Scientists discover that climate-change skeptics are bozos

[patrick1]

Evidence would be useful at this point. No more invective please.

The majority of the scientific community involved in climate science think there's something to worry about. They earn rather small sums, by middle-class standards, and have a reputation to keep up. They don't seem to be in the pay of large or even small corporations.

Let's go back to the beginning. Please tell me, in straightforward terms, in what ways they are wrong. I am a sceptic. I do listen.

 

[KRCummings]

Just today I've noticed the climate changing. It's freaky. All the trees are dead and it's way colder than it's been the last few months. I think it's affecting the people, too because I've noticed some really strange behavior, especially in the children. Dressing up weird, begging for food.
I dunno, I think there might be something to this whole thing.

 

[trysail]

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/27/defending-the-uncertainty-monster-paper/#more-5482



An excerpt from J. Curry's response to reviewer's comments on a paper submitted to BAMS, "Climate Science and The Uncertainty Monster":

... With regards to the issue of traceability, the IAC [InterAcademy Council Review ] made the following recommendation:

“The IPCC uncertainty guidance urges authors to provide a traceable account of how authors determined what ratings to use to describe the level of scientific understanding and the likelihood that a particular outcome will occur. However, it is unclear whose judgments are reflected in the ratings that appear in the Fourth Assessment Report or how the judgments were determined. How exactly a consensus was reached regarding subjective probability distributions needs to be documented.”​

Xet al.’s assertion that they provided a traceable account of their attribution statement raises the issue of exactly what is meant by IPCC’s traceability guidelines, and what kind of traceability is actually suitable for IPCC’s assessments. A general description of the method and multiple lines of evidence ‘traceable’ to published papers is not adequate for traceability of the assignment of the confidence/uncertainty statement. Traceability allows an independent person or group to trace back to understand how the result came to be and to walk through the decision process and achieve the same result. Commonly used practices in system engineering include the traceability matrix and document control. Some fields (e.g. medical science, computer science, engineering) have stringent traceability requirements, particularly for issues that are mission critical or having life and death impacts. However one size doesn’t fit all, and the level and type of traceability required are related to the complexity of the subject matter and the criticality of the final product. With regards to the IPCC assessment reports, an independent team should be able produce the same result (assessment and assignment of uncertainty/confidence level) from the same material. Traceability is fundamentally about accountability and openness.

We clearly disagree with X et al., and we believe that our position is justified by our arguments. We are not the only people that are unconvinced by the IPCC’s attribution assessment. The existence of this disagreement is not surprising given the complexity of the issue. The existence of this disagreement implies, at the very least, one of two things: 1) the IPCC AR4 has done an inadequate job in articulating the evidence for their position; or 2) the uncertainty is much greater than acknowledged by the IPCC AR4...


http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/27/defending-the-uncertainty-monster-paper/#more-5482

 

[Ishmael]

Evidence would be useful at this point. No more invective please.

The majority of the scientific community involved in climate science think there's something to worry about. They earn rather small sums, by middle-class standards, and have a reputation to keep up. They don't seem to be in the pay of large or even small corporations.

Let's go back to the beginning. Please tell me, in straightforward terms, in what ways they are wrong. I am a sceptic. I do listen.

You might want to do some fact checking. A full professor at a name Univ. earns a salary of $150,000 - $200,000/yr. A professor emeritus will earn SIGNIFICANTLY more. This does NOT include travel, per deim, outrageous retirement funds, significant holiday, vacation, or sick pay benefits. Nor does it include any commissions that may be derived from grants (yes, they get a cut of that pie) or management fees associated with same. Nor does it include speaking fees.

While it is true that the doctoral candidates and associates live at the bottom of the academic food chain, the published names in most fields will see upwards of $1 million in cash and benefits, if not more, per year. I hope that that is not your definition of lower middle class.

Further, in certain fields, such as climate research, the lions share of the grant monies come from governments the size of which dwarfs any corporation.

They are not poor academicians sweltering in the bowels of some Univ. working for the shear enjoyment of uncovering some obscure artifact of science.

