Dear all,
I’ve had some feedback about the quality of the comments section on the blog. While I’m a strong proponent of freedom of speech, I’m also mindful WtD has gained a larger audience – the quality of the comments can detract readers enjoyment of articles and their discussion with others.
For this reason I would like to remind all contributors to this blog about the community and discussion guidelines. In particular the following:
When making any claim (scientific or otherwise) provide references (links if possible) for others to evaluate your argument/s – repeated failure to do so may result in disciplinary action.
Avoid “Gish Gallops”: long posts with multiple claims not supported by evidence – repeated failure to do so may result in disciplinary action
While we are all entitled to express our opinions, we aren’t entitled to our own facts. As Media Watch presenter Andrew Brown once said “To put it bluntly, there’s evidence, and there’s bulldust.”
I’m not going to single out individuals at this point – however I will be monitoring comments very closely and where necessary apply the three strike rule (see guidelines).
Please feel free to send me your thoughts at watchthedeniers_@_gmail.com
While lecturing in a science bridging course at my university, I used to refer quite often to Berkeley’s “Understanding Science” online module. While the following link talks about false balance reporting in the media and how it undermines the scientific process, I think it can equally apply to blogs and their comment sections. Any lurkers, wanting to find accurate information and informed opinion supported by evidence, should be able to scroll to the comment section and not have to wade through copious piles of unsubstantiated and widely debunked unscientific nonsense spread by trolls.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/sciencetoolkit_04
What changes would you like Mike to make? Should people who present an alternative view be banned? Or would you allow people who present contrary views using links to scientific sources which you approve to post?
Eric, I have already stated that I will not be replying to you because you are nothing but a pathetic troll and I urge my fellow commentators to take the same action. In this case I will make an exception as you have asked me a direct question but this is absolutely the last time.
Your idea of “scientific sources” is so far removed from the reality within the scientific community it does nothing but demonstrate just how ignorant you truly are. The unpublished ramblings of Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, Jo Nova, Bob Tisdale and their ilk are not scientific sources. They don’t even come close to scientific. Using their “analyses” of scientific papers as evidence that the paper is wrong brings nothing of value to any discussion. You could be much more productive by asking those clowns to subject their rebuttals to peer review and get them published in some journal somewhere. That is how science works in the real world. So it doesn’t come down to my approval but the approval of the scientific community.
On that, there have been occasions when commentators in here have actually presented peer reviewed papers as evidence to support the denial position. When it has been pointed out that they have either misunderstood or misrepresented the paper through cherrypicking, omission or quote mining, they have continued on with the incorrect position despite being shown to be wrong. This kind of wilful ignorance is childish beyond belief and has no place in adult discussions and should result in being banned.
Likewise, repeating the same garbage denier memes about flatlining temperatures or coming ice ages, or comparing climate scientists to eugenicists when all of have been debunked time and time again is counterproductive and trolling behaviour. For this alone, I would have the commentator banned from commenting, simply because it brings nothing new to the discussion and is designed simply to hijack the thread and waste the time of fellow commentators and others who may be reading.
Like Mike, I am all for freedom of speech and freedom of expression, but with these freedoms comes a certain responsibility to at least try and be productive and accurate. There are a number of commentators who don’t and are not even remotely interested in doing so. They continually offer unsubstantiated opinions that are a factually incorrect and refuse to acknowledge their mistake when it is pointed out to them. Like in the position where papers have been misrepresented, this behaviour is juvenile and has no place here.
Mike’s dilemma is that he is very busy and has no moderators to police the comments. He has to rely on the good intentions of the commentators to do the right thing. Unfortunately there are a number who take advantage of this to troll.
I call
GissGish Gallop…(sorry couldn’t help that!)
Mike, can I suggest you lift the 1 link limit on posts?
I usually add links to my comments, but sometimes when I’m making more than one point, perhaps to answer a previous post, I avoid re-posting a supporting link which I have previously posted earlier in the blog, to avoid having my comment automatically stuck in moderation. I’ve no complaint about your moderation of comments, but obviously you can’t be everywhere, all the time.
If the one link per comment limit were lifted, I would certainly use more links.
The vast majority of your multitude of incorrect (and endlessly repeated) claims are not referenced.
I’d love to see some evidence of due diligence on your part Eric, especially when you venture into paleoclimate.
