[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Can we stop attacking the messenger now?

Okay. The message is nothing we haven't heard before and won't hear again.

By the way, Australia's new PM is promising to repeal their carbon tax as a pointless drain on their economy.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Can we stop attacking the messenger now?

No.

What it boils down to is this; will you support me if I start posting Climate Skeptic versions of studies from their blogs. If not bring me your messenger from the warmist blogs and down he goes.

[Public_Domain]

[N_Fiddledog]

You get what you give. A blog post was given from the warmist blog Real Climate on a new paper inventing a new magic math that will make temperatures say whatever they want them to. A reply was posted from a blog pushing the warming skeptic side saying the study was nonsense and offering a link to a climate scientist explaining the science on why. Apparently there is a problem with that. Ho hum.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

RealClimate is a blog, and Zip you above all people know this.

It's a blog put out by activist scientists like James Hansen, William O Donnel and Gavin Shmidt to push the warmist cause. Warmist, btw is at least as old a term as Denier, and older than definition changes like the new warmist definition for the word Pollution which now means whatever the new faith of Warmism decides it means. Take the odorless, invisible, benign, essential for life on earth, natural plant fertilizer we all exhale called Carbon dioxide for instance. The new warmist definition for that one is pollution.

Real Climate is a blog, but it will consider certain studies that help propagandize its cause. So if we are accepting such stories as news, you guys on the other side will of course not complain when I post a story on the front page news from the ten times as popular climate blog WattsUpWithThat on a study supporting climate skepticism, will you. Feel free to step right up and agree to that one, or tell me again why RealClimate is not a blog, when without Googling it I can tell you the search term RealClimate Blog will return you thousands of pages.

The fact it covers scientific studies is nothing WUWT does not do.

I know what RealClimate is. And I agree, it's essentially an advocacy blog. The paper that DrCaleb was referring to isn't part of the blog though. It should stand or fall on its own merits. If you don't understand the paper, instead of reading the opinion of an advocacy blog as to its merit, you should simply state "I don't know."

I often visit WUWT, and I get a lot of information from that site. I probably don't read the same WUWT blog posts that you read though, because I'm more interested in the physical science end of things than in the politics. WUWT, for example, did a deserving roast of that "consensus" study a few months ago.

I wouldn't call WUWT a skeptic site though. It's an advocacy site like RealClimate, and ClimateAudit. They have opposing viewpoints, but a true skeptical empiricist doesn't have a viewpoint. He simply chnages his mind to match his observations. This is difficult to do, and it's why, in life, skeptical empiricists are very rare.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I know what RealClimate is. And I agree, it's essentially an advocacy blog. The paper that DrCaleb was referring to isn' part of the blog though. It should stand or fall on its own merits.

Then link directly to the paper and it will. Linking via RC to me is the same as me linking a real news story via FOX News would be to Thanos.

I've done this in the past when I've wanted to address an issue and not the source of the issue.

Consider this a helpful suggestion.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I know what RealClimate is. And I agree, it's essentially an advocacy blog. The paper that DrCaleb was referring to isn' part of the blog though. It should stand or fall on its own merits.

Then link directly to the paper and it will. Linking via RC to me is the same as me linking a real news story via FOX News would be to Thanos.

I've done this in the past when I've wanted to address an issue and not the source of the issue.

Consider this a helpful suggestion.

I didn't start the thread, so I didn't choose the link.

[Thanos]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Then link directly to the paper and it will. Linking via RC to me is the same as me linking a real news story via FOX News would be to Thanos.

1) I've linked real news stories via FOX before. Their actual news section really isn't all that bad. Same with CBC. The problem with both is singling out their editorializing and opinion columns from the actual news stories. One has to be careful on the FOX website because instead of a news item one could accidentally link to something by a vile little Christian supremacist/"Muslims under the bed!" creep like Todd Starnes for example.

2) Quit namedropping me into conversations I'm not participating in! I'll have you prosecuted for stalking, damn you!

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I know what RealClimate is. And I agree, it's essentially an advocacy blog.

Do you remember when RC was pushing that Steig study on Antarctica? It's worth mentioning, because it's so much the same thing as what's happening here. This one makes up magic math to say black is white and the climate pause everybody can see isn't actually there. The Steig study had to explain why the Antarctic wasn't warming. Everybody could see it was setting ice growth records, and that wasn't supposed to happen. Steig basically said "Don't believe your lying eyes. That ice is not the ice you are looking for. Pay no attention to the ice behind the curtain. Nothing to see here. Watch the watch instead."

And the same thing happened there as is happening here. Others jumped on the story, because you know, 'study, peer reviewed'. That record ice you see in the Antarctic isn't actually there. Steig says so with his magic math.

After a short period of grace however the mining engineer McIntyre from Climate Audit jumped on it, and pulled the math apart, cause that's what he does. In his world the math has to add up or you don't get paid. Steig's math didn't. Basically he took some temperatures from a part of the West coast where there was some warming, and smeared the numbers across the whole continent. Eventually even Steig had to admit he made an oopsy, but by that time the damage was done. All the good little proggys who had lulled themselves to sleep with the RC fairy tale of the warming Antarctic, all of a sudden didn't want to read the final chapter.

