This Was the Warmest Winter on Record

[Tom Sr.]

--------------
http://time.com/4252339/this-was-the-warmest-winter-on-record/

*This Was the Warmest Winter on Record*

Temperatures were about five degrees above the 20th-century average
by Sarah Begley
March 9, 2016

December 2015 through February 2016 was the warmest winter on record, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced on Tuesday.

Looking at temperatures averaged over the lower 48 states, NOAA found the U.S. was five degrees warmer than the 20th-century average, the Washington Post reports. Every New England state set winter records, and even Alaska saw its second warmest winter since NOAA began keeping records 121 years ago.

While the climate event El Niño's hot ocean temperatures could be partly to blame, the winter is in keeping with a long-term trend of climate warming.

[GRAPHIC: 'The temperature difference from normal from December 2015 through February 2016 over the Lower 48.']
--------------





SCIENCE. REALITY.


















. . . .

[David Hartung]

So?

[Tom Sr.]

> --
>
> So?





You prove again you are Too Fucking STUPID to *understand*, Hartung.




















































































































*yawn*

. . .

[Fred Oinka]

So you only look at many years of data if they support your argument, right? Really cold winters don't count because you have to look at an overall pattern, but a hot summer means proof of global warming. Have I got it right?

[Beam Me Up Scotty]

On 03/10/2016 09:31 AM, Fred Oinka wrote:
> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 8:21:27 AM UTC-5, Tom Sr. wrote:
>> --------------
>> http://time.com/4252339/this-was-the-warmest-winter-on-record/
>>
>> *This Was the Warmest Winter on Record*
>>
>> Temperatures were about five degrees above the 20th-century average

Great weather huh?


--
That's Karma

[Vandar]

On 3/10/2016 8:21 AM, Tom Sr. wrote:
> --------------
> http://time.com/4252339/this-was-the-warmest-winter-on-record/

Good. That means less shoveling for me and a longer grow season for farmers.

[Tom Sr.]

It really DOES help those who are trying to limit Climate Change by Human-caused Global Warming when you far-right-wing KookS continue to prove over and over again how completely CLUELESS you are.


Now all this topic needs is yet another crazed conspiracy rant from KKKat and we will have the final bit of evidence needed to completely confirm this.


















































































































So Damn Without A CLUE.

. . .

[Tom Sr.]

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 12:07:45 PM UTC-5, Vandar wrote:
> Good. That means less shoveling for me and a longer grow season for farmers.

Short-term "thinking" -- very typical of someone without a true understanding of Science.











































































*wwwwwwwwoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooossssssshhhhh*

. . .

[First Post]

And don't forget those lower heating bills.

[Tom Sr.]

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 12:34:51 PM UTC-5, First Post wrote:
> And don't forget those lower heating bills.

And higher air conditioning ones.





































































































































































































Another far-right-wing Ko0k demonstrates their inability to reason.

*DUH*


. . .

[Vandar]

On 3/10/2016 12:29 PM, Tom Sr. wrote:
> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 12:07:45 PM UTC-5, Vandar wrote:
>> Good. That means less shoveling for me and a longer grow season for farmers.
>
>
>
> Short-term "thinking" -- very typical of someone without a true understanding of Science.

I'd rather think sort-term than bleat about unproven bullshit and
demanding tax increases to mitigate it.

[Vandar]

On 3/10/2016 12:40 PM, Tom Sr. wrote:
> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 12:34:51 PM UTC-5, First Post wrote:
>> And don't forget those lower heating bills.
>
>
> And higher air conditioning ones.

Better too hot than too cold.

[Vandar]

On 3/10/2016 12:09 PM, Tom Sr. wrote:
>
>
> It really DOES help those who are trying to limit Climate Change by Human-caused Global Warming

You aren't trying to do that, in any way.
Your faux altruism is obvious.

[DoD]

"Vandar" <vand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:nbsbp4$ocr$2...@dont-email.me...

+1

[AlleyCat]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 05:21:23 -0800 (PST), Tom Sr. says...

> *This Was the Warmest Winter on Record*

So...

... it's a lie. It HAS been warmer before. Ask those who were around 7000
years ago for the Holocene Maximum Warm Period that lasted 3000 years, not
the piddly little 135 year one (with a 40 year lapse) we're having now.

It HAS been warmer before. Ask those who were around 700 years ago for the
Medieval Warm Period that lasted 300 years, not the piddly little 135 year
one (with a 40 year lapse) we're having now.

http://i.imgur.com/hjReBjZ.jpg

--

A "teabagger" is a male Liberal Democrat who performs fellatio on another
male Liberal Democrat... either sucking his balls or laying his genitals
on his partner's face. <snicker>

[AlleyCat]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 05:34:55 -0800 (PST), Tom Sr. says...

