10 ms·

Let's see if these fare any better than the projections used by the IPCC ... http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5297 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5297 "The most recent cl

Let's see if these fare any better than the projections used by the IPCC ... http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5297 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=5297 "The most recent climate model simulations used in the AR5 indicate that the warming stagnation since 1998 is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level." Kudos to them for publishing these, though. If they are rotten, it ought to be easy to tell.

mavhc 11y ago
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jun/08/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-noaa-global-warming-faux-pause-paper http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-...
- barney54 11y ago
  Rebuttal: http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/ http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-... The greatest changes in the new NOAA surface temperature analysis is to the ocean temperatures since 1998. This seems rather ironic, since this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the highest quality of measurements – ARGO buoys and satellites don’t show a warming trend. Nevertheless, the NOAA team finds a substantial increase in the ocean surface temperature anomaly trend since 1998. ... The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target. So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on. ------ The link above also includes more on some of the specifics of the new adjustments NOAA made.
  - anon1385 11y ago
    >regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration Judith sure knows how to play to the gallery.
    - guelo 11y ago
      Yea and in other posts she's always defending Ted Cruz. Really makes you trust her sciencyness.
      - briandear 11y ago
        What does Ted Cruz have to do with anything? Do you know anything about his positions? Wasn't Al Gore that said all of the polar ice caps would be melted by now? Wasn't it Gore that also predicted a dramatic increase in hurricanes? When did that happen? Cruz is Linus Pauling compared to Al Gore.
        guelo 11y ago
        The point is that she shows her political biases by attacking Obama and defending Cruz. As far as Gore, I see you've ingested the appropriate Two Minutes Hate.
  - Daishiman 11y ago
    Ahh, yes, the famous Judith Curry, known by climate scientists as a quack who seems to be rather incapable of understanding the most basic notions of physics necessary to build (or refute, for that matter) any sort of argument in climate sciences.
    - briandear 11y ago
      Are these the same climate scientists that were accused of fabricating data by adjusting the adjustments in order to support their political desires? Those climate scientists? Because if anyone is having trouble with credibility right now it's the entire industry of grant-chasing climatologists. The IPCC even admired that climate policy was a means to redistribute world wealth. Does that not scare anyone? Has Al Gore become a billionaire because of a climate 'crisis' he helped invent? I don't know anything about this Curry woman but I do know that political ideology has a disproportionate influence in climate science because it's an ideal Trojan horse for Marxism. It's no accident that extreme leftists are the ones most passionate about carbon. Carbon represents freedom. It's that simple. Even the founder of Greenpeace admits that the whole global warming industry is nothing more than a political scam.
      - tstactplsignore 11y ago
        In your various comments you display such a startling misunderstanding and ignorance of how science itself works that it must be hard for anyone educated on these subjects to know where to begin. The accusations you mention completely flopped and the "accused" were exonerated by half a dozen independent committees and investigations. Climate scientists do not on the whole make a lot of money for their level of technical skill and training- if any climate scientist was "in it for grant money", they simply would switch to data analysis in the private industry or another field. Climate science is a diverse and huge field with many research areas that existed long before our awareness of climate change, and researchers' careers do not depend on the current climate change consensus- it's not like every university would simply fire their Earth Sciences department, or the NSF would stop funding Earth Science grants, if the climate was not warming. Additionally, you don't seem to understand how the grant process works- grants are awarded before results are obtained, chosen by committees of scientists, and a majority of climate science grants do not even write proposals concerned with future predictions. Finally, the irony is of course, the handful of denialist scientists are the only people who have been explicitly (and universally) linked to outside conflict of interest funding in their work. Al Gore did not "help invent" any part of climate science, he merely brought popular attention to the issue. Your failure boils down to the following: you have no perspective of the magnitude, operations, or workings of the scientific community. You have accused tens of thousands of scientists, safely employed at universities across the world, in countries with wildly different politics and governmental situations than the US, of conspiring together to produce dozens of scientific papers every week and an entire worldwide network of data collection, from satellites to buoys to promote a false theory, all of which gives them essentially nothing to gain. Have you ever read a journal in the Earth Sciences? Can you even name one? If not: you haven't even begun to examine the scientific matters at hand. When you realize how wholly out of your field you are, it should become clear that your concerns are rooted in anti-intellectualism and rabid ideology, and nothing else.
