The Triumph of Science

[Sheaf Saint]

5 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

Where do I start:

Nice to see you've accepted a review of a paper the author hasn't even  read. Classy...

What are you even on about here? This makes no sense at all.

[Guided Missile]

Despite a relatively recent publication, the R. McKitrick, J. Christy paper (2020) has so far been cited an impressive 6 times.

1. Michiya Hayashi, Hideo Shiogama, Seita Emori, Tomoo Ogura, Nagio Hirota, The Northwestern Pacific Warming Record in August 2020 Occurred Under Anthropogenic Forcing, Geophysical Research Letters, (2021).

2. Stephen Po-Chedley, Benjamin D. Santer, Stephan Fueglistaler, Mark D. Zelinka, Philip J. Cameron-Smith, Jeffrey F. Painter, Qiang Fu, Natural variability contributes to model–satellite differences in tropical tropospheric warming, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, (2021).

3. Cheng‐Zhi Zou, Hui Xu, Xianjun Hao, Qiang Fu, Post‐Millennium Atmospheric Temperature Trends Observed From Satellites in Stable Orbits, Geophysical Research Letters, (2021).

4. Xiaoqing Luo, Jianjun Xu, Kai Li, Discrepancies of Upper Troposphere Summer Thermal Contrast Between Tibetan Plateau and Tropical Indian Ocean in Multiple Data, Frontiers in Environmental Science, (2021).

5. Pascal Richet, The temperature–CO₂ climate connection: an epistemological reappraisal of ice-core messages, History of Geo- and Space Sciences, (2021).

6. Roger A. Pielke, Jimmy Adegoke, Faisal Hossain, Dev Niyogi, Environmental and Social Risks to Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health—A Bottom-Up, Resource-Focused Assessment Framework, Earth, (2021).

I didn't bother to read all of the citations, apart from the latest, which cites it at 34. An interesting quote from this paper below :

Quote

Environmental and Social Risks to Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health—A Bottom-Up, Resource-Focused Assessment Framework
by Roger A. Pielke, Sr.,Jimmy Adegoke,Faisal Hossain and Dev Niyogi 
Despite the limited skill reported by the IPCC [33] in Chapter 11, results are presented for multidecadal time periods in Chapter 12 [33] and Annex I [33] and are used by the impact community as if they have skill. This is misleading as the model predictions have not demonstrated the needed skill. Even on the global scale, skill in predicting changes in the global averages shows limited skill [34,35]. The large-scale outcomes are also sensitive to issues raised with respect to the forcings from emissions [36,37,38]. As shown in [36] for example, IPCC baseline scenarios have over-projected CO2 emissions.

Limited skill? I should think so and it is good that the IPCC's models are being challenged by other researchers. It's the way science operates, not like some minor religious cult. Still keep drinking the Kool-Aid guys.

[Guided Missile]

28 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

What are you even on about here? This makes no sense at all.

Listen mate, if you read that website, you'll be able to discern that the paper it refers to,had not even been published, at the time the author had been ripping it's authors  to bits. Like I said, you're not as clever as you think, are you?

[Guided Missile]

Quote

So buried in all that nonsense are two actual paragraphs of real scientific content they’re using as the basis for this attack on climate models. The first relies on a forthcoming Ross McKitrick and John Christy study.

So there’s probably a very good reason that Rossiter and Michaels are promoting the study now, in the space of time when it’s been accepted by the relatively new journal Earth and Space Science, but has yet to actually be published for anyone to see.  

HTH

[badgerx16]

39 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

Despite a relatively recent publication, the R. McKitrick, J. Christy paper (2020) has so far been cited an impressive 6 times.

1. Michiya Hayashi, Hideo Shiogama, Seita Emori, Tomoo Ogura, Nagio Hirota, The Northwestern Pacific Warming Record in August 2020 Occurred Under Anthropogenic Forcing, Geophysical Research Letters, (2021).

2. Stephen Po-Chedley, Benjamin D. Santer, Stephan Fueglistaler, Mark D. Zelinka, Philip J. Cameron-Smith, Jeffrey F. Painter, Qiang Fu, Natural variability contributes to model–satellite differences in tropical tropospheric warming, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, (2021).

3. Cheng‐Zhi Zou, Hui Xu, Xianjun Hao, Qiang Fu, Post‐Millennium Atmospheric Temperature Trends Observed From Satellites in Stable Orbits, Geophysical Research Letters, (2021).

4. Xiaoqing Luo, Jianjun Xu, Kai Li, Discrepancies of Upper Troposphere Summer Thermal Contrast Between Tibetan Plateau and Tropical Indian Ocean in Multiple Data, Frontiers in Environmental Science, (2021).

5. Pascal Richet, The temperature–CO₂ climate connection: an epistemological reappraisal of ice-core messages, History of Geo- and Space Sciences, (2021).

