skierinvermont Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 1. ENSO is clearly a climate phenomenon, with weather consequences. Just like AGW - though the climate/weather connection is clearer with ENSO because it occurs on much shorter time frames. 2. Again, why doesn't James Hansen see the difference in predicting the two? Clearly, he believes he is in a position as a climate scientist where he should be able to predict ENSO. These aren't fallacious arguments, these are inconvenient facts that some people like to gloss over. Maybe Hansen shouldn't go around predicting ENSO. However you clearly made the argument that if you can't predict ENSO, you can't predict long-term climate. Which is an old fraudulent argument that defies basic logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strongbad Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 We all stand on the shoulders of others. Doesn't make you not responsible for predictions. Isaac Newton, eh? I wonder what he would say about the climate debate had he been around today... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted October 4, 2011 Author Share Posted October 4, 2011 Isaac Newton, eh? I wonder what he would say about the climate debate had he been around today... you're in Manhattan. Aren't you under water yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 you're in Manhattan. Aren't you under water yet? As I explained, this was a lie made up be a reporter and perpetuated by WUWT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Maybe Hansen shouldn't go around predicting ENSO. However you clearly made the argument that if you can't predict ENSO, you can't predict long-term climate. Which is an old fraudulent argument that defies basic logic. 1. Why shouldn't he? It's an element of climate science, and one that is actually more predictable and better understood than some others. It's not like Hansen is making JB-like storm total predictions and busting. 2. That isn't what I meant. Read again. My point was that he probably wants short term validation since we'll have to wait awhile longer for his more longterm predictions to verify or not. The elephant in the room is that he almost always over-predicts Ninos. What do Ninos do? They cause the earth to warm. If Hansen wants to avoid accusations of bias, why doesn't he ever come out and predict a big -ENSO event? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 1. Why shouldn't he? It's an element of climate science, and one that is actually more predictable and better understood than some others. It's not like Hansen is making JB-like storm total predictions and busting. 2. That isn't what I meant. Read again. My point was that he probably wants short term validation since we'll have to wait awhile longer for his more longterm predictions to verify or not. 1. 'an area of climate science' .. .. climate science is a huge field... he is an expert in a particular area.. not in predicting ENSO. That's why he shouldn't predict ENSO. 2. Yes it is what you meant. You said "If he can't get predictions right for next year, why should we believe his long-term predictions." This is a basic logical error. Just because he cannot predict something in the short term doesn't mean his peer-reviewed long-term predictions are false. His ENSO prediction is substantively different than his long-term climate predictions: 1. He's not an expert in ESNO, he is an expert in predicting long-term climate. 2. ENSO is difficult to predict even for experts in that area. 3. His ENSO prediction was not peer-reviewed (it was a comment in an online magazine), his long-term predictions are. To claim that we shouldn't believe his long-term predictions because his ENSO prediction was wrong is simply laughable. That's like me saying you are a complete failure in life and we cannot believe anything you say because you got 1 question wrong on the SATs. It is completely unrelated. You look like a fool making these childish arguments. Try sticking to the actual substance instead of playing these little old 'gotcha' games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 As I explained, this was a lie made up be a reporter and perpetuated by WUWT. Why was he speculating on what things would look like with double the Co2 levels from 1988 in the year 2028? CO2 is not going to be even close to double the 1988 level by then. That in itself seems irresponsible and nothing more than hype, hypothesizing on something that won't happen.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 1. 'an area of climate science' .. .. climate science is a huge field... he is an expert in a particular area.. not in predicting ENSO. That's why he shouldn't predict ENSO. 2. Yes it is what you meant. You said "If he can't get predictions right for next year, why should we believe his long-term predictions." This is a basic logical error. Just because he cannot predict something in the short term doesn't mean his peer-reviewed long-term predictions are false. His ENSO prediction is substantively different than his long-term climate predictions: 1. He's not an expert in ESNO, he is an expert in predicting long-term climate. 