- philh 11y ago
  This is coming from a perspective of "I know a little about stats", not "I know anything about climate science": That doesn't feel like a particularly strong response to ESR's claim. Taken as a response to that claim, it feels kind of like: "our predictions were wildly inaccurate, but it's a complicated system with short-term and long-term factors and the short-term factors caused more warming just before we made our predictions and less just after, and that threw us off". Which doesn't inspire confidence. If you can't predict the short-term factors, you need to widen your confidence intervals. I feel like at the very least, you should be making predictions like "conditional on these factors staying within these bounds, we expect this amount of warming". Then if that condition doesn't hold, you don't lose any bayes points. (I recognize that the article wasn't written as a response to ESR, I'm not even sure it was a response to the same thing that ESR is talking about. But you offered it as a response, so that's how I'm evaluating it.)
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    Actually, what it says is that the results (which are themselves not raw data but a conclusion inferred from a wide mass of raw data) that ESR is saying weren't consistent with the IPCC projections have since, themselves, been reevaluated, adjusted to correct for biases introduced by changes in measuring methods, and corrected, and no longer present the problem he is pointing to.
jellicle 11y ago
ESR is a climate scientist too?! Is there anything he isn't an expert on? swoon
- DonHopkins 11y ago
  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond During the Climategate fiasco, Raymond's ability to read other peoples' source code (or at least his honesty about it) was called into question when he was caught quote-mining analysis software written by the CRU researchers, presenting a commented-out section of source code used for analyzing counterfactuals as evidence of deliberate data manipulation. When confronted with the fact that scientists as a general rule are scrupulously honest, Raymond claimed it was a case of an "error cascade," a concept that makes sense in computer science and other places where all data goes through a single potential failure point, but in areas where outside data and multiple lines of evidence are used for verification, doesn't entirely make sense. (He was curiously silent when all the researchers involved were exonerated of scientific misconduct.) "My favorite part of the "many eyes" argument is how few bugs were found by the two eyes of Eric (the originator of the statement). All the many eyes are apparently attached to a lot of hands that type lots of words about many eyes, and never actually audit code." -Theo De Raadt http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=129261032213320 http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=129261032213320
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    "When confronted with the fact that scientists as a general rule are scrupulously honest" citation needed
    - caseysoftware 11y ago
      Here are some citations showing the exact opposite. Believe it or not, scientists are humans and have biases, are occasionally bad actors, and sometimes just need to get that grant. http://publicationethics.org/news/cope-statement-inappropriate-manipulation-peer-review-processes http://publicationethics.org/news/cope-statement-inappropria... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/ - "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%... - Editor in Chief of the Lancet talking about about upwards of half of biomed studies are faked or over-estimated
DonHopkins 11y ago
His global warming conspiracy theories are as crackpot as his racist criminology theories. "In the U.S., blacks are 12% of the population but commit 50% of violent crimes; can anyone honestly think this is unconnected to the fact that they average 15 points of IQ lower than the general population? That stupid people are more violent is a fact independent of skin color. " -Eric S Raymond, http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=129 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=129 Raymond also blames Alan Turing for his judicial punishment and suicide, even though Raymond, like every other computer programmer, owes Turing his career. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1046#comment-236592 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1046#comment-236592
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  >average 15 points of IQ lower than the general population? Growing up in poverty, which many minorities do in this country, has been linked with lower IQ. Criminal populations are 8 IQ points below the mean. Whether there's a connection here is beyond me, but I really hate how people play up the hysterical political correctness card to censor these types of discussions. In many countries, raising people out of poverty lowers crime. There's definitely a connection here and in the US we're so PC, that we can't discuss these things, thus our continued high crime rates in many urban areas. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a "racist" doesn't add to the conversation and only helps to make sure that we cannot discuss race issues without unneeded emotional drama. cites: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v18/n5/full/nn.3983.html http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v18/n5/full/nn.3983.html http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178903000533 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178903... Please read my primary sources before handing me more drive-by downvotes.
