JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Now we are not even allowed to doubt?

It’s Naomi Oreskes reasoning which is scary.

Some people just can’t think.

Naomi Oreskes “reasons” by Remarkable Parallels, which is as bogus a way of thinking as any tea-leaf-incantation that we thought we left behind in the caves. She thinks that because she can find parallels between Tobacco and Climate Skeptics, therefore skeptics are wrong about climate sensitivity due to a trace gas. Go figure why anyone struggles to analyze ice cores when they could have just done a Google search?

I can find remarkable parallels between Lysenko and modern climate science, but I don’t bother writing a book on it. If I want answers about the climate I look at the data from the planet, not data about personalities.

Mike Steketee (Some sceptics make it a habit to be wrong) has learnt a new way to throw names from Oreskes. Nick Minchin (recently retired Senator from the conservative opposition) is just the latest target of this effusion of confusion.

Now anyone who raises points against a policy can be called a “doubt-monger” and the Orwellian destruction of our language advances one more notch.

Naomi Oreskes IS the Merchant of Doubt

Ponder the irony of what Oreskes herself is doing. Is she not profiteering from being a doubt-monger about scientist’s reputations? Is she not a conspiracy theorist about webs of vested interests among conservative speakers? Could it be that her entire reasoning dies by its own sword and her claims turn out to be as hypocritical as they are mindless?

Is there any possibility that governments can become too big, too powerful? Not according to Oreskes. Now anyone who even questions the growth of government power can be spat into the box called “conspiracy theorist” or “ideologue”. The mindless vacuity of Oreskes’ reasoning sucks sensible discussion into the black hole of tribal name-calling. Mike Steketee applauds from the sidelines.

Redefining “extreme”

Can governments become too large? Just ask one of the hundred million victims of states where state-power crushed individual rights to speak. Except you won’t get many answers because those victims not only lost their right to speak, they lost their right to breathe. (Think Soviet Russia, Communist China, Communist Cambodia, Nazi Germany,…)

Nothing made by man has killed more people than overbearing government. Yet now, anyone who even questions the creeping growth of government power is dismissed as an “extremist”. There is no balance allowed in this debate.

Attacking reputations to silence a scientific debate

Ad hominem attacks are always a fallacy in science. Fred Singer and Frederick Seitz held esteemed positions for decades of public service, and yet because they were ever involved with anything to do with a program or study that had the words “tobacco” in it (even if it was just a statistical test on the dangers of passive smoke), their views on global warming are therefore wrong. Thus is the great catastrophe “proved” by Oreskes and her ilk.

Nick Minchin has, of course, committed the unforgiveable sin of declaring that smokers have the right to do what they want, and not to be bossed around by the overbearing domineers who want to meddle with other people’s lives. Thus, he’s uttered the word “tobacco” and didn’t chant the right line, comrade!

What Orsekes and Steketee have discovered is merely that people who don’t want to be sock puppet citizens have principles. They don’t want to foist their own non-smoking habit on anyone else, just as they don’t want to foist an unnecessary carbon scheme on the masses. Some people are not gullible.

Why does The Australian think this transparent failure of reasoning is worth publishing in the first place? Every other newspaper in the country has soaked up the smear campaign as if it was science, but we hope The Australian might be the last hold out bastion of reason, where people don’t self-satirize themselves, and journalists don’t mistake a kindergarten name-calling program for an unbiased historical analysis.

The Questions no one can answer

Oreskes is selling doubt mongering, and the skeptics like Nick Minchin are merely asking questions no one in the western climate establishment can answer.

Questions like this:

  • Where are the global records of raw temperature data used to calculate the global warming graphs? No one can find them.
  • Where are the latest global results from the ARGO oceanic temperature network, and why aren’t they published monthly on a public website?
  • Where is the empirical evidence for warming greater than 1.2 degrees? No one can name and explain a single paper that shows long term positive feedback that amplifies the warming, as the climate alarmists assert.

Because those who want to alarm us and control us have not got scientific evidence, they resort to the smear campaign to try to diminish the influence of the great independent minds who seek answers we ought to have.

Mankind faces the “greatest threat ever known” — supposedly. So why are the raw data, adjustments, and methods used to study this threat so difficult to find?

————-

This is another article The Australian has for one reason or another not found space for. Let it be said when they are accused of being too far to the “extreme right”, that they appear to be happy to publish fallacious arguments in favor of leftist causes (including baseless smears and name-calling) but sometimes not the centrist logical substantiated responses in reply. So much for the accusations of “right bias”.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 7.0/10 (3 votes cast)
Now we are not even allowed to doubt?, 7.0 out of 10 based on 3 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/23zaf4b

209 comments to Now we are not even allowed to doubt?

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    “Where are the global records of raw temperature data used to calculate the global warming graphs? No one can find them.”

    They’re at the same place as Trenberths “missing heat”. :)

    “Where are the latest global results from the ARGO oceanic temperature network, and why aren’t they published monthly on a public website?”

    They’re at the same place where the Aust. govt. keeps the NBN business case. :)

    00

  • #
    UK Sceptic

    I’m Spartacus a doubt monger! I have serious doubts about the claims made about AGW and I can and do monger them at every opportunity. :D

    00

  • #
    Rich

    Mike Steketee’s articles does raise interesting questions. Having made a parallel between the tobacco debate and the climate debate he points out that:

    … litigation against tobacco companies revealed that the industry’s own scientists had concluded by the early 1960s that smoking caused cancer and that nicotine was addictive. But that was not its public position: it argued there was no proof that smoking harmed health, as it later argued there was no proof of the harm of passive smoking.

    So where are the climate scientists who are concealing research about the causes of global warming? Which climate scientists are refusing to make data available on the subject of historical temperatures and temperature proxies? Are these scientists affiliated with organizations set to make large sums of money if the truth remains concealed?

    When those questions are answered I think we find Mr Steketee’s analysis very helpful.

    He puts Senator Minchin in a positive light too. Minchin, it would appear said smoking wasn’t dangerous till he had the evidence to prove that it was, all the while remaining true to his belief that it’s not the Government’s business to tell us how to run our lives. A man of principle by Mike Seketee’s account.

    Please link to more helpful articles like this one.

    10

  • #
    DirkH

    I think that Naomi Oreskes projects her own shortcomings on her enemies.

    10

  • #
    DirkH

    Rich:
    November 27th, 2010 at 2:12 am
    “Are these scientists affiliated with organizations set to make large sums of money if the truth remains concealed?

    When those questions are answered I think we find Mr Steketee’s analysis very helpful.”

    Yes, of course:
    http://www.munichre.com/en/media_relations/company_news/2010/2010-06-24_company_news.aspx
    “24 June 2010

    IPCC nominates lead authors for the next assessment reportTwo Munich Re employees are among the experts nominated to be lead authors for the IPCC’s next assessment report, due to be completed in 2014. Dr. Eberhard Faust and four other scientists will be lead authors of the chapter on the economic impacts of climate change. Dr. Sandra Schuster, together with five other scientists, will be lead author of the chapter on impacts in Australasia.

    00

  • #
    1DandyTroll

    To me it seems like Naomi Oreskes is a hawker of authoritarian regimes.

    When Russia is trying to wash history clean and taking more responsibility for their past the dumb nut lefty hippies have apparently smoked too much bad shit they’ve all gone gobshite on it, thinking maybe authoritarian murder-regimes wasn’t so bad after all, at least they got things done despite the en mass of “deniers”, “skeptics”, and other “democratic evil doers”.

    00

  • #

    If the science was “settled” then Oreskes wouldn’t need to collaborate with the left’s Orwellian efforts to stifle debate. Instead, they would trot out the vast body of empirical evidence whose chronology and content would leave no doubt about the validity of the theory of CAGW. They would be able to show us how this hypothesis born of prescience was nurtured by empirical testing and survived every arduous effort to falsify it.

    Instead, we have a falsified hypothesis whose spectacular failure, once realized by the general public, will result in the loss of public largesse for various and sundry green parasitic organizations and legal scrutiny of them, as well. So far, the climate machine has been able to survive the recent whitewashed investigations because the “authorities” have had a vested financial interest in exonerating the accused. The recent power shift in Washington will hasten the day of reckoning for the climate criminals, a day long overdue. The real question is, will they be held accountable or will they escape justice because the needs of a “greater good” (i.e. politicians avoiding any consequences for their role in the fraud) take priority?

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Funny — all the things Oreskes complains about are supported by a ton of good evidence. Anyone who can add 1 to 1 and get 2 can follow it.

    Self-righteous, self-appointed guardian of her own opinion sums it up nicely.

    00

  • #
    Jaymez

    Oreskes’ book is the political tome of an activist. It has no academic or scientific value. So why is it the University of WA, through the Institute of Advanced Studies helped fund her appearance in WA?

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    The real question is, will they be held accountable or will they escape justice because the needs of a “greater good” (i.e. politicians avoiding any consequences for their role in the fraud) take priority?

    Eddy,

    That is the $64,000 question. I think the answer is that no political heads will roll unless individual voters in large enough numbers finally pay attention to what’s been going on and vote them out. I hope for a lot of exposure from the hearings that will come next year. But The House cannot subpoena its own members, senators or the president (I wish they could). But both appointed and career members of the executive branch are fair game. Watch for the president to assert executive privilege to keep key people from testifying.

    00

  • #

    Rich:
    November 27th, 2010 at 2:12 am

    Mike Steketee’s articles does raise interesting questions. Having made a parallel between the tobacco debate and the climate debate he points out that:
    … litigation against tobacco companies revealed that the industry’s own scientists had concluded by the early 1960s that smoking caused cancer and that nicotine was addictive. But that was not its public position: it argued there was no proof that smoking harmed health, as it later argued there was no proof of the harm of passive smoking.
    So where are the climate scientists who are concealing research about the causes of global warming? Which climate scientists are refusing to make data available on the subject of historical temperatures and temperature proxies? Are these scientists affiliated with organizations set to make large sums of money if the truth remains concealed?

    Indeed, Mikes article does raise some “interesting questions”! Allow me to answer a few of them.

    So where are the climate scientists who are concealing research about the causes of global warming?

    > Mike [Mann],
    > Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
    > Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
    >
    > Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t
    > have his new email address.
    >
    > We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
    >
    > I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature
    > paper!!
    >
    > Cheers
    > Phil [Jones}

    Which climate scientists are refusing to make data available on the subject of historical temperatures and temperature proxies?

    "I should warn you that some data we have we are not supposed [to] pass on to others. We can pass on the gridded data — which we do. Even if WMO [World Meteorological Organization] agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” – Phil Jones

    Are these scientists affiliated with organizations set to make large sums of money if the truth remains concealed?

    Over 50 billion dollars and counting! The CRU scientists were told that there may be paydays when the funding wouldn’t be there to cover their checks. Then came global warming and the deluge of taxpayer funded grants. Since then, they haven’t looked back! Of course, if anybody “looked back” it wouldn’t matter because the original data had been conveniently “lost.”

    If you want to draw a valid analogy then you would need to compare the CAGW fraudsters to the proponents of tobacco, not the skeptics. You would also need to compare the skeptics to the whistleblowers.

    If I can be of further assistance please let me know. :)

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Eddy @11:

    If you want to draw a valid analogy then you would need to compare the CAGW fraudsters to the proponents of tobacco, not the skeptics. You would also need to compare the skeptics to the whistleblowers.

    INDEED! I’ve been thinking the same thing. It would be Orwellian, though, to use a reversal of logic like that.

    00

  • #

    Mark D.:
    November 27th, 2010 at 4:14 am

    It would be Orwellian, though, to use a reversal of logic like that.

    Yep, God forbid that critical analysis or deductive reasoning should cloud the argument! Perhaps we could get Oreskes to google it so she could tell us that her search didn’t turn up any other comparative analysis for the tobacco-big oil analogy, only the “consensus” opinion!

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Let’s remember that it was Oreskes in the thick of things when it came to demonizing Fred Singer because he exposed the EPA’s dishonesty when they declared second hand smoke a danger to humans. Their data was crap, little better than random numbers. But what the heck, never let the truth get in the way of a predetermined politically correct outcome. She has a long history of knowing nothing and speaking it often. She continues apace to this day. If her kind were not so dangerous they would be high comedy.

    Singer, by his own words, has never worked for and has never taken a dime from a tobacco company. But what does a man’s reputation matter compared with political correctness?

    Like I said,

    Self-righteous, self-appointed guardian of her own opinion sums it up nicely.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Friends:

    Perhaps supporters of Oreskes can put my mind at rest by answering some simple questions.

    I confess that I drive a car.
    I confess that I purchase fuel for it and drive it.
    I confess that my lifestyle is dependant on these activities.
    I do not know which oil companies provide the fuel for my car because I buy it from a supermarket

    Hence, my lifestyle is dependant on Big Oil but I do not know which oil companies my lifestyle relies on.