> > So?

> You prove again you are Too Fucking STUPID to *understand*, Hartung.

We understand completely... YOU are a complete moron, for allowing
yourself to get rapt up in all the pseudo-science of manmade climate
change and warming. All the "SCIENCE" you post NEVER proves man is
responsible. You just post shit that happens naturally and HAS been
happening for billions of years.

Because WE'RE stuck in the middle of an Ice Age, but nearing it's end and
it's getting warmer, WE'RE responsible? Who says? God? You? Bloggers?

How have ALL the previous ice ages waned, without man around? Naturally,
of course. WHO told you the weather, temperature and climate was supposed
to stay the same during man's existence?

It HASN'T stayed the same, if you'd care to crack open a book or read
other sites, that aren't BLOGGER sites, like skepticalscience.com

***********************

Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed
cartoonist, John Cook (who apparently pretends, on occasion, to be a
Nazi).

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-
lbw90JPZq6Q/U3B9roVxLAI/AAAAAAAABJ4/swCjiaMzqFk/s1600/Herr+Cook.gif

It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all forms of
dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win
arguments, when in reality they have ALL been refuted.

The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting
commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate
scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage
in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored, while Dr.
Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared.

The irony of the site's oxymoronic name "Skeptical Science" is that the
site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions.

John Cook is now desperately trying to cover up his background that he was
employed as a cartoonist for over a decade with no prior employment
history in academia or climate science.

Thanks to the Wayback Machine we can reveal what his website originally
said,

"I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist" -
John Cook, Skeptical Science

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-
YYVrr8BJIj4/U3CA_pKUGjI/AAAAAAAABKE/o8O69K9MHng/s1600/Cook+Cartoonist.gif

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Y20HAVkDLGI/U3CBOi_mebI/AAAAAAAABKM/04qM-
uzbrDs/s1600/Cook+SEV.gif

It is very important for Mr. Cook to keep up this facade, as once people
learn of his lack of credentials and scientifically worthless employment
history they are unlikely to take his website seriously no matter how he
desperately pads his resume.

******************************

Update 1: The climate alarmist website Skeptical Science
had their forums "hacked" and the contents posted online. What was
revealed is simply astonishing,

Skeptical Science: The Censorship of Poptech

"The impact of that ban on PopTech was to silence him." - [Skeptical
Science]

Skeptical Science: "Ding dong, the witch is dead"

"Conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart is dead at 43" "Ding dong,
the witch is dead..." - John Hartz [Skeptical Science], March 2, 2012

Class personified... typical basement dwelling nerdy mama's boy.

Skeptical Science: "[We're all a bunch of leftists"

"It's official, we're all a bunch of leftists" - John Cook [Skeptical
Science], August 26, 2011

Skeptical Science: The Partnership with Al Gore

"This morning, had a long skype call with a guy working with Al Gore's
Climate Reality Project. [...] He brought up the possibility of a
partnership. [...] an exciting opportunity and another vindication of what
we're doing" - John Cook [Skeptical Science], September 27, 2011

Skeptical Science: From Al Gore to Al Jazeera

"Al Jazeera wants] to feature SkS as the Site of the Week... Am
sending them some info and pics now." - John Cook [Skeptical Science],
September 28, 2011

Skeptical Science: Too Inaccurate for Joe Romm

"Just got this email from Joe Romm: You must do more post vetting.
More errors are creeping into posts and it will start making people like
me wary of using them." - John Cook [Skeptical Science], December 2, 2011

Skeptical Science: "Drown Them Out"

"Badgersouth [John Hartz] and I were just discussing the potential of
setting up a coordinated "Crusher Crew" where we could pull our collective
time and knowledge together in order to pounce on overly vocal deniers on
various comments sections of blogs and news articles." - Rob Honeycutt
[Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011



Update 2: On August 6, 2013, a hidden image folder was found on the
Skeptical Science forums that contained uploaded images of John Cook and
Dana Nuccetelli photoshopped as Nazis.

[wy]

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 3:53:06 PM UTC-5, AlleyCat wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 05:21:23 -0800 (PST), Tom Sr. says...
>
> > *This Was the Warmest Winter on Record*
>
> So...
>
> ... it's a lie. It HAS been warmer before. Ask those who were around 7000
> years ago for the Holocene Maximum Warm Period that lasted 3000 years, not
> the piddly little 135 year one (with a 40 year lapse) we're having now.
>
> It HAS been warmer before. Ask those who were around 700 years ago for the
> Medieval Warm Period that lasted 300 years, not the piddly little 135 year
> one (with a 40 year lapse) we're having now.
>
> http://i.imgur.com/hjReBjZ.jpg

How does it square with this, stupid?

http://www.realclimate.org/images//shakun_marcott_hadcrut4_a1b_eng.png

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/

Boy, you're stupid.