  - DonHopkins 11y ago
    I'm doing the opposite of censoring them: I'm bringing them up for discussion, and making sure we DO discuss race issues. Eric Raymond is on the record as having said a hell of a lot of other racist stuff. Remember his full throated defense (employing the dog-whistle term "thug") of Russ Nelson's infamous "Blacks are Lazy" essay that was such an embarrassment to the open source software community? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russ_Nelson#Blacks_are_lazy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russ_Nelson#Blacks_are_la... Eric S. Raymond wrote: “The people who knew Russ as a Quaker, a pacifist and a gentleman, and no racist, but nevertheless pressured OSI to do the responsible thing and fire him in order to avoid political damage should be equally ashamed,” Raymond said. “Abetting somebody elses witch hunt is no less disgusting than starting your own.” “Personally, I wanted to fight this on principle,” Raymond said. “Russ resigned the presidency rather than get OSI into that fight, and the board quite properly respected his wishes in the matter. That sacrifice makes me angrier at the fools and thugs who pulled him down.”
scarmig 11y ago
What would be very interesting is for ESR to publish his own predictions, as he feigns expertise. Or, hell, any global warming denialist to publish predictions at all, or build any model at all beyond their day jobs of quote mining and writing clever PR releases that prey on the public's scientific illiteracy and fossil fuel barons' desire to violate other people's lives and properties with untrammeled carbon pollution.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  You shouldn't encourage ESR to produce content.
  - scarmig 11y ago
    He can certainly produce good content when he wants to. It's just when you give him the chance, his ideological blinders make him go wild. Forcing him to make concrete predictions and disciplining him with empiricism would move his content from dealing with fantasies in his head to the actual existing world.
    - duncan_bayne 11y ago
      One can falsify claims without having to present alternatives. It works like this: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20131031.png http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20131031.png
      - scarmig 11y ago
        It's unclear what you're even arguing for. Naive falsificationism? Even Popper didn't argue for that. Science works by building theories and programmes of research. A single counterexample, contrary to what you seem to think, doesn't invalidate a theory--it's driven by multiple lines of evidence. And ESR's strategy of digging through comments of source code to quote out of context fragments doesn't even approach providing a single counterexample, particularly when he admits that he's in a quest to show that climate scientists are a conspiracy, part Gaian-religionists and part KGB psyops. Like, really.
facepalm 11y ago
There recently was a new study that showed that the warming stagnation was not that much of a stagnation after all. Just measurement errors (and mixing up of data from different measurement methods). Interpretation differs, though - some say it is still a slower warming, just not as slow as was previously thought.
guelo 11y ago
A paper just came out in the journal Science that says there was no pause. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/06/04/federal-scientists-say-there-never-was-any-global-warming-slowdown/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/201...
- toomuchtodo 11y ago
  The key takeaway: > Noting that “buoy data have been proven to be more accurate than ship data,” the new study applies a new “bias correction” to address the difference between them.
  - kbutler 11y ago
    ..by adding a correction to the more accurate buoy data, generating a combined dataset that does not match trends in the satellite data, gold-standard terrestrial data, balloon data, or oceanic temperature data. It also reduces the long-term temperature trend to the pre-1950 trend (i.e., pre-anthropogenic trend). This is a paper that requires a significant degree of corroboration rather than simple endorsement because of its publication.
    - briandear 11y ago
      Pre-1950 trend? I don't get it. What happened in 1950?
      - kbutler 11y ago
        1950 is generally accepted by both AGW skeptics and proponents as a time before which human influence on climate was not discernable. That is, the warming trend before 1950 was natural, not human-caused. AGW skeptics assert this places a burden of proof on AGW proponents to show that warming since 1950 is beyond what could naturally occur.
tstactplsignore 11y ago
This "paper" (sorry, it's not a paper, ESR) is wrong- the climate models have actually done a fairly good job. [0] http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-global-warming-projections.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-global-warming-projecti... [1] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/06/noaa-temperature-record-updates-and-the-hiatus/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/06/noaa-t... [2] www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jul/21/realistic-climate-models-accurately-predicted-global-warming [3] http://skepticalscience.com/curry-mcintyre-resist-ipcc-model-accuracy.html http://skepticalscience.com/curry-mcintyre-resist-ipcc-model... [4] http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
facepalm 11y ago
Here is the link to the study that shows the warming stagnation is less than was previously assumed: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.aaa5632 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.a... (by NOAA) Quote: 'These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.'

