Guest Post from suyts

Well, this is boring. Steve runs off to play snowman and we’re stuck with more insanity in the blogosphere. Well, when the cat’s away……..

What I learned last week……….

Much was made over the “Agreeing” posts at Curry’s and Lucia’s blogs. For those not familiar, they basically laid some tenets of CAGW/CC/(whatever they call it today) theory. Ostensibly, in hopes of finding common ground on which we could all agree and further the discussion from there. CAVEAT!! I haven’t wandered to the blackboard, and I won’t. I’ve had enough of Curry’s blog to fill myself of circular arguments and more.

What’s the more, you ask? Glad you did. The appeal to authority that was a caveat added after the discussion had started!!! yehokfine. Except, it has to be known that we skeptics disagree with the “authorities” that posit such ludicrous assertions with such certitude. (Please note, this isn’t a criticism of Dr. Curry, but a criticism of the particular posting.) Skeptics come in all varieties and sizes. I don’t find many people that are skeptical for the same reasons I am. Even in this blog, I find skeptics that aren’t necessarily here for the same reasons. There are a few though. So, a long story, slightly shorter, skeptics took issue with #5 of Curry’s tenets.
To quote, The majority of the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations since pre-industrial times is due to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. This is confirmed both by the isotopic signature of the carbon and the fact that concentrations rise proportionate to emissions.

yehokfine……except not. Show me where this has been demonstrated! Well they didn’t. They didn’t show me, they didn’t show Latitude, they didn’t show Lucy, they didn’t show anybody questioning #5. As Lat stated, “Lucy, you say things so much better than I do…”. Which can be true at times. Boiled down, this was the reply to Lucy……..”“A serious minority hypothesis”, no there isn’t, there are just a bunch of internet cranks with some pretty screwy science.
No one of any substance in the debate questions the source of the increase of CO2.”(emphasis mine)

Oh, did I mention the caveats put in after the discussion started?

“Epistemic levels

When an individual is assessing these, the epistemic level of the assessor is relevant. I propose the following levels:

1. Research scientist publishing papers on relevant topics

2. Individual with a graduate degree in a technical subject that has investigated the relevant topics in detail.

3. Individual spending a substantial amount of time reading popular books on the subject and hanging out in the climate blogosphere

4. Individual who gets their climate information from talk radio”

During my discussions with some of the alarmists, a recurring message was, “A #1 said X, therefore it is true.” yehokfine…………Except……… Didn’t we just finish a discussion of “Hide the decline”? And the subsequent discussions of Mann’s hockey stick that was thoroughly slapped down by Steve Mac? Well, yes, yes we did. Can two contradictory truths exist? If #1 is true, then Steve Mac should never had been published. Up until the time of his first publishing, his epistemic level was a #3! Suddenly and magically, Steve Mac was transformed, according to the Epistemic levels from a person of the lower end of the spectrum to the elite! But, it wasn’t just Steve, was it? No, there are Jeff ID, Ryan O, and many others! But, for the purposes of the conversation, the thoughts of 3s weren’t very valid according to the caveats. But how can this be if some 3s were suddenly propelled to 1s by way of being published?

So what weight can we ascribe to a #1? Let’s see……Mann? Was MBH98 valid? No, not really. Steve Mac broke that stick. What about Briffa’s? Well, we beat that to death. But that’s just dendrochronology. Perhaps that’s the only field that being published doesn’t carry much weight, so much so, that it allows a #3 to be escalated to a #1……… Hm, let’s think on that for a second. It seems to me that we’ve ventured out beyond dendrochronology…..when and where did that happen???……..hmm……Oh yeh!!! Now I remember! It was ES09 and RO10!!!! Now, I know this is still a point of contention with many people, and I’d like to set things straight. The word duplicity was assigned to some of the statements ES made. On the surface, this seemed to be true. His statements seemed duplicitous. They really weren’t. I’d invite all to go to both sites to see the various contentions. The problem arose because of very different perspectives. Forgoing the re-hash of the debacle, I’ll assert that when Steig proposed a change, he didn’t understand that it was an insistence to change the methodology. The exposed history and subsequent statements bare this out. In Steig’s own words, he states he’s not a statistician. Oddly, Steig09 is basically a work of statistics….uhmm… In a view that can only be described a charitable, he was brought to be a reviewer because he was an expert on the issues O’Donnell, et al were addressing.

