Aids. So what’s its strategy?

    The website Exxonsecrets.org, using data found in the company’s official documents, lists 124 organisations that have taken money from the company or work closely with those that have. These organisations take a consistent line on climate change: that the science is contradictory, the scientists are split, environmentalists are charlatans, liars or lunatics, and if governments took action to prevent global warming, they would be endangering the global economy for no good reason. The findings these organisations dislike are labelled “junk science”. The findings they welcome are labelled “sound science”.

    Among the organisations that have been funded by Exxon are such well-known websites and lobby groups as TechCentralStation, the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Some of those on the list have names that make them look like grassroots citizens’ organisations or academic bodies: the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, for example. One or two of them, such as the Congress of Racial Equality, are citizens’ organisations or academic bodies, but the line they take on climate change is very much like that of the other sponsored groups. While all these groups are based in America, their publications are read and cited, and their staff are interviewed and quoted, all over the world.

    But they do not stop there. The chairman of a group called the Science and Environmental Policy Project is Frederick Seitz. Seitz is a physicist who in the 1960s was president of the US National Academy of Sciences. In 1998, he wrote a document, known as the Oregon Petition, which has been cited by almost every journalist who claims that climate change is a myth.

    The document reads as follows: “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

    Anyone with a degree was entitled to sign it. It was attached to a letter written by Seitz, entitled Research Review of Global Warming Evidence. The lead author of the “review” that followed Seitz’s letter is a Christian fundamentalist called Arthur B Robinson. He is not a professional climate scientist. It was co-published by Robinson’s organisation – the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine – and an outfit called the George C Marshall Institute, which has received $630,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998. The other authors were Robinson’s 22-year-old son and two employees of the George C Marshall Institute. The chairman of the George C Marshall Institute was Frederick Seitz.

    The paper maintained that: “We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the Industrial Revolution.”

    It was printed in the font and format of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: the journal of the organisation of which Seitz – as he had just reminded his correspondents – was once president.

    Soon after the petition was published, the National Academy of Sciences released this statement: “The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal. The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.”

    But it was too late. Seitz, the Oregon Institute and the George C Marshall Institute had already circulated tens of thousands of copies, and the petition had established a major presence on the internet. Some 17,000 graduates signed it, the majority of whom had no background in climate science. It has been repeatedly cited – by global-warming sceptics such as David Bellamy, Melanie Phillips and others – as a petition by climate scientists. It is promoted by the Exxon-sponsored sites as evidence that there is no scientific consensus on climate change.

  6. 6
    Mapou says:

    Seversky, quoting some other crap:

    “The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal. The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.”

    Peer review, eh? I got something for the NAS Council to review. Right here.

    The GW crap came from peer review, for crying out loud.

  7. 7
    Charles says:

    Seversky @ 4

    Anybody can do cherry-picking:

    But Seversky doesn’t want you to know where those particular cherries were picked off the ground.

    Do a Google search on various phrases and you’ll find various unsubstantiated blog comments, but no citations of research papers. What Seversky quoted seems to be a hodge-podge of Greenpeace and Union of Concerned Scientists opinion. But no substantiated data that can be fact checked.

    There’s always a reason when some alarmist doesn’t want you to follow the bread crumbs.

  8. 8
    Mung says:

    Anybody can do cherry-picking.

    Not if there’s no cherries.

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky, in post 5 you cited an article titled “The denial industry”. That is an interesting title for a neo-Darwinist to cite since it is now a proven fact that atheists live in denial of the design they see in nature:

    Richard Dawkins take heed: Even atheists instinctively believe in a creator says study – Mary Papenfuss – June 12, 2015
    Excerpt: Three studies at Boston University found that even among atheists, the “knee jerk” reaction to natural phenomenon is the belief that they’re purposefully designed by some intelligence, according to a report on the research in Cognition entitled the “Divided Mind of a disbeliever.”
    The findings “suggest that there is a deeply rooted natural tendency to view nature as designed,” writes a research team led by Elisa Järnefelt of Newman University. They also provide evidence that, in the researchers’ words, “religious non-belief is cognitively effortful.”
    Researchers attempted to plug into the automatic or “default” human brain by showing subjects images of natural landscapes and things made by human beings, then requiring lightning-fast responses to the question on whether “any being purposefully made the thing in the picture,” notes Pacific-Standard.
    “Religious participants’ baseline tendency to endorse nature as purposefully created was higher” than that of atheists, the study found. But non-religious participants “increasingly defaulted to understanding natural phenomena as purposefully made” when “they did not have time to censor their thinking,” wrote the researchers.
    The results suggest that “the tendency to construe both living and non-living nature as intentionally made derives from automatic cognitive processes, not just practised explicit beliefs,” the report concluded.
    The results were similar even among subjects from Finland, where atheism is not a controversial issue as it can be in the US.
    “Design-based intuitions run deep,” the researchers conclude, “persisting even in those with no explicit religious commitment and, indeed, even among those with an active aversion to them.”
    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/richa.....dy-1505712

    i.e. It is not that Atheists do not see purpose in nature, it is that Atheists, for whatever severely misguided reason, live in denial of the purpose they see in nature.

