Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: An interesting talk by a skeptical scientist

Expand Messages
  • ourphyl
    I agree Prof Courtillot presents an outstanding performance, but I not sure just how scientific his approach really is. Four years ago on Real Climate
    Message 1 of 5 , Apr 1, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      I agree Prof Courtillot presents an outstanding performance, but I not
      sure just how "scientific" his approach really is. Four years ago on
      Real Climate
      <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/les-chevaliers-de\
      -lordre-de-la-terre-plate-part-i-allgre-and-courtillot/langswitch_lang/i\
      n/> , Raymond T Pierrehumbert
      <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/raymond-t-pierreh\
      umbert/> , was quite critical of the views expressed by Allegre and
      Courtillot:

      "... Remember the graph of European temperature in Ma vérité which
      was supposed to put Phil Jones' analysis of the instrumental record
      "seriously in doubt?" Well, it reappears in Courtillot amply decorated
      with a lot of new verbiage: climate scientists spend all their time
      modelling and hardly any looking at data; geophysicists are uniquely
      qualified to look at time series because they do it all the time and
      anyway they invented most of this stuff in the first place; nobody ever
      cross-checks or verifies Phil Jones' work. And patati, and patata,
      none of which holds a glimmer of truth. But, having declared all this
      the brave geophysicists of the IPGP decide to take a look for themselves
      by averaging together a few tens of European weather stations (with a
      few distant ones from the Urals thrown in for good measure) and ben
      voilà, how Courtillot is "astonished" that the curve doesn't look
      at all like what they were taught it should look like! (Courtillot is
      evidently a man easily astonished, and equally easily surprised, since
      these words appear with stunning regularity in his article.)..."

      Asserting that Climate Scientists don't bother to look at the data is a
      little much.

      j

      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/les-chevaliers-de-\
      lordre-de-la-terre-plate-part-i-allgre-and-courtillot/langswitch_lang/in\
      /
      <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/les-chevaliers-de\
      -lordre-de-la-terre-plate-part-i-allgre-and-courtillot/langswitch_lang/i\
      n/>






      --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "lloydb" <poitsplace@...> wrote:
      >
      > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG_7zK8ODGA
      >




      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • lloydb
      And yet we pretty much know that the bulk of the increases in temperatures in Europe seem to actually be in response to the north atlantic oscillation...and do
      Message 2 of 5 , Apr 1, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        And yet we pretty much know that the bulk of the increases in temperatures in Europe seem to actually be in response to the north atlantic oscillation...and do in fact show more of a step increase. Even Hansen has been forced to admit that...oops...the US hasn't warmed at all. Turning to australia we find that DOH! all of the warming was in fact adjustment. This does not fit well with the idea of global warming...and we'll likely find more errors like that.

        While I would guess there may well be some warming from CO2...I'm fairly confident that we're going to find a shed-load of botched handling of data and fudging on the part of the old climate "establishment" (which really doesn't involve many people...none of which have ever shown any impressive scientific ability)

        This stuff is unraveling FAST. After a decade of telling us there would be less snow soon, they've decided that actually warming means MORE snow and strangely, colder winters. Glacial losses are beginning to slow and some are actually advancing. Sea ice fails to comply with expectations. The snows of Kilimanjaro seem to be edging back down the mountain. The *gasp* increasing losses from ice sheets were found to be utter crap...a result of errors with the way they deal with GRACE data and the rebounding of the continents. Acceleration of sea level rise has been found to be wrong and about 25% of the sea level rise we have may be from ground water use.

        This has all been an incredible waste of everyone's time and money. It would have been far better spent helping the developing nations to develop than trying to dupe the world into believing that 1-2C of temperature rise (mostly in cold areas)would cause significant harm.