I think, given the evidence, a #1 is ~ a #3. Except, I’m told, we are most assured of the statement #5. This, by golly, we are really super duper sure of……yehokfine. During my discussion with some pleasant, and some not so pleasant people (Tobis) who I didn’t really mention because of the parenthesis, I was informed that this is “known”, that if we don’t “know” this, we don’t know anything. Their proof? Ice cores! And they are valid because #1s said so. yehokfine……..except, there was something I remembered (thanks to Robb) that had been stuck in the recesses of my memory. Jaworoski! What seems like a lifetime ago, I’d read the paper Robb cited during a different discussion. I’m sure I have it on one of my many PCs that I’ve gone through since, but it hasn’t been at the forefront of my mind for many years. As of this writing, a Ferdinand Engelbeen actually proactively thought of Jaworoski and gave me a link, (this is to his credit) , which I haven’t read yet. I missed this, but later I asked all others if Jaworoski had been credibly refuted……….crickets chirping. But then the question is why wouldn’t we skeptics focus on Jaworoski’s paper?

Why? Jaworoski seems to refute ice core samplings! Here’s why……

The lunatics keep us so preoccupied by their assinine assertions that it is impossible to focus on one issue. I want to tackle ice cores, but some #1 idiot blathers about the “worst evuh” when it is so blatantly false that one can’t help but address that first. The problem is, it never ceases! Steven has shownproof that Romm is misleading his readers with hyperbole and falsehoods. But, they persevere. Prior to that, it was a freezer door opened that caused warm generated cold. Before that, #1 alarmists, with pinpoint accuracy, showed us how they knew the U.S. SW would be stricken with drought…….well…err…no, they didn’t show us. Nor does any paper show us how they know where drought will occur if CO2 reaches X level. They can’t do it now if CO2 remains constant, which, BTW, it never has. The fact that the U.S. SW is a freaking desert is lost on many. What’s a desert? Look it up!Maybe MSN will show us another video of a polar bear and a penguin in natural harmony again.


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Guest Post from suyts

  1. Dave N says:

    The majority of the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations since pre-industrial times is due to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. This is confirmed both by the isotopic signature of the carbon and the fact that concentrations rise proportionate to emissions.

    yehokfine……except not. Show me where this has been demonstrated!”

    There’s something I haven’t even given any thought to. Is there no data of CO2 sampling over time which includes the ratio of isotopic signatures?

    I managed to find an explanation of different signatures on RC, but as usual it was full of theory and no data.

    • suyts says:

      The ice core samplings is what it all hinges upon. Oddly enough, I recall a scientist that recorded many different levels of CO2 throughout various places. Strangely, these are invalidated, but we’re sure CO2 gleaned from the extreme poles are indicative of the earth’s atmospheric CO2 levels. The lesson? Germany’s CO2 levels aren’t indicative. The arctics are. We know this, because a PhD told us so. But, it wasn’t just Germany. I’m looking for the reference, but its probably on my old PC and I’ll have to fire it back up to find it. Please note, I haven’t even begun on the isotopes. But there is plenty to question about the veracity of such……..for a later post.

      • Dave N says:

        “I haven’t even begun on the isotopes”

        That’s what I was interested in, mostly.

        “..a later post”

        I look forward to it

    • Dave N says:

      “Is there no data of CO2 sampling over time which includes the ratio of isotopic signatures?”

      ..and by that I mean post-industrial. In the context of modern day “warming”, it would be a waste of time to look further back.

  2. suyts says:

    BTW, thanks Steve, this is appreciated. Also, other than grammatical and form errors, questions and critiques are welcome. And even those are welcomed, but there isn’t much I can do about them now…………Willie Nelson……Nothing I Can Do About It Now……

  3. suyts says:

    I forgot to sign this………

    James Sexton

  4. Keith Grubb says:

    OMG…This could be the best blog post of all time. Well, maybe Willis’s over WUWDat.