The discussion rules don’t seem to address endlessly repeated misinformation “supported” by links that are actually irrelevant and/or wrong.
I’m tired of playing Groundhog Day, where each new comment thread erases all memory of previous debunkings and provides an opportunity to repeat the same misinformation again and again.
Maybe a hall of shame of debunked myths, and their perpetrators, could be collected as a sticky post. Three repetitions and you’re barred.
Much to agree with here.
SkS snips debunked parts of comments and replaces it with a link to the appropriate thread for continuing that discussion. For example, comments on the recent article “Saving the Great Barrier Reef” that continue to dispute warming over short timespans are just repeating this argument.
Snipping future repetitions of such misinformation and linking to that thread would improve the blog because Groundhog Day is boring for (apparently almost) everyone. It would also help the person repeating the myth because they’d get to see what scientists have already told them.
And in this particular case, all readers would get to repeatedly see that there’s been no statistically significant change in the rate of surface warming.
Readers could collect the (linked) quotes demonstrating repeated misinformation and post them to a dedicated thread. I doubt our host has time to be a one-man SkS
Before too long there’d be no argument about which were the most frequently repeated misrepresentations or who was repeating them.
The commenter(s) in question could then be asked to stop repeating specific misinformation.
If they are arguing in good faith, they will welcome this paring away of nonsense. It will help them refine their arguments to ever-higher levels of cogency.
You’re right: Mike shouldn’t have to be the lone defender of science.
My contributions are at #63 in the index. Note that 63(i) has many repetitions.
The vast majority of your multitude of incorrect (and endlessly repeated) claims are not referenced.
That is simply not true. I provide references for most of my claims.
I’m tired of playing Groundhog Day, where each new comment thread erases all memory of previous debunkings and provides an opportunity to repeat the same misinformation again and again.
There are several entertaining climategate emails in which the Climategate scientists are deeply upset about scientific papers being published which contradict their findings.
The most famous is Phil Jones’ comment:-
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1089318616.txt
Mike, for your interest, there is an ECMWF ERA-40 Report coming out soon, which shows that Kalnay and Cai are wrong. It isn’t that strongly worded as the first author is a personal friend of Eugenia The result is rather hidden in the middle of the report … As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia for years. He knows they’re wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future! … I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!.
I quite like Mike’s open policy – its a refreshing change from blogs like SkS and RS, which in my opinion are quite agressive about presenting the message they want people to see.
I will hold you to that, Eric
Eric
We crossed. To be clear:
I will hold you to that, Eric
If you look through my posts you will find I do post links. I would post more links, except for the 1 link limit. The limit is why sometimes I mention a link I posted earlier in the comment stream, if I want to post a new link in a comment, as well as reference a previous link in the same comment.
Nonsense. The first comment on my SkS article wasn’t a message any scientist wants people to see. But they let it through because it wasn’t the N’th repetition of debunked misinformation.
When ShakaUVM accused Real Climate (RC, right?) of censoring comments, I said this, with many links in the original text:
Your accusations are only slightly tarnished by the fact that Real Climate published and answered these comments and didn’t censor these similar comments. It’s a little more bizarre, however, that Real Climate published and answered your “questions”.
They let those comments through because they weren’t yet the N’th repetitions of debunked misinformation. Plus, this wouldn’t stop people from spreading debunked misinformation. They’d just have to keep that discussion where it started.
They let those comments through because they weren’t yet the N’th repetitions of debunked misinformation. Plus, this wouldn’t stop people from spreading debunked misinformation. They’d just have to keep that discussion where it started.
I don’t bother posting on sites which don’t let me post, even if they once allowed a token contrarian comment to pass. Such a policy would quickly push WTD into being an echo chamber.
Take something basic on which we disagree, such as the significance of the surface temperature record since 1998.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2002/trend
The following statements are correct:-
If you plot a least squares linear trend of Hadcrut4 temperatures from 1998 to now, you get a near flatline.
The 30 year trend still shows warming slightly above 0.15c / decade, within the range of IPCC predictions.
Although temperatures are still within the 95% confidence band, they are on the edge of that band. Does this mean anything? What if the slight cooling since 2002 is significant, and continues, or accelerates? At what point do you consider the model falsified? At what point is it appropriate to discuss the possibility the model will be falsified?
You could ban any discussion of these issues, and try to make sure the public receives the impression you want them to receive.