[Ted&Alice Street]

> You prove again you are Too Fucking STUPID to understand, Hartung.
>
>

He asked a relevant question. I'm wondering the same thing. Why not
just answer instead of using it as another opportunity to prove you're
an asshole?

[AlleyCat]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:29:58 -0800 (PST), Tom Sr. says...

>
> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 12:07:45 PM UTC-5, Vandar wrote:
> > Good. That means less shoveling for me and a longer grow season for farmers.
>
>
>
> Short-term "thinking" -- very typical of someone without a true understanding of Science.

No, semen-slurper... you wanna know what SHORT-TERM thinking is?

"WARMEST WINTER" on record.

THAT'S short-term thinking, moronic asshole.

Climate Change is measured in DECADES, not seasons, which only last a few
months. We're having a spate of warm winters... so what?

What's going to happen?

[Vandar]

On 3/10/2016 8:20 PM, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 09:29:58 -0800 (PST), Tom Sr. says...
>
>>
>> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 12:07:45 PM UTC-5, Vandar wrote:
>>> Good. That means less shoveling for me and a longer grow season for farmers.
>>
>>
>>
>> Short-term "thinking" -- very typical of someone without a true understanding of Science.
>
> No, semen-slurper... you wanna know what SHORT-TERM thinking is?
>
> "WARMEST WINTER" on record.
>
> THAT'S short-term thinking, moronic asshole.
>
> Climate Change is measured in DECADES, not seasons, which only last a few
> months. We're having a spate of warm winters... so what?
>
> What's going to happen?

That's one of tommy's many intellectual failings. He decries "short-term
thinking" while kneeling at the altar of a climate record that accounts
for .000004% of the life of the climate.
Citing one winter is .6% of that same climate record. Roughly 152,000
times the length of his cited record.

[AlleyCat]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:33:24 -0800 (PST), wy says...

> > It HAS been warmer before. Ask those who were around 700 years ago for the
> > Medieval Warm Period that lasted 300 years, not the piddly little 135 year
> > one (with a 40 year lapse) we're having now.
> >
> > http://i.imgur.com/hjReBjZ.jpg
>
> How does it square with this, stupid?

With a haughty look of derision and rolling eyes. God, you idiots cling to
ANYTHING if you THINK it follows YOUR ideals. Marcott has been debunked so
much, I will ONLY send you to Google.

You mean the MESS Marcott HYPOTHESIZES? It doesn't. (more below)

https://www.google.com/#newwindow=1&q=marcott+is+wrong

https://www.google.com/#newwindow=1&q=marcott+is+incorrect

His RECONSTRUCTION is, to put it lightly, all fucked up.

Since Marcott is basing his theories on MODELS and predictions, I will not
accept either graph. They're BOTH wrong.

Marcott - 3 Spikes And You Are Out
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/many_vs_unpert.jpg

How Many Things Are Wrong With The Recent Reporting Of The Marcott Study
(And The Study Itself)?

> http://www.realclimate.org/images//shakun_marcott_hadcrut4_a1b_eng.png

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

That's about as stupid as you.

> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/paleoclimate-the-end-of-the-holocene/

(below)

LOL...

"Fixing the Marcott Mess In Climate Science"

http://i.imgur.com/L7xRMmo.jpg

In 1991 the National Research Council proposed what has come
to be a widely accepted definition of misconduct in science:

Misconduct in science is defined as fabrication,
falsification, or plagiarism, in proposing, performing, or
reporting research. Misconduct in science does not include
errors of judgment; errors in the recording, selection, or
analysis of data; differences in opinions involving the
interpretation of data; or misconduct unrelated to the
research process. Arguments over data and methods are the
lifeblood of science, and are not instances of misconduct.

However, here I document the gross misrepresentation of the
findings of a recent scientific paper via press release
which appears to skirt awfully close to crossing the line
into research misconduct, as defined by the NRC. I recommend
steps to fix this mess, saving face for all involved, and a
chance for this small part of the climate community to take
a step back toward unambiguous scientific integrity.

The paper I refer to is by Marcott et al. 2013, published
recently in Science. A press release issued by the National
Science Foundation, which funded the research, explains the
core methodology and key conclusion of the paper as follows
(emphasis added): Peter Clark, an OSU paleoclimatologist and
co-author of the Science paper, says that many previous
temperature reconstructions were regional and not placed in
a global context.

