|
|
Post by steve on Oct 4, 2010 10:06:03 GMT
So one minute the RS is being "sceptical" by backing away from AGW. Yet it is "oblivious" to one of the biggest pieces of evidence that sceptics use these days. Well no it is not oblivious. It states quite clearly that a diversion from the 0.2-0.4C trend is easily possible due to natural variability.
Your twisting and turning legalistic arguments have given you a crick in the neck on this one. Monckton said "steady for a decade". A decade!!!
If I said last year's UK winter was warmer than the winter before then I would be *wrong*. I couldn't justify it by saying "well in the context of the Maunder minimum or the winter of 1963, my statement that last year's winter was warmer than the one before is 'perfectly appropriate'".
Erm...you moaned that I'd commented about the clothes he wears and the way he combs his hair (which I hadn't)! You could just admit you got it wrong. No doubt you will now argue that since his title is part of his appearence, then commenting about his title is tantamount to commenting about his clothes or hair thus justifying your original accusation.
And his lies about the IPCC projections of CO2 and warming are still lies. They are not "honest graphs".
From someone who didn't used to follow Monckton you are turning into somewhat of an acolyte.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 4, 2010 15:13:50 GMT
Your twisting and turning legalistic arguments have given you a crick in the neck on this one. Monckton said "steady for a decade". A decade!!!
If I said last year's UK winter was warmer than the winter before then I would be *wrong*. I couldn't justify it by saying "well in the context of the Maunder minimum or the winter of 1963, my statement that last year's winter was warmer than the one before is 'perfectly appropriate'". "steady for a decade" is a good description of the ice data. It certainly is not "unsteady" in any context. You guys have a strong propensity to the climategate "trick" look at data by taking teensy time slices, avoiding or dummying up science to suggest a narrow range of natural variation and then declaring an international emergency. But there is only manufactured fear in support of that. No data to get alarmed about.
And by the way a persons title is part of his appearance and his dabbling in patents is clearly a hobby.
Erm...you moaned that I'd commented about the clothes he wears and the way he combs his hair (which I hadn't)! You could just admit you got it wrong. No doubt you will now argue that since his title is part of his appearence, then commenting about his title is tantamount to commenting about his clothes or hair thus justifying your original accusation.
And his lies about the IPCC projections of CO2 and warming are still lies. They are not "honest graphs".
From someone who didn't used to follow Monckton you are turning into somewhat of an acolyte.You simply failed to notice I was using an analogy to note how your argument had turned to personal attributes from climate issues that this thread is supposed to be about. And I see you are back to your "generic" attack I assume having given up on specifics. Certainly ice is nothing to get excited about. And what was the other one. . . .uh. . . .oh sea level leveling out for 4 years! How does that happen Steve when the missing heat is supposed to be in the ocean? Is it non-expansive heat? Heat on vacation? Imaginary heat in the ocean? I think I will pick the latter. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 4, 2010 15:43:25 GMT
Apart from the context of "a decade" in which there is a continuation of a statistically significant downward trend.
I see you are back to the "I note steve's link to the evidence of Monckton's misrepresentation of IPCC CO2 and warming projections is a couple of pages back, so I'll pretend it doesn't exist as noone will be bothered to check whether I or steve is being truthful."
You are trying to divert the debate from "Is monckton's graph misleading by cherry-picking?" to a debate about whether the temporary flat period contravenes the theory of AGW. It doesn't contravene the theory of AGW and it is misleading.
As Lord Melchett said "You are twisting and turning like a twisty turny thing."
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 4, 2010 15:54:28 GMT
"steady for a decade" is a good description of the ice data. It certainly is not "unsteady" in any context.
Apart from the context of "a decade" in which there is a continuation of a statistically significant downward trend.When traveling by boat on the ocean the boat is going to rock. The tilt will be statistically significant. But that does not mean the boat is unsteady.
You are trying to divert the debate from "Is monckton's graph misleading by cherry-picking?" to a debate about whether the temporary flat period contravenes the theory of AGW. It doesn't contravene the theory of AGW and it is misleading.It doesn't need to contravene the theory of AGW to be useful. It is useful to calm the passengers on the boat when they have been misled into believing the rocking is a sign the boat is going to tip over.
As Lord Melchett said "You are twisting and turning like a twisty turny thing."Not quite! The burden of proof is on you guys to prove what others are doing is harmful to you. We are not obligated to prove we are not harming you. The fact that we invested in a lot of high tech gadgetry that today can detect stuff that would have likely gone undetected even 50 years ago and that now you can detect our presence falls short of proving harm. . . .the Al Gore sandpile theory not withstanding on how it only takes one grain of sand to cause an avalanche or that the flapping of the wings of a butterfly in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 5, 2010 9:51:02 GMT
You are inventing another justification - that he is really saying "yes it might have fallen for a decade but on the scale of things it is steady". But he did not say that on his slide. Monckton is saying the boat is not rocking at all - he is saying it is steady for a whole tilt cycle.