Or you could have a much more interesting discussion thread, which allows people to make their own minds up, based on the best arguments proponents and opponents of various views can muster.
So far Mike has opted for the latter – a policy I hope he continues.
Again, there hasn’t been a statistically significant change in the warming rate.
Even if you don’t have the programming or statistics background to calculate this yourself, you could’ve used the SkS link I provided to duplicate Chris O’Neill’s calculation in less than a minute.
You might find playing Groundhog Day “much more interesting” than discussing facts, but the 92% of the population who aren’t Dismissives probably disagree.
I notice you never answered my question about limit testing your statement – about how many additional years without a change in surface temperature would it take to falsify your statement about statistical significance.
The MET are seriously considering the possibility we won’t see any change in surface temperature for at least another 3-4 years. Would this falsify your statement? Or is a longer period required?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20947224
I showed you the results of my own calculation, which make it clear that your question is like asking “How many additional years without a change in this carnivorous unicorn outbreak would it take to falsify your statement about carnivorous unicorns not existing?”
Again, why don’t you calculate this yourself?
Once again you avoid the question.
Its a simple enough question. Given that the MET are now seriously considering projected future temperatures which would allow a least squares linear trend to be drawn from 1998 to 2017, if the MET prediction is correct, would this invalidate your statement about statistical significance? Or would a longer period of such temperatures be required?
Its not an unreasonable question – I’m asking what conditions would be required to falsify your statement, and presenting evidence that a major climate research body is considering projections of future temperature which might bring your statement closer to falsification.
Don’t tell me you haven’t done any sensitivity tests on your calculations?
You’ve repeatedly asked me about flatlines which aren’t happening, and asked me to fantasize about future temperatures. The only way to respond to that nonsense is to say that there is no flatline and no carnivorous unicorn outbreak. If you stop asking ill-posed questions, you might get someone else to answer you… until they also tire of playing Groundhog Day.
I’ve already shown you the results of my calculations, and you’ve endlessly insisted that HadCRUT’s 30-year trend is “right on the bottom” of the IPCC’s 0.15-0.25°C/decade projection.
That’s because you haven’t done your own calculation, or even bothered to check the SkS trend calculator which would show HadCRUT’s 30-year trend as 0.172±0.055°C/decade. They’re not “on the edge of that band”.
Again, why don’t you calculate this yourself if you want to fantasize about future temperatures? You seem to have a lot of time on your hands, and it only took me a few dozen lines of code in R. Should be quick and easy for someone with your programming skills and statistics background. Right?
Who said I was a statistics expert? I said I worked on numerical models, but it was the Quants who produced the math.
But using your calculated gradient, I can do one simple approximation, to determine how many additional years of flatline are required to bust the 0.15c minimum.
Assuming the temperature rise until now has been constant, that the flatline starts today, and assuming the trend we care about is a 30 year trend, we need to find the number of years of flatline required to produce a 30 year warming of 0.45c (0.15c / decade * 3 decades).
Warming prior to today: (0.172 / 10 years) * (30 years – x years)
Warming after today: x years * zero (assuming no warming after today)
0.45c = (0.172c / 10 years) * (30 – x) + x * zero
Since the x * zero term evaluates to zero, remove it:-
0.45c = (0.172c / 10 years) * (30 – x)
Multiple both sides by 10
4.5 = 0.172 * (30 – x)
Divide both sides by 0.172
4.5 / 0.172 = 30 – x
Subtract 30 from both sides
- x = 4.5 / 0.172 – 30
Multiply both sides by -1
x = 30 – 4.5 / 0.172
= 3.8 years
Strangely, this is about the same length of time the MET is predicting the flatline will continue.
Of course the flattening will occur quicker than this, because the temperature didn’t increase steadily until today, it increased rapidly until 1998, then started dropping. As the temperature anomaly of the left hand edge of our 30 year window is rising more rapidly than my assumed steady rise until today, the 30 year gradient will flatten more rapidly than what is indicated by my approximation.
So I say your statement about statistical significance is likely to be busted in a year or two, if surface temperatures don’t start climbing soon.
No wonder you’re so sensitive about it.
Good grief. Didn’t you notice that the trend is 0.172±0.055°C/decade?