Ishmael

 

[Sonny Limatina]

You might want to do some fact checking. A full professor at a name Univ. earns a salary of $150,000 - $200,000/yr. A professor emeritus will earn SIGNIFICANTLY more. This does NOT include travel, per deim, outrageous retirement funds, significant holiday, vacation, or sick pay benefits. Nor does it include any commissions that may be derived from grants (yes, they get a cut of that pie) or management fees associated with same. Nor does it include speaking fees.

While it is true that the doctoral candidates and associates live at the bottom of the academic food chain, the published names in most fields will see upwards of $1 million in cash and benefits, if not more, per year. I hope that that is not your definition of lower middle class.

Further, in certain fields, such as climate research, the lions share of the grant monies come from governments the size of which dwarfs any corporation.

They are not poor academicians sweltering in the bowels of some Univ. working for the shear enjoyment of uncovering some obscure artifact of science.

Ishmael

Ishmael isn't quite sure what 'emeritus' means, but he's pretty sure it sounds like something more than a regular professor, so he threw it in to support the rest of the made-up post.

Whole thing quoted for comedy.

 

[KRCummings]

Ishmael isn't quite sure what 'emeritus' means, but he's pretty sure it sounds like something more than a regular professor, so he threw it in to support the rest of the made-up post.

Whole thing quoted for comedy.

I'm so glad you quoted that. I have him on ignore and would have missed that brilliant post.
I'm kinda anxious to see how he explains himself on this one.

 

[Ishmael]

Ishmael isn't quite sure what 'emeritus' means, but he's pretty sure it sounds like something more than a regular professor, so he threw it in to support the rest of the made-up post.

Whole thing quoted for comedy.

I'm more than aware, and there are many 'working' professors emeritus. In most Univ. the title is awarded, along with the perks, after 20 years of service to the Univ. In some cases the title may be awarded prior to the 20 year mark. If you bother to goggle you will find these criteria in most of the Univ. policy documents available on-line.

Sometimes what you think something is, isn't quite what it really is after you read the fine print.

Ishmael

 

[Sonny Limatina]

I'm so glad you quoted that. I have him on ignore and would have missed that brilliant post.
I'm kinda anxious to see how he explains himself on this one.

It's awesome. Wait, that doesn't go far enough. It's not just any awesome, it's Awesome Emeritus. Everyone knows that's the best kind.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

I'm more than aware, and there are many 'working' professors emeritus. In most Univ. the title is awarded, along with the perks, after 20 years of service to the Univ. In some cases the title may be awarded prior to the 20 year mark. If you bother to goggle you will find these criteria in most of the Univ. policy documents available on-line.

Sometimes what you think something is, isn't quite what it really is after you read the fine print.

Ishmael

I'll try to goggle that sometime.

 

[thør]

Just today I've noticed the climate changing. It's freaky. All the trees are dead and it's way colder than it's been the last few months. I think it's affecting the people, too because I've noticed some really strange behavior, especially in the children. Dressing up weird, begging for food.
I dunno, I think there might be something to this whole thing.

There was a hard glassy slippery patch on the driveway this morning where there was just a shallow rain puddle, yesterday. I think we're headed for a local ice age.

 

[trysail]

http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/pell-2011_annual_gwpf_lecture.pdf



Ad hominem attacks aimed at the author of the quote rather than refutation of the logic and facts presented will be viewed as evidence of desperation.


The original quotation bears footnotes which can be viewed at the link provided above (pp. 7-8).

...The conclusions of the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)... are “essentially reliant on computer modelling and lack empirical support”; its speculations on “the baleful influence of atmospheric carbon dioxide rest almost exclusively on unvalidated computer modelling that rests on unsubstantiated assumptions about the amplification effects of water vapour, clouds and other unverifiable factors.” The predictions based on these models “have been wrong for the last 23 years.” During the decade since 2001 carbon dioxide has increased by five per cent, but the atmosphere has failed to warm.