Even if you argue that the case can be made that the arctic sea ice variation is normal in a deep historical context, evidence of ongoing arctic sea ice is also a metric that arguably validates the temperature metrics that show a more rapidly warming arctic. Denying the decline is to deny evidence that shows the arctic is warming along with the rest of the globe.
Remember, I say that mostly Monckton deceives by obfuscation and implication, and that *straightforward* lying is something he avoids.
You have insisted that I produce examples of specific lies which I've done. Arguing that they are really obfuscation and deception, and not lies, doesn't really help your case.
On the line that he avoids straightforward lying, he has told lies about CO2 and temperature projections because he knows that few people will go through the IPCC report, and follow the basic science and arithmetic that shows up his porky pie. And that even if someone does, people like you and magellan will studiously avoid commenting on the finding.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 5, 2010 15:30:03 GMT
When traveling by boat on the ocean the boat is going to rock. The tilt will be statistically significant. But that does not mean the boat is unsteady.
You are inventing another justification - that he is really saying "yes it might have fallen for a decade but on the scale of things it is steady". But he did not say that on his slide. Monckton is saying the boat is not rocking at all - he is saying it is steady for a whole tilt cycle.Now you are making stuff up. Show me where Monckton explained by steady he meant there was zero variation. Don't be so absurd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are losing this argument so you now are resorting to fantasy!
Even if you argue that the case can be made that the arctic sea ice variation is normal in a deep historical context, evidence of ongoing arctic sea ice is also a metric that arguably validates the temperature metrics that show a more rapidly warming arctic. Denying the decline is to deny evidence that shows the arctic is warming along with the rest of the globe.The issue for me has always been the cause of "atmospheric" warming not whether it occurs. It appears to happen regularly and naturally. I produced a graph that shows less ice throughout most of the Holocene than today. That same record also shows shorter term fluctuations of magnitude greater than what we have seen recently occurring throughout the Holocene. So sudden change isn't even unique in the Arctic. You just turn your head and ignore it because it is inconvenient for you to look at it. I mean Steve are you so ignorant as to believe we believe the ice melts and grows in the Arctic from anything other than the movement of heat? We know that Steve! It works that way whether it is ocean oscillations, solar, or CO2 causing it. I suggest you accept that reality rather continue to moronically try to paint a picture that we think ice melts and freezes from something else and address the real questions around here. Like why is there a flat spot in sea level at a time that there is no measured ocean warming via ARGO and global surface air temperatures over that period of time are virtually flat also. Is that caused by heat hiding at the bottom of the ocean Steve? Is that non-expansive heat? How do the physics work on that?
Remember, I say that mostly Monckton deceives by obfuscation and implication, and that *straightforward* lying is something he avoids.
You have insisted that I produce examples of specific lies which I've done. Arguing that they are really obfuscation and deception, and not lies, doesn't really help your case.
On the line that he avoids straightforward lying, he has told lies about CO2 and temperature projections because he knows that few people will go through the IPCC report, and follow the basic science and arithmetic that shows up his porky pie. And that even if someone does, people like you and magellan will studiously avoid commenting on the finding.Oh I think he does it brilliantly like putting the sea level graph right next to the ice graph, right next to the recent decades of global temperature and point out that each of them doesn't show enough fluctuation to support the myth you are trying to sell. Hey Steve, even Kevin Trenberth recognizes your argument is a shambles. I travesty in fact. Why don't you? Trenberth allows in private that the science is deficient and Monckton allows it in public. And you have a fit about it and call it obfuscation that we should all pick up calculators and recalc what went wrong with the climate models. Hey we have people eager and waiting to do that but ultimately that information isn't conveyed. The fact the actual calculations are not available is hidden behind a blizzard of WWF propaganda that infiltrates the IPCC report. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 5, 2010 16:11:14 GMT
If you can show me where Monckton showed the 30-year downward trend and explained why it was not important, then we can discuss further.
It might be the issue for you, but quite a lot of people still don't believe that the atmosphere *is* warming.
Once again you ignore Monckton's blatant misrepresentation of the important issues of IPCC projections of CO2 levels and temperature, and pretend that the whole report sits on grey WWF literature. You are clearly learning from your new master.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 5, 2010 21:10:52 GMT
Now you are making stuff up. Show me where Monckton explained by steady he meant there was zero variation. Don't be so absurd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are losing this argument so you now are resorting to fantasy!
If you can show me where Monckton showed the 30-year downward trend and explained why it was not important, then we can discuss further. Thats just another fantasy of yours. Monckton is under no obligation to repeat or refute every detail in your arguments. He can establish stability of the climate anyway he wants to. What has occurred in the past 30 years has occurred numerous times in the past. Its nothing unique or alarming so why would it be relevant for him to address that. . . .is it because its all you got?
