Tammy at Closed Mind is Scart of Little Ole Me?

Lol, as most know by now, there was an op-ed piece in the WSJ titled No Need to Panic About Global Warming .  Some very prominent people signed/wrote it.  Steve gives a complete list of who they are. 

As you can imagine, the wailing and gnashing of teeth commenced immediately afterwards.  A Mr. Plait whined in response.  And a Mr. Briggs responded to Plait’s whine.  Anthony posted about it.  Some loon stated that Tammy had a post about Briggs’ post about Plait’s response to the WSJ fellows.  Got it?

Now, Briggs is one of those statistician people.  (Their perspective is a bit different than normal folk) Plait presented an insipid SkS graph in an attempt to refute the WSJ fellows.  Briggs went on to explain about things like averaging, modeling, start points, trends and the like.  It’s some decent spankage and an easy read.  Tammy takes exception to this.  He then writes a nonsensical post which entirely misses the point.  Leaving us with the eternal question of, are they really that dumb or are they being intentionally deceptiveOne never really knows.  Briggs goes over to comment.  Tammy posts it, but editorializes in the comment.  Basically, he interjects “wrong” between Briggs’ thoughts with no explanation or reasoning as to why he thinks its wrong. 

So, I write this……

Lol, you know what is astounding?  The hubris of alarmists believing they know more about trending, estimates, averaging, and modeling than a statistician. 

Briggs comments, and you just state, “wrong”, but you don’t state why he’s wrong.  And he’s not wrong.  Did you see any error bars on that graph?  I sure didn’t.  But then, I’ve often thought alarmists see a different world than reality. 

But, more to the point, this is a bunch of hand-waving.  The posit challenged by Plait was that there hasn’t been any warming for over a decade or so.  And, there hasn’t.  Using the same methodology that went into SkS’ graph is the same that shows there hasn’t been any recent warming.  So, you object to Briggs evaluation of the methodology, but you also object to what the people of the WSJ piece stated.  Well, which is it?

After several minutes in moderation hell, the poor comment vanished forever……… almost.   Gosh, these guys are fun to play with!

What the WSJ fellows had stated was that there hadn’t been any warming in over a decade.  Such a radical concept. ……. how could they have ever come to that conclusion?

image

Fanatical wingnuts.

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Tammy at Closed Mind is Scart of Little Ole Me?

  1. Somebody ought to screen-capture SkS before they remove their own text about a “dampening” in global warming and a “pause”…apparently if they say it it’s ok…

  2. Josh says:

    Most amusing post. I quoted you over at BishopHill, hope that is ok – ay least it does not get moderated out there 😉

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/2/1/awful-astronomer-astray.html

  3. Mike Davis says:

    I quit visiting “Airhead” some time ago! I do respect Briggs for his understanding of the statistics involved.

  4. ThePowerofX says:

    Lol, you know what is astounding? The hubris of alarmists believing they know more about trending, estimates, averaging, and modeling than a statistician.

    Tamino is a professional statistician. You need to have some knowledge in order for your comment to appear on his blog. He doesn’t suffer fools gladly. Yours obviously didn’t make it.

    • suyts says:

      lol, I haven’t been able to confirm that he is a statistician, but that would be even more delicious. Given his most recent published endeavor, as Grant Foster, we can see that he doesn’t have a very good understanding of numbers or trends or models. His effort was a juvenile, near infantile use of them.

      Given this, I can certainly understand why he wouldn’t allow any challenging comments on his blog.

    • suyts says:

      Xpower, perhaps you can then ask the question for me. Which is it? Is Briggs wrong and the methodology correct or is it that our WSJ friends are wrong and we don’t know what has happened in the last 10-15 years?

      There is, of course, a 3rd possibility. It could be Grant is intentionally being obtuse and allowing a misinterpretation of what Briggs is saying to remain on his blog.

    • Tamino is a cherry picker of the highest degree. Get real!

    • Mike Davis says:

      That is great! A fool that does not suffer fools lightly. That could be his entire problem!

      • suyts says:

        It does have a bit of circular irony….. apparently, beer doesn’t alter the mind enough to warrant being allowed to comment at closed mind.

        Shrooms maybe? Quaaludes? We need something that throws us into delusional moonbattery before we can comment over there.

    • suyts says:

      Yes, the typical alarmist way. Dissent shall not be heard. Why think of the young minds which may read such stuff ….. like the obvious dichotomy Grant is holding.

      • Mike Davis says:

        I just got notified I was banned at Lucia’s and I can not even read what is written there.
        I do not agree with her Luke Warm attitude but I do not recall making any over the top claims on her site or at CA before she started her site.
        Such is life! I do not make it a habit to visit there anyway.

        • suyts says:

          Sorry to hear about that. It seems to me that being agreed with isn’t requisite to having a blog, but as you say, that’s life.

          And, its their loss. I find you often have a unique perspective and contribute quite nicely to conversations. Although, I’m not as thin skinned as some.

        • Mike Davis says:

          She blocked someone on Hughesnet and they use dynamic IP addresses to protect their users from outside attacks.
          Probably not missing much anyway!

    • suyts says:

      lol, yes, I used to rage against history revisionism years ago. A subtle change in a history text, or a change in the analysis of an event…… but these people have taken history revisionism to such a level that people actually defend such practices. Before all of this is over, these people will have exacted a tremendous cost to humanity.

  5. Sympathetic reviewer #3 couldn’t help noticing Foster’s tone inappropriate for scientific work

    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1254179301.txt&search=blog+diatribe

    • suyts says:

      I’ve got it saved as an .htm file. 🙂

    • suyts says:

      Omn!!! LMAO!!! I’ve looked at that graphic probably 15-20 times. And I couldn’t see what they were doing right in front of us. Has anyone else written about that vapid graph? I’m a bit busy right now, but there’s going to be a post on this real soon!

  6. Anything is possible says:

    From skeptical science :

    “One of the most common misunderstandings amongst climate “skeptics” is the difference between short-term noise and long-term signal.”

    Ironically, that’s exactly the problem alarmists have. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. The current inter-glacial has lasted nearly 12,000 years.

    How the heck can 30 years, or even the length of the Surface Temperature record (130 years) represent long-term anything. It’s ALL noise!!!

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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