As in, the upper error bar is at 0.227°C/decade? I keep telling you to calculate the statistical significance and think about the full range of the error bars, but you just keep ignoring me. Despite what you’ve claimed for months, there hasn’t been a statistically significant change in the warming rate.
Oh, now you remember that you’re not a statistics expert, after trying to lecture scientists about statistics for months. And you only remembered for as long as it took to type those sentences, because you immediately started fantasizing about a flatline that you’re still wrongly insisting is happening.
You’ve shifted goal posts from your previous false claims that the flatline is already happening, to this new goal post where you fantasize that an imaginary future flatline might eventually drag the top error bar of the observed trend below the projection’s lower bound.
But, of course, you can’t even get that right: you ignored the observed trend’s upper error bar, after spending months babbling about its lower error bar without calculating statistical significance even once. And you still haven’t. Why not? If you can’t calculate something this basic by yourself, why are you lecturing scientists about statistical significance?
You can bunker down behind your calculations all you want, but we both know there is a good chance the 30 year trend will drop below 0.15c / decade in the next few years.
Observed trends in the instrumental record quite clearly show a sawtooth pattern, which short spurts of warming interrupted by long periods of flat or even slightly declining temperatures. The warming which ended in 1998 is not significantly different to previous warming spurts. The mistake alarmists made was to assume this pattern had changed.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl
Its going to be fun watching you cling on by the top edge of your error bar.
I’ll keep calculating trends and uncertainties, and you’ll continue to refuse to do your own calculations. But please don’t accuse me of sharing your ridiculous fantasy.
I’ve repeatedly pointed out that you need to consider the full range of the error bars. You’re the one who’s been repeatedly clinging to the bottom edge of the error bars, without even once calculating said error bars yourself.
Wow, you almost said something falsifiable.
But please don’t accuse me of sharing your ridiculous fantasy.
Are you now saying that the 30 year trend will *not* drop below 0.15c / decade?
Good grief, Eric. I already said that you need to consider the full range of the error bars, not just the trend. In fact, the entire point of this thread is that I’ve told you that so many times that you’re obviously just playing Groundhog Day. You seem awfully keen to prove my point.
Hmm, lets try the top and the bottom of the error range:-
x = 30 – 4.5 / 0.223 = 9.8 years
x = 30 – 4.5 / 0.117 = -8.5 years (thats minus 8.5 years)
So there is a significant possibility the flatline has already broached the bottom of the 0.15c / decade warming rate predicted by the IPCC – but we knew that anyway, from your error range.
And of course, my previous comment applies – the actual rate at which the slope will flatten is faster than indicated by my calculation, assuming the flatline since 1998 continues.
Again, that’s complete nonsense. There’s been no statistically significant change in the warming rate, as you can plainly see on page 2.
Repeating misinformation doesn’t make it true. Why don’t you calculate the statistical significance yourself, rather than playing these silly games? Maybe you’d find out that there is no flatline.
There’s much in here for Eric to quote mine. Maybe he’ll yet find a use for the crappiest app in the app store. http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2013/05/wither-global-warming-has-it-slowed-down/
Had a play with the SkS calculator. From the notes, I can’t use ordinary least squares, because of the dependency between different temperatures (hot temperatures tend to follow hot temperatures, and vice versa).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
Plugging in Hadcrut4, 1973 – 2003
0.182 ±0.055 °C / decade
Plugging in Hadcrut4, 1983 – 2013
0.164 ±0.053 °C / decade
Plugging in Hadcrut4, 1993 – 2013 (obviously a shorter period)
0.137 ±0.097 °C / decade
Plugging in Hadcrut4, 1998 – 2013 (a very short period)
0.039 ±0.138 °C / decade
None of this rules out the possibility of a pause in global warming. Yes the uncertainty in the 1998 – 2013 is quite high, because of the shortness of the period, but additional cold years will decrease the uncertainty quite rapidly.
As Judith Curry has said several times, the period starting in 1998 is not yet statistically significant, but it shouldn’t be ignored either. If the MET’s prediction of at least 4 more years with no warming (which I have cited several times) is correct, the uncertainty of the post 1998 period should drop to a similar level to the 1993 – 2013 period, and the uncertainty associated with the 30 year trend should increase, as more “outlier” points (w/r to this trend) are added.
I’m going to look more closely at the Foster & Rahmstorf calculation, on which the SkS calculator is apparently based, see if I can produce my own version. For example, a dependency adjusted simple quadratic with an inflexion around 1998 might be an interesting fit to calculate.