        --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "ourphyl" <701wizz@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > I agree Prof Courtillot presents an outstanding performance, but I not
        > sure just how "scientific" his approach really is. Four years ago on
        > Real Climate
        > <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/les-chevaliers-de\
        > -lordre-de-la-terre-plate-part-i-allgre-and-courtillot/langswitch_lang/i\
        > n/> , Raymond T Pierrehumbert
        > <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/raymond-t-pierreh\
        > umbert/> , was quite critical of the views expressed by Allegre and
        > Courtillot:
        >
        > "... Remember the graph of European temperature in Ma vérité which
        > was supposed to put Phil Jones' analysis of the instrumental record
        > "seriously in doubt?" Well, it reappears in Courtillot amply decorated
        > with a lot of new verbiage: climate scientists spend all their time
        > modelling and hardly any looking at data; geophysicists are uniquely
        > qualified to look at time series because they do it all the time and
        > anyway they invented most of this stuff in the first place; nobody ever
        > cross-checks or verifies Phil Jones' work. And patati, and patata,
        > none of which holds a glimmer of truth. But, having declared all this
        > the brave geophysicists of the IPGP decide to take a look for themselves
        > by averaging together a few tens of European weather stations (with a
        > few distant ones from the Urals thrown in for good measure) and ben
        > voilà, how Courtillot is "astonished" that the curve doesn't look
        > at all like what they were taught it should look like! (Courtillot is
        > evidently a man easily astonished, and equally easily surprised, since
        > these words appear with stunning regularity in his article.)..."
        >
        > Asserting that Climate Scientists don't bother to look at the data is a
        > little much.
        >
        > j
        >
        > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/les-chevaliers-de-\
        > lordre-de-la-terre-plate-part-i-allgre-and-courtillot/langswitch_lang/in\
        > /
        > <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/les-chevaliers-de\
        > -lordre-de-la-terre-plate-part-i-allgre-and-courtillot/langswitch_lang/i\
        > n/>
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "lloydb" <poitsplace@> wrote:
        > >
        > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG_7zK8ODGA
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • ourphyl
        lloyd, You re missing my point. As far as science is concerned Courtillot s oversimplifications are no better than the climate modelers claims. Both are poor
        Message 3 of 5 , Apr 1, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          lloyd,
          You're missing my point. As far as science is concerned Courtillot's
          oversimplifications are no better than the climate modelers claims. Both
          are poor science.
          Science deals with facts and interpretation of facts. As more facts
          and/or better interpretations are found science will change. That's how
          progress is made.
          No serious scientist holds it against Newton that he confused momentum
          with energy.*Or the caloric people that couldn't see heat as energy
          transmission. The more we learn, the more we know.
          I believe the climate scientists are wrong (and foolish) to ignore the
          skeptics. But, in my world, that shouldn't be an excuse for any good
          scientist, skeptic or not, to ignore and/or denigrate the work of the
          climate scientists.
          I believe Hansen et all are wrong to distort and exaggerate their
          findings for political purposes. As you've pointed out countless times
          they will rue the day they allowed their hubris to warp their science.
          However I believe it is also foolish to stoop to their level. Scientists
          that try to mislead us like Allegre and Courtillot and Monckton do a
          disservice to our profession.
          j
          "...Emilie marquise du Châtelet in her book Institutions de Physique
          ("Lessons in Physics"), published in 1740, incorporated the idea
          of Leibniz with practical observations of Gravesande to show that the
          energy of a moving object is proportional to its mass and the square of
          its velocity (not the velocity itself as Newton believed)..."
          --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "lloydb" <poitsplace@...> wrote:
          >
          > And yet we pretty much know that the bulk of the increases in
          temperatures in Europe seem to actually be in response to the north