"When you just look at one part of the world, temperature
history can be affected by regional climate processes like
El Niño or monsoon variations," says Clark.

"But when you combine data from sites around the world, you
can average out those regional anomalies and get a clear
sense of the Earth's global temperature history."

What that history shows, the researchers say, is that during
the last 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled about 1.3
degrees Fahrenheit--until the last 100 years, when it warmed
about 1.3 degrees F. The press release clearly explains that
the paper (a) combines data from many sites around the world
to create a "temperature reconstruction" which gives a
"sense of the Earth's temperature history," and (b) "that
history shows" a cooling over the past 5000 years, until the
last 100 years when all of that cooling was reversed.

The conclusions of the press release were faithfully
reported by a wide range of media outlets, and below I
survey several of them to illustrate that the content of the
press release was accurately reflected in media coverage
and, at times, amplified by scientists both involved and not
involved with the study.

Examples of Media Coverage

Here is Justin Gillis at the New York Times, with emphasis
added to this excerpt and also those further below: The
modern rise that has recreated the temperatures of 5,000
years ago is occurring at an exceedingly rapid clip on a
geological time scale, appearing in graphs in the new paper
as a sharp vertical spike. Similarly, at the NY Times Andy
Revkin reported much the same in a post titled, "Scientists
Find an Abrupt Warm Jog After a Very Long Cooling." Revkin
included the following graph from the paper along with a
caption explaining what the graph shows: Revkin's caption:
A new Science paper includes this graph of data providing
clues to past global temperature. It shows the warming as
the last ice age ended (left), a period when temperatures
were warmer than today, a cooling starting 5,000 years ago
and an abrupt warming in the last 100 years. Revkin
concluded: "the work reveals a fresh, and very long, climate
"hockey stick."" For those unfamiliar, a hockey stick
has a shaft and a blade. Any association with the so-called
"hockey stick" is sure to capture interest in the highly
politicized context of the climate debate, in which the
iconic figure is like catnip to partisans on both sides.
Here is Michael Lemonick at Climate Central: The study...
confirms the now famous "hockey stick" graph that
Michael Mann published more than a decade ago. That study
showed a sharp upward temperature trend over the past
century after more than a thousand years of relatively flat
temperatures. . .

"What's striking," said lead author Shaun Marcott of
Oregon State University in an interview, "is that the
records I use are completely independent, and produce the
same result." Here is Grist.org, which refers in the
passage below to the same figure shown above: A study
published in Science reconstructs global temperatures
further back than ever before - a full 11,300 years. The
new analysis finds that the only problem with Mann's
hockey stick was that its handle was about 9,000 years too
short. The rate of warming over the last 100 years hasn't
been seen for as far back as the advent of agriculture.

To be clear, the study finds that temperatures in about a
fifth of this historical period were higher than they are
today. But the key, said lead author Shaun Marcott of Oregon
State University, is that temperatures are shooting through
the roof faster than I've ever seen.

"What I found is that temperatures increased in the last
100 years as much as they had cooled in the last 6,000 or
7,000," he said. "In other words, the rate of change is
much greater than anything I've seen in the whole
Holocene," referring to the current geologic time period,
which began around 11,500 years ago. Back to more mainstream
outlets, here is how Nature characterized the study,
offering a substantially similar but somewhat more technical
description of the curve shown in the figure above: Marcott
and his colleagues set about reconstructing global climate
trends all the way back to 11,300 years ago, when the
Northern Hemisphere was emerging from the most recent ice
age. To do so, they collected and analyzed data gathered by
other teams. The 73 overlapping climate records that they
considered included sediment cores drilled from lake bottoms
and sea floors around the world, along with a handful of ice
cores collected in Antarctica and Greenland.

Each of these chronicles spanned at least 6,500 years, and
each included a millennium-long baseline period beginning in
the middle of the post-ice-age period at 3550 bc.

For some records, the researchers inferred past temperatures
from the ratio of magnesium and calcium ions in the shells
of microscopic creatures that had died and dropped to the
ocean floor; for others, they measured the lengths of
long-chain organic molecules called alkenones that were
trapped in the sediments.

After the ice age, they found, global average temperatures
rose until they reached a plateau between 7550 and 3550 bc.
Then a long-term cooling trend set in, reaching its lowest
temperature extreme between ad 1450 and 1850. Since then,
temperatures have been increasing at a dramatic clip: from
the first decade of the twentieth century to now, global
average temperatures rose from near their coldest point
since the ice age to nearly their warmest, Marcott and his
team report today in Science. And here is New Scientist,
making reference to the exact same graph: Shaun Marcott of
Oregon State University in Corvallis and colleagues have
compiled 73 such proxies from around the world, all of which
reach back to the end of the last glacial period, 11,300
years ago. During this period, known as the Holocene, the
climate has been relatively warm - and civilisation has
flourished.