    So, can supporters of Oreskes tell me if the dependance of my lifestyle on Big Oil damns me and proves all I say and write is wrong? Or am I exonerated by my ignorance of the specific oil companies with which I have a relationship?

    I recognise that the Climate Reseach Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University (AEU) obtains funds from known oil companies so they are all damned and all they say and write must be wrong. But I am not interested in that. I want to know if I am damned because I am concerned for my own immortal soul.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Eddy Aruda: # 7

    … will they escape justice because the needs of a “greater good” (i.e. politicians avoiding any consequences for their role in the fraud) …

    C’mon Eddy! We both know that politicians will always act “in the greater good”.

    00

  • #
    Mike Jowsey

    “Naomi Oreskes “reasons” by Remarkable Parallels,…”

    Richard Lindzen describes such thinking as:

    However, with global warming the line of argument is even sillier. It generally amounts to something like if A kicked up some dirt, leaving an indentation in the ground into which a rock fell and B tripped on this rock and bumped into C who was carrying a carton of eggs which fell and broke, then if some broken eggs were found it showed that A had kicked up some dirt. These days we go even further, and decide that the best way to prevent broken eggs is to ban dirt kicking.

    00

  • #
  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Mike Steketee (Some sceptics make it a habit to be wrong) has learnt a new way to throw names from Oreskes. Nick Minchin (recently retired Senator from the conservative opposition) is just the latest target of this effusion of confusion.

    And, to quote from the above article:

    Even the people running the campaigns often have been the same. In the US, they are centred on a small group of former Cold War warriors who saw environmentalism as a left-wing attack on free-market capitalism and, by extension, on liberty.

    “When the Cold War ended, these men looked for a new great threat,” Oreskes and Conway write. “They found it in environmentalism . . . The enemies of government regulation of the marketplace became the enemies of science.”

    [My emphasis]

    [National Affairs - The Australian: "Some sceptics make it a habit to be wrong", Mike Steketee, 20 November 2010] – http://bit.ly/afzihR

    Close, but no cigar.

    There is a well documented history of the Soviets quietly using proxies to infiltrate into, and thereby influence, the political structures of the west. Like most intelligence operations, it was a long-term game with low risk, low entry costs, but high potential returns.

    In Britain, examples include the recruitment of “promising” students at the London School of Economics and at Oxford and Cambridge Universities – traditional sources of public servants destined for the upper reaches of the bureaucracy and future stalwarts of the British Conservative Party; infiltration of the Trade Union movement, and by extension, the British Labour Party; and activism through protest and lobby groups such as Ban the Bomb and the World Wildlife Fund.

    Of course, not everybody with left-of-centre views was a Soviet mole. Not every activist was a Soviet agent provocateur. So it fell to the “Cold War Warriors” to try to identify those who were, those who might be, and those who might not.

    A lot of innocent people got caught up in the net and fell under suspicion, and a lot of guilty people went unnoticed or were clever enough to get away with it. But those errors are the price you pay for the principle of the presumption of innocence – something that makes western democracy what it is.

    The Cold War did not end.

    The Soviet system of socialism – the Soviet Union – simply collapsed under the weight of bureaucratic mismanagement and political corruption. But the socialist ideals and belief systems continued, and those in the west who were convinced that Socialism would lead to a new golden age, continued to believe in the socialist framework, and still continued to see “liberty” and “freedom of choice” as being dangerous and disruptive to “an ordered society”.

    So the “Cold War Warriors” continue to do what they have always done – protect the liberty of free people to determine how they will live their own lives, and enjoy the fruits of their own labours.

    The ironic thing is that Oreskes can believe what she does, and say what she does, because she is free to do so, and that is precisely because the very people she disparages have fought (and sometimes died) to uphold that freedom.

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    a bit o/t but …
    WUWT has an interesting post up today A J Strata
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/
    Bottom Line – Using two back-of-the-envelope tests for significance against the CRU global temperature data I have discovered:

    ■75% of the globe has not seen significant peak warming or cooling changes between the period prior to 1960 and the 2000′s which rise above a 0.5°C threshold, which is well within the CRU’s own stated measurement uncertainties o +/- 1°C or worse.
    ■Assuming a peak to peak change (pre 1960 vs 2000′s) should represent a change greater than 20% of the measured temperature range (i.e., if the measured temp range is 10° then a peak-to-peak change of greater than 2° would be considered ‘significant’) 87% the Earth has not experienced significant temperature changes between pre 1960 period and the 2000′s.

    00

  • #
    pattoh

    Rereke

    “C’mon Eddy! We both know that politicians will always act “in the greater good”.

    ……but only after they have decided which “greater good” furthers their careers & the interests of their supporters/masters.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I just left the following comment on Deltoid’s page pushing Oreskes appearance at UNSW. Lo and behold, it showed up right away. I wonder how long it will stay.

    Have any of you ever taken a serious look at Orekses’ assertions? Fred Singer is a case in point. He pointed out the blatantly dishonest abuse of statistics the EPA used to show that second hand smoke is a danger to humans. He was correct on all counts as anyone with a reasonable grasp of statistical math and an honest attempt to look can quickly determine. But the truth didn’t matter to Oreskes. She should know better. Ask yourself why she will not debate Singer on the matter. Better yet, ask Oreskes about it directly.

    It seems like always on a site like that the same person could be writing all the comments. There’s never a bit of diversity of opinion. Zombies…

    00

  • #
    Binny

    The alarmists have to frame the debate in terms of psychology and sociology, simply because when it comes to the physical sciences they’ve got nothing.

    The Greens have been actively recruiting on university campuses for nearly 2 decades.
    The people they are picking up, for the most part have the same psychological profile as the people who were being picked up by religious cults in the 60s and 70s.

    The reality is they are simply a re-badged religious cult.

    The only positive thing is, because their goal is world domination, and they are not simply some deranged sociopath trying to assemble a private harem. They are not quite so destructive to the recruits on a personal level .

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    Dr Tim Ball has some fighting words today
    Climate Deception Is A Crime Against Humanity?

    Because of the deliberate deception and vigorous propaganda that CO2 was causing warming actions were demanded and pursued. Completely unnecessary and devastating policies were implemented. We’re wasting billions on climate change programs and alternate energy programs. Nations who pursued green energy and jobs policies are in serious financial problems. Nations like Britain and regions like Ontario Canada or California that abandoned or failed to update traditional energy sources, including nuclear, will have inadequate power supplies for many years to come. The cost of everything, especially food, has soared and will continue to rise. Industries have closed and more are threatened as draconian restrictions on carbon production are introduced.

    Failure of people to pursue the crimes committed by those involved with Climategate has emboldened them and their supporters to launch a claim to being the aggrieved parties. They can only do this because the leaders have whitewashed their actions. Continuations of the fiascos that are the UNFCC, the IPCC and the WMO filled with people who only work to perpetuate themselves mean it is increasingly urgent for the people to identify them as accessories after the fact. To co-opt an idea from the environmental movement, we must act locally by demanding accountability of national weather and climate agencies. Many of them are tacitly acknowledging culpability by investigating their data sources and management.
    http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/30372

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Binny: # 22

    The reality is they [alarmists] are simply a rebadged religious cult.

    I am not entirely convinced of that. For sure, they do have a sort of religious fervour, but they seem to lack the charismatic leader required to attract a dedicated band of followers – a martyr might help.

    I prefer to think of “Climate Science” as being a specialisation within “Political Science”.

    They both make about as much sense, especially in their predictive ability.

    00

  • #
    well

    sure you can doubt.
    you can doubt that land temps are increasing.
    you can doubt that satellite temps are increasing.
    you can doubt that glaciers are melting at accelerated amounts.
    you can doubt that sea ice is declining at accelerating rates.
    you can doubt plants and animals are responding to a warming climate.
    you can doubt that sea levels are rising.
    sure you can doubt.

    00

  • #

    @ well # 25

    sure you can doubt.

    Actually, I doubt your entire post. Please provide empirical proof to support your contentions. As usual, you are not here for a meaningful exchange of ideas or a search for the truth. As usual, you are simply trolling. How did you slime your way back onto this site?

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Well:

    Your post at #25 is silly.

    Whether or not those things are doubted makes no difference to the reality of whether any of them are happening or not.

    And if all those things are happening then that is not any indication that any of them is caused by anything other than nature.

    But you did know that, didn’t you?

    Richard

    00

  • #

    @ Well

    Here is a graph for the last 12 years. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/__VkzVMn3cHA/S2Si9CzxUcI/AAAAAAAAAIM/M3zEYq59KAI/s1600-h/12+year+Sat+%2B+HadCRU.bmp

    Here is an article debunking the “rising sea level” contention http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/MornerInterview.pdf. Dr. Nils-Axel Morner is an expert on the subject.

    See this graph for Antarctic sea ice http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg

    00

  • #
    matty

    Steketee also seems to suggest that the issue(non-issue) of acid rain was solved by an emission trading scheme. Classic leftist cognitive trick where reality is forged in accord with their thinking. The boat they are on is getting smaller but making it an easier target. They will be crammed in nicely by the time the (R) congressional inquiries land on a public who are receptive to a change of tune. The sillier they get the better, and Jo, it gives me comfort that Oreskes will get to see this. They know we are out here and they watch.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    @ Well

    Good to see that there are still a few drones around – we don’t seem to have had as many over recent weeks – I put it down to the record cold temperatures in the northern hemisphere for this time of year – that, and them having to hitch-hike to Cancun, and all, so they wouldn’t leave carbon footprint all over the place. Real bummer being green in the winter when your solar array is under two feet of white stuff and the wind ain’t blowing.

    00

  • #

    Val Majkus – I sympathize, but I am certain not one person will be accountable.

    Firstly, there is safety in numbers – almost everybody bought in on this.

    Secondly, the scientists will say: we never hid the fact that these were only climate model scenarios – their many uncertainties were well documented in scientific papers if you bothered to read them. Those that panicked and spent billions just don’t understand modelling – don’t understand science. As for poor data transparency and lost ‘adjustments’ – this is just science data, not official records and that was the norm for science stuff and we never denied it – if people acted on missing and untraceable science data – they lacked the most basic prudence. (NIWA already used this defence – the falsified NZ temperature record was ‘unofficial’ – for their internal use only.)

    Thirdly – politicians will say: We just followed the scientific advice of every scientific society – it was clear – >90% chance of catastrophe. What choice did we have?

    Finally the Green Industry profiteers and spruikers will say – we just followed government policy – we tried to save the planet – how much more responsible can you get.

    This will be the perfect green collar crime.

    A chain of thousands of imprudent steps spread amongst millions of actors each benefiting, but none in itself rising to criminality.

    I bet $10 that not one person will go to jail over this biggest scam in man’s history.

    I bet another $10 that the alarmists, the whole climate juggernaut and UN will ‘discover’ solar cycle 24 cooling and swap to managing the Cooling Climate Disruption without missing one paycheque. Any takers?

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Rich:
    November 27th, 2010 at 2:12 am

    So where are the climate scientists who are concealing research about the causes of global warming? Which climate scientists are refusing to make data available on the subject of historical temperatures and temperature proxies?

    Indeed where are the scientists who are concealing research about the causes of global warming?

    From Andrew Montford’s, The Hockey Stick Illusion, “Stacey International, London England.” referencing Steve McIntyre’s dissection of M Mann’s spreadsheet of principle components, Page 78, Dodgy Data.

    “To the lay reader, the columns of proxy series are pretty much indecipherable – rows of numbers, columns of numbers, like so many grains of sand. But to an experienced eye, used to picking out patterns from dense screeds of data, certain things can jump out and demand to be examined more closely. So when McIntyre started to study Mann’s proxy data series, it wasn’t long before he noticed something odd.”
    The Texas – Mexico chronologies had been reduced to nine principal components (pc’s), which appeared as proxy numbers 72 to 80 out of 112. What McIntyre noticed was that for the year 1980 the values for each of these series were the same; the value was identical, to seven decimal places: This simply could not be correct. It looked almost as if someone had copied the data from one series and pasted over the others.

    On pages 84 and 85 it goes on to reveal Mann using incomplete proxies, although the full proxies were available to him, by failing to include the full proxy series he was able to change a neutral result, instead producing a false upswing.

    Are these scientists affiliated with organizations set to make large sums of money if the truth remains concealed?

    Penn State seem to think a scientist ability to procure grants are at the top of his attraction to hire. When clearing Mann of wrong doing they felt the following important.

    This Level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr Mann among the most respected scientist in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research.

    For an excellent dissection of the actions of leading IPCC scientist read The Climategate Emails: http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf

    I also recommend you reading Climate the Counter Consensus, Robert Carter.

    As well as The Hockey Stick Illusion, A W Montford.

