Lindzen got his @$$ kicked!

[_Water Dog]

I have no fookin idea what you are on about but are you talking about this guy?:

“Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries”

Sounds like it would be totally a valuable use of time. Lol.

And your point is? What does Watts' personal background have to do with the popularity of a venue he happens to own? This is like making an argument against something CNN reported because of Ted Turner. This is like making an argument against one of Grindael's history threads because you don't like Shades. The very definition of ad hominem, you doofus. If RI's goal is to stalk deniers and combat their deception, he's wasting his time over here. His skills would be better put to use at other venues where "deniers" actually hang out.

[_Res Ipsa]

My concern with a lot of your posts suggest some real bias against climate science and a popular apologetic I see a lot with LDS apologia. The strategy being to create doubt in order to suggest a wait and see attitude even though more then enough good evidence is available to conclude we are warming the planet at a geologically fast rate. The article does not suggest in any way this explains most of the warming in the arctic, but is discussing a forcing factor in the climate and the need to further study what affects it has. The conclusion suggest changes in cloud cover that can have both positive and negative temperature forcing on how much heat gets trapped and how much sunlight reaches the surface. Nothing from that should make us think it will explain most of the warming in the artic, and since it blames fossil fuel consumption it is another argument for lowing our use of fossil fuels.

It very well could be another argument for lowering fossil fuel consumption. But how does that engage my comment? Process vs system, regional vs global, etc.? You say "more than enough good evidence," however that simply isn't true. I'm not sure why that's hard to accept, but it just isn't true. To you, the TBM, the evidence just seems "so obvious." To me, it's not at all compelling. You have very insignificant warming at best. Which hasn't been established as a trend because we don't have long enough data to say much about it. You have a theory. Which keeps failing in big ways. You have failed to prove it. And I don't really need to make that case, because the world has already made it for me. NOBODY IS LISTENING. Name a single country that is taking this seriously. Not a one. Nobody is reworking their economy to eliminate CO2. How do you live? We could make a list of all the hypocrisy. Does RI live on his own sustainable aquaponics farm driven by solar panels and pure love?

Ah, the purity argument again. Dog argues that the U.S. shouldn't do anything because other nations won't. And then turns around and argues that I should do something. To what? Virtue signal? But that's just a red herring. None of that changes what the evidence says. And Dog don't look at the evidence. He's already told us and shown us that time after time after time. If he'd look and if he's use that stuff between his hears, he'd find that the "case" has been made in the published literature. He's so confused, he doesn't know which way to turn. He posts graphs of time as short of seven years and claims they show that global warming has stopped, but then turns around and says that many more years of data isn't enough to show a trend. He keeps repeating over and over and over that the theory has "failed." But the only evidence he shows are misleading graphs he copies from denier sites.

There are lots of countries trying to take this seriously. But they all know that if the U.S.doesn't do crap, it doesn't matter.

[_Water Dog]

And so, of course, Lindzen wrote a new version of the paper that addressed the issues raised by the reviewers and it was published in the prestigious Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences, changing the course of modern climate science.

Well, actually, he shopped around and finally got it published in an obscure Korean journal without addressing the issues raised by the reviewers.

I don't doubt that Lindzen honestly believes that he's right that the climate sensitivity is close to the radiative forcing of 1C. The problem is, as time has progressed and more science has been done, he's clung to that belief rather than accept the evidence. Hell, even Einstein had trouble accepting quantum mechanics. And he was damned Einstein. Lynn Margulis, a brilliant microbiologist, became an AIDS/HIV denier late in her career. It's not unusual to see retired scientists, or scientists late in their careers, clinging to pet theories that haven't been borne out by the evidence.

I was not aware of all this controversy. Interesting to read about. Not surprising, two sides to the story, it would seem.

With regards to how the PNAS editors treated Lindzen’s paper, I am of two minds about this.

First, I have been harshly critical of “pal review,” and the PNAS papers contributed by NAS members is the worst form of pal review. Ideally, every paper would be subjected to a rigorous review by 4 people including those who are likely to be critical. It should be incumbent on the editor (often with the advice of associate editors who are more knowledgeable of the subject matter) to sort out any unreasonable criticisms. And by the way, I also think that the reviews and editorial decisions should be made public on the web, such as in numerous online Discussion journals.

Second, PNAS violated its own guidelines in the treatment of the LC paper. Looks like potentially important papers by skeptics get “special treatment”, whereas unimportant and often dubious papers by consensus scientists slide right through. This treatment feeds into the narratives of McKitrick, Spencer, Christy, Douglass and Michaels about unfair treatment of skeptics by the journal editors. The establishment would often respond to such criticisms by saying that these are marginal papers by marginal scientists, and that more reputable and recognized scientists such as Lindzen have no trouble getting their papers published. Well, this PNAS episode certainly refutes that argument.

PNAS needs to decide whether it wants to be a vanity press for members of the NAS, or a rigorous peer reviewed journal. Either- or, with no special treatment for skeptics.

https://judithcurry.com/2011/06/10/lind ... i-part-ii/

Well, at this point I'm not sure what we're even talking about. It's all over the map.

[_schreech]

I have certainly enjoyed watching you slap him around. I have learned plenty and appreciate your efforts to engage his very transparent and ignorant denier tactics that are barely comparable to tier 2 mopologist tactics. I’m happy to keep it going by continuing to copy and paste ____ from denier websites for you to engage if he decides he is tired of looking foolish.

I've got an even better idea. I have had the opportunity to converse with a famous "denier," Anthony Watts, in the past. You may recognize the name, he is the proprietor of the Watts Up With That site. I know he accepts opinion pieces from guests of all flavors. How about you prepare a piece for his website? I'm sure he'd be more than happy to post it. The comments sure would be fun to watch.