"Most global temperature reconstructions have only spanned
the past 2000 years," says Marcott.

Marcott's graph shows temperatures rising slowly after the
ice age, until they peaked 9500 years ago. The total rise
over that period was about 0.6 °C. They then held steady
until around 5500 years ago, when they began slowly falling
again until around 1850. The drop was 0.7 °C, roughly
reversing the previous rise.

Then, in the late 19th century, the graph shows temperatures
shooting up, driven by humanity's greenhouse gas emissions.

The rate of warming in the last 150 years is unlike anything
that happened in at least 11,000 years, says Michael Mann of
the Pennsylvania State University in University Park, who
was not involved in Marcott's study. It was Mann who created
the original hockey stick graph (see upper graph here),
which showed the change in global temperatures over the last
1000 years.

Over the Holocene, temperatures rose and fell less than 1
°C, and they did so over thousands of years, says Marcott.
"It took 8000 years to go from warm to cold." Agriculture,
communal life and forms of government all arose during this
relatively stable period, he adds. Then in 100 years, global
temperatures suddenly shot up again to very close to the
previous maximum. It seems clear that even as various media
took different angles on the story and covered it in varying
degrees of technical detail, the articles listed above
accurately reflected the conclusions reflected in the NSF
press release, and specifically the "hockey stick"-like
character of the new temperature reconstruction.
Unfortunately, all of this is just wrong, as I explain
below. (If you'd like to explore media coverage further here
is a link to more stories. My colleague Tom Yulsman got
punked too.)

The Problem with the NSF Press Release and the Subsequent
Reporting

There is a big problem with the media reporting of the new
paper. It contains a fundamental error which (apparently)
originates in the NSF press release and which was furthered
by public comments by scientists.

In a belatedly-posted FAQ to the paper, which appeared on
Real Climate earlier today, Marcott et al. make this
startling admission: Q: What do paleotemperature
reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100
years?

A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a
so-called "uptick" in temperatures during the
20th-century. However, in the paper I make the point that
this particular feature is of shorter duration than the
inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure,
and that it is based on only a few available
paleo-reconstructions of the type I used. Thus, the 20th
century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not
statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of
global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis
of any of our conclusions. Got that?

In case you missed it, I repeat: . . . the 20th century
portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically
robust, cannot be considered representative of global
temperature changes . . . What that means is that this paper
actually has nothing to do with a "hockey stick" as it does
not have the ability to reproduce 20th century temperatures
in a manner that is "statistically robust." The new "hockey
stick" is no such thing as Marcott et al. has no blade. (To
be absolutely clear, I'm not making a point about
temperatures of the 20th century, but what can be concluded
from the paper about temperatures of the 20th century.)

Yet, you might recall that the NSF press release said
something quite different: What that [temperature
reconstruction] history shows, the researchers say, is that
during the last 5,000 years, the Earth on average cooled
about 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit--until the last 100 years, when
it warmed about 1.3 degrees F. So what the paper actually
shows is the following, after I have removed from the graph
the 20th century period that is "not statistically robust"
(this is also the figure that appears at the top of this
post): Surely there is great value in such an analysis of
pre-20th century temperatures. And there can be no doubt
there will be continuing debates and discussions about the
paper's methods and conclusions. But one point that any
observer should be able to clearly conclude is that the
public representation of the paper was grossly in error. The
temperature reconstruction does not allow any conclusions to
be made about the period after 1900.

Does the public misrepresentation amount to scientific
misconduct? I'm not sure, but it is far too close to that
line for comfort. Saying so typically leads to a torrent of
angry ad hominem and defensive attacks, and evokes little in
the way of actual concern for the integrity of this highly
politicized area of science. Looking past the predictable
responses, this mess can be fixed in a relatively
straightforward manner with everyone's reputation intact.

How to Fix This

Here are the steps that I recommend should be taken:

1) Science should issue a correction to the paper, and
specially do the following:

(a) retract and replot all figures in the paper and SI
eliminating from the graphs all data/results that fail to
meet the paper's criteria for "statistical robustness." (b)
include in the correction the explicit and unambiguous
statement offered in the FAQ released today that the
analysis is not "statistically robust" post-1900.

2) NSF should issue a correction to its press release,
clarifying and correcting the statements of Peter Clark (a
co-author, found above) and Candace Major, NSF program
manager, who says in the release: "The last century stands
out as the anomaly in this record of global temperature
since the end of the last ice age," says Candace Major,
program director in the National Science Foundation's (NSF)
Division of Ocean Sciences. 3) The New York Times (Gillis
and Revkin, in particular), Nature and New Scientist as
outlets that pride themselves in accurate reporting of
science should update their stories with corrections. Grist
and Climate Central should consider the same.