2. ENSO is difficult to predict even for experts in that area. 3. His ENSO prediction was not peer-reviewed, his long-term predictions are. To claim that we shouldn't believe his long-term predictions because his ENSO prediction was wrong is simply laughable. That's like me saying you are a complete failure in life and we cannot believe anything you say because you got 1 question wrong on the SATs. 1. But apparently he can't differentiate. Why would he make the predictions if he knows he's not qualified to? 2. That statement was based off the previous sentence. Read them together for proper context. I was guessing at his rationale. Why do you think he feels the need to make these shorter term predictions? My guess was because the general public has that perception (that does not reflect my own opinion, and I agree that it is illogical to assume that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Why was he speculating on what things would look like with double the Co2 levels from 1988 in the year 2028? CO2 is not going to be even close to double the 1988 level by then. That in itself seems irresponsible and nothing more than hype, hypothesizing on something that won't happen.... Because the reporter asked him the question. it's a complete non-issue which WUWT dragged up, lied about, and has been forced to recant. Of course that didn't stop some posters here from drooling all over it. Some people are still wiping the jizz from their keyboards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Because the reporter asked him the question. it's a complete non-issue which WUWT dragged up, lied about, and has been forced to recant. Of course that didn't stop some posters here from drooling all over it. Some people are still wiping the jizz from their keyboards. It's equally funny how some people get in a huff whenever Hansen's busts are mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 It's equally funny how some people get in a huff whenever Hansen's busts are mentioned. It's funny how people have to make up lies in order to claim Hansen busted. Aren't the existing busts juicy enough? No.. some people have to make up completely fraudulent new ones. Even WUWT has recanted this one.. clearly LEK and taco are in denial after jizzing up their keyboards for months over this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 It's funny how people have to make up lies in order to claim Hansen busted. So now you are denying he has busted? There is no need to make anything up, he clearly has. EDIT: I see you clarified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Busted predictions should not be confused with ethical issues (which I don't see any glaring ones with Hansen, though I think he has made some poor decisions for someone in his position). However, whether his staunch supporters like to admit it or not, they do reflect on him as a scientist. Either the science is letting him down, or he is making predictions in areas where he is not qualified...which is not very smart or scientific. And the nature of his predictions always over-favor warming, which leads one to question how much he allows bias to enter his scientific analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted October 4, 2011 Author Share Posted October 4, 2011 Busted predictions should not be confused with ethical issues (which I don't see any glaring ones with Hansen, though I think he has made some poor decisions for someone in his position). However, whether his staunch supporters like to admit it or not, they do reflect on him as a scientist. Either the science is letting him down, or he is making predictions in areas where he is not qualified...which is not very smart or scientific. And the nature of his predictions always over-favor warming, which leads one to question how much he allows bias to enter his scientific analysis. ... or the GISS data ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Even WUWT has recanted this one.. clearly LEK and taco are in denial after jizzing up their keyboards for months over this one. Hello? I don't even read WUWT, and I never got excited about that story. Why aren't you able to answer the questions I posed about Hansen making ENSO/short term predictions? Just prefer to ignore those elephants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 It's funny how people have to make up lies in order to claim Hansen busted. Aren't the existing busts juicy enough? No.. some people have to make up completely fraudulent new ones. Even WUWT has recanted this one.. clearly LEK and taco are in denial after jizzing up their keyboards for months over this one. Nice! I wish when others respond to your increasingly horrible posts, that I don't have to see them....but since I did (and I see you have continued to come further off the rails) ....notice I ASKED if he made such a prediction, as I had vaguely remembered the article (since corrected). And that somehow gets a "LEK is in denial and jizzing....."????? GFY!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 1. But apparently he can't differentiate. Why would he make the predictions if he knows he's not qualified to? 2. That statement was based off the previous sentence. Read them together for proper context. I was guessing at his rationale. Why do you think he feels the need to make these shorter term predictions? My guess was because the general public has that perception (that does not reflect my own opinion, and I agree that it is illogical to assume that). 1. Maybe because he is a bloated aging buffoon? I don't know and I don't particularly care why he sticks his head on the limb like this repeatedly. 2. I read your statement in context and you are clearly asking why we should believe his long-term predictions if he can't get short-term ones right. Which is a logical error. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Hello? I don't even read WUWT, and I never got excited about that story. Why aren't you able to answer the questions I posed about Hansen making ENSO/short term predictions? Just prefer to ignore those elephants? Nice! I wish when others respond to your increasingly horrible posts, that I don't have to see them....but since I did (and I see you have continued to come further off the rails) ....notice I ASKED if he made such a prediction, as I had vaguely remembered the article (since corrected). And that somehow gets a "LEK is in denial and jizzing....."