    Design Thinking Is Hardwired in the Human Brain. How Come? – October 17, 2012
    Excerpt: “Even Professional Scientists Are Compelled to See Purpose in Nature, Psychologists Find.” The article describes a test by Boston University’s psychology department, in which researchers found that “despite years of scientific training, even professional chemists, geologists, and physicists from major universities such as Harvard, MIT, and Yale cannot escape a deep-seated belief that natural phenomena exist for a purpose” ,,,
    Most interesting, though, are the questions begged by this research. One is whether it is even possible to purge teleology from explanation.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....65381.html

    supplemental quotes.
    Leading Darwinists seem to be particularly afflicted with the peculiar mental illness of seeing the ‘overwhelming’ appearance of design and purpose in molecular biology:

    “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose”
    Richard Dawkins – “The Blind Watchmaker” – 1986 – page 1

    “Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”
    Richard Dawkins – “The Blind Watchmaker” – 1986 – page 21
    Michael Behe – Life Reeks Of Design – 2010 – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdh-YcNYThY

    living organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed”
    Lewontin

    “The appearance of purposefulness is pervasive in nature.”
    George Gaylord Simpson

    Indeed, Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, and an atheist, seems to have been particularly haunted by this mental illness of seeing ‘illusions of design’ everywhere he looked in molecular biology. He apparently fought valiantly to fight those delusions off:

    “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.”
    Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit

    “Organisms appear as if they had been designed to perform in an astonishingly efficient way, and the human mind therefore finds it hard to accept that there need be no Designer to achieve this”
    Francis Crick – What Mad Pursuit – p. 30

    Thus, since these atheists are seeing the ‘illusion of design’, (seeing this illusion of design with what they claim to be the ‘illusion of mind’ I might add 🙂 ), without ever conducting any scientific experiments or mathematical calculation to ever rigorously ‘detect design’, or even ever providing any real-time empirical evidence that unguided material processes are capable of producing this ‘appearance of design’, then of course the ID advocate would be well justified in saying that these atheists are not really suffering from the mental illness of ‘seeing illusions’ everywhere they look, but they are in fact perfectly mentally healthy and are ‘naturally detecting REAL design’ because of the ‘image of God’ that is inherent within themselves.

    Verse and Music:

    Romans 1:19
    since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.

    Nickelback – Savin’ Me – music
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPc-o-4Nsbk

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Blind Watchmaker? A Skeptical Look at Darwinism – Phillip Johnson – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2MwUgi8dlc
    Phillip Johnson became a skeptic of Darwinism after reading Richard Dawkins’ book, The Blind Watchmaker. Having discovered the blinding effects of materialism, Professor Johnson came to the conclusion that neo-Darwinian theory was an outgrowth, not so much of empirical data, but of philosophical presuppositions. He concludes that The Blind Watchmaker is more akin to an evangelistic tract for atheism than a book on empirical science.

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Werner Heisenberg vs. the New Atheists – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzu8as5sanY

  12. 12

    Charles @7 said:

    But Seversky doesn’t want you to know where those particular cherries were picked off the ground.

    Which makes you wonder why Serversky is willing to skim the internet for any pro-alarmist propaganda snippets he can find to juxtapose against what are apparently well-researched facts exposing alarmist failures and fraud. Mankind may be affecting the climate, but these failures, bad behavior, fudging and the fraud described appear to be factual.

    Why not just admit the failures and the bad behavior? One wonders why people like Seversky are so committed to climate alarmism that they feel compelled to respond to what appears to be well-research facts with snippets of propaganda appearing on various blogs largely as unsupported opinion and assertions?

  13. 13
    Charles says:

    William J Murray @ 12

    Why not just admit the failures and the bad behavior?

    Poor judgement, stubborn pride, lack of practice.

    Seversky wants to be right. So do I. I *absolutely hate* being wrong. The difference is, I hate being wrong so much, that I check my facts as best I can before committing myself (and catch a lot of my own mistakes) and I’m willing to admit and correct my mistakes so I can actually *get* right when I’ve been wrong.

    If you’re humble enough to admit your own fallibility, practice looking to avoid and correct your own mistakes, and, over time, develop the judgement to think ahead and weigh the relevance of conflicted and omitted information, you’ll end up being right more often than not.

    But alarmists have low standards of evidence and have corrupted themselves through decades of allowing the (presumed) end to justify the means: they lack practice at being right. And cheerleading from politically correct media keeps them clueless.

  14. 14
    Zachriel says:

    Charles: Do a Google search on various phrases and you’ll find various unsubstantiated blog comments, but no citations of research papers.

    Temperature and CO2
    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/.....0-2009.gif

    Sea level rise
    http://www.epa.gov/climatechan.....level.html

    Polar ice cap mass loss
    http://nca2014.globalchange.go.....oss-hi.jpg

    Happy to help.

  15. 15
    Charles says:

    Zachriel @ 14:

    Happy to help.

    Indeed, you have made my case. Here’s what a Google search on an actual phrase from Seversky’s comment @ 4 yields:

    “What’s more, scientists have detailed records of past CO2 levels from ice core studies”

    Note also that Zachriel’s three chosen phrases: “Temperature and CO2” , “Sea level rise”, “Polar ice cap mass loss” don’t even appear in Seversky’s comment @4. Apparently Seversky was wrong. Not everyone can cherry pick.

    Zachriel further demonstrates not self-checking his argument for errors and not thinking ahead: alarmist hallmarks.

    Next up, Zachriel shows us what a Google search on “Climate Change”, yields.

  16. 16
    Zachriel says:

    Charles: Here’s what a Google search on a fuller passage yields

    You asked for citations, and we provided U.S. scientific government results that are sourced to peer-reviewed scientific research.

    CO2
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

    Surface temperature
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

    Sea level rise
    http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.go.....global.php

    Polar ice cap mass declines
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/jou.....o1874.html

  17. 17
    Zachriel says:

    Charles: Note also that Zachriel’s three chosen phrases: “Temperature and CO2? , “Sea level rise”, “Polar ice cap mass loss” don’t even appear in Seversky’s comment @4.

    Seversky @4: Over the past 130 years, the global average temperature …

    Seversky @4: Detailed measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels …

    Seversky @4: Global sea level rose …

    Seversky @4: The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass.

  18. 18
    Charles says:

    Zachriel @ 16

    You asked for citations,

    Lacking any other defense, Zachriel now pretends to not know that citations were requested on Seversky’s blockquoted phrases in comment @4.