To put this into perspective, using the SkS calculator, consider the 1940 – 1970 cooling.
Using the SkS calculator:-
1910 – 1940: 0.134 ±0.056 °C/decade
1920 – 1950: 0.110 ±0.051 °C/decade
1930 – 1960: 0.029 ±0.058 °C/decade
The drop in trend rate by shifting the start of the 30 year window from 1920 -> 1930 is stunningly fast.
And of course:-
1940 – 1970: -0.027 ±0.055 °C/decade
Assuming we are at the start of a 1940 – 1970 cooling, lets try a shorter period:-
1935 – 1950: 0.056 ±0.151 °C/decade
Not disimilar to my 1998 – 2013: 0.039 ±0.138 °C / decade
So suggesting this trend calculation eliminates the possibility we are in the early stages of a pause is nonsense. Using the SkS calculator to determine trends near the cooling period 1940 – 1970, I’ve shown how rapidly the calculated trend can change.
Yes, that’s known as autocorrelation which makes error bars too small if it’s not accounted for. The graphs I’ve shown you account for autocorrelation by modelling the noise as an ARMA(1,1) process. You can reproduce my results by downloading the free “R” programming language used by professional statisticians. Then save this code as “significance.r”:
Just download temperature data (from WoodForTrees or SkS or any of the other climate data sources I’ve archived at Dumb Scientist), redirect the read.table command to that file, and save the data in this format:
Then run it using the command “R CMD BATCH significance.r”
My code comments out a command to select different years using the “#” prefix. The second page of my results were calculated similarly, but it also uses a for-loop to cycle through different starting years.
Note that several of my commented-out commands also add annual terms (sine and cosine) as well as a quadratic term. Try R’s “segmented” library for segmented fits, but beware the statistical significance of such additions to the model. A statistical F-test can help, but there be dragons here which even attack scientists. For example…
I’ve already used WoodForTrees to confirm that Prof. Judith Curry’s idea of a “pause” in the BEST data is a change from 0.22°C/decade (1975 to 1998) to 0.22°C/decade (1998-2010). And that’s before addressing statistical significance.
None of it rules out the possibility that the warming has continued, either. But let’s take off these self-imposed blinders, shall we? The continued warming is confirmed by the ice sheet mass loss observed by GRACE/ICESat/InSAR/input-output/cameras, which absorbs heat without warming as it melts. The continued warming is also confirmed by global sea ice volume loss, which absorbs heat without warming as it melts. The continued warming is also confirmed by global ocean heat content, which absorbs heat without warming the surface until it’s released in an el Nino.
The surface holds just a few percent of the added heat trapped by our CO2 emissions. Focusing on the surface and ignoring the other >90% of the climate system is myopic at best.
But even if we strap on the same self-imposed blinders that you can’t shake off, it’s still obvious that there’s been no statistically significant change in the rate of surface warming.
You’ve been claiming flatlining temperatures for months, and nothing you’ve shown supports your claims. Slow down, calculate the uncertainty bounds for yourself, and think carefully about the legacy you want to leave behind.
I just demonstrated, using the SkS calculator, that the calculated trend changed very quickly around the start of the 1940 – 1970 cooling period, from high confidence warming, to high confidence cooling.
That is sufficient evidence that the current warming trend cannot be used to eliminate the possibility we are at the start of a similar cooling.
So lets make some predictions.
If I am right, the calculated uncertainty associated with the pause shall decrease with time.
If you are right, I am allowing myself to be deceived by noise – surface temperatures should return to trend or even overshoot at some point in the near to medium future.
Time will tell.
What a disappointing response to my gift. It’s odd that nobody wants to work with Eric Worrall or read his repetitive comments…
Good grief. The third graph in the article I’ve repeatedly linked is from Meehl 2004, which would tell you that this cooling occurred because of physics. That’s the same physics predicting continued warming from our skyrocketing CO2 emissions which are ten times faster than preceding the end-Permian extinction.
Wait, the current warming trend? Is that your way of saying that temperatures haven’t flatlined, as you’ve been claiming for months?
Time’s already told, for reasonable people. So let’s make some predictions: you, Watts, Monckton, Nova, Tisdale, “Steven Goddard”, etc. will keep smearing scientists regardless of what happens.