6. Roger A. Pielke, Jimmy Adegoke, Faisal Hossain, Dev Niyogi, Environmental and Social Risks to Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health—A Bottom-Up, Resource-Focused Assessment Framework, Earth, (2021).

I didn't bother to read all of the citations, apart from the latest, which cites it at 34. An interesting quote from this paper below :

Limited skill? I should think so and it is good that the IPCC's models are being challenged by other researchers. It's the way science operates, not like some minor religious cult. Still keep drinking the Kool-Aid guys.

The first paper on your list does not cite the McKinley and Christy oaper, it is merely listed as a "reference from the supporting information", and the paper overall concludes that anthropogenic warming is responsible for most of the observed events the paper describes.

 

Oh....HTH.

Edited 11 October, 2021 by badgerx16

[Sheaf Saint]

39 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

Despite a relatively recent publication, the R. McKitrick, J. Christy paper (2020) has so far been cited an impressive 6 times.

1. Michiya Hayashi, Hideo Shiogama, Seita Emori, Tomoo Ogura, Nagio Hirota, The Northwestern Pacific Warming Record in August 2020 Occurred Under Anthropogenic Forcing, Geophysical Research Letters, (2021).

2. Stephen Po-Chedley, Benjamin D. Santer, Stephan Fueglistaler, Mark D. Zelinka, Philip J. Cameron-Smith, Jeffrey F. Painter, Qiang Fu, Natural variability contributes to model–satellite differences in tropical tropospheric warming, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, (2021).

3. Cheng‐Zhi Zou, Hui Xu, Xianjun Hao, Qiang Fu, Post‐Millennium Atmospheric Temperature Trends Observed From Satellites in Stable Orbits, Geophysical Research Letters, (2021).

4. Xiaoqing Luo, Jianjun Xu, Kai Li, Discrepancies of Upper Troposphere Summer Thermal Contrast Between Tibetan Plateau and Tropical Indian Ocean in Multiple Data, Frontiers in Environmental Science, (2021).

5. Pascal Richet, The temperature–CO₂ climate connection: an epistemological reappraisal of ice-core messages, History of Geo- and Space Sciences, (2021).

6. Roger A. Pielke, Jimmy Adegoke, Faisal Hossain, Dev Niyogi, Environmental and Social Risks to Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health—A Bottom-Up, Resource-Focused Assessment Framework, Earth, (2021).

I didn't bother to read all of the citations, apart from the latest, which cites it at 34. An interesting quote from this paper below :

Limited skill? I should think so and it is good that the IPCC's models are being challenged by other researchers. It's the way science operates, not like some minor religious cult. Still keep drinking the Kool-Aid guys.

You do realise that number 2 in that list is the same study I have been referring to? The one that only cited it to point out how badly flawed it is! And whoever you got this particular copy and paste job from is celebrating that they have cited it as if that makes it more credible. 😂

As for the Pielke study, when he says the IPCC predictions show limited skill, he is using the McKitrick and Christy study as his basis for this claim. The same study that, I think we have quite comprehensively demonstrated, is worthless. What do you think that says about the credibility of people citing it?

39 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

Still keep drinking the Kool-Aid guys.

I'm sorry but I have no idea what this means. 

Anyone???

Edited 11 October, 2021 by Sheaf Saint

[Guided Missile]

54 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

I didn't say Christy was an economist. I have heard of him and I know he's not. Ross McKitirick, however, who I have also heard of before because of his notoriety in climate science denial, is an economist. Which is what I said.

 

You said:

Quote

However, a more recent study by a team of actual climate researchers (not economists)

Bold type added.

58 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

It wasn't me who linked to that website, it was Badgerx16

You linked it, I have Badgerx16 on ignore.

59 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

You whinge about ad hominem attacks yet you respond with a wanker emoji and call me a total fraud

The wanker emoji was directed at whoever is behind the website you linked. 

I think there is a general misunderstanding of the term ad hominem. Calling you a total fraud is fair comment, as Michael Mann discovered when he sued Timothy Ball for libel when Ball suggested Mann should be jailed for fraud. Mann  failed to prove that was untrue, because he was unable to provide data that supported his "hockey stick" graph, much like you have been unable to supply data to support your assertion that an increase in CO2 from 300-400ppm caused an increase of 1C in global temperature over the century. 

If I called you a wanker, then that is an insult. If I called your scientific argument a bad one because you are a wanker, that is an ad hominem attack.

I hope that helps... 

[badgerx16]

5 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

I have Badgerx16 on ignore.
 

YAY !!!!!!!

A very scientific approach: ignore criticism.