          atlantic oscillation...and do in fact show more of a step increase.
          Even Hansen has been forced to admit that...oops...the US hasn't warmed
          at all. Turning to australia we find that DOH! all of the warming was
          in fact adjustment. This does not fit well with the idea of global
          warming...and we'll likely find more errors like that.
          >
          > While I would guess there may well be some warming from CO2...I'm
          fairly confident that we're going to find a shed-load of botched
          handling of data and fudging on the part of the old climate
          "establishment" (which really doesn't involve many people...none of
          which have ever shown any impressive scientific ability)
          >
          > This stuff is unraveling FAST. After a decade of telling us there
          would be less snow soon, they've decided that actually warming means
          MORE snow and strangely, colder winters. Glacial losses are beginning
          to slow and some are actually advancing. Sea ice fails to comply with
          expectations. The snows of Kilimanjaro seem to be edging back down the
          mountain. The *gasp* increasing losses from ice sheets were found to be
          utter crap...a result of errors with the way they deal with GRACE data
          and the rebounding of the continents. Acceleration of sea level rise
          has been found to be wrong and about 25% of the sea level rise we have
          may be from ground water use.
          >
          > This has all been an incredible waste of everyone's time and money.
          It would have been far better spent helping the developing nations to
          develop than trying to dupe the world into believing that 1-2C of
          temperature rise (mostly in cold areas)would cause significant harm.
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "ourphyl" 701wizz@ wrote:
          > >
          > >
          > > I agree Prof Courtillot presents an outstanding performance, but I
          not
          > > sure just how "scientific" his approach really is. Four years ago on
          > > Real Climate
          > >
          <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/les-chevaliers-de\
          \
          > >
          -lordre-de-la-terre-plate-part-i-allgre-and-courtillot/langswitch_lang/i\
          \
          > > n/> , Raymond T Pierrehumbert
          > >
          <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/raymond-t-pierreh\
          \
          > > umbert/> , was quite critical of the views expressed by Allegre and
          > > Courtillot:
          > >
          > > "... Remember the graph of European temperature in Ma vérité
          which
          > > was supposed to put Phil Jones' analysis of the instrumental record
          > > "seriously in doubt?" Well, it reappears in Courtillot amply
          decorated
          > > with a lot of new verbiage: climate scientists spend all their time
          > > modelling and hardly any looking at data; geophysicists are uniquely
          > > qualified to look at time series because they do it all the time and
          > > anyway they invented most of this stuff in the first place; nobody
          ever
          > > cross-checks or verifies Phil Jones' work. And patati, and patata,
          > > none of which holds a glimmer of truth. But, having declared all
          this
          > > the brave geophysicists of the IPGP decide to take a look for
          themselves
          > > by averaging together a few tens of European weather stations (with
          a
          > > few distant ones from the Urals thrown in for good measure) and ben
          > > voilà, how Courtillot is "astonished" that the curve doesn't look
          > > at all like what they were taught it should look like! (Courtillot
          is
          > > evidently a man easily astonished, and equally easily surprised,
          since
          > > these words appear with stunning regularity in his article.)..."
          > >
          > > Asserting that Climate Scientists don't bother to look at the data
          is a
          > > little much.
          > >
          > > j
          > >
          > >
          http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/les-chevaliers-de-\
          \
          > >
          lordre-de-la-terre-plate-part-i-allgre-and-courtillot/langswitch_lang/in\
          \
          > > /
          > >
          <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/les-chevaliers-de\
          \
          > >
          -lordre-de-la-terre-plate-part-i-allgre-and-courtillot/langswitch_lang/i\
          \
          > > n/>
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "lloydb" <poitsplace@> wrote:
          > > >
          > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG_7zK8ODGA
          > > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > >
          >