[UPDATE: Andy Revkin at DotEarth has updated his posts here
and here to reference the "lost blade" from the hockey stick
and link to this post. That was quick and easy. Others take
note.]

Let me be perfectly clear -- I am accusing no one of
scientific misconduct. The errors documented here could have
been the product of group dynamics, institutional
dysfunction, miscommunication, sloppiness or laziness (do
note that misconduct can result absent explicit intent).
However, what matters most now is how the relevant parties
respond to the identification of a clear misrepresentation
of a scientific paper by those who should not make such
errors.

That response will say a lot about how this small but
visible part of the climate community views the importance
of scientific integrity.

[Bud Frawley]

In article <7eab2170-51d9-433c...@googlegroups.com>,
y...@inbox.com says...

>
> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 8:21:27 AM UTC-5, Tom Sr. wrote:

> > --------------
> > http://time.com/4252339/this-was-the-warmest-winter-on-record/
> >
> > *This Was the Warmest Winter on Record*
>

> Thank goodness. I didn't have to break out the snowblower once this year!
ya I hope your happy when your under 6 feet of water from the glacer's
which are melting faster than you can blink! it's a proven fact new
yourk is gonna be under water in a few year's! not if WHEN! try reading
a third grade science book moron! you might learn something beside's
denial!

[Tom Sr.]

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 12:47:58 PM UTC-5, Vandar wrote:
> On 3/10/2016 12:09 PM, Tom Sr. wrote:
> > It really DOES help those who are trying to limit Climate Change
> > by Human-caused Global Warming

> --

>
> You aren't trying to do that, in any way.
> Your faux altruism is obvious.

Just because you are far too ethically undeveloped to recognize *real* altruism when you encounter it, Vader, does NOT mean it does *not* exist.


As in this case.














































































***wwwwwooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooossssshhhh***

. . .

[Bud Frawley]

In article <c9230c1b-b663-477a...@googlegroups.com>,
y...@inbox.com says...

>
> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 10:07:08 PM UTC-5, Bud Frawley wrote:
> > In article <7eab2170-51d9-433c...@googlegroups.com>,
> > y...@inbox.com says...
> > >
> > > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 8:21:27 AM UTC-5, Tom Sr. wrote:
> > > > --------------
> > > > http://time.com/4252339/this-was-the-warmest-winter-on-record/
> > > >
> > > > *This Was the Warmest Winter on Record*
> > >
> > > Thank goodness. I didn't have to break out the snowblower once this year!
> > ya I hope your happy when your under 6 feet of water from the glacer's
> > which are melting faster than you can blink! it's a proven fact new
> > yourk is gonna be under water in a few year's! not if WHEN! try reading
> > a third grade science book moron! you might learn something beside's
> > denial!
>

> According to you doomsayers, that was all supposed to happen ten years ago. Still waiting....
I guess you do'nt watch the news! it's been all over the news that
there's flooding and tornado's all accross the country not only in flood
season! I guess you thing those people are supposed to drive there car's
in the river! the chicken's are coming home to roost! you can thank the
republiCON"S for burning all the cheap gas they can find! you think
when gas is a record low they'll converse? ya right!

[David Hartung]

Tom believes that he is too intelligent to answer the questions of
conservatives.

[David Hartung]

On 03/10/2016 11:09 AM, Tom Sr. wrote:
>
> It really DOES help those who are trying to limit Climate Change by Human-caused Global Warming when you far-right-wing KookS continue to prove over and over again how completely CLUELESS you are.
>
>
> Now all this topic needs is yet another crazed conspiracy rant from KKKat and we will have the final bit of evidence needed to completely confirm this.

I believe that it is you who is ranting.

[Vandar]

On 3/11/2016 7:11 AM, Tom Sr. wrote:
> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 12:47:58 PM UTC-5, Vandar wrote:
>> On 3/10/2016 12:09 PM, Tom Sr. wrote:
>>> It really DOES help those who are trying to limit Climate Change
>>> by Human-caused Global Warming
>> --
>>
>> You aren't trying to do that, in any way.
>> Your faux altruism is obvious.
>
>
>
> Just because you are far too ethically undeveloped to recognize *real* altruism when you encounter it, Vader, does NOT mean it does *not* exist.

I didn't say altruism doesn't exist, dumbass. I said YOURS is fake.

[Bud Frawley]

In article <15c6042e-78bb-424e...@googlegroups.com>,
y...@inbox.com says...