    00

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    A question: where are the new rivers?

    Background: the planet’s oceans have been rising at 1.8+/-0.1mm/yr average from 1885 – 1980, according to a research paper of 1991. Thermal expansion is included within this. The alarmists say that by 2100 the world’s oceans might rise by an additional 0.75 – 1.6 meters (ignoring the Gore-sensational 6m). To do so, the AVERAGE 2010 – 2100 sea level rise would have to increase to between 8.3 and 17.8mm/yr, an increase of 4.6 – 9.9 times the >120 year historic rate. All this increase has to come from rivers (including “rivers of ice”). ON AVERAGE they have to go up 5 – 10 times, which means that the high-flow rivers have to do more than that to keep the proportions in line. So … where are the rivers that will do this? The Arctic ice can’t, as it is floating (same with Antarctic ice). If the glacial masses have to do this by themselves, THEIR flowrate increase has to be astronomical. Perhaps some of the evaporated ice will precipitate out and come down the freshwater rivers. So far we are not seeing any increase in riverflow, in fact the warmists claim that riverflows are reducing (drought and thirst alarms here). So, here we are again: where are the new rivers.

    I propose a National Geographic hunt be organized for the new Amazon and Nile of the 21st century that will allow the warmist agenda to succeed. We will call it the “Algore Stream”. (It might be found in “Imagistan”.)

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Rereke Whaakaro:@24
    True a more accurate description would be a political/religious hybrid.
    Of course for most of human history political and religious power have existing hand in hand.
    It is only relatively recently that the Western world realised how dangerous this is and separated the two.
    Probably the best example in the modern world of where green politics is leading us, is the Islamic states.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Speaking of Gore…

    Found on Junkscience.com: http://www.gorefacts.com/, a comprehensive list of lies and other shady things, all with sources.

    Just click on, “Tell me more!” Items come up at random so you might see the same thing several times before getting through everything.

    I don’t think he will be able to alibi his way around the House of Representatives.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Binny:

    At #34 you assert:

    Of course for most of human history political and religious power have existing hand in hand.

    Sorry, but no.
    And history shows these two powers each has important functions which need to be kept separate.

    Throughout most of human existance there has been an important separation of religious authority and political authority (i.e shaman and chieftan, Church and State, etc.). The religious authority protects the culture and morality of a tribe or nation or etc. while the political authority establishes the law. The two authorities have important tension between them and if one ‘oversteps the mark’ the result is conflict between them so they constrain each other.

    Horrific results have always happened whenever the religious and political powers have combined to form a single authority.

    There are legion examples of such horrific effects of the combining of religious and political powers; i.e. the Borgia Popes, Stalinist Russia, the Khmer Rouge, etc.

    This matter is important because there are two organisations which are overtly attempting to obtain both religious and political authority in the world today; viz. the Taliban (in its various forms) and the environmentalist movement.

    Both of these organisations have already done damage. The Taliban is widely recognised as being dangerous because its attacks (e.g. 9/11) are seen as having been atrocious. But the environmental movement is the greater threat because its attacks (e.g. banning DDT) have had the more horrific effects but most people are not aware of them.

    In my opinion, the gradual take-over of political movements by environmentalism is the greatest threat the developed world now faces.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    Val @ #19

    It’s the principal reason I rejected the Mann et al Hockey Stick graph from the outset – it’s variation was within +/- 0.5 Kelvin and less than the measuring accuracy of the instruments used to produce the raw data. I never bothered to prove it using the data at the time since it was unavailable.

    I would, however, not go so far to accuse them of deliberate falsification. Rather, I’ve always maintained that its due to incompetence and/or ignorance of the measurement of data and what one can, and cannot, do with intensive variables, of which temperature is one of many.

    The AGW camp believes, most sincerely, that it’s real – but it’s a specious reality they are in the thrall of.

    00

  • #
    janama

    sure you can doubt.

    you can doubt that land temps are increasing.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/26/examination-of-cru-data-suggests-no-statistically-significant-warming/

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2002/trend

    you can doubt that satellite temps are increasing.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:2002/plot/rss/from:2002/trend

    you can doubt that glaciers are melting at accelerated amounts.

    http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm

    you can doubt that sea ice is declining at accelerating rates.

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/S3xTTpWSGjI/AAAAAAAAAyk/lWAqvOnb72Q/s1600-h/Fullscreen+capture+2172010+122234+PM.jpg

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png

    you can doubt plants and animals are responding to a warming climate.

    animals always respond to climate change be it warming or cooling.

    you can doubt that sea levels are rising.

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/south_pacific.html

    sure you can doubt.

    I don’t have any doubts at all.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Binny: #34

    I think we may be agreeing.

    The point I was trying to make was that there is little that is “scientific” in regard to Politics or Climate. Both disciplines (if you can even call them that) add the word “Science” to try to give themselves a aura of respectability.

    They both rely on predictive models for their “truth”: economic models in politics, and statistical models in climate. It comes down to whether or not you believe that the models are pronouncing some divine truth.

    And that is where religion comes in – at the end of he day, they are both belief systems.

    Now, having said that, I have probably offended several dedicated climatologists, for which I apologise. So I need to point out that I differentiate between climatology and climate science for exactly the same reasons I have given, above.

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Richard S Courtney: @36
    I see your point.

    Horrific results have always happened whenever the religious and political powers have combined to form a single authority.

    Consequently these are the times that feature largely in our history books. Creating the impression to the casual observer that they may occur more frequently than they do in reality.

    When the church/state separation is working correctly, life is generally placid and pretty boring, and consequently doesn’t get reported on in the historical narrative.

    00

  • #
    Athena

    ANOTHER NOBEL PRIZE WINNER CLIMATOLOGIST JUMPS OFF GLOBAL WARMING “TITANIC”

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/30275

    Bitter New Political Reality in Cold Climate
    And another ‘iceberg’ seems set to further wreck the baleful boat in the form of a blockbuster new book. Our friendly Slovenia/English translator, Mi≈°o Alkalaj, reveals he is one of an international team of 21 co-authors of the world’s first full-volume scientific debunk of the greenhouse gas theory titled ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory,’ launched later this week. He says Bogataj is bailing out of the IPCC to help rebuild her status as a credible government paleoclimatologist before the warmist cult is drowned in fast-freezing political waters. Mi≈°o writes:

    Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory” now available at Amazon.com

    http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Slaying+the+Sky+Dragon&x=15&y=16

    This follows the resignation of Emeritus Professor of Physics at UC from the Americal Physical Society after 67 Years! on the Basis of SCAM

    http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html

    Perhaps Naomi should grab a lifebelt NOW to escape the sinking “Political Titanic” and attempt to save her “reputation” – and not wait until the anticipated fiasco of Cancun.

    Athena

    00

  • #

    WARNING: SITE TRIVIA
    Binny Congrats, your comment was the 40,000th approved comment on the site. (I added a counter in the right hand column yesterday). You win! Err a … cyber handshake and a thanks for all your contributions. :-)
    Cheers, Thanks to all, Rereke and Richard C, Doug, Roy, Bob, Lewis, janama … too many good comments here to name. Eddy #11! Loved it.

    00

  • #
    Binny

    Joanne Nova:
    Crikey! I can’t remember the last time I won a raffle.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Richard C. @ 37; very good points. I wonder what the Taliban think about AGW?

    Doug Proctor @ 34; Are you forgetting about rain?

    Janama @ 39; MOST EXCELLENT! Well mustn’t be feeling all that……well. (Well does deserve recognition for not using the other “D” word though).

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    My Deltoid comment is still there (see 22).

    Have any of you ever taken a serious look at Orekses’ assertions? Fred Singer is a case in point. He pointed out the blatantly dishonest abuse of statistics the EPA used to…

    It got one snide little remark,

    Shorter Roy Hogue:

    Naomi Oreskes refuses to show up on Fred Singer’s dog and pony shows. This proves that second-hand tobacco smoke is harmless!

    Posted by: frank — Decoding SwiftHack | November 26, 2010 9:51 PM

    To which I replied in kind,

    Frank, I’m glad to see that you agree with me.

    Decoding SwiftHack seems to be dedicated to proving that the leaked CRU file was an outside job, not a leaker from within. I guess if you can’t shoot down the message then shoot the messenger. But how it helps them to prove it was an outside job beats me.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Roy, the last time I was on Deltoid I got the very uneasy feeling that several posters were computer generated. The character that runs the blog is a “computer scientist” so the idea is not beyond reason. Pay attention to how some of the responses are without feeling and oddly phrased.

    It should be renamed DeltDroids

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Mark D.,

    I can see how you could be right. I deliberately did something that should seem out of place to a human (not that I thought it might be a computer generated response) to see what would happen. So we shall see.

    Roy

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    congrats Binny, a cyber handshake from Jo is surely something to brag about

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Roy, for what it is worth see this DeltDroid series: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/07/open_thread_51.php Where George (co2isnotevil) is having a time with the regulars. I join in at post 150. If you read a bit further you’ll see what I mean. A couple of posts are so wacky! I finally dropped out because I determined most of the posters there are likely insane. (or computer generated).

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Roy @ 46;

    Just been to detoids, unless I was at the wrong page comments finish at18, your gone!!!!!!!

    00

  • #

    There’s a reason it was okay for tobacco companies to fudge on the health effects of their products. Everybody has always known that smoking is very addictive and very injurious to health. I said “everybody”, “always” and “very”. No-one is entitled to a cent from tobacco companies. They answered falsehood with falsehood, because truth was never a factor in the tobacco wars. The anti-smoking lawyers and bureaucrats have never been willing to refer to common and universal knowledge concerning tobacco. It would be like shooting the fox. They are as sincere as the two main actors in the anti-tobacco movie, The Insider. After acting out their indignation and virtue, Pacino and Crowe relaxed with a few puffs. A lot of puffs. The director, Michael Mann, smoked heavily during production.

    And what does Oreskes do after acting out her indignation and virtue? She gets on a plane. No way she’s going to phone-in her book promo. That’s because – if you’ll excuse my Remarkable Parallel – she is as sincere about carbon as Mann, Crowe and Pacino were about smoking.

    At least Big Anti-Tobacco has a real antagonist. Climate alarmists have just one thing working for them: their matchless effrontery.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    Slightly off topic, but I was reading Delingpole’s blog and some of the comments on his most recent blog. The following was enlightening :

    GREEN SITES PAYING FOR ECOTARD POSTERS – Rent-a-troll

    Hat tip: The Bear

    So much has been batted about concerning realists being paid shills for the petroleum majors (which makes no sense as the majors fund all this greentard PR stuff and BP did the first carbon trade in 1996) that I thought I would take a look around under the Gargle search terms “paid green blogging opportunities” just to sort out who was the shill and who not.

    This is what I came up with for starters. So far I have found over 40+ paid green blogging slots and/or firms which pay for greentard online blogpuking onto the inside of everyone’s monitor screen.

    http://lifegoggles.com/266/get-paid-to-write-reviews/

    The above goes back some time (2007)

    http://www.greencollarblog.org/

    Their paymasters are below:

    http://greenjobs.greenjobsearch.org/a/jbb/job-details/400894

    This ad describes a requirement for “researchers” requiring a proficiency in html. C’mon, guys, you can stealth it up better than that!

    00

  • #
    Alice Thermopolis

    Hey thanks Joanne

    Binny is right. [November 27th, 2010 at 7:32 am]

    “The alarmists have to frame the debate in terms of psychology and sociology, simply because when it comes to the physical sciences they’ve got nothing.”

    that is why the Director of the UWA Institute of Advanced Studies [ http://www.ias.uwa.edu.au/ - and members of its board [ http://www.ias.uwa.edu.au/about/board ] – should be asked to justify whether this event complied with the Institute’s Mission Statement, http://www.ias.uwa.edu.au/about/mission.

    The Institute needs to take some flak for so enthusiastically promoting Naomi Oreskes (see its promotional brochure) last week, for not creating a forum for debate on this immensely important public issue, and for merely providing a platform for psychologists and social scientists to use it as a vehicle for corrupting the minds of gullible students.

    Your sometimes smelly – but definitely non-sock puppet – citizen

    Alice (in Flatulencia, Warmerland)

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Call me wrong, ignore my posting above re Roy at deltoids, I was obviously on the wrong page. Roy your still there.

    00

  • #
    manalive

    I was startled to read that Naomi Oreskes is a Professor of History and Science at the University of California San Diego.

    When I went to school, the history of science was all about Aristarchus > Ptolemy > epicycles on epicycles > Copernicus > Galileo > Newton; alchemy > phlogiston > Lavoisier etc. — the triumph of the patient and meticulous collection of empirical evidence over preconceived theories often based on inferences from incomplete or flawed observations or ordained from authority.