mavhc 11y ago

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jun/08/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-noaa-global-warming-faux-pause-paper http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-...

barney54 11y ago
Rebuttal: http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/ http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-... The greatest changes in the new NOAA surface temperature analysis is to the ocean temperatures since 1998. This seems rather ironic, since this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the highest quality of measurements – ARGO buoys and satellites don’t show a warming trend. Nevertheless, the NOAA team finds a substantial increase in the ocean surface temperature anomaly trend since 1998. ... The global surface temperature datasets are clearly a moving target. So while I’m sure this latest analysis from NOAA will be regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration, I don’t regard it as a particularly useful contribution to our scientific understanding of what is going on. ------ The link above also includes more on some of the specifics of the new adjustments NOAA made.
- anon1385 11y ago
  >regarded as politically useful for the Obama administration Judith sure knows how to play to the gallery.
  - guelo 11y ago
    Yea and in other posts she's always defending Ted Cruz. Really makes you trust her sciencyness.
    - briandear 11y ago
      What does Ted Cruz have to do with anything? Do you know anything about his positions? Wasn't Al Gore that said all of the polar ice caps would be melted by now? Wasn't it Gore that also predicted a dramatic increase in hurricanes? When did that happen? Cruz is Linus Pauling compared to Al Gore.
      - guelo 11y ago
        The point is that she shows her political biases by attacking Obama and defending Cruz. As far as Gore, I see you've ingested the appropriate Two Minutes Hate.
- Daishiman 11y ago
  Ahh, yes, the famous Judith Curry, known by climate scientists as a quack who seems to be rather incapable of understanding the most basic notions of physics necessary to build (or refute, for that matter) any sort of argument in climate sciences.
  - briandear 11y ago
    Are these the same climate scientists that were accused of fabricating data by adjusting the adjustments in order to support their political desires? Those climate scientists? Because if anyone is having trouble with credibility right now it's the entire industry of grant-chasing climatologists. The IPCC even admired that climate policy was a means to redistribute world wealth. Does that not scare anyone? Has Al Gore become a billionaire because of a climate 'crisis' he helped invent? I don't know anything about this Curry woman but I do know that political ideology has a disproportionate influence in climate science because it's an ideal Trojan horse for Marxism. It's no accident that extreme leftists are the ones most passionate about carbon. Carbon represents freedom. It's that simple. Even the founder of Greenpeace admits that the whole global warming industry is nothing more than a political scam.
    - tstactplsignore 11y ago
      In your various comments you display such a startling misunderstanding and ignorance of how science itself works that it must be hard for anyone educated on these subjects to know where to begin. The accusations you mention completely flopped and the "accused" were exonerated by half a dozen independent committees and investigations. Climate scientists do not on the whole make a lot of money for their level of technical skill and training- if any climate scientist was "in it for grant money", they simply would switch to data analysis in the private industry or another field. Climate science is a diverse and huge field with many research areas that existed long before our awareness of climate change, and researchers' careers do not depend on the current climate change consensus- it's not like every university would simply fire their Earth Sciences department, or the NSF would stop funding Earth Science grants, if the climate was not warming. Additionally, you don't seem to understand how the grant process works- grants are awarded before results are obtained, chosen by committees of scientists, and a majority of climate science grants do not even write proposals concerned with future predictions. Finally, the irony is of course, the handful of denialist scientists are the only people who have been explicitly (and universally) linked to outside conflict of interest funding in their work. Al Gore did not "help invent" any part of climate science, he merely brought popular attention to the issue. Your failure boils down to the following: you have no perspective of the magnitude, operations, or workings of the scientific community. You have accused tens of thousands of scientists, safely employed at universities across the world, in countries with wildly different politics and governmental situations than the US, of conspiring together to produce dozens of scientific papers every week and an entire worldwide network of data collection, from satellites to buoys to promote a false theory, all of which gives them essentially nothing to gain. Have you ever read a journal in the Earth Sciences? Can you even name one? If not: you haven't even begun to examine the scientific matters at hand. When you realize how wholly out of your field you are, it should become clear that your concerns are rooted in anti-intellectualism and rabid ideology, and nothing else.
philh 11y ago
This is coming from a perspective of "I know a little about stats", not "I know anything about climate science": That doesn't feel like a particularly strong response to ESR's claim. Taken as a response to that claim, it feels kind of like: "our predictions were wildly inaccurate, but it's a complicated system with short-term and long-term factors and the short-term factors caused more warming just before we made our predictions and less just after, and that threw us off". Which doesn't inspire confidence. If you can't predict the short-term factors, you need to widen your confidence intervals. I feel like at the very least, you should be making predictions like "conditional on these factors staying within these bounds, we expect this amount of warming". Then if that condition doesn't hold, you don't lose any bayes points. (I recognize that the article wasn't written as a response to ESR, I'm not even sure it was a response to the same thing that ESR is talking about. But you offered it as a response, so that's how I'm evaluating it.)
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  Actually, what it says is that the results (which are themselves not raw data but a conclusion inferred from a wide mass of raw data) that ESR is saying weren't consistent with the IPCC projections have since, themselves, been reevaluated, adjusted to correct for biases introduced by changes in measuring methods, and corrected, and no longer present the problem he is pointing to.