    Zachriel @ 17

    And now Zachriel demonstrates his complete incompetence by failing to match phrases. Zachriel doesn’t understand that citations were sought on Severky’s source for what Seversky posted, not what Zachriel misquoted from Seversky’s unsourced quotes:

    “Over the past 130 years, the global average temperature” is not “Temperature and CO2”

    “Detailed measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels” is not “Temperature and CO2”

    “Global sea level rose” is not “Sea level rise”

    “The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass” is not “Polar ice cap mass loss”

    And Zachriel still commits the same error as Seversky by still not providing cites for actual phrases from Seversky’s comment @4

  19. 19
    Zachriel says:

    Charles: Lacking any other defense, Zachriel now pretends to not know that citations were requested on Seversky’s blockquoted phrases in comment @4.

    This is the statement to which we replied:

    Charles: Do a Google search on various phrases and you’ll find various unsubstantiated blog comments, but no citations of research papers

    We did, and found many citations to research papers supporting the claims in Seversky @4. Did you actually have a substantive point? Do you disagree with any of the statements in Seversky @4?

  20. 20
    Zachriel says:

    For “Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century,” Google returns an exact match to NASA, complete with footnotes to scientific citations.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

  21. 21
    Charles says:

    Zachriel @ 19

    We did, and found many citations to research papers supporting the claims in Seversky @4.

    Liar. Seversky was aksed for where his quotes came from. And you still haven’t provided cites for where Seversky lifted his quotes.

  22. 22
    Zachriel says:

    Charles: Seversky was aksed for where his quotes came from.

    Sorry. We presumed you were interested in a substantive discussion. Our mistake.

  23. 23
    Charles says:

    Zachriel @ 19

    Sorry. We presumed you were interested in a substantive discussion. Our mistake.

    Oh, please. You are not sorry and you know perfectly well a substantive discussion is impossible with unsourced quotes lifted from blog comments elsewhere.

    If you were truly interested in a substantive discussion, you would have by now posted links to where Serversky lifted his quotes in comment @4. Between the two of you, you’ve had 4 opportunities now to do so in rebuttal. But like Seversky, you are ashamed to disclose where those quotes came from, and you will lie and obfuscate endlessly to cover that up. I dare say you’re further ashamed of the incompetence in your own arguments and juvenile attempts to deflect.

    The mistake is entirely yours, and it is on display, repeatedly, here on this thread.

  24. 24
    Zachriel says:

    Charles: Oh, please. You are not sorry and you know perfectly well a substantive discussion is impossible with unsourced quotes lifted from blog comments elsewhere.

    We provided support for the substance of the statements. Who cares if the quotes are from the primary literature, or from secondary sources, as long as they accurately portray the science.

    The sea level and polar ice mass statements are from a NASA publication complete with footnotes to scientific citations. The same article also supports the temperature and CO2 statements.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

  25. 25
    Charles says:

    Zachriel @ 23

    Who cares if the quotes are from the primary literature, or from secondary sources, as long as they accurately portray the science.

    Without cites there is no way to identify the sources, primary, secondary, tertiary or in Seversky’s case none-existent, and hence no evidence that those sources accurately portray any science whatsoever.

    And since neither you nor Seversky can be bothered to source his quotes in @4 I’ll not be bothered to do your homework for you, and I’ll just assume they are nothing but further chaff on your parts.

  26. 26
    Zachriel says:

    Charles: Without cites there is no way to identify the sources, primary, secondary, tertiary or in Seversky’s case none-existent, and hence no evidence that those sources accurately portray any science whatsoever.

    We provided that supporting evidence. Problem solved!

  27. 27
    Charles says:

    Zachriel @ 25

    We provided that supporting evidence.

    Not for Seversky’s quotes, you didn’t. This was now your 5th opportunity to correct that omission which you have studiously evaded. Your repeated lie stands exposed already.

    That you would attempt to pass unsourced blog quotes and lies off as substantive discussion demonstrates the intellectual dishonesty you and your ilk are long noted for.

    Though you’ll nodoubt feign umbrage and shock, I’ll link to this thread so future readers can see for themselves what you consider to be substantive discussion.

  28. 28
    Virgil Cain says:

    Seversky:

    Like I asked before, what will convince you that there’s a problem, when most of Florida is submerged?

    And if Florida doesn’t get submerged, what then? Do we get to whip all of the alarmists?

  29. 29
    Zachriel says:

    Charles: Not for Seversky’s quotes

    Sure we did. You claimed that there was “no evidence that those sources accurately portray any science whatsoever.” We took each statement and provided supporting evidence for the claim. We even sourced two of the four exact quotes to NASA, complete with footnotes to scientific citations. The same NASA article also provides support for the other two statements.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

  30. 30
    Charles says:

    Zachriel @ 28

    We took each statement and provided supporting evidence for the claim.

    Liar.

    You did not provide cites for Seversky’s quotes. Seversky quoted a source and never cited that source.

    You provided cites for your misquotes, not for Seversky’s source. The Google search I posted demonstrated Seversky lifted unsourced comments from blog comments.

    We even sourced two of the four exact quotes to NASA, complete with footnotes to scientific citations.

    Liar.

    Not one of Seversky’s “exact quotes” were sourced from anywhere.

  31. 31
    Zachriel says:

    Charles: You did not provide cites for Seversky’s quotes.

    In fact, we provided sources for two of the exact quotes, and supporting evidence for all four.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

  32. 32
    Charles says:

    Zachriel @ 30

    In fact, we provided sources for two of the exact quotes, and supporting evidence for all four.

    Liar.

    Copy and past into your next comment all four “exact quotes” from Seversky’s @4 and then show those exact same quotes from your cites.

    Until you competently do that, you’re just demonstrating the intellectual bankruptcy of your cause.

  33. 33
    Zachriel says:

    Charles: Copy and past into your next comment all four “exact quotes” from Seversky’s @4 and then show those exact same quotes from your cites.

    We provided sources for two of the exact quotes.

    Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    Not sure why you are having such troubles.

