Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Assessing climate data record transparency and maturity


Many working scientists seem to feel that just because they are working as scientists, they have some special access to the truth. It is more like priesthood than science. Instead of the facts speaking for themselves, the public is supposed to accept information just because of who it comes from.

Many religions soon establish a ‘priesthood’ who reserve for themselves the arduous (and profitable) task of interpreting God’s Will....The catastrophic AGW movement has all the same characteristics.


it seems to be implicit in a number of the comments here that temperature can be averaged in some kind of meaningful scientific way. My understanding is that the starting point is that temperature cannot be averaged.

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Keith Seitter on the ‘uncertainty monster’

....How about — ‘promoting a standard of scientific honest [sic] that the IPCC and the hockey team have made every effort to avoid.’

Judith – I don’t think you’ve read what he’s written. And I am not sure he read what you wrote either.

Mr Seitter is still entrenched in his CAGW bubble and can’t possibly understand much about the Uncertainty Monster.

I think I got it now….it was those ice-age humans that started making the earth warmer…must have been all that nasty CO2 stuff from the fires they started lighting and it’s only been getting worse and worse ever since….it’s quite obvious, isn’t it, that man has been ruining the earth.

When I first read the IPCC assessment report, I was surprised by the corruption of normal standards of statistical certainty/uncertainty and confidence limits. Since when was 90% good enough??

Happiness is a warm gun, er, uh, warm earth.

“There are scores of posters at WUWT who are convinced that AGW doesn’t exist.”


That’s because there’s no direct evidence to present that any GW is caused by A.

.... As usual you lack substance in your yammering. You should shut up now.