It might be the issue for you, but quite a lot of people still don't believe that the atmosphere *is* warming. It hasn't been in the United States. . . .its still not as warm as the 1930's. Science had a chance of convincing people it was warming elsewhere, but Climategate sealed the deal on that.
The fact the actual calculations are not available is hidden behind a blizzard of WWF propaganda that infiltrates the IPCC report.
Once again you ignore Monckton's blatant misrepresentation of the important issues of IPCC projections of CO2 levels and temperature, and pretend that the whole report sits on grey WWF literature. You are clearly learning from your new master. Just send all the raw data, meta data, and studies over Steve McIntyre's way and he will clean it up for y'all. But nope they don't want the help because they are worried that somebody will find something wrong with it. . . .so they would rather destroy the data. ROTFLMAO!! Slow speed Bronco chase alert! |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 5, 2010 23:21:39 GMT
It's a very poor description of the data. Declining is unsteady, in any context. Here's an update of the sea ice extent minimums of each year:  |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 5, 2010 23:41:04 GMT
Exactly. Monckton can tell as many lies as he likes. If I choose to expose his lies he does not have any obligation to refute my evidence. He is entitled to tell even more lies to pretend he has refuted my exposure of his lies. I'm glad that is cleared up.
2000-09 was warmer than 1930-39 in the US. Your cherry picking of the 2% of area covered by the US has failed.
Entirely inappropriate appeal to authority. I do not think that McIntyre would support Monckton these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 5, 2010 23:41:39 GMT
Exactly. Monckton can tell as many lies as he likes. If I choose to expose his lies he does not have any obligation to refute my evidence. He is entitled to tell even more lies to pretend he has refuted my exposure of his lies. I'm glad that is cleared up.
2000-09 was warmer than 1930-39 in the US. Your cherry picking of the 2% of area covered by the US has failed.
Entirely inappropriate appeal to authority. I do not think that McIntyre would support Monckton these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 6, 2010 2:56:09 GMT
Thats just another fantasy of yours. Monckton is under no obligation to repeat or refute every detail in your arguments.
Exactly. Monckton can tell as many lies as he likes. If I choose to expose his lies he does not have any obligation to refute my evidence. He is entitled to tell even more lies to pretend he has refuted my exposure of his lies. I'm glad that is cleared up.CAGW has relied upon .04% of the picture and creating alarmism about big changes in very small parts of the picture. Monckton simply isn't playing by your rules. There are no rules in debates that your opponent must be subservient to your argument. The reason you are losing the debates is not because anybody is lying but because your opponents refuse to be drawn into argument over inconsequential minutia.
2000-09 was warmer than 1930-39 in the US. Your cherry picking of the 2% of area covered by the US has failed.I wouldn't expect the warming of 1911 to 1944 to hold all the records Steve.
Just send all the raw data, meta data, and studies over Steve McIntyre's way and he will clean it up for y'all.
Entirely inappropriate appeal to authority. I do not think that McIntyre would support Monckton these days. Appeal to Authority? This is no appeal to authority it is an appeal to openness and transparency. And why speculate on what McIntyre supports or does not support. He is a very approachable guy. Just go over on his blog and ask him. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 6, 2010 10:30:42 GMT
I know McIntyre a little bit having spent a while at his blog. Of Monckton he says:
But all the data for the IPCC projections of CO2 and temperature are available. So you can do the calculations yourself to see where Monckton went wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 6, 2010 11:31:57 GMT
But all the data for the IPCC projections of CO2 and temperature are available. So you can do the calculations yourself to see where Monckton went wrong. You already admitted that Monckton doesn't lie. Of course that was to cover up for not being able to bring forward an example. "Remember, I say that mostly Monckton deceives by obfuscation and implication, and that *straightforward* lying is something he avoids." You claim obfuscation but have provided no evidence of such. Obfuscating is a process of making opaque, dim, or difficult to percieve. Providing a more complete picture of something is a process quite the opposite of that. You claim that Monckton looks at the bigger picture and thus cannot see a little inconsequential 30 year dip in Arctic ice that is so small in the grander scheme of things as to make it look inconsequential as it is. Now if the additional data he provided was unrelated to the issue you would have a case but the additional data provides context, clarification, more information relevant to the natural living state of things. And because he won't dip to your making mountains out of molehills you accuse him of obfuscation. LOL! Now implication? What has Monckton implied? That the mountain you made of a molehill is a molehill and not a mountain? ROTFLMAO!!! Its no wonder that Monckton is a aggravating thorn in your side. LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 6, 2010 11:54:58 GMT
It is useful to calm the passengers on the boat when they have been misled into believing the rocking is a sign the boat is going to tip over.It's a very poor description of the data. Declining is unsteady, in any context.
I bet you ralph everytime you get on a boat too. |
|