    But, thanks to Wikipedia, I now realize that I’m well behind the times:

    Until the late 20th century the history of science, especially of the physical and biological sciences, was seen as a narrative celebrating the triumph of true theories over false. Science was portrayed as a major dimension of the progress of civilization. In recent decades, postmodern views…… the history is seen in terms of competing paradigms or conceptual systems battling for intellectual supremacy in a wider matrix that includes intellectual, cultural, economic and political themes outside pure science.

    Now I understand.

    00

  • #
    Peter Whale

    Warmmongers do not do science or debate they just do diktat and tax.

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    The Questions no one can answer

    This question can be answered:-

    Where are the latest global results from the ARGO oceanic temperature network, and why aren’t they published monthly on a public website?

    Latest ARGO global results in graphic form:-

    July – September 2010 Heat Content

    July – September 2010 Temperature Anomaly

    * Temperature anomaly figures
    * Heat content figures

    Available on this page

    Same temperature data on UNISYS plot

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Re 58

    I think the UNISYS plot is updated daily.

    00

  • #
    well

    eddy @ 27

    i am at 26 – you guys aren’t very good with numbers. but hey thanks for the welcome back party.

    thanks also for the short term graph of surface temps although you might need to explain why you expect statistical anything from such a timeframe.

    http://www.fool-me-once.com/2010/07/global-warming-has-stopped.html

    as for your article on sea level rise, the satellites disagree with you http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ sorry if i don’t hold the “scientist guy on the web” and his pdf in the same esteem.

    and thanks for half the picture on sea ice – did you forget about the other half of the planet?

    00

  • #
    J.Hansford

    Jo Nova on Naomi Oreskes:

    “Could it be that her entire reasoning dies by its own sword and her claims turn out to be as hypocritical as they are mindless?”

    Excellent stuff Jo. I just love reading your articles. You have a fantastic way with words…. and you make eminent sense.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Well:

    I read your post at #60.

    I notice that it does not answer the question in my reply at #28 to your original post. I remind of that question which was:

    Your post at #25 is silly.

    Whether or not those things are doubted makes no difference to the reality of whether any of them are happening or not.

    And if all those things are happening then that is not any indication that any of them is caused by anything other than nature.

    But you did know that, didn’t you?

    Can I understand your post at #60 to be giving the answer to my question as being Yes?

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Mark D:

    At #45 you ask me:

    @ 37; very good points. I wonder what the Taliban think about AGW?

    I do not know, you would need to ask them.

    However, Osama Bin Laden is recorded as saying he thinks the West should be punished for AGW.

    The important point that history clearly demonstrates is that

    when separated the religious and political powers constrain each other to inhibit enforcement of political or religious dogmas

    but

    when combined the religious and political powers support each other with resulting enforcement of political and religious dogmas.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    janama

    am at 26 – you guys aren’t very good with numbers. but hey thanks for the welcome back party.

    thanks also for the short term graph of surface temps although you might need to explain why you expect statistical anything from such a timeframe.

    because that’s when the oceans turned around. The PDO turned at the end of 2001 so 2002 was a relevant point to take the reversal in temperatures from.

    as for your article on sea level rise, the satellites disagree with you http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ sorry if i don’t hold the “scientist guy on the web” and his pdf in the same esteem.

    I’m sorry – I posted the sea level rise link in the wrong part of the reply.

    here it is again.

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/S3xTTpWSGjI/AAAAAAAAAyk/lWAqvOnb72Q/s1600-h/Fullscreen+capture+2172010+122234+PM.jpg

    It’s the 3000 Argo buoys measuring their position relative to the satellites. Pretty smart stuff.

    and thanks for half the picture on sea ice – did you forget about the other half of the planet?

    No I didn’t forget about the other half of the planet, it’s all you ever hear about. Are you aware that the Antarctic is at almost record extent?

    The southern hemisphere and the tropics have not warmed or cooled significantly over the past 30 years.

    http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20TropicsAndExtratropicsMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

    00

  • #
    well

    Richard S Courtney @ 28

    i’ll take it from your response that you can’t dispute them.

    just like the way you support Idso’s low climate sensitivity but can’t justify why you ignore all others.

    00

  • #
    well

    Rereke Whaakaro @ 31

    good to see people here still get confused between local weather and global climate

    00

  • #
  • #
    well

    janama @ 39

    on glaciers, so I follow your link and use my powers of skeptical reading to this page titled “Glaciers in Norway Growing Again”

    http://www.iceagenow.com/Glaciers_in_Norway_Growing_Again.htm

    the report is coming from the “Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate” so lets google them. here’s there site

    http://www.nve.no/en/Water/Hydrology/Glaciers/Glacier-monitoring/Glacier-length-change-observations/

    Follow the 2010 report link and here is what they say “The glacier retreat continiues in 2010. Results from 31 glaciers in Norway show that 27 glaciers are retreating, one glacier shows no change, and three glaciers advanced.”

    sure does pay to be skeptical, especially of half-baked blogger sites.

    00

  • #
    Tim

    When people perceive that they are being frustrated of their ‘just’ causes, frustration turns to agression. This agression is deflected toward who they are TOLD are the source of their problems.

    The agression should be treated as coming from people suffering from a ‘brainwashed’ psychotic state in my opinion. Nothing to do with science. Everything to do with mind-doctoring and social manipulation.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Hey Well, Speaking of short term data, have you got a link to Argo data or ocean heat from say 1900?

    00

  • #

    Richard C (NZ): #58

    Where are the latest global results from the ARGO oceanic temperature network, and why aren’t they published monthly on a public website?

    Latest ARGO global results in graphic form:-
    July – September 2010 Heat Content
    July – September 2010 Temperature Anomaly

    That’s not the global graph of the temperature of the ocean – Where is 2003 to 2010 PURE ARGO?

    July – September 2010 Heat Content
    July – September 2010 Temperature Anomaly
    * Temperature anomaly figures
    * Heat content figures

    They are not the ARGO figures. The other graphs are a composite of measurement systems (though they don’t make it clear on the page how they are created). They are not pure ARGO. ARGO is supposedly much better than the rest. Why can’t we get the data – both the raw data AND the adjusted data with methods too.?

    But thanks.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Richard Courtney @63
    Sorry, my question was not intended to distract from the important points which I agree:

    when separated the religious and political powers constrain each other to inhibit enforcement of political or religious dogmas

    but

    when combined the religious and political powers support each other with resulting enforcement of political and religious dogmas.

    My question was related to this comment you made at 37:

    In my opinion, the gradual take-over of political movements by environmentalism is the greatest threat the developed world now faces.

    Which was to query whether the Taliban is seeing any take-over by environmentalism.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Well:

    Thank you for providing the comic relief to this thread.

    At #65 you make two statements in response to me; viz.

    i’ll take it from your response that you can’t dispute them.

    just like the way you support Idso’s low climate sensitivity but can’t justify why you ignore all others.

    Your first statement is a misrepresentation that ignores the point I made and the second is a falsehood.

    Please continue to make similar posts. Your nonsense does more to expose the paucity of the arguments of AGW-proponents than anything I could say.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Again sorry, I hit submit when I meant preview. The last sentence should read:

    Which was to query whether the Taliban was being taken over by environmentalism.

    and add:

    This would be a disturbing combination to me.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Mark D:

    Re your point at #72, I apologise that I misunderstood your point that you say was:

    Which was to query whether the Taliban is seeing any take-over by environmentalism.

    I answer that I do not know the answer to your question and I do not know how to opbtain that information. Only the Taliban or possibly security agencies (i.e. MI6, CIA, etc.) would know the answer, and they are unlikely to provide it.

    Richard

    00

  • #

    Mark D. @75: Which was to query whether the Taliban is seeing any take-over by environmentalism.

    Operationally the Taliban is there already. They seek to destroy modern civilization. That is exactly the end sought by environmentalism. The Taliban blames their actions upon the God of Islam and environmentalism upon the God of the Earth. Neither have a bases in reality or reason. They seek destruction of modern civilization on the basis of their faith in their respective Gods.

    That they use slightly different means, use different confabulations for the justification of their actions, and have a difference in their ability to deliver on their respective faiths is irrelevant. They have the same goal and will ultimately use the same means to reach it. The important thing is that they present a clear and present danger and MUST be dealt with as efficiently and as effectively as possible before its too late.

    Both groups claim that we don’t have a right to exist as independent freely functioning individuals. We are to exist and function by their permission and by their dictate (aka as slaves). We are held to be expendable without consequence. As a consequence, they have abandoned the moral right to have their rights respected to ANY degree. We therefor have a moral right to take ANY action against them necessary to stop them from making their plan for the population of the earth a reality. It is exactly the same moral right that we would have in acting to protect ourselves from a rabid animal!

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Bob Malloy,

    My comment is here with some follow-on.

    Mark D.,

    Your adventure on Deltoid is why I have never bothered to post anything on such sites. It’s more a waste of time than anything else. About computer generated I don’t know. Immature seems more likely.

    Anyway — I hit that page Goggling “Oreskes” for whatever I could find and it hit me that the Fred Singer affair might lead to some interesting replies.

    00

  • #

    Well,at post # 67 has by accident destroyed the current warmist claim that the warming trend is accelerating.

    It is not and what is more that by your own cherrypicked charts.The warming trend is much,much smaller now than it was 20 years ago.This despite the continuing growth of total CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

    Thank you.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    We therefor have a moral right to take ANY action against them necessary to stop them from making their plan for the population of the earth a reality. It is exactly the same moral right that we would have in acting to protect ourselves from a rabid animal!

    Lionell,

    Please tell that to the president! Oops! Sorry, he’s in with those who want to destroy us.

    00

  • #
    Mike Jowsey

    @ Well, 67

    “how fickle short term data is” – so have a look at the last 350000 years instead of the last 40 or so…

    00

  • #
  • #

    In the attempt to help WELL,who posted his invisible pointmaking post #26.

    Quoting from the article he has yet to counter:

    The Questions no one can answer

    Oreskes is selling doubt mongering, and the skeptics like Nick Minchin are merely asking questions no one in the western climate establishment can answer.

    Questions like this:

    * Where are the global records of raw temperature data used to calculate the global warming graphs? No one can find them.
    * Where are the latest global results from the ARGO oceanic temperature network, and why aren’t they published monthly on a public website?
    * Where is the empirical evidence for warming greater than 1.2 degrees? No one can name and explain a single paper that shows long term positive feedback that amplifies the warming, as the climate alarmists assert.

    Because those who want to alarm us and control us have not got scientific evidence, they resort to the smear campaign to try to diminish the influence of the great independent minds who seek answers we ought to have.

    Mankind faces the “greatest threat ever known” — supposedly. So why are the raw data, adjustments, and methods used to study this threat so difficult to find?

    There are many reasons why we have doubts about what you AGW supporters claim.

    When they are often backed by unverified climate models.When the original data are hard to find or got lost.When your media enablers keep attacking us for being skeptical.When the few specific AGW hypothesis predictions fails.When many AGW supporters like Dr. Naomi Oreskes make preposterous Ad Homonyms attacks.When she published a stupid propaganda science “consensus” paper,that was quickly exposed as being a dishonest cherrypicking attempt to prove there are no skeptics in published science research.Yet still supported by the lowlife AGW believers like YOU today.

    Is it a surprise why many skeptics think you people have brain problems?

    00

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    Mark @ 45:

    Where are all the rivers to create the CAGW sealevel rise? I did not forget about “rain” raising the sea levels. Rain into the oceans clearly doesn’t need rivers, but does require a more humid atmosphere and more rain, period. You cannot just have massive rains on the oceans; a proportional amount has to occur on the land masses in areas that do not stay as snow or ice. So the rivers of the world HAVE to have large increases if the seas don’t rise simply from increasing glacial masses going down the valleys into the oceans.

    There is reports of glacial retreats, meaning more melts at the front end than advances down the valleys from the back end. I read nothing about massive increases in glacial meltwater rivers. In Alberta we have many “glaciers”, which aren’t really glaciers but large, starionary icecubes because pre-AGW warming thinned them out. The meltwater streams are not increasing, rather they are said to be in danger of drying up. The mystery of the Algore Stream is here, also.

    The entry of water into the world’s oceans to create sea level rises must include a concommitant increase in freshwater flow of the continental freshwater rivers, including glacial meltwater streams, if glacial edges are pulling back. Only by claiming a huge increase in riverflow (in the shortterm, admittedly) can sea levels rise by more than 27cm/0.81′ (allowing a 3.0mm/yr current rate, much in dispute).

    I’m saying the fundamental principle of the planetary water-cycle have been violated by narrowly viewed, single processes extrapolated by linear-thinking polemicists.

    Should you see my error, I’d be pleased to hear. The question is, again, rephrased: Where are all new rivers (and originating rainfall) to accommodate the increased waterflow necessary for large, rapid sea level rises? Where is the Algore Stream?