RI wouldn't dare step out of his safe space.

When all else fails and you have exhausted all other logical fallacies, appeal to authority just looks desperate. Especially appealing to this tool. Geez. That’s just pathetic man.

[_Res Ipsa]

LOL. Shorter Dog: Maybe RI can slap me around, but I'd like to see him take on 50 deniers at once.

Jesus Christ on a cracker. Dog's lost his mind.

[_Res Ipsa]

And so, of course, Lindzen wrote a new version of the paper that addressed the issues raised by the reviewers and it was published in the prestigious Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences, changing the course of modern climate science.

Well, actually, he shopped around and finally got it published in an obscure Korean journal without addressing the issues raised by the reviewers.

I don't doubt that Lindzen honestly believes that he's right that the climate sensitivity is close to the radiative forcing of 1C. The problem is, as time has progressed and more science has been done, he's clung to that belief rather than accept the evidence. Hell, even Einstein had trouble accepting quantum mechanics. And he was ____ Einstein. Lynn Margulis, a brilliant microbiologist, became an AIDS/HIV denier late in her career. It's not unusual to see retired scientists, or scientists late in their careers, clinging to pet theories that haven't been borne out by the evidence.

I was not aware of all this controversy. Interesting to read about. Not surprising, two sides to the story, it would seem.

With regards to how the PNAS editors treated Lindzen’s paper, I am of two minds about this.

First, I have been harshly critical of “pal review,” and the PNAS papers contributed by NAS members is the worst form of pal review. Ideally, every paper would be subjected to a rigorous review by 4 people including those who are likely to be critical. It should be incumbent on the editor (often with the advice of associate editors who are more knowledgeable of the subject matter) to sort out any unreasonable criticisms. And by the way, I also think that the reviews and editorial decisions should be made public on the web, such as in numerous online Discussion journals.

Second, PNAS violated its own guidelines in the treatment of the LC paper. Looks like potentially important papers by skeptics get “special treatment”, whereas unimportant and often dubious papers by consensus scientists slide right through. This treatment feeds into the narratives of McKitrick, Spencer, Christy, Douglass and Michaels about unfair treatment of skeptics by the journal editors. The establishment would often respond to such criticisms by saying that these are marginal papers by marginal scientists, and that more reputable and recognized scientists such as Lindzen have no trouble getting their papers published. Well, this PNAS episode certainly refutes that argument.

PNAS needs to decide whether it wants to be a vanity press for members of the NAS, or a rigorous peer reviewed journal. Either- or, with no special treatment for skeptics.

https://judithcurry.com/2011/06/10/lind ... i-part-ii/

Well, at this point I'm not sure what we're even talking about. It's all over the map.

Lindzen picked two of the reviewers!!! And dude, you've been drawing the map.

[_schreech]

I have no fookin idea what you are on about but are you talking about this guy?:

“Willard Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wottsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries”

Sounds like it would be totally a valuable use of time. Lol.

And your point is? What does Watts' personal background have to do with the popularity of a venue he happens to own? This is like making an argument against something CNN reported because of Ted Turner. This is like making an argument against one of Grindael's history threads because you don't like Shades. The very definition of ad hominem, you doofus. If RI's goal is to stalk deniers and combat their deception, he's wasting his time over here. His skills would be better put to use at other venues where "deniers" actually hang out.

Good god, that was stupid even by your standards. Deniers, like yourself, hang out here, why would going to a site dedicated to people like you be better when he can slap you around here and actually educate interested people?? So a site dedicated entirely to Anthony watts and his style of paid for climate change denial is the comparable, in your shallow mind, to cnn or a general discussion board with a Mormon theme. A better analogy would be a flat earther site. Jesus, critical thinking man. Try to use it on occasion.

[_Water Dog]

When all else fails and you have exhausted all other logical fallacies, appeal to authority just looks desperate. Especially appealing to this tool. Geez. That’s just pathetic man.

What authority did I appeal to?

[_schreech]

You don’t really understand fallacies at all do you? I mean, I see RI handing you your ass on that front but, damn, you aren’t even fun to mock. I feel sad for you.

Again, RI, thanks for your patience and the information provided. Water dog has been the perfect foil. Almost as if he is doing it on purpose.

[_Themis]

It very well could be another argument for lowering fossil fuel consumption. But how does that engage my comment? Process vs system, regional vs global, etc.?

My comment was to your promoting doubt with this study which does not provide any reasons to doubt the warming you apparently agree is happening in the arctic. I explained a little to you about what the study is actually doing.

You say "more than enough good evidence," however that simply isn't true. I'm not sure why that's hard to accept, but it just isn't true. To you, the TBM, the evidence just seems "so obvious."

I'm not a climate TBM. I would love if the consensus from the experts is not true, but the evidence is available for those willing to be a little open minded and willing to read their research.

You have very insignificant warming at best. Which hasn't been established as a trend because we don't have long enough data to say much about it.

I addressed your 0.3 c in less then a 20 years. It is not a little over a longer time and the trend has been going on for a lot longer then 20 years. We have warmed a lot more then 0.3 C and the evidence strongly shows it will continue. They have done a lot of work to understand the important factors in climate including CO2, and it is still rising a lot.

Name a single country that is taking this seriously. Not a one. Nobody is reworking their economy to eliminate CO2. How do you live? We could make a list of all the hypocrisy. Does RI live on his own sustainable aquaponics farm driven by solar panels and pure love?

While there are a lot of countries doing a lot more then the US to address then problem, what has this to do with the science of climate?