Comments on: Skipping A Step http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/02/skipping-a-step.html Tue, 07 Sep 2010 01:25:04 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: hunter http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/02/skipping-a-step.html/comment-page-2#comment-4356 hunter Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:30:11 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=872#comment-4356 Mae, Jennifer is in celebrtory mood, with the near-at-hand regulation of CO2 by the US Government. As Jennifer proves, it has never been about the science for the AGW movement; it has always been about deconstructing our (very successful) technological/industrial culture. Mae,
Jennifer is in celebrtory mood, with the near-at-hand regulation of CO2 by the US Government.
As Jennifer proves, it has never been about the science for the AGW movement; it has always been about deconstructing our (very successful) technological/industrial culture.

]]> By: Mae http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/02/skipping-a-step.html/comment-page-2#comment-4318 Mae Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:37:09 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=872#comment-4318 I was very interested in this article and the earlier comments. I am looking for proper scientific debate on the issue not the current farce which is reminiscent of the medieval persecution of Galileo and Bruno. Surely, the claim that the science proposing AGW is settled is a dangerous assertion running counter to all principles of science - and particularly strange given that climate science is still so young. But surely, AGW proponents would not wish to have the "hunter", who seems incapable of answering criticism without crude ad hominem attacks, on their side. It harms their credibility. I was very interested in this article and the earlier comments. I am looking for proper scientific debate on the issue not the current farce which is reminiscent of the medieval persecution of Galileo and Bruno. Surely, the claim that the science proposing AGW is settled is a dangerous assertion running counter to all principles of science – and particularly strange given that climate science is still so young. But surely, AGW proponents would not wish to have the “hunter”, who seems incapable of answering criticism without crude ad hominem attacks, on their side. It harms their credibility.

]]> By: hunter (the real one) http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/02/skipping-a-step.html/comment-page-1#comment-4309 hunter (the real one) Wed, 18 Feb 2009 00:15:56 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=872#comment-4309 Valerie: stop wanking yourself off in public. Valerie: stop wanking yourself off in public.

]]> By: hunter http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/02/skipping-a-step.html/comment-page-1#comment-4279 hunter Sun, 15 Feb 2009 22:00:27 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=872#comment-4279 Jennifer, Your ignorance and your lack of integrity are only matched by your inability to communicate. I will conclude, along with other people who have dealt with you before, that you are just a neverwuzzer troll. Jennifer,
Your ignorance and your lack of integrity are only matched by your inability to communicate.
I will conclude, along with other people who have dealt with you before, that you are just a neverwuzzer troll.

]]> By: hunter (the real one) http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/02/skipping-a-step.html/comment-page-1#comment-4276 hunter (the real one) Sun, 15 Feb 2009 03:03:25 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=872#comment-4276 Fucking hell, you're a thick cunt. You're just repeating words you've heard. You obviously can't make any sense of scientific terminology. To the surprise of no-one at all, you haven't followed the four simple steps I outlined. Either you are incapable of doing so, or you have actually done so but you don't like the answer it gave. In any case you're a cocksucker of the highest order. Fucking hell, you’re a thick cunt. You’re just repeating words you’ve heard. You obviously can’t make any sense of scientific terminology. To the surprise of no-one at all, you haven’t followed the four simple steps I outlined. Either you are incapable of doing so, or you have actually done so but you don’t like the answer it gave. In any case you’re a cocksucker of the highest order.

]]> By: hunter http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/02/skipping-a-step.html/comment-page-1#comment-4268 hunter Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:06:52 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=872#comment-4268 Jennifer, Since GHGs behave in a logarithmic fashion, I think you should call the Noble Prize Committee and tell them how to spell your name on your physics prize for discovering that GHGs are linear. So, please answer the simple questions I posed and stop the fillibuster and dissembling. Jennifer,
Since GHGs behave in a logarithmic fashion, I think you should call the Noble Prize Committee and tell them how to spell your name on your physics prize for discovering that GHGs are linear.
So, please answer the simple questions I posed and stop the fillibuster and dissembling.

