“What is your goal? Is it science education and promotion, or something else?”
We know what the goal of most of the skeptic side is. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be scientific truth.
“I view my job a little like a legislator,
supported by the taxpayer, to protect the
interests of the taxpayer and to minimize
the role of government.
– Roy Spencer – Skeptic climate scientist
No. Taxpayers are paying him to do science. Period. You will find that most of the skeptic scientists are free market / no regulations ideologues. Most are funded by fossil fuel interests as well.
Anyone is welcome to their political ideas, but that isn’t science. Science decides science, not politicians, radio talk show hosts, amatuer skeptics like Monckton, TV weathercasters, Donald Trump or his barber.
Science has been under attack by a powerful lobbying and PR campaign very similar to what the tobacco company has done for decades. But it’s much better funded, having the largest economic enterprise in history and it’s deep pockets.
So now, if a blog attempts to dispell the myths, lies, misrepresentations of science, etc., and expose this vile agenda; it’s branded as advocacy, being proof that scientists are agenda driven, which is nonsense. This is then used to claim that the blog is unreliable, because it is an advocacy site.
Clever.
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
Isaac Azimov
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge”
As for Spencer, I am glad he has come out a s a true believer for one side, makes it easy for me to ignore him, just like I ignore Mann and Hanssen on the other.
As for your high minded quotes, I assume you can defend the real science or both of you would not be arrogant enough to belittle others who post it. Since that must be true, please comment on the cloud cover that seems to be missing in current models and describe why the real hydrological record locally or regionally is not aligned or supported by the climate models.
Oh, and I cannot resist, the Darwin quote is absolutely precious to me as my first grad degree is in molecular genetics – I assume you can thus also discuss the evolutionary genetics and pack behavior that leads to “true believers” based on our similarities to others mammals and the evolutionary psychology underlying same. Not the topic for this board, but it does have a nearly endless depth for academic discourse or even discussion over beers, my fav starting point for the “you are just a big talking dag, like all of us humans” is the Haig hypothesis:
No! Did nobody told you that you need peer-reviewed data, following the scientific process? Although your claims are arrogantly wrong, you are spreading conspiracy theories – trolling.
LOL! Since when is one of the most respected hydrology journals not peer reviewed? The other is not peer reviewed, but this article says essentially the same thing without directly questioning the models:
Do you guys do anything but make fun of the other side for doing exactly what you do? You guys are not scientifically literate and unable to actually evaluate the data, but you follow the same dittohead philosophy of Rush listeners.
Also go look up whether aerosols are dealt with well in these models – without clouds, aerosols, black carbon they work pretty weel, but not in the real world.
I am not a skeptic or denier either fellas, just someone who understands a bit about how science works and how screwed the IPCC and and GISS are.
Again, the site above shows a low level increase in sea level, measured by satellite, paid for with your tax dollar. The increase is a measly 3.1 millimeters a year.
Again, the above plots show that the atmosphere is not increasing in temp in any linear fashion, and the heat is not moving in to different layers as mixing would predict.
I really do not want to call you names, but please, give me a scientifioc argument back, please, show me you and this site are not just complete “dittohead” arguments.
since the graphs of stratospheric cooling and upper trop/lower strat stasis are exactly what is predicted by global warming theory, and in fact exactly what we observe,
your selection of them indicates that you are either ignorant of the science yourself, or hoping to hood wink others.
Either way, it reflects poorly on you.
What happened to this comment or did he really post dashes?
What is your goal? Is it science education and promotion, or something else?
http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/09/motives-for-communicating-climate-science/#more-4017
dispelling ignorance.
puncturing arrogance.
“What is your goal? Is it science education and promotion, or something else?”
We know what the goal of most of the skeptic side is. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be scientific truth.
“I view my job a little like a legislator,
supported by the taxpayer, to protect the
interests of the taxpayer and to minimize
the role of government.
– Roy Spencer – Skeptic climate scientist
No. Taxpayers are paying him to do science. Period. You will find that most of the skeptic scientists are free market / no regulations ideologues. Most are funded by fossil fuel interests as well.