The influence of various solar mechanisms (such as sunspot activity) and changing ocean circulation, which are poorly understood, are “omitted from the climate models,” as is the influence of major volcanoes such as the occasional mighty eruption of Krakatoa or Mount Saint Helens or the continuing eruptions deep in the ocean, brought to public attention by Professor Ian Plimer.


While causal physical principles such as the greenhouse effect are known, much else has not been established definitively. Such uncertainties include the already-mentioned water vapour multipliers, sunspot activities and cloud formation, as well as deforestation, soil carbon and aerosols. We should also add variations of the earth’s orbital parameters, asteroid and comet impacts, and variations in cosmic rays...



http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/pell-2011_annual_gwpf_lecture.pdf

 

[Disgustipated]

You might want to do some fact checking. A full professor at a name Univ. earns a salary of $150,000 - $200,000/yr. A professor emeritus will earn SIGNIFICANTLY more. This does NOT include travel, per deim, outrageous retirement funds, significant holiday, vacation, or sick pay benefits. Nor does it include any commissions that may be derived from grants (yes, they get a cut of that pie) or management fees associated with same. Nor does it include speaking fees.

While it is true that the doctoral candidates and associates live at the bottom of the academic food chain, the published names in most fields will see upwards of $1 million in cash and benefits, if not more, per year. I hope that that is not your definition of lower middle class.

Further, in certain fields, such as climate research, the lions share of the grant monies come from governments the size of which dwarfs any corporation.

They are not poor academicians sweltering in the bowels of some Univ. working for the shear enjoyment of uncovering some obscure artifact of science.

Ishmael

Why "fact check" when you can just make shit up? I especially like the bold part.

Fishmeal

I'll try to goggle that sometime.

These will help you in your quest.

 

[mercury14]

And a lot of them are "glorified opinions" unless they are based upon non-chaotic systems.

You can model medicine, for example, because its chemistry is a known non-chaotic system (once you get past the underpinnings of DNA and evolution), same for say, examining warhead yields.

Oh god damn this post is some ignorant shit.

Not only are these people contemptuous towards science, they actually make up some science of their own.

 

[mercury14]

I get this much. I asked you what other branches of science you dismiss as "glorified opinions." There's a whole bunch of them that are almost exclusively computer-modeled.

Bumped to point out that Trysail continues to bury his head in the sand every time Perg asks this question.

 

[Peregrinator]

Ad hominem attacks aimed at the author of the quote rather than refutation of the logic and facts presented will be viewed as evidence of desperation.

Seeking unbiased information from the "RealClimate" blog on the subject of Montford's book is the intellectual equivalent of asking Richard Nixon if he knew about a cover-up. Those guys got caught putting their collective fingers on the scale of science.


RealClimate IS "The Hockey Team." What do you expect them to say?

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=37994268&postcount=72

Hold yourself to your own standard, please. Or admit that you get desperate every time I post something from the people actually doing the research.

 

[Peregrinator]

You might want to do some fact checking. A full professor at a name Univ. earns a salary of $150,000 - $200,000/yr. A professor emeritus will earn SIGNIFICANTLY more. This does NOT include travel, per deim, outrageous retirement funds, significant holiday, vacation, or sick pay benefits. Nor does it include any commissions that may be derived from grants (yes, they get a cut of that pie) or management fees associated with same. Nor does it include speaking fees.

While it is true that the doctoral candidates and associates live at the bottom of the academic food chain, the published names in most fields will see upwards of $1 million in cash and benefits, if not more, per year. I hope that that is not your definition of lower middle class.

Further, in certain fields, such as climate research, the lions share of the grant monies come from governments the size of which dwarfs any corporation.

They are not poor academicians sweltering in the bowels of some Univ. working for the shear enjoyment of uncovering some obscure artifact of science.

Ishmael

I'm more than aware, and there are many 'working' professors emeritus. In most Univ. the title is awarded, along with the perks, after 20 years of service to the Univ. In some cases the title may be awarded prior to the 20 year mark. If you bother to goggle you will find these criteria in most of the Univ. policy documents available on-line.

Sometimes what you think something is, isn't quite what it really is after you read the fine print.

