jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in news:15vdqgpe0gsiokeh89lffugap3c318fag5@4ax.com:> Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago. >You were certainly brain dead that long ago or more even. Larkin science tell us... fucking nothing... ever.
Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters
Started by ●November 29, 2021
Reply by ●December 1, 20212021-12-01
Reply by ●December 1, 20212021-12-01
On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 8:40:54 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:> Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago.No, it doesn't. Lots of folk, however, WERE dead 20 years ago; maybe you've just mistaken which group 'we' are in?
Reply by ●December 1, 20212021-12-01
On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 00:31:29 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:>On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 8:40:54 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > >> Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago. > >No, it doesn't. >Lots of folk, however, WERE dead 20 years ago; maybe you've just mistaken >which group 'we' are in?The great thing about climatology is that you can be all wrong but still have a lucrative career for 20 years or so, sometimes a lot more. Has anyone driven the west side highway in Manhattan lately? In a boat? -- Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still; but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was always most valuable when he had lost it.
Reply by ●December 1, 20212021-12-01
whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > >> Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago. > > No, it doesn't.Not to a revisionist historian. "February 2021 is seen to be the coldest February in Texas in the past 43 years" (NASA).
Reply by ●December 1, 20212021-12-01
whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > >> Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago. > > No, it doesn't."US shivered through its coldest February in more than 30 years" (USA Today, March 2021).
Reply by ●December 1, 20212021-12-01
On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 16:03:30 -0000 (UTC), John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote:>whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote: > >> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >> >>> Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago. >> >> No, it doesn't. > >"US shivered through its coldest February in more than 30 years" (USA Today, >March 2021).What's different from 30 years ago, and from 100 years ago, is pervasive 24/7 instrumentation everywhere. Of course we set records. -- Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still; but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was always most valuable when he had lost it.
Reply by ●December 1, 20212021-12-01
On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:56:58 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:>On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 10:24:51 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote: >> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:03:35 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 5:29:08 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote: >> >> I just finished reading the following book, which may be of interest. >> >> >> >> The Wall Street Journal reviewed this book: >> >> >> >> .<https://www.wsj.com/articles/unsettled-review-theconsensus-on-climate-11619383653> >> >> >> >> "�Unsettled� Review: The �Consensus� On Climate", WSJ, By Mark P. >> >> Mills, April 25, 2021 4:47 pm ET. >> >> >> >> >> >> Which led me to buy the book on Amazon: >> >> >> >> .<https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798/ref=sr_1_1> >> >> >> >> "Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It >> >> Matters", BenBella Books, Hardcover � April 27, 2021, by Steve E. >> >> Koonin, 320 pages. >> >> >> >> The author chases various loudly-made claims back into the original >> >> literature cited in the IPCC reports, draining all the drama from >> >> those claims. >> > >> >From the Amazon reviews >> > >> >"As more scientists look at Koonin's work, it is not faring well. Global fire decreasing? Apparently he is using figures that mostly measure man-made fires set by farmers, which are decreasing. Wildfire is increasing. Greenland not melting faster than 80 years ago? Well it is melting faster than 60, 70, 90 or 100 years ago. But there was a brief heat wave 80 years ago, making the statement true but irrelevant. It goes on an on like that. His claims are a mish mash of untruths, cherry-picked facts, misrepresentative claims and some actual truth mixed in. But it should not be taken as an honest review of climate science. " >> > >> >It looks as if he has been got at by the climate change denial propaganda machine. They do seem willing to pay well. >> >> You are actually making Koonin's point. > >Far from it. > >> While it's true that some of the one-star reviews made these kinds of points, some material context has been omitted: >> >> There are 2,533 ratings so far, with 82% of them being five-star, and >> 2% being one-star. Few books get that high a five-star rating. > >Unless they are being hyped by the climate change denial propaganda machine.Ad hominem, a classic flaw of reasoning. The book is short and well written, which might help with star ratings. What I like about Koonin is that he provides detailed cites to the same peer-reviewed articles that the IPCC itself cited as the source for this or that summary chart, while pointing out where the summary left much context and perspective out. Given those cites, one can go back to the underlying articles and get the rest of the story, and verify or refute Koonin's take, without resort to ad-hominem arguments. You do not need to trust him, or care about his motives, however evil. Just check the cited articles. Joe Gwinn
Reply by ●December 1, 20212021-12-01