  5. Sparks says:

    Interesting! It took me ages to read this, this morning, Nice job. very quirky style of writing which was fun to read!

  6. Alberta Al says:

    I agree with Sparks. Fun to read this soft rant.
    And it is probably true. IMHO.
    Thanks “suyts”. Keep up the good work.

  7. Mike Davis says:

    I waded through Climate etc. and most of the V parts. The “Agreeing” Thingy was probably more of a scan because I thought most points were WAY over rated for certainty. The Isotope thing: This situation causes this type of isotope and another causes this type of isotope and the ones produced by humans are from burning or related to specific signatures of hydrocarbons, except when they are not, and the same isotope signature can be seen in natural releases after fires or natural oil seeps. The isotope thingy is a dead end that was dreamed up and meant to divert attention from the other problems with the theory.
    My entire problem is that I have drawn a line of Either / Or which means sitting on the “Fence” calling yourself a “Warmist” makes you a Chicken Little Lyte!
    Sure CO2 may and probably does have something to do with how the earth’s atmosphere reacts to the energy received from the sun but more likely it is a bit player a most and an observer more related to biologic activity than temperatures.
    The ES RO issue should have never happened as the choice of measurements used took the entire research project of of the realm of reality. Way to many errors in surface measurements to provide any useful conclusions and not enough satellite data.
    Steig was the “Fall Guy” for that one but it is published and will continue to be cited as “Peer Reviewed”.
    95% of all “Peer Reviewed” Climatology Research papers need to be discarded as they are based on faulty assumptions. The researchers took Garbage from others to generate more Garbage.

    • Dave N says:

      “..the same isotope signature can be seen in natural releases after fires or natural oil seeps”

      I’d be interested in what the quantities are. I doubt that naturally caused fires and oil seeps contribute any significant amount.

      “The isotope thingy is a dead end that was dreamed up and meant to divert attention from the other problems with the theory.”

      That wouldn’t surprise me in the least.

  8. suyts says:

    Wow, thanks guys. I appreciate the positive feedback!

    Mike, I agree with your view of the isotope issue, but I’m not well versed enough in alarmist double-talk to be very convincing, so I passed on the subject.

    Sparks and Al, yes, it was soft, which made it less clear. For that, I recognize, the post could have been a bit more assertive and less code worded. Originally, this was to be an addendum response to Latitude in an earlier thread, but it didn’t seem to fit, and it just went from there.

    I wish to be clear, so I’ll just come out and say it. The postings at Lucia’s and Curry’s were traps for skeptics. They were both made in an attempt to divide the skeptical community. What is “spurious about discussing something “accepted” but not demonstrated? Isn’t that how the Blackboard termed it? Sorry, I’m not falling for it. And I would advise all skeptics to reject such lame attempts at finding some mutual ground. It can come to no fruition.

    Thanks again guys!

    • glacierman says:


      Good job. A lot to ponder, but I basically agree on the futility of searching for mutual ground. It seems much of the “theory” is based on perpetual BS and output from models that many have just accepted as demonstrated.

  9. Latitude says:

    First let’s assume things are facts, that are not facts………….

    Judith’s blog really pissed me off, as you well know. I trust her about as far as I could…..

    AND I thought you were going to have a beer last night and relax!

    • suyts says:

      lol, well, I got half way there.

      Yeh, I’m still a bit miffed as to what occurred and how it occurred. “Here, let’s have an open discussion in an attempt to find points of agreement.”…..then after the conversation is well underway, she says, “oh wait! I’m going to arbitrarily assign weights and values to peoples assertions based upon how closely they conform with the IPCC’s view or if they have a published paper with letters in front or behind their name.” ———– She may have had some moments of clarity in the recent past, but she still embraces the mindset that allowed her to be deceived in the first place. I had hoped her introspection would have gone a little deeper than what it apparently did.

      I’m kinda disappointed that some warmista didn’t come by and challenge something.

    • Mike Davis says:

      It is not what they write / say. As Steve Mc says: Watch for the pea under the thimble. Until some people pull their past research papers that point in a certain direction anything they currently propose is just a disguise they are trying. Sort of like dressing up for Halloween!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s