    00

  • #
    janama

    well @ 68

    sure that was for 2010

    here’s the Norwegian glaciers since 1982

    http://www.nve.no/en/Water/Hydrology/Glaciers/Glacier-monitoring/Glacier-length-change-observations/

    as you can see they are constantly fluctuating and show no correlation to increasing CO2 or variation in global temperature.\

    Regarding temperature you completely ignored the link to WUWT that clearly states.

    * 75% of the globe has not seen significant peak warming or cooling changes between the period prior to 1960 and the 2000′s which rise above a 0.5°C threshold, which is well within the CRU’s own stated measurement uncertainties o +/- 1°C or worse.
    * Assuming a peak to peak change (pre 1960 vs 2000′s) should represent a change greater than 20% of the measured temperature range (i.e., if the measured temp range is 10° then a peak-to-peak change of greater than 2° would be considered ‘significant’) 87% the Earth has not experienced significant temperature changes between pre 1960 period and the 2000′s.

    and also states:

    Readers may recall this quote from Dr. Phil Jones of CRU, by the BBC:

    Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

    A: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

    00

  • #
    Ross

    The EU stoops to a new low ! Adolf will “appreciate” this.

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/11/huge-eu-funds-plan-to-corrupt-czech.html

    00

  • #
    well

    Richard S Courtney @ 73

    as far as I’m concerned, until you address the questions posed to you about climate sensitivity, you can go and bold your falsehoods.

    you support Idso’s low climate sensitivity but can’t justify why you ignore all others.

    00

  • #
    well

    janama @ 39.

    re: using Argo float data for height.

    can you explain why you think the Argo height data, which is also limited by the infrequent number of times that it surfaces, is more accurate than the uninterrupted time-series data that the Jason-2 satellite provides?

    have you compared the number of samples? have you compared the accuracy/error margin? did the argo data undergo adjustment for atmospheric pressure?

    if so, can you provide references please?

    if no – i thought as much.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Doug P. Re @ 83

    Thank you for the added information. Sorry if my question seemed like a challenge. It wasn’t because I was necessarily quarreling with your point Doug, in fact I liked the idea because it is simple and should be observed. Frankly it seemed too simple. I asked because any one of the warmists visiting here would, I think, wonder the same thing.

    I agree too with this:

    I’m saying the fundamental principle of the planetary water-cycle have been violated by narrowly viewed, single processes extrapolated by linear-thinking polemicists.

    I doubt that sea levels are rising in any worrisome way.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Well:

    Repeating a lie does not stop it being a lie. At #86 you say to me:

    you support Idso’s low climate sensitivity but can’t justify why you ignore all others.

    You know that assertion is a falsehood because I have repeatedly denied it. Indeed, I denied it in my post you are answering as a method to hide the slaughter of your silly comments by a variety of posters above.

    Evaluating empirical results as being superior to atbitrary values chosen as model fixes is NOT ignoring the arbitrary values. Indeed, the evaluation requires consideration of the arbitrary values.

    But I recognise that evaluating anything is beyond your capabilities and, therefore, you accept what others tell you to think and ignore or reject other things. So, I fully understand why you could fool yourself into thinking I ignore things as you do.

    Your claim is not only a falsehood, it is an example of you projecting.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    janama

    Well @ 87

    typical warmist when confronted with data that conflicts with your belief system (Re glaciers) you immediately jump onto a different subject.

    Argo data? – well as Jo has already mentioned their data is hard to get hold of but when you finally do it shows a cooling ocean that is probably shrinking causing the sea level to drop. The problem with sea level is that it’s a moving target that is constantly changing as air pressure varies and warm and cold currents move about. So I would consider the output of 3000 calibrated buoys floating in the ocean to be more accurate than one satellite trying to track the moving target.

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Joanne #71

    That’s not the global graph of the temperature of the ocean – Where is 2003 to 2010 PURE ARGO?

    Those are global graphs. You can access all years 1955-2010 from this browser at NOAA for temperature. I’d like to see confirmation that the NOAA data is not pure ARGO but doesn’t matter because the data you want can be accessed in real-time or delayed directly from the ARGO Project website (see below). See the NOAA browser note:-
    ——————————————————————————————————————–
    Yearly anomaly figures are presented for years 1955 – 2008 and 16 standard depths (0 – 700 meters). 3-Month period anomaly figures are presented for years 1955 – 2009 (second quarter) and 16 standard depths (0 – 700 meters). To view 3-month period anomaly figures check ’3-Month Periods’ radio button.
    ——————————————————————————————————————–
    The first Argo floats were deployed in late 1999 so obviously data was acquired by other means prior to that. Those means and history is in ARGO new brochure

    They are not the ARGO figures. The other graphs are a composite of measurement systems (though they don’t make it clear on the page how they are created). They are not pure ARGO. ARGO is supposedly much better than the rest. Why can’t we get the data – both the raw data AND the adjusted data with methods too.?

    The 3 routes (real-time or delayed) are:-

    • To operational centres via TESAC messages on the Global Telecommunication System (GTS)
    • By ftp, http, LAS downloads from two Global Data Assembly Centres
    • From an archived data set at the US NODC

    All access and information for data viewers, adjustments etc is provided via ARGO home page.

    This pdf pads out the picture a bit more A beginners’ guide to accessing Argo data from which complete documentation of the Argo data system can be also accessed.

    There’s also CDs available for those without internet access.

    FYI to others interested. They talk about NetCDF format (.nc files) in both beginners guides. NetCDF is from ARM and NCAR uses that format for their GCM data. I’ve used the nc_explorer utility to view .nc files via MS Windows with no problems. nc_explorer available here.

    You’ll be dealing with shiploads of data so good luck with that.

    00

  • #
    elsie

    I notice in today’s ‘The Courier Mail’ that Brisbane has created a weather record. That is, it seems this November will be the first ever not to have had at least one day 30′C or over. We are still using blankets at night. In fact most of the time it has been in the mid 20s with a strong breeze. I see in reports that the UK has had its earliest winter snowfall in 17 years. “The kids will never see snow again!” was the cry in 1999.

    00

  • #
    Ian Hill

    elsie @92

    Adelaide experienced a similar cold September, with no maximum temperature above 21C for the first time ever. The jacaranda trees are only now displaying their purple flowers, about three weeks later than usual. Furthermore, to put it in purely unscientific terms, the “strength” of the purple seems to be about half its usual amount. A botanist may correct me, but I believe the late onset of warmer weather has caused this delay. Proof that nature reacts only to the “now” and not some long-term computer projection.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Delingpole reminds us yet again of what the real battle is.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100065683/why-i-now-deeply-regret-my-last-post/

    Folks, just a few days ago we were told by Ottmar Edenhofer that this has never been about science. Most of these people know they are espousing claptrap but simply don’t care as long as the ultimate goal is achieved.

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Sea level rise is a fascinating topic; there are a variety of methods used and this paper compares 2, satellite altimetry and tidal gauge and finds a recent pronounced decline in the rate of increase:

    http://www.ocean-sci.net/5/193/2009/os-5-193-2009.pdf

    This article also looks at the 2 methods and the inherent bias in satellite measurements:

    http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/580-sea-level-shenanigans.html

    Then there are the possible causes for sea level rise, 2 of which are mass/eustatic or an increase in the water quantity, one proxy for which is relative salt levels [since mass increase will presumably be coming from an influx of fresh water from the melting glaciers and Antarctic and Greenland ice packs which will mean a dillution of the salt ratio] and the steric increase which is due to heat expansion and would presumably be due to an increase in OHC, that is where Trenberth’s missing heat is stored; I looked at these 2 factors here:

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/n/#commentsmore

    As for ARGO, its brief is to measure salinity and temperature profiles over a depth range of 2000 metres; since the ARGO floats were introduced in 2003 they have found a declining OHC:

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html

    In respect of salinity the latest CSIRO paper, based on ARGO data, concludes this:

    “The study, co-authored by CSIRO scientists Paul Durack and Dr Susan Wijffels, shows the surface ocean beneath rainfall-dominated regions has freshened, whereas ocean regions dominated by evaporation are saltier.”

    I find that very profound; perhaps today’s resident alarmist, Well, would like to comment.

    00

  • #

    well:
    November 27th, 2010 at 8:25 pm

    thanks also for the short term graph of surface temps although you might need to explain why you expect statistical anything from such a timeframe.

    Statistics don’t lie but liars use statistics. I viewed the video at the link you provided. Thanks for the link. The narrator said the fifteen years that Phil Jones was talking about was too short a time frame to be “significant”. If that is the case, why do you write at 26, “you can doubt that land temps are increasing[?]” The fact is that there has been no statistically significant warming in the last 15 years yet CO2 emissions continue to increase dramatically. If you want to use a real time frame how about the current interglacial, the Holocene? The following graph illustrates the fact that it has been much warmer in the past ten thousand years then the present and yet CO2 levels were lower! Your CAGW hypothesis is falsified. There were no other forcings to account for the higher temperatures with lower CO2 levels then today. See http://biocab.org/HOLOCENE_WARMING_PERIODS.jpg

    as for your article on sea level rise, the satellites disagree with you http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ sorry if i don’t hold the “scientist guy on the web” and his pdf in the same esteem.

    Well, you have opened your mouth and inserted your foot, again! The professor is considered to be the world’s leading authority on sea level. Here is a graph showing tidal gauges from 1880 until 2000. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png There has been nothing but a consistent rise in sea levels in 120 years. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators/pdfs/ClimateIndicators_full.pdf “While absolute sea level has increased steadily overall, particularly in recent de- cades, regional trends vary, and absolute sea level has decreased in some places.”

    The only way sea levels can rise is for either the oceans to warm or a lot of ice to melt. Antarctica contains 90 percent of the world’s ice and it just broke an all time record for total ice mass. BTW Dr. Morner has a new paper out on sea level rise. See http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/19/sea-level-rise-global-warming/

    and thanks for half the picture on sea ice – did you forget about the other half of the planet?

    You are such a popinjay and a dimwit! The other half of the Earth? Even if the Arctic Icecap melted it would not make a difference as it would not change sea level (Arrhenius Principle). The world has been much warmer earlier in the current interglacial and the Arctic was ice free. During the LIA it was much heavier. The Arctic’s ice thickness is influenced by the Arctic Oscillation (AO) and wind patterns, not a 0.7 degree temp rise in the last 150 years. The ice free North Pole is just another example of a CAGW alarmists prophecy which is failing to come to fruition.

    00

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    Mark:

    Mark @ 88:

    Sorry. No offense taken, just getting excited. I agree: seems too simple to me also to ask how the excess water is entering the oceans to raise sea levels faster than today, and where they think we see it happening, as retreating glaciers are viewed in the CAGW as a net loss of freshwater into the global land system, and surging glaciers are still the oddity they have been the last century or so. I’m open to correction.

    A point about cooling SST temperatures resulting in a “contraction” of the rise-rate. Tom Wigley’s 2006 paper looked to what effect temperature rise had on sea level rise. His JGR article suggested that for a sea temperature increase of 1K the sealevel would rise about 75mm. A cooling would, of course, be the inverse of that. I don’t know how deep the temperature increase was supposed to be, but clearly thinking that the entire basin would warm in the next lifetime or two would be more than foolish. The physics is quite simple. The key element is the depth of heating.

    00

  • #

    well:
    November 28th, 2010 at 7:24 am

    you support Idso’s low climate sensitivity but can’t justify why you ignore all others.

    Well, you must have been a captain in your last life as you indeed like going down with the ship (on the ship?). As Mr. Courtney has made perfectly and abundantly clear, Idso’s paper is based on empirical data. It has also been made absolutely clear to you that no one has successfully rebutted Idso’s paper. You have never been able to articulate why Idso is wrong. All you can do is “cut and paste” and hope that it sticks. It is not incumbent upon Mr. Courtney to consider papers that you link to. As the proponent of the CAGW hypothesis it is incumbent upon you to argue why Idso is wrong. Again, cutting and pasting links does not an argument make. Try forming an independent thought, if you can!

    00

  • #

    well:
    November 28th, 2010 at 7:32 am
    can you explain why you think the Argo height data, which is also limited by the infrequent number of times that it surfaces, is more accurate than the uninterrupted time-series data that the Jason-2 satellite provides?

    From http://gosic.org/goos/argo-program-overview.htm The Argo (with the help of Jason satellite data sets) systematically measures the physical state of the upper ocean. The data is assimilated in near real-time into computer models developed by project GODAE.

    Can you explain, Well, how ARGO utilizes data from the Jason-2 data? Have you compared the number of samples? Have you compared the accuracy/error margin? Did theJason-2 compensate for any possible Argo data potential adjustment for atmospheric pressure?