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 2:20:19 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 00:31:29 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 8:40:54 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > > > >> Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago. > > > >No, it doesn't. > >Lots of folk, however, WERE dead 20 years ago; maybe you've just mistaken > >which group 'we' are in? > The great thing about climatology is that you can be all wrong but > still have a lucrative career for 20 years or so, sometimes a lot > more. > > Has anyone driven the west side highway in Manhattan lately? In a boat?Not since Hurricane Sandy (when it did get submerged). This does seem to be the sort of thing that Hansen has predicted (in broad terms) back in 1988 and some reporting clown had misunderstood to be a prediction of a persistent state. The climate change denial propaganda machine does seem to have latched onto this misrepresentation ( and others). John Larkin is much too vain to admit that he has been conned. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●December 1, 20212021-12-01
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:31:13 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:56:58 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman > <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: > > >On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 10:24:51 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote: > >> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:03:35 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman > >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: > >> > >> >On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 5:29:08 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote: > >> >> I just finished reading the following book, which may be of interest. > >> >> > >> >> The Wall Street Journal reviewed this book: > >> >> > >> >> .<https://www.wsj.com/articles/unsettled-review-theconsensus-on-climate-11619383653> > >> >> > >> >> "‘Unsettled’ Review: The ‘Consensus’ On Climate", WSJ, By Mark P. > >> >> Mills, April 25, 2021 4:47 pm ET. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Which led me to buy the book on Amazon: > >> >> > >> >> .<https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798/ref=sr_1_1> > >> >> > >> >> "Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It > >> >> Matters", BenBella Books, Hardcover – April 27, 2021, by Steve E. > >> >> Koonin, 320 pages. > >> >> > >> >> The author chases various loudly-made claims back into the original > >> >> literature cited in the IPCC reports, draining all the drama from > >> >> those claims. > >> > > >> >From the Amazon reviews > >> > > >> >"As more scientists look at Koonin's work, it is not faring well. Global fire decreasing? Apparently he is using figures that mostly measure man-made fires set by farmers, which are decreasing. Wildfire is increasing. Greenland not melting faster than 80 years ago? Well it is melting faster than 60, 70, 90 or 100 years ago. But there was a brief heat wave 80 years ago, making the statement true but irrelevant. It goes on an on like that. His claims are a mish mash of untruths, cherry-picked facts, misrepresentative claims and some actual truth mixed in. But it should not be taken as an honest review of climate science. " > >> > > >> >It looks as if he has been got at by the climate change denial propaganda machine. They do seem willing to pay well. > >> > >> You are actually making Koonin's point. > > > >Far from it. > > > >> While it's true that some of the one-star reviews made these kinds of points, some material context has been omitted: > >> > >> There are 2,533 ratings so far, with 82% of them being five-star, and > >> 2% being one-star. Few books get that high a five-star rating. > > > >Unless they are being hyped by the climate change denial propaganda machine. > > Ad hominem, a classic flaw of reasoning.I'm not saying anything about Koonin. I'm talking about the well known and well documented activities of the climate change denial industry, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt> The book is short and well written, which might help with star ratings.And it provides a comforting message for anybody who fancies climate change denial, which is where confirmation bias comes in.> What I like about Koonin is that he provides detailed cites to the > same peer-reviewed articles that the IPCC itself cited as the source > for this or that summary chart, while pointing out where the summary > left much context and perspective out.But the Amazon review I cited pointed out where Koonin had left out context and perspective. If you concentrate on areas where text-chopping will work well, you can produce a short and ostensibly well written book. It's easier to be deceptive when you can leave out most of the detail.> Given those cites, one can go back to the underlying articles and get the rest of the story, and verify or refute Koonin's take, without resort to ad-hominem arguments. You do not need to trust him, or care about his motives, however evil. Just check the cited articles.A heroic task. Climate change has been an interesting topic for more than a century now https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm starts off with Joseph Fourier in 1824. Voluminous collection of data didn't really get under way until computers became ubiquitous. Climate change denial - as a reaction to the more detailed and worrying data - didn't get under way until the 1990's. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●December 1, 20212021-12-01
On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 5:59:37 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 2:20:19 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > > On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 00:31:29 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 8:40:54 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > > > > > >> Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago. > > > > > >No, it doesn't. > > >Lots of folk, however, WERE dead 20 years ago; maybe you've just mistaken > > >which group 'we' are in? > > The great thing about climatology is that you can be all wrong but > > still have a lucrative career for 20 years or so, sometimes a lot > > more. > > > > Has anyone driven the west side highway in Manhattan lately? In a boat? > Not since Hurricane Sandy (when it did get submerged). This does seem to be the sort of thing that Hansen has predicted (in broad terms) back in 1988 and some reporting clown had misunderstood to be a prediction of a persistent state. The climate change denial propaganda machine does seem to have latched onto this misrepresentation ( and others). > > John Larkin is much too vain to admit that he has been conned. > > -- > SNIPPERMAN, SydneyHey SNIPPERMAN, Hansen wasn't talking about a brief flooding, he was talking PERMANENT.