I demonstrated a 30 year trend which shows warming.
I demonstrated a 15 year trend which shows a flatline.
I also demonstrated how rapidly a 30 year warming trend can change into a high confidence 30 year cooling trend, using the 1940s – 1970s cooling as an example.
My point is you can’t use the current 30 year trend to eliminate the possibility that we have entered the early stages of a flatline, or even a cooling trend. A 30 year trend starting at 1920, or even at 1930, created using the SkS calculator, still exhibits high confidence warming, even though we know 1940 – 1970 the globe actually cooled slightly, despite rapid accumulation of CO2 during this period.
All your statements about extinction and future generations are just emotional noise, not science. Given the fact that the climate trend for the last 150 years has been short bursts of warming followed by long flat periods of steady or even declining temperatures, much of that coinciding with rising CO2 levels, you have offered no compelling reason why we have not simply entered a new long flat period.
Your physics is based on some pretty shaky assumptions – for example, the IPCC estimate of climate sensitivity is based on assumptions of amplification of the CO2 forcing by water vapour. We’re still waiting for the key prediction of this assumption – the equatorial tropospheric hotspot – to appear.
I’m not impressed by your assumed adjustments for other forcings. If your assumed climate sensitivity is wrong, there are enough inputs you can adjust to make the rest of your model hindcast. As the following hilarious graphic from Wolfram Mathematica demonstrates, with 5 parameters you can literally “fit an elephant”. http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/FittingAnElephant/ There are easily enough parameters in climate models to fit pretty much whatever you want, to subtly compensate for bad assumptions about the magnitude of climate forcings.
No, you demonstrated that there’s been no statistically significant change in the warming rate. You’ve ignored physics, and ignored all of the science humanity has learned over the last century.
Eric
You are either spectacularly thick or you are in denial.
I cannot think of any other reasons why you would ignore (fail to comprehend) what DS writes and demonstrates with such clarity above.
In either case, you are wasting everybody’s time here.
Points for Eric to consider:
– There’ve been previous long stretches of relatively slow surface temperature rises. But then rise they do. SkS’ going down the up escalator encapsulates the point nicely.
– The physics runs against him. There’s more energy entering the atmosphere than leaving it. It’s going to go somewhere. At the moment it’s heading into the deep ocean. This is not good news.
Long posts with lots of links or lots of posts with a single link in each – both are forms of Gish Gallops.
Mike @ WtD
A limit of at least two links per comment would be a welcome convenience if it’s something that can be done easily…
Agreed, a 2 link limit would help, while still allowing automatic filtering of most spam.
Of course another of the guidelines on blogs is to keep to the subject of the blog. So, for example, a suggestion on this blog that global warming could increase the number of cats born would not be very relevant to the blog, even if it was supported by a link.
http://www.livescience.com/1582-adoption-group-cat-invasion-due-global-warming.html.
Should this comment should be removed?
Hilarious
Jesus H Christ on a crutch! Erric’s taking over this thread as well!!
Another possibility is a comment quota. For example, prolix, serial misinformers like Eric could be limited to, say, ten comments per thread.
http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/more-confusion/
You should be applauding a fat bugger like me doing something to improve my fitness levels
Against the run of play, perhaps, but I have sympathy for Eric on the weight front. I’ve lost two stone in just under a year – and probably should lose another half. A complete change of diet, walking up to ten miles a day, a personal trainer and hitting the gym three times a week all helped.
On that basis, I’d like to ask the moderator to consider removing the photograph of Eric. I don’t think it is relevant to the topics at hand.
(And, yes, I do have a collection of witty cheap shots to finish off this post with, but I’m not going to use them.)
The photo is pertinent John. It has nothing to do with his weight (he raised that) but the fact that he claims to refuse to comment on blogs that are “echo chambers” yet comments at WUWT. It is relevant to the discussion. If Eric doesn’t want his photo used he should consider the FB terms and conditions and make it private.
On the off-topic of weight loss, well done on your journey. Sounds like you’ve got it together. Eric too shall be applauded for doing something about losing weight if that is what he wants to do. Personal development is always a good thing. It’s just a shame he doesn’t try and do something about his scientific illiteracy.
clap clap clap. Personal development is great. Apply it to your scientific illiteracy.
Thanks for your support John, but I’m fine with my weight, and the fact people pick on it sometimes. I’m aware at my age I really need to lose some, or risk some serious health problems.
