Nova’s up her old tricks again, instead of engaging in debate she’s heavily moderating her forum, continually ignoring requests for evidence and ignoring arguments that she finds too difficult to answer.
In her ice core post I pointed out that in the evidence she listed, the author agrees that CO2 is a positive feedback, adding to the original warming force. This led to a few exchanges that seemed to have ended with Nova not wishing to publish my last post, or indeed if she does it will be in heavily modified form.
Luckily I anticipated her (very predictable) behaviour and took a screenshot. Here’s the before and after shots.
Peer reviewed research quantifies the GHG warming force, bound by uncertainty, as being the main force behind more recent warming as shown in the IPCC report.
I’ve repeatedly asked Nova for evidence to her support her claim that CO2 does not have this effect, but instead of peer reviewed research, Nova says “See “evidence” in the site index.”. This simply leads to a number of random blog posts rather than any specific research that quantifies the effect of CO2 or Greenhouse Gases.
Nova then goes on to “[snip incoherent ]” my paragraph which pointed out of Nova painted herself into a corner. Rather than admit Caillon simply used logic to discern that CO2 is a positive feedback, she insisted I find evidence in his report, a strawman argument on her behalf. Orbital forcing causes the change in the planet’s temperature, the oceans outgas more CO2 which because of it’s molecular properties, trap more heat thus becoming a positive feedback.
Instead of debating this point, I suspect because it would mean admitting defeat, Nova deletes my comments. I’ll highlight them here instead.
Nova claims she does not cherry pick even though I cite two instances of her cherry picking that in the very same thread.
1. Nova wanted to use only part of Caillon’s research paper, the part that said CO2 lagged temperature, but didn’t wish to concede the part that said CO2 may serve as an amplifier of orbital forcing.
2. Nova cherry picked one temperature set AND a very specific date range in her handbook as I pointed out earlier. Nova again claims she doesn’t cherry pick but still chooses the UAH dataset known for having a cooling bias (read more here), whilst ignoring all other datasets. Then she claims “your team” only use GISS data “because it’s the highest”. Had she bothered to visit the link I provided she would have seen the graph has all four major datasets and includes the entire dataset, unlike her cherry-picked timeframe.
I pointed out to Nova that she doesn’t supply evidence to support her argument, that . When Nova was asked quantify the effect of CO2, instead of a peer-reviewed research paper she instead directs us to a vague list of blog publications, none of which addressed the issue of quantifying the effect of GHGs.
I asked Nova for science to support her “low sensitivity” concept, and I specifically ruled her past favourite Idso. Idos makes some fundamental errors when looking at climate sensitivity that were discussed and highlighted in peer-review decades ago:
If Nova understood the science she would have known this, but instead she suggests that I, an “anonymous commenter”, had simply decided that for myself. When faced with the links showing that it’s peer-reviewed science determined Idso was incorrect, Nova goes silent. Is this denialist behaviour?
Ocean Acidification is another topic Nova neglected to delve into. Many problems with Idso’s analysis methods were listed in an earlier post. Instead of addressing these arguments Nova wrongly accuses me of picking only one paper out of 1100 studies. Read the page Nova and you’ll quickly find many problems with Idso’s analysis, not just with one paper. Oh and BTW, it’s not 1100 studies, it’s 1100 numbers from 74 papers.
Nova has once again taken the head-in-the-sand approach because the analysis problems went well beyond the one paper.
How to avoid the truth
Nova continues to dodge answering the questions posed to her in her own forums.
A point I made (which seems to have touched a nerve) is well explained in the following video, in particular from about 3:04 onwards … http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDNXuX6D60U
Nova only accepts science that confirms what she believes and ignores all other science that contradicts her beliefs. We see this in her forums as she ignores the science that goes against her held beliefs.
Instead of polite discussion Nova seem to be resorting to personal insults more often. If unintentional (perhaps the L and the R are close on Nova’s keyboard) it would have been nice to simply claim this was a typo. Instead Nova edited my post, removed with the moderators comment “[snip, irrational. When you give us your real name we will bother to spell it properly]”.
When asked again to provide evidence for her low sensitivity claim, Nova moderates and removes my comments.
Is Nova Just Plain Stupid?
One moment Nova asks “This is what I mean by incoherent. Which link? What paper? What evidence? See below in my comment.” .. suggesting she can’t find the link to the climate sensitivity based upon empirical data; a few lines later she comments on the link she claims not to have found when she says “[Which agrees with my point. The data from ice cores doesn’t have the resolution even if it is a 20 year “equilibrium. ]“.
Does Nova have the memory of a goldfish; or just plain stupid? I don’t think so, it appears to be yet another effort to avoid the questions I have posed.
When asked to support her case for low sensitivity using empirical data, Nova again FAILS TO RESPOND.
It must be with complete irony or self-deception that Nova writes about me … “Note: he/ she/ it /they don’t provide any convincing evidence.” … when it is Nova that continually fails to deliver scientific evidence.
Nova’s tactic is to now cast doubt on the ability of ice core data by saying the “The data from ice cores doesn’t have the resolution even if it is a 20 year “equilibrium.“. Aside from the fact Nova gets the equilibrium concept incorrect, it is most amusing to see Nova make a post just ten days later referencing the work of Schmittner who uses the very same ice core data.
More Cherry Picking
You see, this data seems ok if it’s used to almost support Nova’s low climate sensitivity figure, but apparently it’s not ok for me to use if the results are something she doesn’t like. Another fine example of Nova cherry picking science that fits her held beliefs. I guess it’s probably a bit awkward then that the authors of the Schmittner paper disagree with the premature conclusions Nova wishes to make.
When it’s pointed out to Nova that she hasn’t answered a question, she removes your comment and replaces it with a “SNIP … somekindofremark”.
That’s not healthy debate Nova, but then, we know you are not interested in the truth, you’re only interested in voicing your political opinion, hence why you fail to perform or present science that answers criticism of your political blog.