  34. 34
    Charles says:

    Zachriel @ 14:

    Temperature and CO2
    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/…..0-2009.gif

    Sea level rise
    http://www.epa.gov/climatechan…..level.html

    Polar ice cap mass loss
    http://nca2014.globalchange.go…..oss-hi.jpg

    Happy to help.

    Zachriel @ 16

    You asked for citations, and we provided U.S. scientific government results that are sourced to peer-reviewed scientific research.

    CO2
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

    Surface temperature
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

    Sea level rise
    http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.go…..global.php

    Polar ice cap mass declines
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/jou…..o1874.html

    As I previously pointed out:
    “Over the past 130 years, the global average temperature” is not “Temperature and CO2?
    “Detailed measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels” is not “Temperature and CO2?
    “Global sea level rose” is not “Sea level rise”
    “The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass” is not “Polar ice cap mass loss”

    I stopped taking you seriously and doing your homework after your post 16.

    I will grant that the latter two “exact quotes” paragraphs from Seversky’s @4 can be sourced to NASA/evidence as you cited in your post @23, though because you cited it as supporting your earlier misquotes @14 and @16 I didn’t bother guessing at which quotes you claimed they supported.

    Zachriel @ 32

    Not sure why you are having such troubles.

    It is that Seversky’s first two paragraphs @4 remain, in fact, to be unsourced blog comments, coupled with your obfuscation and misquoting @14 and @16, after which you had no credibility.

    We provided sources for two of the exact quotes.

    Not until @32 did you actually source the last two exact quotes. Which still leaves you short the first two “exact quotes”.

  35. 35
    velikovskys says:

    Perhaps this will help:
    IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, p. 5

    B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46

    Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306

    V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141

    B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.

    In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.

    National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.

    Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.

    The global sea level estimate described in this work can be downloaded from the CSIRO website.

    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

    T.C. Peterson et.al., “State of the Climate in 2008,” Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 90, no. 8, August 2009, pp. S17-S18.

    I. Allison et.al., The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science, UNSW Climate Change Research Center, Sydney, Australia, 2009, p. 11

    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/ 01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm

    Levitus, et al, “Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems,” Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).

    L. Polyak, et.al., “History of Sea Ice in the Arctic,” in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes, U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7

  36. 36
    velikovskys says:

    charles

    Seems pretty exact ,http://www.ucsusa.org,

  37. 37
    Charles says:

    velikovskys @ 35

    Seems pretty exact ,http://www.ucsusa.org,

    lol – what seems exact? You neither stated what you’re quoting nor is your link specific.

    And as I already noted in my comment @ 7, the UCSUSA has a post http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work.....ng-science which matches that text, but it is unsourced and unsubstantiated. Did the UCSUSA make it up or did they lift it from some blog post.

  38. 38
    Zachriel says:

    This quote is from the Union of Concerned Scientists

    Over the past 130 years, the global average temperature has increased 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit, with more than half of that increase occurring over only the past 35 years. The pattern is unmistakable: The 12 warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998 and every one of the past 37 years has been warmer than the 20th century average.
    http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work.....YhDVlIepFM

    The article then links to a reference page with scientific citations supporting the claim.
    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w.....l#bf-toc-7

  39. 39
    Zachriel says:

    Charles: As I previously pointed out:
    “Over the past 130 years, the global average temperature” is not “Temperature and CO2?
    “Detailed measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels” is not “Temperature and CO2?
    “Global sea level rose” is not “Sea level rise”
    “The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass” is not “Polar ice cap mass loss”

    At that time, we thought you were interested in a substantive discussion, instead of being worried over who mouthed the specific phrases.

    Charles: I will grant that the latter two “exact quotes” paragraphs from Seversky’s @4 can be sourced to NASA/evidence as you cited in your post @23, though because you cited it as supporting your earlier misquotes @14 and @16 I didn’t bother guessing at which quotes you claimed they supported.

    They weren’t misquotes, but topic headers.

    At that time, we thought you were interested in a substantive discussion, instead of being worried over who mouthed the specific phrases. If someone summarizes the scientific findings accurately, what difference does it make who said it?

  40. 40
    mike1962 says:

    I think it’s humorous that a dog was able to join the “Union of Concerned Scientists.” Bwahahaha.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/201.....cientists/

    Actually, the dog’s owner “joined” him. Funny, nevertheless.

  41. 41
    Charles says:

    Zachriel @ 38

    If someone summarizes the scientific findings accurately, what difference does it make who said it?

    lol – If you say it, it makes all the difference because you have no credibility or authority to grant you a presupposition of accuracy, and you have a history of obfuscation.

    I’m willing to look at properly sourced and cited material that you might post, but I’m not willing to assume your summarizations are accurate or honest. And after this debacle, I won’t ask twice. If you can’t post your supporting evidence competently the first time, as with Seversky, I’m just going to assume you’re bluffing or obfuscating.

  42. 42
    asauber says:

    Union of Concerned Scientists

    “We Need Your Support
    to Make Change Happen”

    http://www.ucsusa.org/about-us#.VYhawelRGUk

    Don’t make me holler
    Don’t make me shout
    Just turn ’em pawkets
    Inside Out

    Andrew

  43. 43
    bornagain77 says:

    Zachriel, for me personally, having personally seen how dishonest towards the evidence you are with Darwinian evolution, some of the best evidence that Global warming is a fraud is the fact that you yourself are supporting it so passionately.

    You can perhaps fool some other people on other sites with your literature bluffing, but around here your schtick is all old hat.

    In fact, if you really wanted to support global warming alarmism here on UD, given your track record for dishonesty on UD, you would do much better to say it was a fraud. That would cause some heads to be seriously scratched!

    🙂

    i.e. You simply have no credibility left Zach! You used it all up long ago!

  44. 44
    Andre says:

    And all I want to know is why do these materialists care? There is no reason to suppose man has to be saved is there? Extinctions happen all the time, are we not just another animal soon to be gone?