Steve says: “Of course another of the guidelines on blogs is to keep to the subject of the blog. So, for example, a suggestion on this blog that global warming could increase the number of cats born would not be very relevant to the blog, even if it was supported by a link. http://www.livescience.com/1582-adoption-group-cat-invasion-due-global-warming.html.
Should this comment should be removed?”
Not at all. However, one would hope that when it is pointed out that the link does not cite any peer reviewed science that supports the GW=more cats hypothesis, the poster might go to the trouble of finding that supporting evidence in the peer reviewed literature. If the hypothesis is thoroughly debunked by another poster with peer reviewed evidence then the original poster should refrain from flogging the now dead horse…or cat in your example.
uknowispeaksense, of course you are correct.
And I am not and never claimed to be a climate scientist. My only peer reviewed scientific papers are about pasture legumes and grasses.
But I am very interested in the effects of global warming on plants and animals.
However, I would justify my previous post under humour which is specifically allowed under the guide lines.
Then you might be interested in this http://uknowispeaksense.wordpress.com/links-to-papers/
uknowispeaksense,
Thank you. I will read these papers.
Eric Worrall asks:
Yes, if they repeat rubbish that has been properly countered. As you do. As Mark and others do. Repeating misinformation goes beyond poor debating etiquette. It is gamesmanship. It sustains the misinformational noise to the unfair tactical advantage of the misinformer. Which is why you do it.
Endlessly repeating misinformation is an act of bad faith. The general view is unambiguous: most here would like to see such behaviour curtailed. If you won’t act in good faith voluntarily, you should be compelled to it by moderation.
It’s time you learned to behave.
Might I suggest that Erric’s comments be filtered and rejected if they contain reference to hockey sticks, climategate, flatlining temperatures or Watts.
If Mike wants to ban me for expressing my opinion the hockey stick is nonsense, or quoting the odd climategate email, that is his prerogative.
I certainly won’t stop doing so.
Your opinion of MBH is one thing. When you indulge in the false equivalence of trying to pretend that (real or imagined) problems with MBH mean that “climate science is broken”, that is another. Ditto misrepresenting the import of the stolen emails.
Dishonest framing is what causes the problem. That and endless repetition. That’s why you need to be banned, Eric.
1998 was a Major El Nino year where temperatures spiked way above what used to be normal. The Denier’s whole “no global warming since 1998″ nonsense will go belly up in a big way when the next Major El Nino occurs. It’s like watching them play Russian Roulette with themselves.
Scientific American came to the conclusion a few months back. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/a-blog-around-the-clock/2013/01/28/commenting-threads-good-bad-or-not-at-all/
Note that Watts and 4chan are both, rightly, considered nonsense – and any citation using them are both instantly deleted. I commend the same policy here. There is no balance between the sane and insane.
Great link. This time I have remembered to save it.
And if you’re looking to gather nuts in May, have a peek at http://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/.
putting the headgear on now.
At least two layers of foil must cover the cerebellum.
bleat bleat bleat
Comments containing Links to Nova or Watts should be eaten by the spam-trap
l call bullshit. You just Link to Junk Science, which contains Little Science and Lots of Junk. The one Link Limit has its benefits.
Where there is a specific issue which WUWT and JoNova are reporting on, such as farmers being jailed for clearing firebreaks without first dancing for the bureaucrats, I link directly to those sites, otherwise, where possible, I try to link to the original source material (abstracts of peer reviewed papers, or in the case of the Richard Muller interview, the station recording of the interview).
If you have a specific problem with one of my links, rather than just slinging mud, please point it out.
Watts and Nova are disinformation sites. They may once in a very great while get something right. But first, it’s an accident and, second, they’ll then correct it. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/a-blog-around-the-clock/2013/01/28/commenting-threads-good-bad-or-not-at-all/
If a post cites them it should be moderated out.
lf propagandists want to setup Junk Science websites for the benefit of Nukie or Fossil Fuel Oligarchs to peddle their nonsense, that`s their business. But that does not mean Science Based, Fact Seeking websites must indulge or promote their bullshit.
It would appear that the Abbott led coalition sees increased CO2 emissions as a proxy for economic advancement.
Our awakening may be sudden and vicious
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/16886947/professor-joins-fight-to-save-arctic/