revelio

43 ms·

451.
by revelio 4y ago
Not knowingly leaving out. Happy to debate such variables. What's your proposed hypothesis?
452.
by revelio 4y ago
"Technicalities" like Mann filing a lawsuit and then never actually doing anything to move it forward? The judge is extremely harsh towards Mann in the Mann v Ball case dismissal, stating in plain language that Mann has engaged in
453.
by revelio 4y ago
A response like "that looks like nonsense" isn't arguing in good faith, is it. That's not even arguing at all. It's the shallow dismissal of someone who doesn't know how to respond to unexpected evidence of inc
454.
by revelio 4y ago
You assert a feedback loop that is reached at a certain absolute temperature level, I respond with evidence that it can't exist (otherwise it would have already triggered), and your reply is that you can't even understand the link
455.
by revelio 4y ago
1. The article is simply a summary and repetition of Judith Curry's announcement, and Curry is/was an academic climatologist. 2. Given (1) I don't really care what reason.com is, but at any rate, I think right wing think tank
456.
by revelio 4y ago
Yep the step function is El Nino. There is also La Nina which can cool things, the AMO and other natural inputs that affect temperature. So it turns into a debate about how much each factors matters, which is the big set of unknowns that ha
457.
by revelio 4y ago
Mann filed a lot of lawsuits over this and has lost all of them: https://www.steynonline.com/11508/youre-once-twice-three-tim... He didn't spend 9 years fighting a very expensive lawsuit and then, when he finally
458.
by revelio 4y ago
Nobody is saying that. They're saying use an iPhone and then don't sideload apps. Easy!
459.
by revelio 4y ago
ClimateGate had numerous emails that in context showed serious malfeasance. They were literally saying they were going to exclude any scientific work that disagreed with them "even if they had to redefine the peer reviewed literature t
460.
by revelio 4y ago
That paper comes from the same group as the original MM paper (one of the authors studied under Mann even), has some of the same problems and was itself rebutted: https://climateaudit.org/2006/08/30/wahl-and-a
461.
by revelio 4y ago
That's backwards! Michael Mann filed a defamation lawsuit against a skeptic and then lost it nine years later. The court awarded the defendant full costs: https://climatechangedispatch.com/tim-ball-defeats-michael-m
462.
by revelio 4y ago
As the Ars article makes it clear, the predicted range of temperature change was extremely wide, 0.35 to 0.7 degrees by now even if you allow for the re-scaling to a shorter time period, yet actual change was at the very lowest point of tha
463.
by revelio 4y ago
They're correct. This article goes deep into the emails, what they said, the non-investigation that followed and more: https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/climat...
464.
by revelio 4y ago
>> As a climate scientist myself, I can tell you this is untrue and a harmful legend Other climatologists say otherwise: https://reason.com/2017/01/04/georgia-tech-climatologist-jud... There's al
465.
by revelio 4y ago
It's incredibly well funded, that's part of the problem. Every time they make extreme claims their funding levels go up, because rich people and governments conclude studying the climate is the most important thing that can be don
466.
by revelio 4y ago
Such dangerous feedback loops are conjectured but not actually a threat. It can be proven with historical evidence like this paper, which shows that during the Roman times it must have been much hotter than today, like somewhere between 3-7
467.
by revelio 4y ago
No, with the work done by people actually observing and counting polar bear populations. At any rate, going back to the original non-bear related claims that you're picking a fight with, those outlets were in both cases reporting measu
468.
by revelio 4y ago
It's an absurd argument. If you want to only install app store apps, then only install apps from the store. That's still possible you know, even if other people aren't forced to. That's why these arguments always boil do
469.
by revelio 4y ago
If you have a step function and draw a trend line through it, the trend line will go up, but that doesn't imply a continuous process. CO2 forcing is (asserted to be) a continuous process. More co2 = higher temperature. The attempts to
470.
by revelio 4y ago
Hockey stick graphs are indeed alarming, but also fraudulent, and the IPCC has even accepted that in the past! Look into the history of these graphs, the Mann lawsuit, the work McIntyre did on showing how these graphs were manufactured etc.
471.
by revelio 4y ago
From your wiki link: "AVHRR data have been collected continuously since 1981" ChatGPT was off by a decade! I hope nobody will confuse an anecdote about a handful of bears from 2004 with robust science.
472.
by revelio 4y ago
The article says this: many of the models are getting hotter with time in ways that are clearly wrong, but climatologists routinely use them anyway out of some misguided belief in "model democracy" i.e. that all models are equally
473.
by revelio 4y ago
No, the changes were much larger than that, but recall from the climategate emails that they spent a lot of time trying to find ways to cover up the data around that. Look into the history of "hockey stick" graphs to see just how
474.
by revelio 4y ago
AVHRR started collecting data in the early 1980s, not the early 70s. ChatGPT is hallucinating again. I guess this is the scenario AI ethics people feared - the internet being clogged up by AI generated misinformation. If you want to take pa
475.
by revelio 4y ago
Here's a public versions of their nature comment written by the same authors. I should have linked to that instead of the original paywalled version but all these versions are making the same argument, presumably with sightly different
476.
by revelio 4y ago
Did you bother changing the graph to show world population instead of just looking at the default selection? Here is the link to assist you in this: https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/population-and-demograp... It is
477.
by revelio 4y ago
Thanks! :) Glad someone appreciated it.
478.
by revelio 4y ago
World population has grown at exactly the same rate for the last 70 years: https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth If modellers were caught by surprise by this then they are clueless. But they weren't becaus
479.
by revelio 4y ago
Climate has changed in big ways without mass extinctions. The medieval warm period, the little ice age, mid-20th-century cooling. Just three examples. The idea the climate has been stable since the dinosaurs isn't supported by the evid
480.
by revelio 4y ago
Scientists overestimated climate change and frequently still do by their own telling. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01192-2 Climate simulations: recognize the ‘hot model’ problem Users beware: a subset of

More ›