    If so, can you provide references, please? Well Well, can you?.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Can someone enlighten me a bit? How can tidal gages remain calibrated and accurate over so long a period as 1880 to the present? This bothers me particularly along the coast of California from San Diego to San Francisco. That’s earthquake city! And not all the movement in an earthquake is horizontal. But even without earthquakes some movement is going to happen over time. Solid ground is not really as solid as we’d like to think. Come to my place and I’ll show you all the cracks from the concrete slab moving little by little over time. I’ve given up patching them so often.

    What am I missing here?

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Doug Proctor @ 97:

    A point about cooling SST temperatures resulting in a “contraction” of the rise-rate. Tom Wigley’s 2006 paper looked to what effect temperature rise had on sea level rise. His JGR article suggested that for a sea temperature increase of 1K the sealevel would rise about 75mm. A cooling would, of course, be the inverse of that. I don’t know how deep the temperature increase was supposed to be, but clearly thinking that the entire basin would warm in the next lifetime or two would be more than foolish. The physics is quite simple. The key element is the depth of heating.

    Someone posted a link today where I found these graphics: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55_09anim_3m.gif
    Even without considering depth it would appear that the heat content is not stable. It also is odd to me that in the later years of record the arctic flashes red (extra heat) then white or blue fairly rapidly. Where did that heat go?

    If you like, take a look here: http://joannenova.com.au/2010/04/no-dr-glikson/#comments @ post 339 I have made a “back of the envelope” observation pertaining to sea levels. See if that is interesting to you. Also the entire thread is worth reading (IMHO).

    00

  • #

    @ Roy Hogue # 100

    What am I missing here?

    Nothing. You’re so fast that if there are any flies on you they’re paying rent! ;)

    How can tidal gages remain calibrated and accurate over so long a period as 1880 to the present?

    I am not sure. I really don’t see any of the variables changing over that period of time, though. You mentioned earthquakes in California. The main fault, The San Andreas, is a strike slip fault where the two plates move horizontally. If a subduction quake erupted along a shoreline then that could cause a change in the tidal gauges. I would hope that such an event would be considered and the gages calibrated by the amount the quake altered the altitude of the plate near the fault line .

    Time for another glass of Cabernet!

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    Roy@100; the simple answer is they can’t; this piece has a section at the end looking at faulty siting of sea level gauges:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/19/despite-popular-opinion-and-calls-to-action-the-maldives-is-not-being-overrun-by-sea-level-rise/#more-6338

    It would seem to me that a similar study to Watt’s surface temperature program could and should be done with sea level gauges.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Cohenite, do you have any reference that would demonstrate Jason 1 altimeter accuracy on solid earth? We know that the crust is also in motion and as Roy has hinted at, plates rise and fall. It would seem to me that if Jason 1 is that good we would have land measurement values to support the sea measurements.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Eddy @ 102

    Time for another glass of Cabernet!

    No problem, here it is Leinenkugel’s with a Pinot grigio chaser. :) good night to you!

    00

  • #
    val majkus

    You clever people who have much more scientific expertise than I do could you go to WUWT and solve Willis’ puzzle People Living in Glass Planets
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/
    I’m exhausted

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    MarkD; not particularly but there are a number of papers and articles dealing with GRACE and IGA which are peripheral to the point. All sorts of interesting things with satellite measurement can occur; I remember an exchange with Roy Spencer where he noted that his satellite temperature range went under the ice and he was being criticised by various AGW exponents for introducing a cooling bias in Antarctica temperature measurements until it was pointed out that the temperature of the ice was warmer than the immediate surface temperature.

    00

  • #
    Another Ian

    Enjoy – Seems to be a different message here

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/gut-it-out/

    00

  • #
    well

    Richard S Courtney @ 89

    liar. you ignore the other empirical-based calcs of climate sensitivty in this thread

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/what’s-the-harm-in-acting-anyway/

    and you do it again now.

    00

  • #
    well

    Mike Jowsey @ 80

    sure, what about it? and how does it disprove co2 forcing? you realise that the solar forcing aloone isn’t enough to explain the temp changes during this period?

    00

  • #
    well

    janama @ 84

    yeah good one, did you even bother to read the link?

    they say “During the 1990s many Norwegian glaciers advanced substanially. They represented a major discrepancy compared to the global pattern. After 2000, the Norwegian glaciers behave in accordance with the global pattern.”

    00

  • #
    well

    janama @ 90

    change subject? i am replying to the numerous posts that stemmed from your “doubt”.

    Jo repeats the claim that Argo data is hard to get hold of, even though it’s been pointed out on numerous occasions that it can be easily downloaded online.

    you haven’t answered my questions @ 87 – i’ll repeat them so you don’t get confused again.

    have you compared the number of samples? have you compared the accuracy/error margin? did the argo data undergo adjustment for atmospheric pressure?

    as eddy @ 99 points out, the Argo data is reliant upon the satellite you think is less accurate. yet you think they are somehow MORE accurate. strange logic you have!

    00

  • #
    well

    cohenite @ 95

    thanks for confirming my point, see my post in 26, “you can doubt that sea levels are rising.”

    excuse me for skipping any reference to andrew bolt as any kind of evidence.

    as for the finding “shows the surface ocean beneath rainfall-dominated regions has freshened, whereas ocean regions dominated by evaporation are saltier” – wow that is riveting stuff – who would have thought.

    00

  • #
    well

    eddy @ 96.

    you say you read and understand the vide link provided, although you appear biased against any statistics by the tone of your very first sentence.

    you then show you have no idea by repeating the same error as anyone looking at short term stats when you say “The fact is that there has been no statistically significant warming in the last 15 years yet CO2 emissions continue to increase dramatically.”

    thanks for also agreeing with me on sea levels. so they are rising, just as I said.

    then you also confirm your stupidity when you say “The other half of the Earth? Even if the Arctic Icecap melted it would not make a difference ”

    the ice in the Northern half of the planet is made up by much more than Artice sea ice. your words “You are such a popinjay and a dimwit!” describe you perfectly. ;)

    00

  • #

    well:
    November 28th, 2010 at 8:47 pm

    as eddy @ 99 points out, the Argo data is reliant upon the satellite you think is less accurate. yet you think they are somehow MORE accurate. strange logic you have!

    I “said” no such thing. I never wrote that the ARGO data is reliant on the Jason 2 satellite. Reread the quote you delusional twit!

    well:
    November 28th, 2010 at 8:47 pm

    they say “During the 1990s many Norwegian glaciers advanced substanially. They represented a major discrepancy compared to the global pattern. After 2000, the Norwegian glaciers behave in accordance with the global pattern.”

    Again with the endpoint fallacy. We exited the little ice age which is the coldest it has been during the current interglacial. It is perfectly natural for glaciers to melt. In fact, in the Alps they are finding evidence of medieval civilization as the glaciers retreat. Using your “logic” the worthies of old would have deduced that the world was headed back into an ice age during the LIA because the glaciers were increasing in mass. It is called a natural cycle.

    Besides being a lifeless troll you are a time bandit and a hypocrite to boot! You “demand” answers to your questions but won’t answer anybody else’s questions.Refer to my comment at 99.

    BTW, I wouldn’t bring up http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/what’s-the-harm-in-acting-anyway/ if I were you as you were intellectually gangster slapped around the site by Richard Courtney, et al. As usual you dodged every tough question while whining away about tangential minutia.

    Although I was writing about Bingi the statement applies to you, as well.

    I notice when you get your intellectual ass handed to you, you stop posting and then later reappear as if nothing ever happened! You then repeat the process over and over. One definition of insanity is to keep repeating the same course of action over and over and expecting different results. Do you ever get tired of being exposed as a fool and a troll? Is there no embarrassment you will not suffer?
    [Eddy, you have so nailed the way the anonymous trolls work. They have to remain anonymous because no real person could handle the shame of being repeatedly exposed as a fool. (Hence, the bolding is mine). -- JN]

    00

  • #
    cohenite

    well@113; that is a rather disingenuous post; I do not doubt that sea levels are rising but they are rising at a REDUCED rate contrary to AGW predictions; the reason I linked to my post at Bolt was that it discussed 2 definitive papers by Cazenave and Ablain dealing with various methods of sea level measurement and various determining factors of sea level increase; the conclusions of these papers contradict AGW; you should go back and read it; it was taylored for AGW believer comprehension.

    As for the CSIRO paper and the extraordinary conclusion: “shows the surface ocean beneath rainfall-dominated regions has freshened, whereas ocean regions dominated by evaporation are saltier”, I was taking the piss; I guess because you AGW acolytes are so used to such low standards that you missed that.

    00

  • #
    Tim

    The invasion of the paid trolls is making itself known here. These people stand out like the proverbials. They seem to have a ‘research’ department behind them with the ‘answers’, and are readily identifiable by their own crass ad-homonem comments, bad grammatical literacy and uneducated “yeah good one” language. I have seen these paid invaders on other sites, and I feel sorry for them.

    They have been captured by the social engineers as paid robots, and will be discarded when no longer needed.

    Go get a real job, guys.

    00

  • #

    well:
    November 28th, 2010 at 9:08 pm

    eddy @ 96.
    you say you read and understand the vide link provided, although you appear biased against any statistics by the tone of your very first sentence.
    you then show you have no idea by repeating the same error as anyone looking at short term stats when you say “The fact is that there has been no statistically significant warming in the last 15 years yet CO2 emissions continue to increase dramatically.”
    thanks for also agreeing with me on sea levels. so they are rising, just as I said.
    then you also confirm your stupidity when you say “The other half of the Earth? Even if the Arctic Icecap melted it would not make a difference ”
    the ice in the Northern half of the planet is made up by much more than Artice sea ice.

    you say you read and understand the vide link provided, although you appear biased against any statistics by the tone of your very first sentence.

    Actually, I didn’t “read” the video, I watched it. My first sentence, “Statistics don’t lie but liars use statistics” was directed at you. In other words, I am calling you a liar and a troll. Perhaps I am being too harsh for in order to lie you would need to form an intent. Perhaps your mental illness prevents you from doing so?

    you then show you have no idea by repeating the same error as anyone looking at short term stats when you say…

    And what error would that be? You talk about land temps rising and then you complain and link to a video where the narrator says that 15 years is too short a period of time thus sticking your foot in your mouth even deeper. I supplied you with a link that shows that the temps were warmer and CO2 levels were lower during various periods of this interglacial and your response? NOTHING, because you can’t! Your hypothesis is falsified! Once someone throws the cold water of logic on your argument you start melting, melting!

    thanks for also agreeing with me on sea levels. so they are rising, just as I said.

    I would also agree that the sun rises in the morning, so what? Sea levels have been rising since the end of the Pleistocene ice age and will continue to do so until the current interglacial ends. The graph that I linked to shows no change in the rate of sea levels rising. If CAGW were real we would see accelerated melting and sea levels rising at a faster rate. We do not and they are not . Again, your hypothesis is falsified!

    “The other half of the Earth? Even if the Arctic Icecap melted it would not make a difference ”
    the ice in the Northern half of the planet is made up by much more than Artice sea ice.

    “Artice” sea ice? Well, Greenland and Antarctica contain over 98% of the world’s ice (on land). The ice at the North Pole floats in water. When ice melts it contracts enough to equal the amount of ice that was protruding from the water. Hence, no sea level gain when it melts. You should have googled “arrhenius principle” before submitting your comment and embarrassing yourself further. Yes, I know that the northern half of the planet is made of more than Arctic sea ice, so what? Do you want to chat about the aurora borealis or perhaps caribou? Read before you submit, twit!

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    cohenite, Eddy and others

    We recently had a look at sea levels at Kiribati because that was the topical scary story in NZ with Cancun around the corner.

    I discovered that sea level measurements for specific locations can be obtained from the Interactive Wizard at the Colorado University site.

    http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

    I retrieved the data in the link below for Kiribati showing falling levels over the last year consistent with OHC, UNISYS and the South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project (SPSLCMP) plots in the post at the same link.

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/11/kiribati-sinking-beneath-waves-again/#comment-30111

    The “sea level rising at Kiribati” proponents cling to the long-term trend with the pivot point starting at 1993 but recent data definitely shows a fall in levels at Kiribati consistent with the other metrics that yields a short-term negative trend but only a reduced rate in the long-term trend as you say.

    I see the question being: is this just short-term La Nina or has there been enough thermal momentum in the oceans heat loss to produce a longer term cool phase in ocean and atmosphere?

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Hi everyone, and a special hi to my mate Eddy.

    This thread needs to lighten up a little. To that end I offer the following link at Chifios titled GUT IT OUT

    For my own part I offer the following…

    In the next thread about the Finnish translation, i couldn’t help BUT notice the Fin word “iLMASTOSKEPTICON”
    So our side can be called “SKEPTICONS” and the other mob…………. “DECEPTICONS”
    BOOM BOOM

    00

  • #
    John Brookes

    Why is it, that when I read the articles and comments here, the phrase “barbarians at the gate” comes to mind? Images of the declining Roman empire being brought down by Vandals and Huns. A plunging into a new dark age. The good works of honest hard working idealistic scientists brought down by people who live in a totally different world to me.