  45. 45
    bornagain77 says:

    Andre, of related note:

    … I watched in amazement as a few hundred members of the Texas Academy of Science rose to their feet and gave a standing ovation to a speech that enthusiastically advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth’s population by airborne Ebola. The speech was given by Dr. Eric R. Pianka (Fig. 1), the University of Texas evolutionary ecologist and lizard expert who the Academy named the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....02118.html

  46. 46
    velikovskys says:

    Charles:
    but it is unsourced and unsubstantiated. Did the UCSUSA make it up or did they lift it from some blog post.

    It seems you just had to follow the links, here are some of the references.

    References:

    Yan, Z., P.D. Jones, T.D.Davies, A.Moberg, H. Bergström, D. Camuffo, C. Cocheo, M. Maugeri ,G. R. Demarée, T. Verhoeve, E. Thoen, M. Barriendos, R. Rodríguez, J. Martín-Vide And C. Yang. (2004). Trends of extreme temperatures in Europe and China based on daily observations, Climatic Change 53: 355–392.

    Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. 2004. Impacts of a Warming Arctic. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. Available at http://www.acia.uaf.edu.

    Ahn J. et al. 2004. A record of atmospheric CO2 during the last 40,000 years from the Siple Dome, Antarctica ice core, Journal of Geophysical Research, 109, D13305, doi:10.1029/2003JD004415.

    Barnett, T.P., D.W. Pierce, and R. Schnur. 2001. Detection of anthropogenic climate change in the world’s oceans. Science 292:270-274.

    Huybers, P., Comment on “Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance” by McIntyre and McKitrick, Geophysical Research Letters (In Press).

    Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

    Jones, P.D. and M.E. Mann. 2004. Climate over past millennia, Reviews of Geophysics 42(2):1-42.

    Keeling, C.D. and T.P. Whorf. 2004. Atmospheric CO2 records from sites in the SIO air sampling network. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Oak Ridge, TN: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.

    Mann M.E., R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes. 1999. Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences, uncertainties, and limitations, Geophysical Research Letters 26(6):759-762.

    Mann, M. et al. 2003. On past temperatures and anomalous late-20th century warmth, EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 84: 8.

    Meko, D. et al. 1993. Spatial patterns of tree-growth anomalies in the United States and Southeastern Canada, Journal of Climate 6:1773-1786.

    Moberg, A. et al. 2005. Highly variable northern hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data. Nature 433:613-617.

    National Climate Data Center. 2005. Climate of 2005: June in Historical Perspective. Available at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/cl.....jun05.html

    Petit J.R. et al. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399:429-436.

    Siegenthaler, U. et al. 2005. Stable carbon cycle-climate relationship during the late Pleistocene. Science 310:1313–1317.

    von Storch, H. et al. 2004. Reconstructing past climate from noisy data. Science 306:679-682.

    von Storch, H. and E. Zorita. 2005. Comment on ”Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance” by S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick. Geophysical Research Letters. 32:L20701, doi:10.1029

  47. 47
    velikovskys says:

    Charles:
    I’m willing to look at properly sourced and cited material that you might post, but I’m not willing to assume your summarizations are accurate or honest

    A wise choice

    By the way , could you provide the properly sourced and cited material for your summarization? Thanks in advance

    But alarmists have low standards of evidence and have corrupted themselves through decades of allowing the (presumed) end to justify the means: they lack practice at being right. And cheerleading from politically correct media keeps them clueless.

  48. 48
    Zachriel says:

    Charles: If you say it, it makes all the difference because you have no credibility or authority to grant you a presupposition of accuracy, and you have a history of obfuscation.

    Let’s review.

    Zachriel: The sea level and polar ice mass statements are from a NASA publication complete with footnotes to scientific citations. The same article also supports the temperature and CO2 statements.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    Charles: Without cites there is no way to identify the sources …

    Zachriel: We even sourced two of the four exact quotes to NASA, complete with footnotes to scientific citations. The same NASA article also provides support for the other two statements.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    Charles: Liar.

    Zachriel: In fact, we provided sources for two of the exact quotes, and supporting evidence for all four.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    Charles: Liar.

    Zachriel: We provided sources for two of the exact quotes…
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    Then,

    Zachriel: This quote {the third of four} is from the Union of Concerned Scientists … The article then links to a reference page with scientific citations supporting the claim.
    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w.....l#bf-toc-7

    Charles: I’m willing to look at properly sourced and cited material that you might post

    In our first post, we commented on the substance of Seversky’s remarks. We were surprised that you weren’t interested in substantive support. We can’t make you read the citations or respond to the substance. That’s completely up to you.

  49. 49
    Charles says:

    Zachriel @ 47

    In our first post, we commented on the substance of Seversky’s remarks.

    Seversky provided no cites for wherever he lifted his quotes.

    Your first five posts did nothing to correct that, rather you obfuscated with extraneous cites of misquotes from Seversky’s post @4 which you now claim were “topic headers” – LOL.

    Only in your sixth post did you provide a link which matched the text of Seversky’s last two paragraphs, but you didn’t clarify that until your 10th post.

    We can’t make you read the citations or respond to the substance. That’s completely up to you.

    Neither can you force me to play twenty questions or guess at what Seversky or you were specifically citing. I won’t pan through 10 posts of fools gold assuming somewhere might be a nugget of fact.

    The article then links to a reference page with scientific citations supporting the claim.

    Actually that page doesn’t support the quoted “…past 130 years, the global average temperature…” That support is found yet another layer deeper at http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/d.....sucs05.pdf and it shows the data was extracted from Hansen’s NASA GISS dataset just a few months after the climate gate emails were first leaked and everyone found out how Mann, Hansen, Jones, et. al. had been erroneously adjusting the data upwards. And because the study is 5.5 years old, it doesn’t address the continued pause (or cooling trend) demonstrated by the NOAA UAH and RSS data from 2000 thru to 2015.