]]> By: hunter http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/02/skipping-a-step.html/comment-page-1#comment-4265 hunter Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:42:28 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=872#comment-4265 Jennifer, I think your discovery that GHGs are linear in their effect is amazing, given that they have been a logarithmic function up until now: http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-is-greenhouse-effect-logarithmic.html I think you should nominate yourself for the Nobel Prize in physics ASAP. Jennifer,
I think your discovery that GHGs are linear in their effect is amazing, given that they have been a logarithmic function up until now:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-is-greenhouse-effect-logarithmic.html
I think you should nominate yourself for the Nobel Prize in physics ASAP.

]]> By: hunter http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/02/skipping-a-step.html/comment-page-1#comment-4264 hunter Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:37:51 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=872#comment-4264 Jennifer, I will not jump through your hoops to keep my name on this blog. As to your new found physics that CO2 forcings are linear, not logarithmic, please call the Physics committee for the Nobel Prize. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/attribution-of-20th-century-climate-change-to-cosub2sub/ You are the most clever troll of all time. Jennifer,
I will not jump through your hoops to keep my name on this blog.
As to your new found physics that CO2 forcings are linear, not logarithmic, please call the Physics committee for the Nobel Prize.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/attribution-of-20th-century-climate-change-to-cosub2sub/
You are the most clever troll of all time.

]]> By: hunter http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/02/skipping-a-step.html/comment-page-1#comment-4236 hunter Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:06:52 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=872#comment-4236 dinosaur: these are sensible questions to ask. It <a href="http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/trend/plot/wti" rel="nofollow">looks</a> like a linear fit is a good approximation to the most recent three decades of temperature measurements. And greenhouse gas forcing is increasing approximately linearly, so one would <i>a priori</i> expect an approximately linear temperature trend over that time. Going back further than thirty years, a linear fit becomes obviously less valid. But I think that by the the time hunter gets back that far, he'll have realised the point I'm making. Autocorrelation doesn't stop us fitting a line to the data, it just changes our error estimates. The value you would estimate from simple linear regression would be too low, and you would think that 'trends' were statistically significant when they weren't. But in the exercise I suggested hunter do, it wouldn't affect the outcome. So, the exercise I set contains simplifying assumptions. However, although they would quantitatively change the outcome, they wouldn't qualitatively change it, and I would like hunter to begin by understanding the data at least in a qualitative sense. dinosaur: these are sensible questions to ask. It looks like a linear fit is a good approximation to the most recent three decades of temperature measurements. And greenhouse gas forcing is increasing approximately linearly, so one would a priori expect an approximately linear temperature trend over that time. Going back further than thirty years, a linear fit becomes obviously less valid. But I think that by the the time hunter gets back that far, he’ll have realised the point I’m making.

Autocorrelation doesn’t stop us fitting a line to the data, it just changes our error estimates. The value you would estimate from simple linear regression would be too low, and you would think that ‘trends’ were statistically significant when they weren’t. But in the exercise I suggested hunter do, it wouldn’t affect the outcome.

So, the exercise I set contains simplifying assumptions. However, although they would quantitatively change the outcome, they wouldn’t qualitatively change it, and I would like hunter to begin by understanding the data at least in a qualitative sense.

]]> By: dinosaur http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/02/skipping-a-step.html/comment-page-1#comment-4231 dinosaur Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:05:18 +0000 http://www.climate-skeptic.com/?p=872#comment-4231 hunter (10/2, 3:15pm), what's the point of fitting a linear trend to a trend that's not linear? What's the point of calculating the error of the resulting "linear fit" to a set of data that has the wrong properties for simple linear regression, most notably in that they are autocorrelated? What worthwhile inferences can result? Just questions. My statistics may be out of date. hunter (10/2, 3:15pm), what’s the point of fitting a linear trend to a trend that’s not linear? What’s the point of calculating the error of the resulting “linear fit” to a set of data that has the wrong properties for simple linear regression, most notably in that they are autocorrelated? What worthwhile inferences can result?
Just questions. My statistics may be out of date.

]]>