Who’s Bobby Orr?

[John Nielsen-Gammon, that’s who.]

John Nielsen-Gammon would be a very tough opponent to confront on subjects in which Denizens indulge themselves at Judy’s and elsewhere. Perhaps this explains why we have amateur climatologists entertaining us with their theories here instead of entertaining John Nielsen-Gammon. But if they ever wish to do so, here’s where he is:

Read More

(Source: judithcurry.com)

(drive-by)

NG, preemptively striking before a statistical example he did not get from any applied statistics journal.

Gee, let’s try to avoid drifting into a Climategate discussion, too. I’ll limit my response to the 141 words you just spent on the topic. First, they tried to get a journal editor fired for the sin of daring to publish papers that were full of intentional and unintentional errors. Second, everybody agrees that the “decline” caption was inadequate. Third, it did become way too personal for them…though I don’t know if I wouldn’t react the same way if I had discovered that our entire civilization was in danger and others were using dirty tricks to convince people that it wasn’t. My biggest complaint was their unwillingness to share data. Meanwhile, though, we have the PCMDI archive, where every model run from the IPCC is publicly available to download and analyze. So don’t tar and feather the entire discipline.

John Nielsen-Gammon, trying to keep the conversation going.

Many people pay massive amounts of attention to what is essentially useless information, as long as it’s about the future.

John Nielsen-Gammon, having a knack for this investment practice.

I’m not signing on.

John Nielsen-Gammon, refusing to commit to any partisan position regarding the problems we face and to look at them with all the seriousness they need.

LEARN HOW TO READ BEFORE YOU LEARN HOW TO USE “ALL CAPS”!

John Nielsen-Gammon, jumping American Thinker, the shark jumper that publishes Steve Milloy

The Best Ever Description of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect

Meanwhile, the next time you read something that says that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist or that carbon dioxide would only cause a tiny change in temperature, check it against the description below and see if it actually refutes any of it.

A new euphemism for reviewing a paper: “stealing chickens”. I like it. Substitute “helped build a stronger chicken coop” for “stealing chickens” and I think you’ll have a better analogy, though.

John Nielsen-Gammon, minding his analogies.

A few months ago I came to exactly the same conclusion for similar reasons. Therefore, you are correct.

John Nielsen-Gammon, even knowing that this is the argumentum ad ipsum.
Older posts RSS