>
> On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 8:00:33 AM UTC-5, Bud Frawley wrote:
> > In article <c9230c1b-b663-477a...@googlegroups.com>,
> > y...@inbox.com says...
> > >
> > > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 10:07:08 PM UTC-5, Bud Frawley wrote:
> > > > In article <7eab2170-51d9-433c...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > > y...@inbox.com says...
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 8:21:27 AM UTC-5, Tom Sr. wrote:
> > > > > > --------------
> > > > > > http://time.com/4252339/this-was-the-warmest-winter-on-record/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > *This Was the Warmest Winter on Record*
> > > > >
> > > > > Thank goodness. I didn't have to break out the snowblower once this year!
> > > > ya I hope your happy when your under 6 feet of water from the glacer's
> > > > which are melting faster than you can blink! it's a proven fact new
> > > > yourk is gonna be under water in a few year's! not if WHEN! try reading
> > > > a third grade science book moron! you might learn something beside's
> > > > denial!
> > >
> > > According to you doomsayers, that was all supposed to happen ten years ago. Still waiting....
> > I guess you do'nt watch the news! it's been all over the news that
> > there's flooding and tornado's all accross the country not only in flood
> > season! I guess you thing those people are supposed to drive there car's
> > in the river! the chicken's are coming home to roost! you can thank the
> > republiCON"S for burning all the cheap gas they can find! you think
> > when gas is a record low they'll converse? ya right!
>

> It was all over the news ten years ago. This sky is falling nonsense is really getting old.
I guess you thing globle warming just started last week! guess what?
it's been going for year's since 1950! I bet it's cold in your cave!
LLLLLLLOOOOOOOLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!

[someone else]

Someone else might believe otherwise, that conservatives are a minority
in the professional scientific fields, and quite simply cannot see past
the end of their own noses

[someone else]

On 3/11/2016 8:30 AM, Bud Frawley wrote:
>
> I guess you thing globle warming just started last week! guess what?

Someone else might remind you of the facts


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201601.pdf

[Tom Sr.]

On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 8:21:55 AM UTC-5, Vandar wrote:
> On 3/11/2016 7:11 AM, Tom Sr. wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 12:47:58 PM UTC-5, Vandar wrote:
> >> You aren't trying to do that, in any way.
> >> Your faux altruism is obvious.

> > --

> >
> > Just because you are far too ethically undeveloped to
> > recognize *real* altruism when you encounter it, Vader, does NOT
> > mean it does *not* exist.

> --

>
> I didn't say altruism doesn't exist, dumbass. I said YOURS is fake.

You failed yet again to *understand* what I wrote, Vader.





































































*DUH*

. . .

[Tom Sr.]

On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 10:23:45 AM UTC-5, Yak wrote:
> Oh, is it called 'global warming' this week? I thought it
> was 'climate change.'



You merely demonstrate your own Ignorance by writing such, Yakie. The two are very closely interrelated.


One is the cause; the other is the effect.



*DUH*
















































































































































. . .

[Tom Sr.]

On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 8:18:43 AM UTC-5, David Hartung wrote:
> I believe that it is you who is ranting.

You would be WRONG, Hartung, as usual.


--------------
http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2016/03/08/science-is-not-faith-based-no-matter-what-the-wall-street-journal-says/#140cf60e6055

*No, Science Is Not Faith-Based*
by Ethan Siegel
Mar 8, 2016

Even the most well-learned scientist, working within the frameworks of the most robustly tested and verified theories, can never be certain that the next experiment or measurement will continue to provide the results that we expect. Last month, when the LIGO collaboration announced the direct detection of gravitational waves for the first time, it confirmed a new aspect of Einstein's general relativity: one that had been predicted and whose consequences had been seen indirectly -- through the decay of neutron star orbits -- but one that we couldn't be sure about until we validated it directly. But writing in the Wall Street Journal, Matt Emerson makes the erroneous claim that science is faith-based, too. Here's the crux of his argument, followed by why it falls apart.

He quotes physicist Carlo Rovelli, who wrote that the discovery of gravitational waves was the realization of a "dream based on faith in reason: that the logical deductions of Einstein and his mathematics would be reliable." He quotes Paul Davies, who wrote, "Just because the sun has risen every day of your life, there is no guarantee that it will therefore rise tomorrow. The belief that it will--that there are indeed dependable regularities of nature--is an act of faith, but one which is indispensable to the progress of science." And then, based on the use of the word "faith" in these two sentences, he makes the following leap:

"Recognizing the existence of this kind of faith is an important step in bridging the artificial divide between science and religion, a divide that is taken for granted in schools, the media and in the culture. People often assume that science is the realm of certainty and verifiability, while religion is the place of reasonless belief. [...] The fundamental choice is not whether humans will have faith, but rather what the objects of their faith will be, and how far and into what dimensions this faith will extend."