    Strangely enough, just as the “skeptics” are hacking at the edifice from the outside, the post-modernists are chipping away at the rational world from the inside. The wizards of modern finance are destabilising everything, and the wonders of democracy and the mass media means we get the governments we deserve.

    Anyway, while we (the west) decline, the Chinese won’t make the same mistakes. I’m glad I lived now. The world may not be as nice a place in 30 years.

    Oh, and Eddy, don’t bother with the insults.

    00

  • #
    John Smith

    Well it looks like the conspiracy truthers have been completely vindicated in that man-made global warming really is a trojan horse for the New World Order.
    I suspect Adolf Rothschild (aka Adolf Hitler) is rolling in his grave right now for not getting this far into controlling the whole world.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Eddy @102,

    Thanks! I’ll have to do some research but I know that earthquakes can and do have vertical movement components. I’ll get back to you on it.

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Brookes @ 121:

    …..idealistic scientists…..

    Very interesting choice of words John………

    You might be surprised that I agree with paragraphs 2 and 3. The exception being the intended meaning of “edifice”.

    I think you might be closer to us skeptics than you realize. All you need to get a handle on is that pesky “different world to you”.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    John Brookes @121

    What are you doing to help the situation?

    Have you become politically active?

    Have you provided financial support (no matter how large or small) to better candidates for office — even supporting candidates you can’t vote for if you think they are a better choice than their opponents?

    Have you been outspoken among your friends and peers about the problems and the need for action?

    Have you communicated your concerns to your elected representatives?

    These are all things that the rest of us do. Go thou and do likewise.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Eddy,

    Here are two links to the 1952 quake. A large uplift of four feet occurred in the Kern County quake near Tehachapi as I remembered.

    The first link has some interesting pictures, including a two foot uplift and a railroad tunnel with the track bent under, not into the tunnel wall, indicating that the wall was lifted up so the rail could move under it then dropped back down. The rail is continuous under the tunnel wall.

    The second one is very interesting for the fact that at the Ventura, CA coastline there is evidence of uplift as much as 8 -10 MM/yr over a very long time.

    I’ll leave you to read it all. But I think this makes my case.

    http://www.scec.org/education/020721kern.html

    https://profile.usgs.gov/myscience/upload_folder/ci2010Jun181508194296660.pdf

    An aftershock of the 1994 Northridge quake lifted me vertically and then dropped me back down again. It was so violent you couldn’t miss it.

    Cohenite at 103 points out even better reasons to doubt the long term accuracy of tide gages.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Well:

    At #109 you demonstrate why you lie so often: you do not know what a lie is.

    At #109 you say to me:

    liar. you ignore the other empirical-based calcs of climate sensitivty in this thread

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/what’s-the-harm-in-acting-anyway/

    and you do it again now.

    For your information, to lie is to deliberately make a statement when knowing the statement is a falsehood.

    I have not lied but your claim that I have is a demonstrable lie.

    In the link you cite I provided several clear statements that I do not ignore and I have not ignored the ridiculously high calculated values of climate sensitivity. For example, at #118 I wrote this:

    Bingi:

    At #35 you say:

    “That paper by Idso is dated 1998.

    The science has moved on from then. Do try and keep up.”

    Yes, Idso’s paper is from 1998. But, no, it remains unchallenged so the science has NOT moved on since then. Simply, Idso’s determination of the climate sensitivity is correct (I know that because I have kept up).

    The papers you cite are theoretical derivations. If they indicate climate sensitivity greater than the empirical results obtained by Idso then that proves the theories they use are wrong.

    It is is a basic principle of science that indications of a theory which fail to match empirical data disprove the theory.
    And this disproof remains true unless and until an error in the empirical data is determined.
    Nobody has found any fault in the paper by Idso snr.

    And it is pure pseudoscience to accept indications of a theory as having any validity when those indications disagree with empirical data.

    You seem to think information degrades with age. No, it does not! Its validity is determined by its ability to withstand challenge. Idso’s work has withstood all challenge and, therefore, is as valid as the much older work of Galileo on orbital mechanics (and for the same reason).

    Richard

    Rejecting theoretically calculated values because they are denied by empirical data is not “ignoring” the rejected data. The rejection is called the scientific method.

    Richard

    00

  • #

    @ John Brooks #121

    Oh, and Eddy, don’t bother with the insults

    .

    John, welcome back! I am sure your apology to Jo was both profuse and profound. After all, you are such a class act. BTW, could you provide a link to your apology?

    00

  • #

    @ Roy Hogue

    You would think if there was an earthquake they would compensate for the change in altitude. Then again, what I know about tidal gauges stems from checking the surf report in the morning to see if the tide was conducive to good surf! ;)

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    John Brookes:
    November 29th, 2010 at 12:56 am

    Why is it, that when I read the articles and comments here, the phrase “barbarians at the gate” comes to mind?

    John don’t be so negative. The crux of the (your) problem is that you have no faith in the human species. Yes this is an ugly world but it’s the only one we’ve got, and all things considered we’ve done a great job. And once China et al catches up to the rest of us, the world will be a better place, (at least in the environmental sense).

    I think sometimes you warmists forget that us humans aren’t the only species that is territorial, that exploits it’s surroundings etc. Mother nature has lived thru worse.
    Come to think of it, the only species that behaves differently to us are insects, and living like insects really describes very well how greenies want us to live, in a perfect communal (communist) way. Think about it. Do you want us to live like insects John?

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Eddy, did you follow my Link?

    http://leinie.com/big-eddy-russian-imperial-stout.html

    Bold but balanced, robust, distinctive!

    It’s you! :)

    00

  • #

    Thanks Mark D. for the link! The name has a nice ring to it. The Russian River Brewing Company, just down the street from my house, has 4 of the top 25 beers on the planet! See http://www.russianriverbrewing.com/

    Hey Baah, good to see you post and thanks for the link.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    well: # 66

    good to see people here still get confused between local weather and global climate

    I agree. People do definitely get confused between local weather and global climate, and I have had trouble understanding it, and explaining it myself.

    Why don’t you give us your understanding of the difference? I am sure that would be helpful to me, and perhaps some others as well.

    You see, I have trouble understanding how local is “local”? Is it a continent, a country, a town, or my back yard? And how global is global? Is it both hemispheres together, or both hemispheres separately? I ask that, because I have been told that the cyclic air patterns don’t cross the equator – something to do with the earth’s spin. And does it include all of the atmosphere, or only up to a certain height or gas density? And does it encompass the earth’s relationship with the sun? And what about the frequency spectrum? Does it encompass the full range of frequencies from ultra low frequencies to supra high frequencies, or just the frequency band around infrared? Or perhaps some other frequency band?

    As you can see, there is a lot I don’t know. So I would be really grateful if you could take the time to answer these questions. Thanks in advance.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    John Brookes: (@121)

    November 29th, 2010 at 12:56 am

    Why is it, that when I read the articles and comments here, the phrase “barbarians at the gate” comes to mind? Images of the declining Roman empire being brought down by Vandals and Huns. A plunging into a new dark age. The good works of honest hard working idealistic scientists brought down by people who live in a totally different world to me.

    So, it’s “official”: John has no arguments left to make other than nostalgia for lost illusions.

    If you’re losing your illusions, it may be that we are convincing you — there is a reason why you can’t come up with anything logical to counter us. Man up and face the truth — posting blubbering B.S. like this is painful to watch.

    Unfortunately, I think you’ll choose to be a mindless tool for the rest of your life instead.

    00

  • #
    well

    eddy @ 98

    Idso’s paper may well be based on empirical data, but Richard selects this one over others studies soley for this reason. what he fails to do is explain why he neglects other studies of climate sensitivity showing higher values that are also based on empirical data.

    Richard continues to lie.

    00

  • #
    well

    eddy @ 99

    Argo consists of 3,239 floats, cycling to the surface every 10 days. That 324 samples per day unevenly spread around the planet.

    the Jason-2 satellite will take 20 orbital altitude measurements per second; that equates 1,728,000 per day.

    324 vs 1,728,000

    for some bizzarre reason you think the 324 samples is much better than 1,728,000.

    keep doubting.

    as for your comment, “Did the Jason-2 compensate for any possible Argo data potential adjustment for atmospheric pressure?” what the heck are you talking about?

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    To show that this kind of behaviour by Oreskes et al isn’t unique, click over to Doug L Hoffmans blog
    The Resilient Earth
    Google CEO Eric Schmidt and that wack job James ‘Avatar” Cameron have been musing whilst sitting on each others laps.

    A quick extract..

    “There are people who in my view criminally doubt some of the science,” Schmidt stated, to which Cameron quickly added “I agree, criminally, I agree with that.”

    These two bozos made their fortunes on the back of open free societies, how quickly they forget.

    00

  • #
    well

    cohenite @ 103

    funny how you earlier use sea level data to support your own argument, then later try to discredit it using a WUWT article.

    00

  • #
    well

    eddy @ 115

    yeah you did in 99 “The Argo (with the help of Jason satellite data sets) systematically measures the physical state of the upper ocean.”

    re: Norwegian glaciers, so you agree they are declining – this is not what janama is saying.

    you “doubters” seem to contradict each other a lot. “sea level not rising”, “yes it is but not by much”. “glaciers are increasing”, “no they’re not but they never have been”

    it just stinks of desperation to disprove anything.

    as for your “JN approved” post .. try applying that to Richard and his inability to answer the question on climate sensitivity. he supports Idso’s low climate sensitivity but can’t justify why you ignore all others.

    00

  • #
    well

    cohenite @ 116

    funny that you seem to be the on flinging the insults around but you can’t even your link right – check again.

    00

  • #
    well

    tim @ 117

    prove to me that i am being paid for this. instant fail for you!

    but go ahead – keep doubting

    00

  • #
    well

    eddy @ 118

    you say “I am calling you a liar and a troll.” – i know you do, it makes you feel better when logic fails.

    you say “I supplied you with a link that shows that the temps were warmer and CO2 levels were lower during various periods of this interglacial and your response? NOTHING”, but you must have your “glasses of doubt” on because i responded to the subject of interglacials in post 110. wake up man. the Milankovitch cycles causing warming, which causes GHGs to be released which causes more warming. it’s the lag Nova doesn’t get.

    you say “Sea levels have been rising since the end of the Pleistocene ice age and will continue to do so until the current interglacial ends.” – and yet earlier in this thread you were arguing for the Argo data showing a decline in sea level – make up your mind!

    re: sea ice land ice

    @29 you posted Antarctic sea ice. I reminded you that there is another half to the planet. if you look at global sea ice, it is declining. if you wish to focus on Antarctic sea ice then it is gaining for different reasons http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100816154958.htm

    now you wish to change that to a discussion of whether sea ice adds to sea levels. fine ok, i never said that they would. what was that you said about “Read before you submit, twit!”?

    00

  • #
    well

    Richard S Courtney @ 127

    still avoiding the question hey liar? weaving as much as you can instead of addressing the question at hand.

    in this thread http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/what’s-the-harm-in-acting-anyway/ climate sensitivity studies using empirical data were presented (posts 12 and again in 300)

    the direct links are:

    http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/papers-on-climate-sensitivity-estimates/
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-intermediate.htm

    you continue to ignore them and promote Idso as the only truth without doubt – post 118 where you say “Simply, Idso’s determination of the climate sensitivity is correct (I know that because I have kept up)”.

    you now say you don’t ignore them – that is a lie.

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    I’ve been following the debate between Eddy, Richard and Well, though I’ve refrained from commenting.

    I can tell you one thing Well, Richard S Courtney is NOT a liar. I’d bet London to a brick that that man has more integrity and honesty in his little finger nail than you’d know what to do with.
    p.s. 324 vs 1,728,000??? Ask HarryReadMe of Climategate fame about “weight of numbers” lol

    p.p.s It’s not easy for people like Idso to get papers published. On the other hand, if by “other studies” you’re refering to papers by the “team” who review each other (so they tell us in the emails) I’d take Idso anyday and everyday.

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    Well says

    Milankovitch cycles causing warming

    This is yet another oft repeated meme.

    So pray tell Well, how much warming did/does Milankovitch cycles cause? What degree of warming is required to release CO2 into the atmosphere? How much is/was released? Does this Milankovitch warming manifest itself globally or regionally?

    I suggest that this “Milankovitch kicks things off” is yet another made up story when warmists have NO ANSWER.

