Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Have the Climate Models Been "So Inaccurate"?

We're very confident in our science. We're confident in our data ~ Julia Slingo (dob 12/13/1950) a British meteorologist and climate scientist. She has been the Chief Scientist at the Met Office since 2009. She is also a Visiting Professor in the Department of Meteorology at the University of Reading, where she held, prior to appointment to the Met Office, the positions of Director of Climate Research in NERC's National Centre for Atmospheric Science and founding Director of the Walker Institute for Climate System Research.

Blogger Willis Hart is a strident AGW denier who constantly derides as idiots and liars the scientists who concur that global climate change is occurring, man is responsible, and it is cause for concern. Case in point, the latest from Mr. Hart...

Willis Hart: On Why the Climate Models Were So Inaccurate... It was because they were based on two equally erroneous assumptions; a) that the climate is inherently stable and b) that the major driver of climate change is CO2 - assumptions that even a second year earth science student should have been able to detect were absurd but which the well-connected ruling class utterly failed to. (4/29/2014 AT 10:49pm).

I don't know, Willis. Where the climate models really "so inaccurate"? Information I've found suggests older models were inaccurate, but newer models have actually been proven to be "remarkably accurate". This is according to an analysis of climate change modeling over the past 15 years, as written up in a 3/27/2013 paper published in the journal Nature Geoscience.

The study by Professor Myles R. Allen of the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford (and colleagues) reveals that the models accurately predicted temperature increases "to within a few hundredths of a degree". Unless they're lying - that sounds pretty damn accurate to me.

Also, in regards to "assumptions that even a second year earth science student should have been able to detect were absurd" - I really wonder if these scientists are so stupid - how the hell did they earn their advanced degrees? If they fail to understand facts that "even a second year earth science student should have been able to detect were absurd" - wouldn't they have flunked out of college?

And, while Willis labels the 97% of climate experts who agree as total f**king morons - when he thought I said something similar in regards to the AGW denying "luminaries" he admires - the dude totally lost it.

I say Willis THOUGHT that I insulted the AGW deniers he admires, because all I actually said was that I thought the the notion that a majority of the world's climatologists are incompetent or lying is stupid. Willis thought I was referring to his "luminaries" (as stupid), and he became so incensed that he had to quickly dash off a commentary expressing his rage ("On a Moron Who Knows Absolutely Nothing About Climatology Referring to the Reasoned and Well Thought Out Works of Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy, William Happer, And Freeman Dyson as Stupidity").

Hmmm, maybe I should be more offended regarding the Hartster's constant slandering of the VAST majority of climate scientists who are idiots who disagree with him and his "luminaries"? Problem is I acknowledge the fact that Climate Science is complicated, I know very little about it, and that there is room for dissenting opinions.

Dissenting opinions that I would never support anyone attempting to silence. I just think that when 97% of scientists agree that there is a problem and if we don't act the consequences should be severe - perhaps we should listen and actually consider doing something to at least mitigate the bad consequences?

Call me a moron, but I just don't buy into the grand conspiracy as envisioned by Mr. Hart. Seems to me that the denier's belief that no actions need be taken - and that we can continue spewing as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we want without consequence - works out nicely from those whose profits might be hurt if we actually did anything.

Call me crazy, but THAT, I think, is the actual conspiracy.

Note: This commentary was updated and expanded on 5/2/2014.

SWTD #248, wDel #56. See also OST #8.

Sunday, April 27, 2014

Free Cash Giveaway! You Could Win Ten Thousand USD!!

When you're counting on a killing; Always count me in; Talk to me into losin' just as long as I can win. I want the easy; Easy money... I want the good times; Oh, I never had... I want the good life; I want it bad... You say I fool myself; But better me than someone else ~ Lyrics from the Billy Joel tune "Easy Money" from the 8/8/1983 album An Innocent Man. The album is a tribute to the American popular music of Joel's teenage years with Joel paying homage to a number of different popular American musical styles from the late 1950s and early 1960s, most notably doo-wop and soul music. An Innocent Man received a nomination for the 26th Grammy Award for Album of the Year but lost out to Michael Jackson's Thriller.

Does anyone read, or even glance at this blog anymore? Surely traffic, which was quite low to begin with, is down due to the fact that I have not posted anything new for 23 days? This blog has NOT been abandoned or closed - for the record - although writing for a blog that receives zero replies isn't that much fun.

So, how to generate some interest and, more importantly, replies? Run a contest in which some serious cash prizes are up for grabs! Ten Thousand US dollars will be awarded to the first reply received within one hour of this commentary being posted. You read that right - a cool 10K simply for replying to this commentary by letting me know you want to win - if you reply within one hour of this commentary being posted.

According to Blogger this post went up at 10:41am on 4/27/2014. Therefore, the first reply received before 11:42am will win Ten Thousand dollars! There are a few caveots, however. The comment MUST be posted by someone with a Blogger account, the account profile must be visible (no hidden profiles), and the profile must contain an email address. The comment must also also consist of at least 12 words strung together into a coherent sentence (or sentences)... and contain zero punctuation or spelling errors.