  50. 50
    Zachriel says:

    Charles: Seversky provided no cites for wherever he lifted his quotes.

    So? It would seem that the content, not the precise wording, is what would be important.

    Charles: Your first five posts posts did nothing to correct that, rather you obfuscated with extraneous cites of misquotes from Seversky’s post @4 which you now claim were “topic headers”

    Sorry. We naturally assumed you were interested in the substantive content of the statements. Our mistake.

    Charles: Only in your sixth post did you provide a link which matched the text of Seversky’s last two paragraphs, but you didn’t clarify that until your 10th post.

    We originally responded to the substantive content. On our fifth comment we apologized for assuming you were interested in substance. We first addressed the exact quote business in our sixth comment.

    Zachriel @23: The sea level and polar ice mass statements are from a NASA publication complete with footnotes to scientific citations. The same article also supports the temperature and CO2 statements.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    Charles: Neither can you force me to play twenty questions or guess at what Seversky or you were specifically citing.

    You didn’t have to guess. We provided sourcing on our very first comment concerning temperature, CO2, sea level, and polar ice.

  51. 51
    Mapou says:

    Zachriel (emphasis added):

    In our first post, WE commented on the substance of Seversky’s remarks.

    You guys realize you are engaging in a “discussion” with a fruitcake, don’t you?

  52. 52
    Charles says:

    Zachriel @ 49

    You didn’t have to guess. We provided sourcing on our very first comment concerning temperature, CO2, sea level, and polar ice.

    Liar.

    @14 & @16 was you sourcing what you claimed @38 were your “topic headers”, not Seversky’s quotes, and neither were your source that @23 which finally did correspond to Severskly’s last two paragraphs, which you didn’t clarify until @32.

    Prior to @32, it was all guesswork.

  53. 53
    Charles says:

    Mapou @ 50

    You guys realize you are engaging in a “discussion” with a fruitcake, don’t you?

    It’s a cry for help.

  54. 54
    Zachriel says:

    Charles: @14 & @16 was you sourcing what you claimed @38 were your “topic headers”, not Seversky’s quotes

    That’s right. We were responding to the substance of the quotes. You didn’t have to “play twenty questions or guess at what” we were citing.

    Charles: neither were your source that @23 which finally did correspond to Severskly’s last two paragraphs, which you didn’t clarify until @32.

    Zachriel @23: The sea level and polar ice mass statements are from a NASA publication complete with footnotes to scientific citations. The same article also supports the temperature and CO2 statements.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    Not sure your point, but you are clearly uninterested in the climate science.

  55. 55
    Charles says:

    Zachriel @ 53

    We were responding to the substance of the quotes. You didn’t have to “play twenty questions or guess at what” we were citing.

    And yet, none of your “topic headers” were used by Seversky @4 and none of your links @14 & @16 were cites of the text posted by Seversky @4.

    Neither your links @14 & @16 nor the text at those links matched Seversky’s quotes @4. One could only guess you meant “topic headers” – lol.

    Not sure your point,

    Golly. Who knew???

  56. 56
    Zachriel says:

    Charles: And yet, none of your “topic headers” were used by Seversky @4 and none of your links @14 & @16 were cites of the text posted by Seversky @4.

    Seversky introduced four topics; temperature, CO2, sea level, and ice caps. Our first comment provided substantive support for those four statements.

    Charles: Golly. Who knew???

    “Can any of your neighbours tell, Kate? I’ll ask them.”

  57. 57
    Charles says:

    Zachriel @ 55

    Seversky introduced four topics; temperature, CO2, sea level, and ice caps. Our first comment provided substantive support for those four statements.

    Seversky quoted four paragraphs of someone elses work. Neither you nor Seversky (apparently) understand that when quoting some other author’s words (as in @4), it is standard practice (among intellectually honest writers) that a cite of who authored the quoted text and where it may be found also be provided.

    That you fail to understand, or persist in obfuscation, this most basic practice of citing quoted material of other authors, demonstrates that you are either a plagiarist, arguing at a grade school level, or just stuck on stupid.

    It also demonstrates that your cites can’t be trusted, because you don’t know what a “cite” actually is.

  58. 58
    Zachriel says:

    Charles: Seversky quoted four paragraphs of someone elses work. Neither you nor Seversky (apparently) understand that when quoting some other author’s words (as in @4), it is standard practice (among intellectually honest writers) that a cite of who authored the quoted text and where it may be found also be provided.

    You might have simply asked for the sources, not that it matters that much. Instead, this is what you said,

    Charles: Do a Google search on various phrases and you’ll find various unsubstantiated blog comments, but no citations of research papers. What Seversky quoted seems to be a hodge-podge of Greenpeace and Union of Concerned Scientists opinion. But no substantiated data that can be fact checked.

    Leaving aside your questionable Google skills, we reasonably took your comment as a request for “substantiated data that can be fact checked,” which we have repeatedly provided, and which you have repeatedly ignored.

  59. 59
    Charles says:

    Zachriel @ 58

    You might have simply asked for the sources, not that it matters that much.

    You have self-servingly ignored that in my post @7 I also wrote: “But Seversky doesn’t want you to know where those particular cherries were picked off the ground. … There’s always a reason when some alarmist doesn’t want you to follow the bread crumbs.

    And in my post @ 18 I wrote “Lacking any other defense, Zachriel now pretends to not know that citations were requested on Seversky’s blockquoted phrases in comment @4.”

    So, I did ask for “where those particular cherries were picked”, and for “bread crumbs to follow” and “citations on Serversky’s @4”. But that doesn’t matter at all to someone who willfully obfuscates and feigns ignorance of both the practice of citing quoted work and what a cite actually is.

    But since you think you can just keep repeating lies and not get called on it, I’m gonna have to go with you being “stuck on stupid”

    Next up, Zachriel reinforces “stuck on stupid” with confusion over the meaning of words and repeatedly ignoring citation and source requests actually made, repeatedly.