Anyone is welcome to their political ideas, but that isn’t science. Science decides science, not politicians, radio talk show hosts, amatuer skeptics like Monckton, TV weathercasters, Donald Trump or his barber.
Science has been under attack by a powerful lobbying and PR campaign very similar to what the tobacco company has done for decades. But it’s much better funded, having the largest economic enterprise in history and it’s deep pockets.
So now, if a blog attempts to dispell the myths, lies, misrepresentations of science, etc., and expose this vile agenda; it’s branded as advocacy, being proof that scientists are agenda driven, which is nonsense. This is then used to claim that the blog is unreliable, because it is an advocacy site.
Clever.
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
Isaac Azimov
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge”
Charles Darwin
As for Spencer, I am glad he has come out a s a true believer for one side, makes it easy for me to ignore him, just like I ignore Mann and Hanssen on the other.
As for your high minded quotes, I assume you can defend the real science or both of you would not be arrogant enough to belittle others who post it. Since that must be true, please comment on the cloud cover that seems to be missing in current models and describe why the real hydrological record locally or regionally is not aligned or supported by the climate models.
Thanks.
Oh, and I cannot resist, the Darwin quote is absolutely precious to me as my first grad degree is in molecular genetics – I assume you can thus also discuss the evolutionary genetics and pack behavior that leads to “true believers” based on our similarities to others mammals and the evolutionary psychology underlying same. Not the topic for this board, but it does have a nearly endless depth for academic discourse or even discussion over beers, my fav starting point for the “you are just a big talking dag, like all of us humans” is the Haig hypothesis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parent%E2%80%93offspring_conflict
This generally leads sophisticates that truly understand evolution into a wide ranging discussion. Have fun with it.
I am not a skeptic, and for me it is all about scientific truth. Read page 5 here and comment on the climate models please:
http://www.gewex.org/images/feb2010.pdf
Also, please comment on why the climate models you are using are not supported by real data when tested against such data.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02626667.2010.513518
No! Did nobody told you that you need peer-reviewed data, following the scientific process? Although your claims are arrogantly wrong, you are spreading conspiracy theories – trolling.
LOL! Since when is one of the most respected hydrology journals not peer reviewed? The other is not peer reviewed, but this article says essentially the same thing without directly questioning the models:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C2384%3ANAOTCR%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Do you guys do anything but make fun of the other side for doing exactly what you do? You guys are not scientifically literate and unable to actually evaluate the data, but you follow the same dittohead philosophy of Rush listeners.
Also go look up whether aerosols are dealt with well in these models – without clouds, aerosols, black carbon they work pretty weel, but not in the real world.
I am not a skeptic or denier either fellas, just someone who understands a bit about how science works and how screwed the IPCC and and GISS are.
How much does Exxon pays you to lie?
Exxonn does not pay, nor am I lying.
Au contraire.
After posting garbage and being called on it, you have not responded, but rather moved on to more cut and paste garbage.
http://climatecrocks.com/2011/06/16/graph-of-the-day-what-if-the-sun-goes-into-another-maunder-minimum/comment-page-1/#comment-2074
Again, what the hell are you talking about? All of those sites are paid for by your tax dollars and say exactly what I said they do:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/current/sl_ib_global.jpg
Again, the site above shows a low level increase in sea level, measured by satellite, paid for with your tax dollar. The increase is a measly 3.1 millimeters a year.
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tts/plots
/rss_ts_channel_tts_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tls/plots/rss_ts_channel_tls_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots
/rss_ts_channel_tlt_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
Again, the above plots show that the atmosphere is not increasing in temp in any linear fashion, and the heat is not moving in to different layers as mixing would predict.
I really do not want to call you names, but please, give me a scientifioc argument back, please, show me you and this site are not just complete “dittohead” arguments.
since the graphs of stratospheric cooling and upper trop/lower strat stasis are exactly what is predicted by global warming theory, and in fact exactly what we observe,
your selection of them indicates that you are either ignorant of the science yourself, or hoping to hood wink others.
Either way, it reflects poorly on you.