The first comment received within the hour wins the prize... it's that simple! All you have to do is meet the requirements as laid out in the paragraph above and I'll send you your prize money by Paypal to the email address of your choosing (after contacting you via the email address in your profile). After I contact you just let me know where you'd like me to send the money... I'll even cover the Paypal fee!

This is assuming, of course, that there is a reply that meets the deadline. It is possible, of course, that nobody will reply and that the Ten Thousand Dollar cash prize will go unclaimed. It might also be the case the multiple people reply within the hour. If that happens the second person to reply will receive a $5000 prize, the third person to reply will receive a $2500 prize and the forth person to reply will receive a $1250 prize.

But that isn't all... there are yet more prizes and more chances to win! If there are more than four replies within the hour EVERY SINGLE person replying after that wins $500! And, after the hour deadline has passed there are still opportunities to win! The first 10 replies that are submitted within 2 to 6 hours automatically win $500! The second 10 replies (assuming there are that many) win $250. And anyone who replies within that timeframe wins $100! Furthermore, anyone who replies within the first 12 hours wins $50 (up to 20 winners).

If 20 people reply within 6+ to 12 hours of me posting this commentary every single person posting after that wins $25 (up to 1000 winners). Anyone posting after that - for up to 24 hours after this commentary is posted - wins $10 (up to 10,000 winners). After that I have to cut off the cash prizes. I only have a finite amount of money to give away, and the cash I might be giving away here could (potentially) end up being an extremely high amount.

Entrants are limited to ONE prize per person, even if multiple blogger accounts are used. Given the fact that Paypal will tell me WHO I'm sending the money to when I enter your email address - I'll know you entered more than once if your name comes up again when I enter the email address the money is to be sent to. So, no cheating.

This is all assuming that anyone replies. Certainly this commentary could sit here for 24 hours and receive no replies at all. If that happens no cash (zero dollars) will be awarded. If that happens, however, you might still have a chance to win, because I plan on running the contest a second time!

The second contest will be run sometime before the end of 2014 (although I am NOT going to say when) regardless of whether or not anyone wins the first contest. Except that the next time there will only be two winners - the first two people who reply within the hour will receive $10,000 and $5,000 (respectively) cash prizes. Anyone who replies after that will win bupkis. I will also be adding one additional caveat to this second contest.

In addition to having a Blogger account with a visible profile that contains your email address, the winner must have submitted a comment (and had that comment published) to at least 50 percent of my blog posts proceeding the blog post announcing the second contest. The whole purpose of giving away the cash, after all, is to generate traffic and comments for this blog.

OK, so that about wraps it up in regards to the requirements for winning the cash, I believe. Good luck to everyone. Hopefully I'll be announcing some WINNERS this time tomorrow! That said, if there are no winners under the rules as laid out above I have decided to add a consolation prize.

In the event that there are no winners at all (which would mean that this commentary goes 24 hours without a single person submitting a reply), then ANY comment submitted after that qualifies to win the consolation prize! The consolation prize will be awarded to the best comment (in my opinion) explaining why they think there were no winners. The consolation prize is a "congratulations" from me.

IMPORTANT! There will be no money awarded AT ALL if nobody replies within 24 hours. The consolation prize of a "congratulations" will still be up for grabs however... for one week after the contest ends. Please note that I'm looking for the best comment regarding why YOU think there were no winners (if there are no winners). Although I previously said I'm looking for the "best" answer, I'm also looking for a right answer. If all I get are wrong answers (or no answers at all), then nobody will win the consolation prize.

Although that is assuming that the consolation prize is up for grabs - which it only will be if no cash is awarded. Surely the result of this contest could be that YOU win TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS! And, even if you aren't the first person to reply, you've still got a shot at winning one of the lesser prizes... so enter early and enter often (Note: entering often will increase your chances of winning A prize. Each individual person is only eligible to win ONCE).

Also, remember that, regardless of whether or not any cash prizes are awarded this time out, a SECOND contest will be held sometime before the end of 2014 (most likely in November or December). So, even if you don't win this time, you could still win BIG by reading and replying to the blog posts written by the proprietor of this blog. Good luck to all. Winners will be announced in the comment thread here after all winners (if any) have been contacted by email and have received their CASH prizes.

Note: I reserve the right to cancel the second contest if there are less than 5 bloggers who qualify... which means there has to be at least five people who have commented on at least 50 percent of my posts. No sense in holding the contest if there is nobody (or very few people) who qualify. Also please note that there will be no notification if the contest is cancelled.

SWTD #247

Friday, April 04, 2014

Giving Them What They Want

It's the way humanity is; give them what they want, and it turns out it's not what they wanted after all ~ Kelsey Sutton, author of Some Quiet Place.

Seems as though I'm in a position now that another post setting the record straight is required. This time in response to a commentary on the blog of the individual who calls himself "rAtional nAtion", as well as a comment from Mr. Nation on the blog Progressive Eruptions in which he refers to me as "pond scum".