Ishmael

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=37990855&postcount=32

*chuckle*

Nice try Perg. I'm going to refute each and every single point that you posted, and I'm going to do it with data captured by many scientists that were out to support the whole AGW theory. Obviously this is going to take some time.

Put up or shut up, Ishmael. Post the data you promised or admit you can't back up any of your ideology-driven horseshit.

 

[trysail]

I've got a slightly used mortgage-backed security just for you. The computer model on which it was based on was perfect. There's just one eenie-weenie problem; one of the assumptions incorporated in its algorithms is that housing prices never decline.

 

[Peregrinator]

You might want to do some fact checking. A full professor at a name Univ. earns a salary of $150,000 - $200,000/yr.

Ishmael

Salaries:

http://chronicle.com/article/Average-Faculty-Salaries-by/126586/

http://www.jupiterscientific.org/sciinfo/sciencesalaries.html


Emeritus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professors_in_the_United_States says:

Professor emeritus and emerita
A full professor who retires in good standing may be referred to as a professor emeritus, or professor emerita for women. This title is also given to retired professors who continue to teach and to be listed; they may also draw a very large percentage of their last salary as pension. The title may also be given to full professors who have left for another institution but are still working full time. The concept has in some places been expanded to include also tenured associate professors, or also non-tenure-track faculty. In some systems and institutions the rank is bestowed on all professors who have retired in good standing, while at others it needs a special act or vote. Depending on local circumstances, professors emeritus may retain office space or other privileges.

 

[mercury14]

I've got a slightly used mortgage-backed security just for you. The computer model on which it was based on was perfect. There's just one eenie-weenie problem; one of the assumptions incorporated in its algorithms is that housing prices never decline.

And science says "here's what we know, here's the degree of certainty with which we know it, and here's how we can move forward". No climate scientist claims to have a perfect model. But nobody who thinks rationally will dismiss the field because of that. So you keep moving forward, using multiple models at once and refining their accuracy.

Meanwhile you dismiss scientists as just a bunch of programmers. You keep pounding this anti-science rhetoric and avoiding Perg's question. I don't see how even you think you have a point.

 

[Peregrinator]

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=37990855&postcount=32



Put up or shut up, Ishmael. Post the data you promised or admit you can't back up any of your ideology-driven horseshit.

.....

 

[Peregrinator]

http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/pell-2011_annual_gwpf_lecture.pdf



Ad hominem attacks aimed at the author of the quote rather than refutation of the logic and facts presented will be viewed as evidence of desperation.


The original quotation bears footnotes which can be viewed at the link provided above (pp. 7-8).

Every single point Cardinal Pell makes in this piece is refuted here, with links to primary literature: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

He's simply recycled the same old, long-refuted talking points, presumably in some sort of publication intended for either a new audience or the same one which is presumed to have forgotten or never read this stuff the first time it was trotted out, and which can be relied upon to ignore the link I just posted and never actually read the primary literature.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Perg is just housing motherfuckers up in here. Like, emeritus level housing.

 

[thør]

Emeritus:

A good friend is a prof-emeritus from UAF. One day, he came back to his office and another name was on the door. His stuff was all thrown in a box and in the closet down the hall. The Uni still uses his name to show experience in his field, but he gets squat for it.

 

[mercury14]

Perg is just housing motherfuckers up in here. Like, emeritus level housing.

The stock market had an emeritus level surge today. When I woke up this morning it was so cold. My feet were like emeritus freezing on the hard wood floor! But the coffee is emeritus level good and emeritus hot.

 

[Peregrinator]

Perg is just housing motherfuckers up in here. Like, emeritus level housing.

A good friend is a prof-emeritus from UAF. One day, he came back to his office and another name was on the door. His stuff was all thrown in a box and in the closet down the hall. The Uni still uses his name to show experience in his field, but he gets squat for it.

Zoom, get my shit out of that box. I ain't dead yet.


To be fair to Ish, I'm sure a few emeritus types get astronomical royalties. But they're by far the exception, not the rule.