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • lloydb
          No, I think everyone else is missing the point Courtillot: There s warming but its hard to see what significance it has...especially once you look at the data
          Message 4 of 5 , Apr 1, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            No, I think everyone else is missing the point


            Courtillot: There's warming but its hard to see what significance it has...especially once you look at the data and see it has no apparent CO2 correlation. Especially when so much of the climate system's mechanisms are unknown.

            The "top" climate scientists: We know its warming because of CO2. Its probably catastrophic...and nothing can falsify these claims...not more snow, winters that are more harsh or even worldwide cooling.

            So one's a skeptical scientist...and the others are f*cking crackpots.




            --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "ourphyl" <701wizz@...> wrote:
            >
            > lloyd,
            > You're missing my point. As far as science is concerned Courtillot's
            > oversimplifications are no better than the climate modelers claims. Both
            > are poor science.
            > Science deals with facts and interpretation of facts. As more facts
            > and/or better interpretations are found science will change. That's how
            > progress is made.
            > No serious scientist holds it against Newton that he confused momentum
            > with energy.*Or the caloric people that couldn't see heat as energy
            > transmission. The more we learn, the more we know.
            > I believe the climate scientists are wrong (and foolish) to ignore the
            > skeptics. But, in my world, that shouldn't be an excuse for any good
            > scientist, skeptic or not, to ignore and/or denigrate the work of the
            > climate scientists.
            > I believe Hansen et all are wrong to distort and exaggerate their
            > findings for political purposes. As you've pointed out countless times
            > they will rue the day they allowed their hubris to warp their science.
            > However I believe it is also foolish to stoop to their level. Scientists
            > that try to mislead us like Allegre and Courtillot and Monckton do a
            > disservice to our profession.
            > j
            > "...Emilie marquise du Châtelet in her book Institutions de Physique
            > ("Lessons in Physics"), published in 1740, incorporated the idea
            > of Leibniz with practical observations of Gravesande to show that the
            > energy of a moving object is proportional to its mass and the square of
            > its velocity (not the velocity itself as Newton believed)..."
            > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "lloydb" <poitsplace@> wrote:
            > >
            > > And yet we pretty much know that the bulk of the increases in
            > temperatures in Europe seem to actually be in response to the north
            > atlantic oscillation...and do in fact show more of a step increase.
            > Even Hansen has been forced to admit that...oops...the US hasn't warmed
            > at all. Turning to australia we find that DOH! all of the warming was
            > in fact adjustment. This does not fit well with the idea of global
            > warming...and we'll likely find more errors like that.
            > >
            > > While I would guess there may well be some warming from CO2...I'm
            > fairly confident that we're going to find a shed-load of botched
            > handling of data and fudging on the part of the old climate
            > "establishment" (which really doesn't involve many people...none of
            > which have ever shown any impressive scientific ability)
            > >
            > > This stuff is unraveling FAST. After a decade of telling us there
            > would be less snow soon, they've decided that actually warming means
            > MORE snow and strangely, colder winters. Glacial losses are beginning
            > to slow and some are actually advancing. Sea ice fails to comply with
            > expectations. The snows of Kilimanjaro seem to be edging back down the
            > mountain. The *gasp* increasing losses from ice sheets were found to be
            > utter crap...a result of errors with the way they deal with GRACE data
            > and the rebounding of the continents. Acceleration of sea level rise
            > has been found to be wrong and about 25% of the sea level rise we have
            > may be from ground water use.
            > >
            > > This has all been an incredible waste of everyone's time and money.
            > It would have been far better spent helping the developing nations to
            > develop than trying to dupe the world into believing that 1-2C of
            > temperature rise (mostly in cold areas)would cause significant harm.
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "ourphyl" 701wizz@ wrote:
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > I agree Prof Courtillot presents an outstanding performance, but I
            > not
            > > > sure just how "scientific" his approach really is. Four years ago on
            > > > Real Climate
            > > >
            > <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/les-chevaliers-de\
            > \
            > > >
            > -lordre-de-la-terre-plate-part-i-allgre-and-courtillot/langswitch_lang/i\
            > \
            > > > n/> , Raymond T Pierrehumbert
            > > >
            > <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/raymond-t-pierreh\
            > \
            > > > umbert/> , was quite critical of the views expressed by Allegre and
            > > > Courtillot:
            > > >
            > > > "... Remember the graph of European temperature in Ma vérité
            > which
            > > > was supposed to put Phil Jones' analysis of the instrumental record
            > > > "seriously in doubt?" Well, it reappears in Courtillot amply
            > decorated
            > > > with a lot of new verbiage: climate scientists spend all their time
            > > > modelling and hardly any looking at data; geophysicists are uniquely
            > > > qualified to look at time series because they do it all the time and
            > > > anyway they invented most of this stuff in the first place; nobody
            > ever
            > > > cross-checks or verifies Phil Jones' work. And patati, and patata,
            > > > none of which holds a glimmer of truth. But, having declared all
            > this
            > > > the brave geophysicists of the IPGP decide to take a look for
            > themselves
            > > > by averaging together a few tens of European weather stations (with
            > a
            > > > few distant ones from the Urals thrown in for good measure) and ben
            > > > voilà, how Courtillot is "astonished" that the curve doesn't look
            > > > at all like what they were taught it should look like! (Courtillot
            > is
            > > > evidently a man easily astonished, and equally easily surprised,
            > since
            > > > these words appear with stunning regularity in his article.)..."
            > > >
            > > > Asserting that Climate Scientists don't bother to look at the data
            > is a
            > > > little much.
            > > >
            > > > j
            > > >
            > > >
            > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/les-chevaliers-de-\
            > \
            > > >
            > lordre-de-la-terre-plate-part-i-allgre-and-courtillot/langswitch_lang/in\
            > \
            > > > /
            > > >
            > <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/les-chevaliers-de\
            > \
            > > >
            > -lordre-de-la-terre-plate-part-i-allgre-and-courtillot/langswitch_lang/i\
            > \
            > > > n/>
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "lloydb" <poitsplace@> wrote:
            > > > >
            > > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG_7zK8ODGA
            > > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            > > >
            > >
            >
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.