According to Mr. Nation's blog post, I have "taken it upon [my]self to set up a spoof site named Lying Lester", but this is an inaccurate characterization of what actually happened. It first came to my attention that RN was desirous of me setting up a site that focused on him by way of the following comment thread from Willis Hart's blog...

rAtional nAtion: Just got a lovely letter from Dervo. He wants permission to do a feature article on me like he has recently done on Will and dmarks. I ignored him of course. So, I suppose he'll go back to sulking, or... playing with his willy. Dude is seriously narcissistic. (3/26/2014 AT 9:28am).

Willis Hart: Les, doesn't he already have a blog that's dedicated entirely to you? I thought that he did. (3/26/2014 AT 10:41pm).

rAtional nAtion: Yeah, while back. It was a bunch of BS, made lies, and the delusional stuff Dervo is so proficient at. Dude sent me another e-mail on the subject. He's seriously peeved that I'm not posting his blathering comments any longer. (3/27/2014 AT 3:40am).

Now, I had no idea WTF Mr. Nation was talking about (and still do not). Apparently he thinks I had a blog dedicated to him a while back? I'd ask him to give a link to it, but Willis Hart does not allow me to comment. Maybe he thinks I had one but deleted it? Or maybe he wanted me to set up one so desperately that he imagined that I already had? That was my guess, in any case. Although that email (which wasn't actually an email, but a comment submitted to his blog) was me telling him I wasn't going to do it (set up a blog about him). I flatly said NO.

But then I reconsidered. I thought, if he really wants me to set up a blog that focuses on him, maybe I should just give him want he wants. I mean, it might be good for a laugh or two. And, seeing as he banned me from further comment on his blog, I said... what the hell, and went ahead and did it.

As for it being a spoof blog, I remembered that the blogger Shaw Kenawe said "parody can be very funny when handled by someone with a sharp wit and intelligence", so I decided to try that. But my parody attempt of RNUSA appears to have fallen far short of qualifying as possibly being described as being written by one someone with those qualities. Which is OK, as I am not narcissistic. Seriously.

Now, I don't think one should be criticized for trying, but apparently humor wasn't my goal. The "real reason" is that "the object of the parody drives [me] mad, and it is the only way [I] have to retaliate". Or maybe it's the "real reason" when the person doing the assessing believes your parody attempt fails to be either witty or intelligent?

No matter, as this blog will likely whither and die sooner than later, despite Mr. Nation's hunger that I be "quite active" in posting to it. But I seriously doubt that will be the case. Remember that I initially had no intention of setting up a blog for Mr. Nation at all. It was only after he cajoled me into it that I reluctantly decided to give him what he wanted.

And he jumps on that with a post on his own blog in which he clearly was attempting to solicit negative comments about me. On his own blog and on Progressive Eruptions. At worst I guess you could say that I fell for Mr. Nation's trap. I never asked "permission" to do a "feature article" on him. I actually told him I didn't wasn't interested... but he lies about me asking "permission" and (at first) saying I'd already done it.

Now he's acting all mad and posting angry comments on multiple blogs about how I'm "pond scum". And sending me emails as well, each one "sent from my Verizon Wireless 4GLTE smartphone". Although I should note that it has only been 2 so far... it isn't as if he's flooding my inbox with messages (although I'd just block him if he did). Anyway, I guess this points to him being genuinely mad.

Not just mad, but virtually boiling over with pure rage. Which is strange, given that he practically begged that I set up the blog in the first place, and then enthusiastically endorsed it with a post on RNUSA in an attempt to drive traffic to it. However, I now suspect his post was tongue-in-cheek and that the real purpose of it was not to praise the parody blog, but to elicit negative comments about me, as well as turn other Progressive bloggers against me.

And now, at this point in the commentary, I see that is exactly what has happened. Everything up to this point was written yesterday (April 3rd)... and now (on April 4th) the blogger Octo came to the defense of his buddy RN and demanded that the Lying Lester site be closed... and so it shall be.

Seems that Octo and RN have now joined up in a public shaming exercise. Serves me right for thinking I could get away with talking back to Octo, I suppose.

So... sorry about that. It won't happen again. If Octo has a problem with me in the future all he has to do is let me know and I'll try my best to do whatever Octo wants. Although Octo will probably never read this, as, in addition to the public shaming, I may also now be shunned by who-knows-how-many members of the Progressive blogosphere.

Finally... Shaw Kenawe wrote about Internet trolls: Sadists and psychopaths and apparently Octo is trying to shoehorn me into the "troll" category when he implies I'm someone who takes "sadistic pleasure in taunting other people"... but actually, no, that is not me.

It's the "oh, but he started it first" that explains my actions. That and I thought it was funny and that RN agreed. And when I found out he was mad... well, I surely was not inclined to try to please someone calling me "pond scum". Not that any of that is any kind of excuse, mind you. Because when one person ridicules, demeans and takes continual pot shots at someone... it is only if the object of the derision responds that anyone can be accused of doing anything wrong. Live and learn.

Update 7/17/2015: I ended up NOT closing "Lying Lester", although I recently switched it from spoofing RNUSA to spoofing another blog. Although the spoofing of RNUSA continued for quite awhile after this commentary in which I said I was quitting because Octo insisted (until 6/14/2015).

SWTD #246, lDel #17.