  60. 60
    velikovskys says:

    Charles:
    data was extracted from Hansen’s NASA GISS dataset just a few months after the climate gate emails were first leaked and everyone found out how Mann, Hansen, Jones, et. al. had been erroneously adjusting the data upwards

    Citation please

  61. 61
    Zachriel says:

    Charles: Zachriel now pretends to not know that citations were requested on Seversky’s blockquoted phrases

    That’s clear from our exchange. We naturally assumed you wanted “substantiated data that can be fact checked.” When you clarified your request, we provided sources for two of the quotes, and later a third.

    You said you were asking for sources for the quotes. Two were provided. You responded “Liar.” We provided the sources again. You again responded “Liar.” You continue your ad hominem even after you were provided sources for the quotes, and more important, substantive support for the content of those statements. Not sure what you hope to accomplish.

  62. 62
    Charles says:

    Zachriel @ 58

    You might have simply asked for the sources, not that it matters that much.

    Zachriel @ 61

    You said you were asking for sources for the quotes.

    So you now admit I did ask for sources.

    You said you were asking for sources for the quotes. Two were provided. You responded “Liar.”

    Indeed in my post @21 I responded: “Liar. Seversky was aksed for where his quotes came from. And you still haven’t provided cites for where Seversky lifted his quotes.” because you falsely claimed to have provided those cites.

    It wasn’t until your post @33 that you actually quoted 2 of Serversky’s statements and provided the cites for them, and even that was in response to my educating you in my post @32 to “Copy and past into your next comment all four “exact quotes” from Seversky’s @4 and then show those exact same quotes from your cites.”

    I asked for all 4 cites, you only provided 2, and I responded “I will grant that the latter two “exact quotes” paragraphs from Seversky’s @4 can be sourced to NASA/evidence as you cited in your post @23, though because you claimed it was supporting your earlier misquotes [what you later described as “topic headers” – lol] @14 and @16 I didn’t bother guessing at which quotes you claimed they supported.”

    When you finally provided cites, I didn’t call you a liar for those cites.

    You continue your ad hominem even after you were provided sources for the quotes, and more important, substantive support for the content of those statements. Not sure what you hope to accomplish.

    Cites for Seversky’s quotes is not the same as sources for your “topic headers”, but being “stuck on stupid” you’re not sure of my point.

    But you continue to lie about my having repeatedly asked for cites of Seversky’s quotes and instead you evade with sources for your “topic headers” instead of Seversky’s quotes, and you lie thinking you can pass them off as the same. They’re not, and you can’t.

  63. 63
    Zachriel says:

    Charles: So you now admit I did ask for sources {for the exact quotes}.

    Yes, you clarified your meaning in @21, and we responded in @24.

    Charles: When you finally provided cites, I didn’t call you a liar for those cites.

    Sure you did. Note the order.

    Zachriel @24: The sea level and polar ice mass statements are from a NASA publication complete with footnotes to scientific citations. The same article also supports the temperature and CO2 statements.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    Charles @30: Liar.

    Charles @32: Liar.

    Ad hominem is boring.

  64. 64
    Charles says:

    Zachriel @ 63

    Yes, you clarified your meaning in @21, and we responded in @24.

    No, as I said in my post @62: It wasn’t until your post @33 that you actually quoted 2 of Serversky’s statements and provided the cites for them, and even that was in response to my educating you in my post @32 to “Copy and past into your next comment all four “exact quotes” from Seversky’s @4 and then show those exact same quotes from your cites.”

    A cite is associated with a specific quote (Seversky’s), not your “topic headers”. It is where the original author’s exact text as quoted is found.

    But your exact words in @24 were:

    The sea level and polar ice mass statements are from a NASA publication complete with footnotes to scientific citations. The same article also supports the temperature and CO2 statements.

    You plainly still don’t know what a cite is and when it is to be used, and your failure to provide the quoted text @24 requires guesswork on the part of the reader, and your track record of obfuscation doesn’t warrant investing in guesswork.

    I never asked for “support”. I asked for cites as to where the author’s text for all 4 exact quotes may be found, not sources for your “topic headers”.

    Ad hominem is boring.

    Indeed, you are a boring liar.

  65. 65
    Zachriel says:

    Charles: No

    Zachriel @24: The sea level and polar ice mass statements are from a NASA publication …

  66. 66
    Charles says:

    Zachriel @ 65

    Zachriel @24:
    The sea level and polar ice mass statements are from a NASA publication

    I’ll type very slowly so you can understand. Your text string above (“topic headers” you called them) does not match Seversky’s text strings below.

    Seversky @ 4

    Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.

    The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

    Again, typing very, very slowly. Notice now how in your post @ 33, you finally (after I explained in post 32) managed to quote exactly the author’s text and provided the source for each. See how your copied text strings in @33 match Severy’s quoted text in @4:

    We provided sources for two of the exact quotes.

    Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    You finally provided “sources for two of the exact quotes” in your post @33. That is what “cites” look like.

    But in your post @24 you sourced more of your “topic headers”. Now, if Seversky and his quoted author had used the exact same “topic headers” as you did, then you’d have a point. But they didn’t, and so you don’t. That’s what “stuck on stupid” looks like.

  67. 67
    Zachriel says:

    Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.

    This is a statement about sea level.

    The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

    This is a statement about polar ice mass.

    Zachriel @24: The sea level and polar ice mass statements are from a NASA publication complete with footnotes to scientific citations. The same article also supports the temperature and CO2 statements.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    This is a statement which sources the two statements, including a link to the source.