????? GFY!!!! Would you like me to quote the two of you jizzing your keyboards over this one? The two of you combined have spent literally 100s of posts criticizing Hansen for this off-hand prediction to a reporter which it turns out the reporter lied about. It was a complete non-issue to begin with and unsurprisingly was 100% fabricated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Would you like me to quote the two of you jizzing your keyboards over this one? The two of you combined have spent literally 100s of posts criticizing Hansen for this off-hand prediction to a reporter which it turns out the reporter lied about. Sorry, but you're off on this one. I can't speak for LEK, but that sure wasn't me. Not that it's a particularly meaningful point in this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 1. Maybe because he is a bloated aging buffoon? I don't know and I don't particularly care why he sticks his head on the limb like this repeatedly. 2. I read your statement in context and you are clearly asking why we should believe his long-term predictions if he can't get short-term ones right. Which is a logical error. . 1. It's easier to not address the real questions, isn't it? 2. You read it as me saying that directly, as if it was my personal opinion. I already corrected that, and if you read it in context, you can see that I was using that (flawed) rationale to answer the question of why he would go out on a limb with these short term predictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Busted predictions should not be confused with ethical issues (which I don't see any glaring ones with Hansen, though I think he has made some poor decisions for someone in his position). However, whether his staunch supporters like to admit it or not, they do reflect on him as a scientist. Either the science is letting him down, or he is making predictions in areas where he is not qualified...which is not very smart or scientific. And the nature of his predictions always over-favor warming, which leads one to question how much he allows bias to enter his scientific analysis. These are the points that you are either unwilling or unable to address, skiier. As I said, I realize it's easier to just ignore the elephants and act like what Hansen does or says doesn't matter at all, but that's not a very intellectually honest approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 These are the points that you are either unwilling or unable to address, skiier. As I said, I realize it's easier to just ignore the elephants and act like what Hansen does or says doesn't matter at all, but that's not a very intellectually honest approach. Where have I ever disagreed with any of the above? Why are you asking me to answer to questions the premise of which I agree with? I have said OVER and OVER again that I think that certain predictions he has made have reflected poorly on his judgment, although I can't think of too many besides this infamous ENSO prediction you're still jizzing over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Where have I ever disagreed with any of the above? Why are you asking me to answer to questions the premise of which I agree with? I have said OVER and OVER again that I think that certain predictions he has made have reflected poorly on his judgment, although I can't think of too many besides this these infamous ENSO prediction predictions you're still jizzing over. fixed... also could you stop using the words jizz and jizzing, it's really quite nasty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 fixed... also could you stop using the words jizz and jizzing, it's really quite nasty. Yeah, he seems to have a strange fixation with that word today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Where have I ever disagreed with any of the above? Why are you asking me to answer to questions the premise of which I agree with? I have said OVER and OVER again that I think that certain predictions he has made have reflected poorly on his judgment, although I can't think of too many besides this infamous ENSO prediction you're still jizzing over. You have said that none of that matters for him as a scientist. My points are that it either reflects poorly on him as a scientist, or it reflects poorly on the science. There really isn't any way around that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LakeEffectKing Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Sorry, but you're off on this one. I can't speak for LEK, but that sure wasn't me. Not that it's a particularly meaningful point in this discussion. Please stop quoting him!!! Skier has dissolved into a bitter, bitter poster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 fixed... also could you stop using the words jizz and jizzing, it's really quite nasty. How else should I describe having an orgasm every time Hansen farts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted October 4, 2011 Author Share Posted October 4, 2011 Please stop quoting him!!! Skier has dissolved into a bitter, bitter poster. one of my better decisions was to put him on ignore. It really does de-clutter threads. It hurt to put Friv on it for reasons of comedy, but Skier was easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 How else should I describe having an orgasm every time Hansen farts? Using hyperbole to dodge the real questions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunny and Warm Posted October 4, 2011 Author Share Posted October 4, 2011 Using hyperbole to dodge the real questions... how anyone can defend Hansen's past is beyond me. The guy is a megalomaniac and seeks the limelight at every turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.