Regular Features

Sandpit 25/9

John Quiggin106 Comments

A new sandpit, the place for off-topic rants and lengthy one-on-one debates no-one else can really follow, because they missed the crucial contradiction between comment #347 and comment #186. Seriously, that kind of extended comments-thread debate is part of blogging, and I wouldn’t like to lose it. But, so far, confining it to the sandpit seems to be working pretty well.

106 thoughts on “Sandpit 25/9”

  3. It seems that although Aldi do offer many products and/or services at affordable prices, buckets and spades are not one of them.

  4. The sandpit works well as a place where bloggers can discuss pet interests. It may evolve into JQ’s tip page (similar to Bolter’s blog at the Hun) where trolls still get bucketed with sand, but a broad range of ideas and links become available.

  6. Re 2,

    Nice pirate hat rationalist and Alice it is amazing how botox can take years off your appearance.

  8. Am I alone in thinking the Gillard government’s manoeuvres around the deputy speakership foolish in the extreme? ON Wednesday the government had clearly seized the high ground from Abbot over his broken word and then on Friday they announce with a sense of pride that they’ve suborned a Coalition member. Then on Friday we learn the whole grubby scheme won’t work any way. It’s the sort of tactical brilliance that only one of the vat creatures from Sussex Street could admire.

  9. @Tony G
    Oh I wish Tony G….trouble with botox wearers is…..you just cant shock them. If I was that concerned about the opposite sex that I wanted to render myself expressionless…I might go there…. but my husband deserves every wrinkle he has ever given me…and if he doesnt like it, too bad. Im not in the market for any replacement. Men tend to generate work IMHO..way too much unpaid work and if its paid work…too much work for the pay!.

  10. Alan

    The machine men won Labor the election, but it would be foolish in the extreme to let them run the show. Gillard will need to take command and use her better judgement on every issue.

    The ‘vat creatures from Sussex Street’ need to understand the meaning of hiatus, or the msm will highlight their influence every time something goes awry.

  11. Sadly, I think Gillard may prove to have a touch of the vat herself.

    Thus far she has been extraordinarily light on policy and extraordinarily heavy on matching Abbot bid for bid in chasing the support of low information voters. Oh, and protecting Australia’s Christian heritage from married perverts but not from prime ministers who prefer living in sin.

  17. Classic el gordo links.

    This goes to a blog which then links to a Der Speigel article in German and an extract in Nature, neither of which say conclusively what el gordo claims they do.

    This goes to a repeat of ealier el gordo claims about the Younger Dryas which also do not make the conclusions he claims they do.

  18. @Alan
    Alan gordie is climate science denalist that is here to post two bit links supporting denialism. A propagandist by any other name but at least he is only leaving his droppings in the sandpit (eww).

  19. @Alice
    Then he should post links that actually support his claims rather than links that he alleges support his claims. I look forward to el gordo’s demonstration of his mastery of German, which would at least demonstrate that he has read the Der Speigel article he claims to be linking.

  22. If it isn’t a hoax prove to me scientifically it is actually warming.

    Point me to some evidence that shows the range of observed global warming is outside the range of typical instrumentation error. If you can not, then the warming can only be labelled an educated guess, validating my hoax theory by falsification.

    Click to access Pawley.pdf

  25. Mann and Jones’ temperature reconstructions by their own admission can not be verified or replicated independently and are not peer reviewed, therefore representing the temperature reconstructions as ‘scientific’ is a hoax . There is no verifiable Global Warming so lets agree to call it climate change (something that always changes).

    Anyway read this paper (200 pages) by Dr Aleo

    Click to access surface_temp.pdf

    And please do not repeat your flawed debating tactic of attacking the person, stick to the issues in the paper.

  26. More unconvincing guff. Try and present some evidence that has past the basic hurdle of peer review.

    BTW Tony if you follow unskeptical and poor process I’ll call you on it. It’ called holding you to account for your record.

  27. “Try and present some evidence that has past the basic hurdle of peer review.”

    Get Mann and Jones to have their temperature manipulations peered reviewed as a starting point- they admit themselves on oath they won’t. They admit themselves on oath that it is common practice in climate science to withhold data and not have it peer reviewed.

    Once you come up with some ‘peer review’ evidence for the warming then maybe we can then scientifically refute it, but until then, Jackerman please stop perpetuating the myth of warming; we can all agree the climate changes so lets leave it at that.

  28. Alan

    CO2 was not the culprit because ‘the transition from the ice age to our current warm, interglacial period the climate shift is so sudden that it is as if a button was pressed”, explains ice core researcher Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Centre for Ice and Climate at NBI at the University of Copenhagen.’

    So what was the cause?

  30. @Tony G
    Tony G – you have added a few wrinkles to me as well. One eyebrow is permanently tilted up and I have three deep mid brow frown lines. I went to the Docs for some Botox to fix it but he told me I was deluding myself.

  31. Once you come up with some ‘peer review’ evidence for the warming then maybe we can then scientifically refute it

    Done, see the evidence I presented at @23 and @24.