To be willing to make this statement is to deliberately misunderstand what the enterprise of science is, and how it fundamentally differs from any theological conclusion one could ever reach.

Faith, by definition, is the belief in something despite insufficient knowledge to be certain of its veracity. Some beliefs require small leaps of faith (the example that the Sun will rise tomorrow), as the body of evidence supporting that prediction is overwhelming, while others - the existence of dark matter, the inflationary origin of our Universe, or the possibility of room-temperature superconductivity -- may still be likely, but may also reasonably turn out to be wrongheaded. Yet in every case, there are two key components that make the prediction scientific:

1) The prediction, or the belief that the outcome can be accurately predicted, is predicated on the existence of quality evidence.

2) As the evidence changes -- as we obtain more, newer and better evidence -- and as the full suite of evidence expands, our predictions, postdictions, and entire conceptions of the Universe change along with it.

There is no such thing as a good scientist who ISN'T willing to both base their scientific belief on the full suite of evidence available, nor is there such a thing as a good scientist who won't revise their beliefs in the face of new evidence.

We may have had faith that Einstein's predictions, and the existence of gravitational waves, would turn out to be correct, and that LIGO would make the greatest scientific discovery of the 21st century so far. But if it hadn't been true -- if advanced LIGO had reached design sensitivity and seen nothing for years, or if it had seen something that conflicted with Einstein's theory -- that faith would be instantaneously discarded, and replaced by something even better: a quest to discover how to extend and supersede Einstein's greatest accomplishment to account for the new evidence.

The fundamental question is neither what the object of humanity's faith will be nor how far it will extend, but rather how far you're willing-and-able to test your most deeply held beliefs, and whether you'll have the courage to change your conclusions to follow where the evidence guides. That is what separates science from anything faith-based, and why any faith-based belief system will never be considered scientific.
--------

Ethan Siegel:

I write about astrophysics, space, and the science of the Universe.

I am a Ph.D. astrophysicist who professes physics and astronomy at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, OR. I have won numerous awards for science writing since 2008 for my blog, 'Starts With A Bang', including the award for best science blog by the Institute of Physics.
--------------




"There is no such thing as a good scientist who ISN'T willing to both base their scientific belief on the full suite of evidence available, nor is there such a thing as a good scientist who won't revise their beliefs in the face of new evidence."


THAT is why Pastor Hartung and Vader, His Little Mr. Echo, and the rest of the far-right-extremists in this newsgroup will ALWAYS fail to truly *comprehend* Science:

You CANNOT *revise* your irrational-beliefs in the face of *new evidence*. It is a basic, central flaw of the ultraconservative personality itself.


It is the same FAILING which causes the racism, homophobia, bigotry, intolerance, and the truly *mindless* HATE of the far-right extremists here.


You do NOT allow yourselves to CHANGE.


Hartung, Vader, and all the names-I-could-name in this newsgroup have demonstrated this FAILING of the ability to reason logically and rationally over and over and over and over again.


Pastor David Hartung is a prime example of this, having done so for well over a decade now in this newsgroup.



Elsewhere I wrote that "Respect has to be earned" and that is why I do NOT have any respect for Hartung.


Hartung so un-cleverly replied this is why I was "not respected" in this group.


Of course, Pastor Hartung LACKS the empathy to *UNDERSTAND* I do NOT want the "respect" of uncompassionate, disgusting, vile, hurtful barbarian such as himself and other Haters.



I leave such sewage as *that* for the Pastor to wallow in.



















. . .

[Vandar]

You present yourself as the exact opposite of how you want people to see
you.
You don't have an altruistic molecule in your body. Everything about you
is *about you*.

[Bud Frawley]

In article <b1c68d85-edbf-44fd...@googlegroups.com>,
thomas.sw...@gmail.com says...

forget it man! he remind's me of a moron at work which does'nt beleive
science either! he think's when it snow's that prove's there's no global
warming!he think's global warming mean's the earth get's warmer all the
time!I guess he never heard of the big picture!

[Ted&Alice Street]

And that's only one of the least of his character deficiencies.

[Bud Frawley]

In article <3325cf0d-f679-4e33...@googlegroups.com>,
y...@inbox.com says...

> What part of "warming, change, whatever the flavor of the day has been going on since the day the earth was created" doesn't quite resonate with you? I am not denying climate change.

the globe was warming for billion's o f year's until life started! opnce
life started we need to keep it from warming more or we're history!
that's the part which you loon's do'nt get! we're stuart's of are
envirnonment! if we work together we can save it!