Edited 11 October, 2021 by badgerx16

[Guided Missile]

5 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

As for the Pielke study, when he says the IPCC predictions show limited skill, he is using the McKitrick and Christy study as his basis for this claim. The same study that, I think we have quite comprehensively demonstrated, is worthless. What do you think that says about the credibility of people citing it?

Actually, if you'd read the paper, you would have seen that my extract cites not only the McKitrick and Christy study, but these:

1. Pielke, R.A., Sr.; Wilby, R.; Niyogi, D.; Hossain, F.; Dairuku, K.; Adegoke, J.; Kallos, G.; Seastedt, T.; Suding, K. Dealing with Complexity and Extreme Events Using A Bottom-Up, Resource-Based Vulnerability Perspective. In Extreme Events and Natural Hazards: The Complexity Perspective; Sharma, A.S., Bunde, A., Dimri, V.P., Baker, D.N., Eds.; Copyright by the American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph Series; American Geophysical Union: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; Volume 196. 
2. IPCC. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. In Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., Midgley, P.M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014; p. 1535. 
3. McKitrick, R.; Christy, J. Pervasive warm bias in CMIP6 tropospheric layers. Earth Space Sci. 2020, 7. 
   Wang, Q.; Cheng, L.; Zhang, L.; Liu, P.; Qin, S.; Liu, L.; Jing, Z. Quantifying the impacts of land-cover changes on global evapotranspiration based on the continuous remote sensing observations during 1982–2016. J. Hydrol. 2021. 
4. Burgess, M.G.; Ritchie, J.; Shapland, J.; Pielke, R., Jr. IPCC baseline scenarios over-project CO2 emissions and economic growth. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020. 
   Pielke, R., Jr. Economic ‘normalisation’ of disaster losses 1998–2020: A literature review and assessment. Environ. Hazards 2020, 20, 93–111. 
5. Pielke, R., Jr.; Ritchie, J. Distorting the view of our climate future: The misuse and abuse of climate pathways and scenarios. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2021, 72, 101890. 

[CB Fry]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

YAY !!!!!!!

Just think of the Ad Hominem attacks you can get away with now.

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, CB Fry said:

Just think of the Ad Hominem attacks you can get away with now.

There really isn't a need, he does a better job himself than I could ever manage.

[Guided Missile]

13 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

I'm sorry but I have no idea what this means. 

Anyone???

Quote

"Drinking the Kool-Aid" is an expression used to refer to a person who believes in a possibly doomed or dangerous idea because of perceived potential high rewards. The phrase often carries a negative connotation. It can also be used ironically or humorously to refer to accepting an idea or changing a preference due to popularity, peer pressure, or persuasion. 

The phrase originates from events in Jonestown, Guyana, on November 18, 1978, in which over 900 members of the Peoples Temple movement died. The movement's leader, Jim Jones, called a mass meeting at the Jonestown pavilion after the murder of U.S. Congressman Leo Ryan and others in nearby Port Kaituma. Jones proposed "revolutionary suicide" by way of ingesting a powdered drink mix lethally laced with cyanide and other drugs which had been prepared by his aides

 

[Sheaf Saint]

2 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

Actually, if you'd read the paper, you would have seen that my extract cites not only the McKitrick and Christy study, but these:

1. Pielke, R.A., Sr.; Wilby, R.; Niyogi, D.; Hossain, F.; Dairuku, K.; Adegoke, J.; Kallos, G.; Seastedt, T.; Suding, K. Dealing with Complexity and Extreme Events Using A Bottom-Up, Resource-Based Vulnerability Perspective. In Extreme Events and Natural Hazards: The Complexity Perspective; Sharma, A.S., Bunde, A., Dimri, V.P., Baker, D.N., Eds.; Copyright by the American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph Series; American Geophysical Union: Washington, DC, USA, 2012; Volume 196. 
2. IPCC. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. In Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., Allen, S.K., Boschung, J., Nauels, A., Xia, Y., Bex, V., Midgley, P.M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014; p. 1535. 
3. McKitrick, R.; Christy, J. Pervasive warm bias in CMIP6 tropospheric layers. Earth Space Sci. 2020, 7. 
   Wang, Q.; Cheng, L.; Zhang, L.; Liu, P.; Qin, S.; Liu, L.; Jing, Z. Quantifying the impacts of land-cover changes on global evapotranspiration based on the continuous remote sensing observations during 1982–2016. J. Hydrol. 2021. 
4. Burgess, M.G.; Ritchie, J.; Shapland, J.; Pielke, R., Jr. IPCC baseline scenarios over-project CO2 emissions and economic growth. Environ. Res. Lett. 2020. 
   Pielke, R., Jr. Economic ‘normalisation’ of disaster losses 1998–2020: A literature review and assessment. Environ. Hazards 2020, 20, 93–111. 
5. Pielke, R., Jr.; Ritchie, J. Distorting the view of our climate future: The misuse and abuse of climate pathways and scenarios. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2021, 72, 101890. 