    You can add this:

    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11676

    As an side, I consider your claims re Mann to be more guff until you can cite the quotes you claim exist.

  32. Alan

    Did a search but couldn’t find any previous example of CO2 causing abrupt climate change and you obviously already know about the methane burp a long time ago.

    Enlighten me, show me the paleo evidence of CO2 causing abrupt global warming?

  33. el gordo

    Not the way the game is played. You claim that:

    CO2 was not the culprit because ‘the transition from the ice age to our current warm, interglacial period the climate shift is so sudden that it is as if a button was pressed”, explains ice core researcher Jørgen Peder Steffensen, Centre for Ice and Climate at NBI at the University of Copenhagen.’

    It is for you to prove your claim, not to try desperately to change the subject. incidentally, if you must use German, or for that matter Calathumpian evidence as proof, we would all like to see your translation.

  34. Don’t be a goose, I rely on Gosselin to organize the translation. CO2 is not part of the equation.

  35. el gordo

    In future when you are relying on secondary sources, specially those of your own political persuasion, you should admit that. Nice attempt to change the subject, but what is your evidence for the proposition that a CO2 induced climate shift cannot be abrupt?

  36. Is there any evidence for the proposition that abrupt climate change has come about because of CO2?

  37. Re 31

    paragraph 52 & 54 Here Jackerman;

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/38705.htm

    “Graham Stringer: You are saying that every paper that you have produced, the computer programmes, the weather stations, all the information, the codes, have been available to scientists so that they could test out how good your work was. Is that the case on all the papers you have produced?

    Professor Jones: That is not the case.

    Graham Stringer: Why is it not?

    Professor Jones: Because it has not been standard practice to do that.

    Graham Stringer: That takes me back to the original point, that if it is not standard practice how can the science progress?

    Professor Jones: Maybe it should be standard practice but it is not standard practice across the subject”

    Jones hides the decline (para 66) and hides his data, you can ‘believe’ its warming Jackerman but the fact is Jones and Mann are fraudsters.

  38. It is always good to look at the conclusions when you quote from a report:

    5 Conclusions

    135. Consideration of the complaints and accusations made against CRU has led us to three broad conclusions.

    136. Conclusion 1 The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU.

    137. Conclusion 2 In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty—for example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”—we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”.[184] It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid.

    138. Conclusion 3 A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of climate science: to provide the planet’s decision makers with the knowledge they need to secure our future. The challenge that this poses is extensive and some of these decisions risk our standard of living. When the prices to pay are so large, the knowledge on which these kinds of decisions are taken had better be right. The science must be irreproachable.

  39. ‘It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid.’

    Ha, Ha, Ha, what a joke.

    Is that the consensus view that CO2 will bring about disaster because of abrupt CC?

    CO2 measurements show the climate has changed, but this harmless trace gas is not a catalyst for global warming.

    Alan, I showed you my abrupt global warming without CO2 and now it is your chance to prove from the paleo record that an increase in CO2 will cause warming. There is no point in using the past 30 years as your only example, the precautionary principle is fiction and CAGW is a con.

  40. Tony G :
    Re 31
    paragraph 52 & 54 Here Jackerman;
    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/38705.htm
    “Graham Stringer: You are saying that every paper that you have produced, the computer programmes, the weather stations, all the information, the codes, have been available to scientists so that they could test out how good your work was. Is that the case on all the papers you have produced?

    Anyone can test the validity of CRU temp by getting the raw data [1] and processing it, then compare with the results of the range of others who have done this. [2]

    [1] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Climate_data_raw

    [2] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/#Climate_data_processed

    BTW Tony, the extract you provide do not support your claims0 re Mann. Mann’s work is on reconstructions.

  41. Alan @39 is typical El gordo, he argues by assertion and runs away to another assertion once you use evidence or logic to show him up. Its a never ending cycle. But EG is so unconvincing that any reasonable reader will see through him.

  42. Evidence or logic? Warmists are in a malaise, mass propaganda has succeeded and you are in a fog. Or is it just me?

    ‘The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which an unskilled person makes poor decisions and reaches erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to realize their mistakes.’

  43. @el gordo
    ” Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”—we consider that there is no case to answer.”
    Do you read el Gordo and Tony G?
    Over?

  44. el gordo

    What is your evidence for the proposition that a CO2 induced climate shift cannot be abrupt. You have asserted that but not proved it.

  46. I think the best approach is to ask El Gordo, Tony G etc to submit their amazing insights to Nature or Science and explain that we will listen to them when they are accepted by the scientific community. Until then we can put them down as unscientific partisans.

  47. I see what you are getting at, there is nothing in the paleo record to indicate that CO2 was ever responsible for abrupt climate change, but I cannot prove that a CO2 induced climate shift cannot be abrupt.

    It has never happened, but that’s not to say it won’t. That’s why I advocate politicians listen to Bob Carter and take onboard his Plan B.

  50. “The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.”

    Nicholas Caillon et al

    I’m prepared to concede that CO2 ‘outgassing’ from the warming southern oceans may have amplified deglaciation in the NH.

Leave a comment