jellicle 11y ago

ESR is a climate scientist too?! Is there anything he isn't an expert on? swoon

DonHopkins 11y ago
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond During the Climategate fiasco, Raymond's ability to read other peoples' source code (or at least his honesty about it) was called into question when he was caught quote-mining analysis software written by the CRU researchers, presenting a commented-out section of source code used for analyzing counterfactuals as evidence of deliberate data manipulation. When confronted with the fact that scientists as a general rule are scrupulously honest, Raymond claimed it was a case of an "error cascade," a concept that makes sense in computer science and other places where all data goes through a single potential failure point, but in areas where outside data and multiple lines of evidence are used for verification, doesn't entirely make sense. (He was curiously silent when all the researchers involved were exonerated of scientific misconduct.) "My favorite part of the "many eyes" argument is how few bugs were found by the two eyes of Eric (the originator of the statement). All the many eyes are apparently attached to a lot of hands that type lots of words about many eyes, and never actually audit code." -Theo De Raadt http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=129261032213320 http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=129261032213320
- ikeboy 11y ago
  "When confronted with the fact that scientists as a general rule are scrupulously honest" citation needed
  - caseysoftware 11y ago
    Here are some citations showing the exact opposite. Believe it or not, scientists are humans and have biases, are occasionally bad actors, and sometimes just need to get that grant. http://publicationethics.org/news/cope-statement-inappropriate-manipulation-peer-review-processes http://publicationethics.org/news/cope-statement-inappropria... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/ - "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%... - Editor in Chief of the Lancet talking about about upwards of half of biomed studies are faked or over-estimated

DonHopkins 11y ago

His global warming conspiracy theories are as crackpot as his racist criminology theories. "In the U.S., blacks are 12% of the population but commit 50% of violent crimes; can anyone honestly think this is unconnected to the fact that they average 15 points of IQ lower than the general population? That stupid people are more violent is a fact independent of skin color. " -Eric S Raymond, http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=129 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=129 Raymond also blames Alan Turing for his judicial punishment and suicide, even though Raymond, like every other computer programmer, owes Turing his career. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Eric_S._Raymond http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1046#comment-236592 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1046#comment-236592

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
>average 15 points of IQ lower than the general population? Growing up in poverty, which many minorities do in this country, has been linked with lower IQ. Criminal populations are 8 IQ points below the mean. Whether there's a connection here is beyond me, but I really hate how people play up the hysterical political correctness card to censor these types of discussions. In many countries, raising people out of poverty lowers crime. There's definitely a connection here and in the US we're so PC, that we can't discuss these things, thus our continued high crime rates in many urban areas. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a "racist" doesn't add to the conversation and only helps to make sure that we cannot discuss race issues without unneeded emotional drama. cites: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v18/n5/full/nn.3983.html http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v18/n5/full/nn.3983.html http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178903000533 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178903... Please read my primary sources before handing me more drive-by downvotes.
- DonHopkins 11y ago
  I'm doing the opposite of censoring them: I'm bringing them up for discussion, and making sure we DO discuss race issues. Eric Raymond is on the record as having said a hell of a lot of other racist stuff. Remember his full throated defense (employing the dog-whistle term "thug") of Russ Nelson's infamous "Blacks are Lazy" essay that was such an embarrassment to the open source software community? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russ_Nelson#Blacks_are_lazy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russ_Nelson#Blacks_are_la... Eric S. Raymond wrote: “The people who knew Russ as a Quaker, a pacifist and a gentleman, and no racist, but nevertheless pressured OSI to do the responsible thing and fire him in order to avoid political damage should be equally ashamed,” Raymond said. “Abetting somebody elses witch hunt is no less disgusting than starting your own.” “Personally, I wanted to fight this on principle,” Raymond said. “Russ resigned the presidency rather than get OSI into that fight, and the board quite properly respected his wishes in the matter. That sacrifice makes me angrier at the fools and thugs who pulled him down.”