[Jabberwalker]

$1:

The Royal Meteorological Society is a "Warmist Blog"?

Who knew?

... a bunch 'o' Commies. REAL men drill awerl wells in Teyeksus, don't believe in no tree huggin', mamby-pamby, socialist, Obama-Hitler stuuf lack "climate change".

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Can we stop attacking the messenger now?

No.

What it boils down to is this; will you support me if I start posting Climate Skeptic versions of studies from their blogs. If not bring me your messenger from the warmist blogs and down he goes.

Well, that tells me what I need to know. Even if a site says the exact thing as 10 'news' organizations, it's propaganda. Even if the site didn't produce the study, but simply summarized it for the non-technical - it's propaganda.

Too bad. I had hopes. Funny part is, I didn't even know what RealClimate was, it was just first in the Google news category on the study.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I know what RealClimate is. And I agree, it's essentially an advocacy blog.

Do you remember when RC was pushing that Steig study on Antarctica? It's worth mentioning, because it's so much the same thing as what's happening here. This one makes up magic math to say black is white and the climate pause everybody can see isn't actually there. The Steig study had to explain why the Antarctic wasn't warming. Everybody could see it was setting ice growth records, and that wasn't supposed to happen. Steig basically said "Don't believe your lying eyes. That ice is not the ice you are looking for. Pay no attention to the ice behind the curtain. Nothing to see here. Watch the watch instead."

And the same thing happened there as is happening here. Others jumped on the story, because you know, 'study, peer reviewed'. That record ice you see in the Antarctic isn't actually there. Steig says so with his magic math.

After a short period of grace however the mining engineer McIntyre from Climate Audit jumped on it, and pulled the math apart, cause that's what he does. In his world the math has to add up or you don't get paid. Steig's math didn't. Basically he took some temperatures from a part of the West coast where there was some warming, and smeared the numbers across the whole continent. Eventually even Steig had to admit he made an oopsy, but by that time the damage was done. All the good little proggys who had lulled themselves to sleep with the RC fairy tale of the warming Antarctic, all of a sudden didn't want to read the final chapter.

Antarctic ice doesn't seem to be doing much of anything. It's gone up a bit, but I haven't seen this record Antarctic ice growth you're talking about. Haven't seen much of a clear signal in sea levels or ocean acidity either. Arctic ice is definitely decreasing over the last couple of decades. That is a pretty noticeable trend. Temperatures are not trending much either. CO2 is increasing at a pretty predictable rate.

That's about the long and short of it, as far as I've seen.

Nothing McIntyre has said, or Mann, has really changed that. Studies come and go. Data are more important.

[commanderkai]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The story, and similar ones posted in places like 'The Guardian' are all based on a new study by the RMS. It's actually the first sentence in the article... "A new study by British and Canadian researchers shows " which links to the study at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 7/abstract

I'm against using blogs of any sort for the Newsbot thing, no matter the issue at hand. I just see it as a slippery slope. You can obviously post blogs, but in my opinion, it's not proper to put a blog post through the Newsbot.

Don't take it personally either, I've pointed this out to a few people in the past. *Shrugs*

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Well, that tells me what I need to know. Even if a site says the exact thing as 10 'news' organizations, it's propaganda. Even if the site didn't produce the study, but simply summarized it for the non-technical - it's propaganda.

Too bad. I had hopes. Funny part is, I didn't even know what RealClimate was, it was just first in the Google news category on the study.

Yes, Google news will sometimes link to blogs.

No, you do not seem to understand. I'm saying if the take of warmist leaning blogs on papers and studies is admissible as news the same rule should apply to blogs from the other side. I'll play the game however it's decided, I just want it to apply both ways.

I think that's big of me too, because the warmists pretty much run the science by press release game in the mainstream if we insist on only using that. You rarely find a contrary study finding its way into the mainstream press though. Such peer review studies exist. Somebody like yourself is unlikely to see them is all. My point is I will not have the same opportunity to post friendly studies, but I still think the opportunity should be fair. Actually I kind of like your idea of posting blogs. If that's what you insist I'll support it.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Antarctic ice doesn't seem to be doing much of anything. It's gone up a bit, but I haven't seen this record Antarctic ice growth you're talking about.

Well then no offense, but you're not paying attention. This is from NSIDC



http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/index.html

This one from Arctic Climate Research at University of Illinois shows you their anomaly trend to recent record antarctic ice. It differs from NSIDC - I assume, because there's different ways of measuring ice extant - but in both cases they show recent records.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... arctic.png

This one you won't like the source as well, but it shows you an even more clear picture.



http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpres ... me-record/

$1:

Nothing McIntyre has said, or Mann, has really changed that. Studies come and go. Data are more important.

Well I just showed you graphs based on data from two scientific organizations. Michael Mann has nothing to do with anything I've said. My point was the Real Climate blog cheerleading for the Steig et al study in 2009 reminds me of their rah rahs for this new one.

I'm talking about this old Steig et al controversy.

http://climateobserver.blogspot.ca/2011 ... ig-et.html

Or you can find a Mann reference in this one on Steig et al if you're really anxious to divert.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/08/r ... ntarctica/