  68. 68
    Charles says:

    Zachriel @ 67

    Instead of the requested cites for Seversky’s quotes, you sourced “topic headers” with your links in @14, @16. Note your sea level and polar ice “topics”:

    Zachriel @ 14:

    Temperature and CO2
    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/..0-2009.gif

    Sea level rise
    http://www.epa.gov/climatechan..level.html

    Polar ice cap mass loss
    http://nca2014.globalchange.go..oss-hi.jpg

    Zachriel @ 16

    CO2
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

    Surface temperature
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

    Sea level rise
    http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.go..global.php

    Polar ice cap mass declines
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/jou..o1874.html

    And by @24 you were still arguing that your sourced topics were the cites I requested (which you now admit they weren’t), and still didn’t even understand the significance or purpose of cites:

    Zachriel @ 24
    We provided support for the substance of the statements. Who cares if the quotes are from the primary literature, or from secondary sources, as long as they accurately portray the science.

    So when you argue…

    Zachriel @24:
    The sea level and polar ice mass statements are from a NASA publication complete with footnotes to scientific citations. The same article also supports the temperature and CO2 statements.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    This is a statement which sources the two statements, including a link to the source.

    You are still citing what appear to be your same sea level and polar ice mass “topic headers” as you sourced in @14 & @16, rather than the exact quotes from Seversky’s post @4. And I had even searched on “polar ice mass” and just “polar” but those topics aren’t found at your source. But then you’ve already admitted you don’t care where quotes are from.

    You hadn’t distinguished the sea level and polar ice mass “topic headers” in @24 as different from those in @14 & @16 (which is why stating what author’s quote is being cited is important). You had carelessly used “topic headers” to refer to multiple different sources, but expected me to distinguish what you would not. And you plainly didn’t know how to properly cite an author’s quote until I instructed you in @32, and only then in @33 you responded with credible cites for just two of the requested 4 quotes.

  69. 69
    Zachriel says:

    Charles: Instead of the requested cites for Seversky’s quotes, you sourced “topic headers” with your links in @14, @16.

    That’s right. We naturally assumed you were interested in substantiated data that can be fact checked, mostly because you asked for “substantiated data that can be fact checked.” We didn’t realize that you wanted to have a discussion ad nauseam about the source of the statements provided @4, and not their content. When you clarified your question, we responded with the source for two of the quotes @24, and a third @38.

    Charles: You hadn’t distinguished the sea level and polar ice mass “topic headers” in @24

    Sure we did. “The sea level and polar ice mass statements are from a NASA publication …”

    statement, something stated
    state, set down explicitly

  70. 70
    Charles says:

    Zachriel @ 69

    We didn’t realize that you wanted to have a discussion ad nauseam about the source of the statements provided @4, and not their content.

    The source, the author, and the content. It could have been a research paper; it could have been a PR release from some university; it could have been a blog post; it could have been a news article; and it could have been an agency website. Seversky provided no citations for his quote, and he had arguably denied due credit to the rightful authors.

    Regardless, you admit you didn’t realize what was being asked. And in @24, you still didn’t realize what was being asked because while it was obvious your source was a NASA website, what you did not distinguish or provide was what quote was expected to be found at that source. You used again the same previously mis-cited topics of sea level and polar ice mass.

    When you clarified your question, we responded with the source for two of the quotes @24, and a third @38.

    And here is where you start lying again. I “clarified” what is expected in a cite after your post @24, specifically in @32, wherein I told you to copy & paste the author’s quote you were citing and then include the source; no topic headers, no ambiguity of what was expected of a cite, which you then did provide in @33. You did not provide a legitimate cite of the author’s quoted text until @33 and you even admitted in @33:

    We provided sources for two of the exact quotes

    Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.
    http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

    .

    Anyone not stuck on stupid can compare your post @24, Seversky’s post @4 and your post @33 and see the distinctions.

  71. 71
    Zachriel says:

    Charles: Regardless, you admit you didn’t realize what was being asked.

    Well, duh. That’s why we apologized in @22 for presuming you wanted a substantive discussion, then provided a source for two of the quotes @24.

    Charles: what you did not distinguish or provide was what quote was expected to be found at that source.

    Sure we did. Seversky provided four quotes @4; on temperature, CO2, sea level, and polar ice mass. “The sea level and polar ice mass statements are from a NASA publication …”

    In any case, you have been provided sources for the quotes quite some time ago, as well as support for the content of the posts, which you have ignored. Not sure what you are hoping to accomplish.

  72. 72
    Charles says:

    Zachriel @ 71:

    Sure we did. Seversky provided four quotes @4;

    lol – But Seversky didn’t provide cites and links @4. You provided a link @24 but didn’t provide Seversky’s quotes.

    You didn’t get it together, Seversky’s quotes with your source links, until @33.

  73. 73
    Seversky says:

    Let me apologize for not returning to this thread earlier. The last time I looked in briefly, my posts didn’t seem to be generating the kind of interest I’d hoped.

    Charles @ 13

    Seversky wants to be right. So do I. I *absolutely hate* being wrong. The difference is, I hate being wrong so much, that I check my facts as best I can before committing myself (and catch a lot of my own mistakes) and I’m willing to admit and correct my mistakes so I can actually *get* right when I’ve been wrong.

    Of course, we would all like to be right but most of us understand that you are only going to find the certainty you clearly crave in formal systems like mathematics and logic. In the real world we have to be satisfied with a range of interpretations and degrees of confidence.

    As for being willing to change your view in light of contradictory evidence, I would hope it’s true but I have my doubts. I see too much similarity between climate change skeptics and the conspiracy theorists who believe the CIA and/or Mossad engineered the 9/11 attacks. Global warming is a hoax being foisted on us by a conspiracy of academic and political elites bent on – what – world domination? And 9/11 was rigged by secret government agencies bent on [insert pet conspiracy theory here] I find the idea of climatologists being bent on world domination quite intriguing, though. I see possible villain for the next Bond movie – especially if he likes cats.

    Oh, and going back to uncited quotes, I note that my post at 5, quoting from George Monbiot’s (cited) research into the political and corporate interests that are heavily invested in the denialist movement has been sedulously ignored. I wonder why that is?

Leave a Reply