Nik, what department were you in at Harvard?
Nik, youâre being demeaning towards your host.
Theyâre plots with a trendline you claimed showed a continuing natural warming trend, which is dishonest, since a best-fit line would not bend no matter how much the climate changed. Now youâre dishonestly claiming theyâre âjust plotsâ, to hide that you tried to sneak a wrong interpretation into them.
Of course, thatâs only the beginning of what youâre lying about, and I am happy to see Peter Jacobs taking you to task for the rest. I just wanted to make sure anyone uninformed had a chance to understand exactly why your plots donât say anything you claim they do.
âNik, what department were you in at Harvard?â
Chemisty. My Ph.D. is in organic (carbon) chemistry, including pure carbon in the form of strained graphene segments. I worked three years with George Whitesides with extensive (ugh!) time at M.I.T. in their clean rooms and laser facilities. I lived carbon chemistry in real labs for over a decade, and most of that was Ivy League hours, not state school ones.
-=NikFromNYC=-
P.S. Thanks for jumping on the ban bandwagon, and thus revealing that indeed it exists, as I claimed above. Your own background is quite revealing, but I hadnât heard of you before todayâs search of the main clearinghouse site:
P.S.S. Just because youâre panicking about losing a now fair (thanks to the Internet) debate does not qualify your opponent as being a âtroll.â By your definition, the formal Oxford Debating Society recently âtrolledâ Global Warming enthusiasts too by concluding: "That this House would put economic growth before combating climate change.â
Personal attacks, accusations of dishonesty, name calling, desperate ban campaigns⌠Dude, if you want to see hockey sticks where everybody else can clearly see toothpicks, I suggest you are among the double digit percent of people who suffer from the form of group think that psychologists regularly confirm exist in decision making committees who are fed false opinions by paid actors. Arab oil money and green banking schemers can afford whole armies of paid actors, Al âPetrodollarsâ Gore alone announcing $300M public relations campaigns (!).
ââŚa fit line would not bend no matter what.â
There is one plot that a line will not fit: a hockey stick! There is a plot which a line fits nearly perfectly: a fuzzy toothpick.
The vast majority of tide gauge records are also fuzzy toothpicks that are objectively clear matches for linear trendlines and not bent hockey sticks. At the current unchanging New York City trend, the current National Geographic cover image of a half sunken Statue of Liberty would require twenty thousand years. But the trend remains the same (TTRTS):
âNik, youâre being demeaning towards your host.â
Those who condescend earn no right to be demeaned? Must I be a saint to present data and analysis for consideration? Is tobacco farmer Al Gore a saint, the one who calls Apollo astronaut skeptics âmoon landing deniersâ? My host is quite happy to regularly allow anti-science and Holocaust survivor demeaning slurs like âdenierâ to fill entire threads. Jim Hansenâs right hand man who runs RealClimate.org during work hours above Tomâs Diner up the street from me here at Columbia, even he has strong words demeaning your opponents with such a label:
The hypocrisy that infects Climatology members is notorious. I even made a pretty logo for you guysâŚ
It was part of a much larger and for me quite cathartic 2010 scrapbook of climate claims:
http://tinyurl.com/climatologylogo
Hereâs a chart showing random data from 0 to 2, and then with an exponential added from 2 to 3:
The line isnât a good fit, but theyâre not good fits in your charts either, and you didnât bother to look at the quality of fit before presenting it as proof the leading scientists are all scammers. So yeah, you can draw a line through anything, even though you shouldnât. I think that is enough to show anyone whether you are being honest.
As for name calling, you just made fun of Maggie for her anthropology degree, Cook as a Nazi sympathizer and dropout, and Gore for I donât even know what to do with Al Jazeera, as well as complete nonsense attacks on everyone to do with climate studies except some known-to-be-dishonest people like Watt. So you can complain about being called a liar for no better reason than being caught lying, but really, why should anyone care?