So he cites the IPCC because it is their work he is criticising, he cites the flawed McKitrick and Christy study, and aside from that he mostly cites his own work.

Gotcha.

[Guided Missile]

16 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

So he cites the IPCC because it is their work he is criticising, he cites the flawed McKitrick and Christy study, and aside from that he mostly cites his own work.

Gotcha.

Congratulations on setting a new record for ad hominem attacks in one thread.

As this getting boring now, I will no longer humiliate you. You must have a motorway to block, somewhere.

[Sheaf Saint]

So just to confirm - ad hominem attacks are a big no-no, but personal insults are perfectly acceptable.

And pointing out that someone has cited a deeply flawed study and his own work to arrive at a conclusion is considered an ad hominem attack.

Righto.

Edited 11 October, 2021 by Sheaf Saint

[badgerx16]

16 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

,...You must have a motorway to block, somewhere.

Have you run out of ponds to poison ?

[aintforever]

I guess this is where Deluded Missile has another mental breakdown and admits he doesn't give a fuck about the environment because he drives a big car and his offspring won't be effected anyway.

[Guided Missile]

Britain did not lock down sooner because ministers failed to challenge poor scientific advice, the first major report into the Government’s pandemic response has concluded. The error led to "one of the most important public health failures the UK has ever experienced" and resulted in a higher death toll, MPs said. The most successful part of Britain’s Covid-19 response was the vaccine programme, which is estimated to have saved 112,000 lives in England alone and protected nearly 50 million people in the UK.

[Weston Super Saint]

12 minutes ago, Guided Missile said:

Britain did not lock down sooner because ministers failed to challenge poor scientific advice, the first major report into the Government’s pandemic response has concluded. The error led to "one of the most important public health failures the UK has ever experienced" and resulted in a higher death toll, MPs said. The most successful part of Britain’s Covid-19 response was the vaccine programme, which is estimated to have saved 112,000 lives in England alone and protected nearly 50 million people in the UK.

Not really a surprise when you consider :

Quote

Black scientists say UK research is institutionally racist

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58795079

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Guided Missile said:

Britain did not lock down sooner because ministers failed to challenge poor scientific advice, the first major report into the Government’s pandemic response has concluded. The error led to "one of the most important public health failures the UK has ever experienced" and resulted in a higher death toll, MPs said.

Hardly a "Triumph of Science" then.

It may also have had to do specifically with the Government being politically unwiling, or unable, to folow the example of other countries, especially in Asia, in closing borders and introducing manadatory civil quarantines.

Edited 12 October, 2021 by badgerx16

[Guided Missile]

Sir Patrick Vallance has backed calls for a "very powerful" science minister in Cabinet as a damning report into the national response to Covid is published. The Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, in an interview with BBC Radio 4, said science needs to shape policy, especially as world leaders gear up to tackle climate change. 
He said that integrating science and politics "has got to be the primary aim", and added: "Science needs to be everywhere, it can't sit as if it's one thing off to the side. I've got nothing against the idea of a very powerful science minister, what could be wrong with that, and cabinet positions that speak for science? Don't think that science gets concentrated in one place. Science applied to policy is relevant everywhere it can't be hived off."

Edited 12 October, 2021 by Guided Missile

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

Hardly a "Triumph of Science" then.

It may also have had to do specifically with the Government being politically unwiling, or unable, to folow the example of other countries, especially in Asia, in closing borders and introducing manadatory civil quarantines.

Then again, it might also have something to do with Teresa May suspending, and Boris then dismantling the pandemic planning committee 6 months before CoViD hit, so that more time and effort could be directed towards Brexit.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/06/13/boris-johnson-scrapped-cabinet-pandemic-committee-six-months/

[skintsaint]

6 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Not really a surprise when you consider :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58795079

Weird article unless I'm reading those graphs wrong (very very possibly as late and had a beer 🥱) but 11.9% of professors employed are white....25.5% 'non white'? How can that be institutionally racist in favour of white students?

[badgerx16]

Old but interesting article that suits the theme of this thread

https://amp.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/jan/10/scientists-twitter-methods?__twitter_impression=true

And the original twitter feed 

https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=%23overlyhonestmethods&src=hash

Edited 18 October, 2021 by badgerx16

[buctootim]

On 12/10/2021 at 15:31, skintsaint said:

Weird article unless I'm reading those graphs wrong (very very possibly as late and had a beer 🥱) but 11.9% of professors employed are white....25.5% 'non white'? How can that be institutionally racist in favour of white students?

More to the point why do the totals only add up to 37.4%? Who are the other 62.6% if they aren't white, Asian black or mixed?  Presumably its to do with missing data but very misleading