scarmig 11y ago

What would be very interesting is for ESR to publish his own predictions, as he feigns expertise. Or, hell, any global warming denialist to publish predictions at all, or build any model at all beyond their day jobs of quote mining and writing clever PR releases that prey on the public's scientific illiteracy and fossil fuel barons' desire to violate other people's lives and properties with untrammeled carbon pollution.

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
You shouldn't encourage ESR to produce content.
- scarmig 11y ago
  He can certainly produce good content when he wants to. It's just when you give him the chance, his ideological blinders make him go wild. Forcing him to make concrete predictions and disciplining him with empiricism would move his content from dealing with fantasies in his head to the actual existing world.
  - duncan_bayne 11y ago
    One can falsify claims without having to present alternatives. It works like this: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20131031.png http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20131031.png
    - scarmig 11y ago
      It's unclear what you're even arguing for. Naive falsificationism? Even Popper didn't argue for that. Science works by building theories and programmes of research. A single counterexample, contrary to what you seem to think, doesn't invalidate a theory--it's driven by multiple lines of evidence. And ESR's strategy of digging through comments of source code to quote out of context fragments doesn't even approach providing a single counterexample, particularly when he admits that he's in a quest to show that climate scientists are a conspiracy, part Gaian-religionists and part KGB psyops. Like, really.

facepalm 11y ago

There recently was a new study that showed that the warming stagnation was not that much of a stagnation after all. Just measurement errors (and mixing up of data from different measurement methods). Interpretation differs, though - some say it is still a slower warming, just not as slow as was previously thought.

guelo 11y ago

A paper just came out in the journal Science that says there was no pause. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/06/04/federal-scientists-say-there-never-was-any-global-warming-slowdown/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/201...

toomuchtodo 11y ago
The key takeaway: > Noting that “buoy data have been proven to be more accurate than ship data,” the new study applies a new “bias correction” to address the difference between them.
- kbutler 11y ago
  ..by adding a correction to the more accurate buoy data, generating a combined dataset that does not match trends in the satellite data, gold-standard terrestrial data, balloon data, or oceanic temperature data. It also reduces the long-term temperature trend to the pre-1950 trend (i.e., pre-anthropogenic trend). This is a paper that requires a significant degree of corroboration rather than simple endorsement because of its publication.
  - briandear 11y ago
    Pre-1950 trend? I don't get it. What happened in 1950?
    - kbutler 11y ago
      1950 is generally accepted by both AGW skeptics and proponents as a time before which human influence on climate was not discernable. That is, the warming trend before 1950 was natural, not human-caused. AGW skeptics assert this places a burden of proof on AGW proponents to show that warming since 1950 is beyond what could naturally occur.

tstactplsignore 11y ago

This "paper" (sorry, it's not a paper, ESR) is wrong- the climate models have actually done a fairly good job. [0] http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-global-warming-projections.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-global-warming-projecti... [1] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/06/noaa-temperature-record-updates-and-the-hiatus/ http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/06/noaa-t... [2] www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jul/21/realistic-climate-models-accurately-predicted-global-warming [3] http://skepticalscience.com/curry-mcintyre-resist-ipcc-model-accuracy.html http://skepticalscience.com/curry-mcintyre-resist-ipcc-model... [4] http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

facepalm 11y ago

Here is the link to the study that shows the warming stagnation is less than was previously assumed: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.aaa5632 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.a... (by NOAA) Quote: 'These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.'