âHereâs a chart showing random dataâŚâ
Now fit a hockey stick instead of a line to a group of old real thermometer or tide gauge records to immediately convert 95% of skeptics to your argument. Simple plots are not lies, but you do seem to have an issue with lying eyes. Simple plots of real data deviate from a linear trend a mere twenty years or so at a time over many centuries and otherwise hug it like ants crawling along a telephone wire. A single cycle drawn in a computer room I very much agree does not merit a linear fit. We are in total agreement there. A single cycle such as you offer affords no historical baseline trend to compare recent variation to, like real T and sea level records indeed very much do.
âI donât even know what to do with Al Jazeera.â
You mean you are unaware that divinity major Al Gore who got undergraduate Ds in science just sold his Current TV cable channel for half a billion petrodollars and it is now the US version of Al Jazeera or do you mean you just donât know what to make of a vast well of hypocrisy? Do you know what to âdoâ with his mafia movie worthy seaside palace?:
nik, its awkward to watch someone insult their hosts and then whine about how they get banned for their controversial ideas.
If you get the ban youâre seeking, it will be for making personal insults, not for blowing hot air about climate science.
In fact, I applaud your efforts at recycling. I wish you were recycling paper and plastic and not flawed denialism arguments while dragging the holocaust into an unrelated discussion, but hey, it takes all sorts to fill a freeway.
1 Like
âIf you get the ban youâre seeking, it will be for making personal insultsâŚâ
Count the insults on the page, dude, and contrast and compare. Here I have been accused of being: âdisingenuous,â of âquoting bullshit,â of not being at âthe grownupsâ table,â and that links to a smear site are offered up as being âhelpfulâ as a paid activist with a history of libel labels me a âtrollâ and best of all I have been âcaught lyingâ for fitting trendlines to official data and from you that I am âblowing hot air.â
Each and every reply is an unmoderated spitfire insult, including your own which calls for bans on insults.
This is just delightful at this point, as it is insultingly insisted that I respond to a barrage of insults and condescension with pacifism instead of normal human defensiveness.
Skepticism used to be hard. Now itâs a gentlemanâs hobby, a great break during my highly technical workday. Back to gold diffraction gratings now! The UV cured epoxy warped last time, in the wrong direction to be useful. Gads!
-=NikFromNYC=-
P.S. In your current BB/EFF fight against Big Brother, you (liberal libertarians) need us skeptics (real nerds) much more than we need you.
Yes nik, youâre the real victim here. Enjoy your day.
I also work with fume hoods and a wide variety of physical experiments, and am not a climate scientist, but simply a physicist who uses statistical physics on a daily basis to design computer chips. I also use COMSOL and Simulink to model the systems I study, so I have some experience with both the power and the limitations of computer models. I think, if you investigated the matter, you would find that most of the cutting edge engineering of the technical marvels that surround us relies heavily on the computer simulations that you seem so quick to utterly disparage.
From your response, it seems like you admit that GHGs are causing anthropogenic global warming, but you donât think itâs as much as the people who have bothered to run the calculations seem to think it is. It also seems like you donât think that increasing the temperature will increase the water vapor concentration, or melt permafrost, releasing methane, and that those couldnât lead to a positive feedback effect. Please correct me if Iâm wrong about that. Also, when I said that we can see the extra IR radiation, I meant that they actually check their models against the actual spectrum we observe on the surface right now, and that those data are in line with their predictions. The extra energy is there and the recent pause in warming was interesting, because the energy has to go somewhere. They recently found it in the deep ocean, which is acting as a heat sink, hence the pause.
The basic point though, is that, when you are dealing with a situation in the natural sciences where there is a strong consensus among specialists in a field, the only people in a position to disagree with that consensus without falling prey to Dunning-Kruger syndrome are specialists in the field. For an organic chemist to think he knows more about climate science than climate scientists would be like me, as a physicist, telling a bunch of biologists that they donât know shit about gene expression.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
