Comments on: Comment on EER interview with Fritz Vahrenholt

By: thomaswfuller2

thomaswfuller2 — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:47:04 +0000

15 years is certainly sufficient to flag up potential problems and focus our attention on model performance. However, there is no upper limit on how much data you would ideally want to have before making an important decision.

By: Marco

Marco — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 06:26:21 +0000

Christopher, stop listening to fake experts. The *real* experts have for years already pointed out that you need many years. Santer et al (2011) put it at *at least* 17 years.

And still, when cherry picking the start point as Rose did (well, somebody probably did it *for* him), the trend is positive.

By: Christopher McDaniel

Christopher McDaniel — Tue, 16 Oct 2012 21:20:25 +0000

“based on confusing short term variability with the long term underlying trend.” You say this, and yet, every single expert has maintained that 15 years or more would constitute enough time as to indicate a devastating flaw in the alarmist arguments. Now, the MET has decided that 20 years is sufficient. Why the constant changes to lengths. Will they change again once we hit 20 years of cooling?

By: willard (@nevaudit)

willard (@nevaudit) — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 00:14:13 +0000

On the June 18, 2012 at 23:44, Eli posts statistics.

On the June 19, 2012 at 04:10, those statistics are inferred to be garbage.

It would be interesting to see the raw model data for that speedy inference.

By: BBD

BBD — Wed, 20 Jun 2012 14:29:57 +0000

Reflexive contrarianism is a nasty condition. It is invariably fatal (to credibility).

By: Bart

Bart — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:18:18 +0000

You may be old, but I’m old-fashioned… ;-)

By: Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:50:42 +0000

This is the INTERNET Bart.

By: Bart

Bart — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 05:57:45 +0000

Is it just me or is it a little ironic that we’re discussing the harms of second hand smoke on the Vahrenholt thread whole discussing Vahrenholt on the open thread?

By: Marco

Marco — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 05:36:45 +0000

Let’s see, we have
1. chemical analysis showing “second-hand” smoke containing known carcinogens, as tested in animal studies
2. animal studies directly showing increased risk of lung cancer when exposed to “second-hand” smoke
3. epidemiological studies showing increased prevalence of lung cancer amongst those exposed to “second-hand” smoke. The Rabett was nice enough to point to two of those studies.

Tom’s response?
Citing the scientific literature? Must be a troll! Oh, and those studies are faulty and filled with bogus stats. There, there’s my evidence they are faulty and bogus stats: I just said so.

I could add a few more papers to the list of studies that show increased risk of lung cancer due to second-hand smoke, but I’m sure Tom’s response will remain the same: denial of the evidence.

By: Tom Fuller

Tom Fuller — Tue, 19 Jun 2012 02:10:27 +0000

Lord save us all from trolls with bogus stats and faulty studies. Smoking kills smokers. Smoking harms non-smokers. Not with minor complaints, not with simple maladies. It causes problems and exacerbates existing ones. But second hand smoke has not been linked to lung cancer. Despite the fervid wishes of so many.

However, second-hand smoke has been linked to sea level rise.