    00

  • #
    well

    Rereke Whaakaro @ 133

    there are plenty of websites that already explain the difference rather well.

    http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=difference+climate+weather&meta=&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

    but you’re pretty dumb if you expect me to waste time on explanations for your other numerous and irrelevant questions.

    but thanks for acknowledging that you don’t know the difference between weather and climate.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    Seems someone is back after crack rehab.

    Some reading for the “crackhead” here. One day “well” might realise it was never about science at all, though I doubt it.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Well:

    You are incorrigible. At #135 you write:

    Idso’s paper may well be based on empirical data, but Richard selects this one over others studies soley for this reason. what he fails to do is explain why he neglects other studies of climate sensitivity showing higher values that are also based on empirical data.

    Richard continues to lie.

    And at #143 you write to me:

    still avoiding the question hey liar? weaving as much as you can instead of addressing the question at hand.

    in this thread http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/what’s-the-harm-in-acting-anyway/ climate sensitivity studies using empirical data were presented (posts 12 and again in 300)

    the direct links are:

    http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/papers-on-climate-sensitivity-estimates/
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-intermediate.htm

    you continue to ignore them and promote Idso as the only truth without doubt – post 118 where you say “Simply, Idso’s determination of the climate sensitivity is correct (I know that because I have kept up)”.

    you now say you don’t ignore them – that is a lie.

    Firstly, I have not avoided any questions as anybody can see reading the above. What questions are you claiming I avoided?

    Secondly, the papers you refer to are NOT of empirical estimates. They are model-derived estimates. Anybody can read that for themselves by using the links which you provide. It seems that you are as ignorant of what empiricism is as you are of what a lie is.

    Thirdly, I repeat that it is not “ignoring” estimates to reject them when they are denied by empirical data. Indeed, it is a consideration – NOT an ignoring – of the estimates to reject them because they are denied by empirical data.

    Fourthly, as Poptech pointed out (with references) there are several measurements by several people in the refereed literature which all confirm the low value of climate sensitivity determined by Idso.

    Please stop posting your nonsense. It is an embarrassment to you and responses to it waste my time but are required to refute your completely unfounded accusations that I have lied.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Baa Humbug

    One of the papers Well cites for climate sensitivity is Huybers (2010). I couldn’t stop laughing. Huybers, god bless his cotton socks, estimates climate sensitivity to be…wait for it…..1.9DegC -8.0DegC bwaaahaha

    My god man, how much did Huybers get in grants to get that wonderfully accurate range? 1.9-8.0 lol Take note, it’s Eight point zero, not eight point one or seven point nine, Huybers is soooo accurate, 1.9-8.0, he can narrow it down to one decimal point WITH THE 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL DON’T YA KNOW bwahhahaha

    What the hell, I can do better than that, My guess for climate sensitivity is -9.9 to +19.9 AT THE 100% CONFIDENCE LEVEL. I’m absolutely positively certain for sure sensitivity lies within that range lol

    Listen well here Well, if you genuinely truly wish to learn about climate sensitivity, DERIVED FROM ACTUAL, REAL OBSERVATIONAL DATA (not as modelled by a team of advocates) GO HERE
    Six (6) yes that’s SIX different ways to estimate climate sensitivity using IPCCs own numbers AND ALL ARRIVE AT THE SAME FIGURE. IDSOS’ FIGURE.
    And if you wish to understand why climate models cannot be relied upon (they have NOT been validated) read about it HERE
    So I’m with Richard on this one, I’ll take Idsos number over the IPCC political hacks anyday.

    00

  • #
    Rich

    Eddy Aruda at November 27th, 2010 at 3:55 am

    If I can be of further assistance please let me know.

    You could suggest how I could make my irony more evident …

    00

  • #

    Rich: #150
    November 30th, 2010 at 2:42 am

    I have a suggestion Rich. At the end of your post add /sarc off
    Shame about all those thumbs down ha?

    00

  • #
    BobC

    well @ 135:

    in this thread http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/what’s-the-harm-in-acting-anyway/ climate sensitivity studies using empirical data were presented (posts 12 and again in 300)

    the direct links are:

    http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/papers-on-climate-sensitivity-estimates/
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-intermediate.htm

    I have to agree with Richard that well seems not to know what empiricism is. Take Hansen’s 1993 paper (referenced in well’s second link) for example: Hansen does use (indirect) measurements of past ice age temperature and CO2 concentration — but then he simply assumes that the CO2 concentration causes the temperature change. With this assumption he then calculates a 3 deg sensitivity to doubled CO2.

    There is, of course, nothing empirical about Hansen’s assumption — it is simply his strongly held belief.

    For example: I might measure the correlation between the angle of my speedometer needle and the speed of my car — say I get 2 deg / mph. If I then assume that the movement of the needle is what makes the car go, I can easily calculate that moving the needle 90 degrees clockwise will cause my car to move at 45 mph — QED, proven by empirical measurement.

    Of course, if I do a real empirical test of my assumption, I will find my conclusions were nonsense — as are Hansen’s.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whaakaro

    Well # 146

    but you’re pretty dumb if you expect me to waste time on explanations for your other numerous and irrelevant questions.

    My degree of “dumbness” is never in question – I will freely admit that there is a whole lot of stuff that I don’t know. I was just probing to find out if we shared the same lack of knowledge. Apparently we do, because of your argument by avoidance.

    but [sic] thanks for acknowledging that you don’t know the difference between weather and climate.

    Well, I do perceive a significant difference in the characteristics of both:

    Weather is localised and short term, and can’t be predicted with any accuracy for more than a few days out.

    Whereas climate is global and long term and can apparently be predicted decades into the future with accuracy to tenths of a degree.

    Where I have a problem is that climate is also, by definition, made up of quanta of weather events, that are dispersed in space and time.

    What the political climate scientists therefore tell us is that: “If we consider enough unpredictable events, we can somehow algorithmically combine them into a highly predictable event”.

    Perhaps the solution lies in quantum mechanics? If it does, I would appreciate it if you could give us a quick overview of the maths involved, or better still, a reference in the peer reviewed literature that demonstrates the mathematics.

    You see, some of us can understand a little bit of theoretical physics, when pushed, and others of us are trying to learn, in order to overcome our dumbness.

    00

  • #
    bananabender

    Naomi Oreskes doesn’t seem to be concerned that Al Gore used to own a tobacco farm. She also doesn’t have a problem with Rajendra Pachauri being a director of oil exploration company GloriOil.

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    well:
    November 29th, 2010 at 8:21 pm

    eddy @ 98
    Idso’s paper may well be based on empirical data, but Richard selects this one over others studies soley for this reason. what he fails to do is explain why he neglects other studies of climate sensitivity showing higher values that are also based on empirical data.

    Richard continues to lie.

    So, you are saying that Richard Courtney “accepts” papers that are based on empirical data but not papers based on GIGO modeling? perhaps you can cite a paper based on empirical evidence that refuted Idso? How about you cite a rebuttal to Idso that was not rebutted by Idso, et al? Wow! Richard adheres to the scientific method and is a true scientists! No wonder you have a problem with Richard as he bursts your fantasy bubble and makes you look like the abysmal failure that you are! BTW, the only one caught lying on this thread is you, well!

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    well:
    November 29th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
    eddy @ 118
    you say “I am calling you a liar and a troll.” – i know you do, it makes you feel better when logic fails.
    you say “I supplied you with a link that shows that the temps were warmer and CO2 levels were lower during various periods of this interglacial and your response? NOTHING”, but you must have your “glasses of doubt” on because i responded to the subject of interglacials in post 110.

    Really? Your post at 110.

    well:
    November 28th, 2010 at 8:36 pm
    Mike Jowsey @ 80
    sure, what about it? and how does it disprove co2 forcing? you realise that the solar forcing aloone isn’t enough to explain the temp changes during this period?

    Argumentum ad ignorantiam, an appeal to ignorance. Well does not know what else could have “explained the temp changes.”

    Yours was, as usual, a feeble response to another poster. Mike had cited the Vostok ice core records and this is the best you could do? The ice core records show that CO2 levels always follow and never precede temp increases. This is just another falsification of the CAGW hypothesis.

    I supplied you with a link showing a graph of temperatures during the current interglacial. The graph shows that temperatures have been higher while CO2 levels were lower. What forcing(s) caused the higher temperatures during the Holocene maximum, the medieval warm period, the Minoan warm period, etc.? We know it was not CO2 levels as they were lower than todays level.

    you say “Sea levels have been rising since the end of the Pleistocene ice age and will continue to do so until the current interglacial ends.” – and yet earlier in this thread you were arguing for the Argo data showing a decline in sea level – make up your mind!

    Another self inflicted wound by well! You are a liar and you have employed a straw man. I never wrote that the ARGO data shows a decline in sea levels. Perhaps you can cite the comment where I did so?

    Here is the exchange at #96

    I quoted you:

    as for your article on sea level rise, the satellites disagree with you http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ sorry if i don’t hold the “scientist guy on the web” and his pdf in the same esteem.

    And I retorted:

    Well, you have opened your mouth and inserted your foot, again! The professor is considered to be the world’s leading authority on sea level. Here is a graph showing tidal gauges from 1880 until 2000. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png There has been nothing but a consistent rise in sea levels in 120 years. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators/pdfs/ClimateIndicators_full.pdf “While absolute sea level has increased steadily overall, particularly in recent de- cades, regional trends vary, and absolute sea level has decreased in some places.”

    @29 you posted Antarctic sea ice. I reminded you that there is another half to the planet. if you look at global sea ice, it is declining. if you wish to focus on Antarctic sea ice then it is gaining for different reasons http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100816154958.htm
    now you wish to change that to a discussion of whether sea ice adds to sea levels. fine ok, i never said that they would.

    And I never said that you said they would! Care to cite the comment where I did?

    You wrote at 26:

    you can doubt that sea ice is declining at accelerating rates.
    you can doubt plants and animals are responding to a warming climate.
    you can doubt that sea levels are rising

    .

    I replied at 29

    Here is an article debunking the “rising sea level” contention http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202007/MornerInterview.pdf. Dr. Nils-Axel Morner is an expert on the subject.
    See this graph for Antarctic sea ice http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.south.jpg

    At 60 ypu opined:

    and thanks for half the picture on sea ice – did you forget about the other half of the planet?

    @96 I replied:

    You are such a popinjay and a dimwit! The other half of the Earth? Even if the Arctic Icecap melted it would not make a difference as it would not change sea level (Arrhenius Principle). The world has been much warmer earlier in the current interglacial and the Arctic was ice free. During the LIA it was much heavier. The Arctic’s ice thickness is influenced by the Arctic Oscillation (AO) and wind patterns, not a 0.7 degree temp rise in the last 150 years. The ice free North Pole is just another example of a CAGW alarmists prophecy which is failing to come to fruition.

    You never tire of embarrassing yourself, do you, well?

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    Eddy Aruda:
    November 28th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
    well:
    November 28th, 2010 at 8:47 pm
    as eddy @ 99 points out, the Argo data is reliant upon the satellite you think is less accurate. yet you think they are somehow MORE accurate. strange logic you have!
    I “said” no such thing. I never wrote that the ARGO data is reliant on the Jason 2 satellite. Reread the quote you delusional twit!

    well:
    November 29th, 2010 at 8:45 pm
    eddy @ 115
    yeah you did in 99 “The Argo (with the help of Jason satellite data sets) systematically measures the physical state of the upper ocean.”

    Are you really that stupid? Fist of all, it was a quote of someone else! Perhaps you should have said that I quoted someone? Second, just because the ARGO buoys utilize the satellites for calibration purposes does not mean that the ARGO buoys are reliant on the Jason-2 satellite for their data. If the ARGO data was “reliant” on the Jason-2 data then the ARGO data would be redundant, wouldn’t it?

    You are an embarrassment to al trolls!

    00

  • #
    Bob Malloy

    Roy Hogue: @77
    November 28th, 2010 at 3:22 am

    Bob Malloy,

    My comment is here with some follow-on.

    Only one thing to be said, If I were a fisherman Roy, I’d want you baiting my hook, I don’t think I’d ever go home without a feed.

    00

  • #

    Whooo! What a fun post and thread.
    As is usual with scientists trying to understand ‘the cons’ – and I certainly don’t call fascists ‘left’ – the Logical Fallacies are mindboggling.
    And so they are – which is exactly the point.

    I’m not a scientist at all, just a fellow who has followed the news for a while and was getting p.o.’d about a seemingly unrelated topic…and did an extensive Search around it.

    My personal ‘story’ started with that search, as I have a copy of a sci-fi novel here at home where Larry Niven predicates a new Ice Age as happening as Earth’s technological base collapses. That and results tying in geopolitics made further and better inquiry inevitable – and Dr. John v. Kampen, a science writer over in Andalusia,Spain immediately started adding fuel to the fire.

    I’m not going to run an epistle here. In my Topical Index ‘Climate in Contention’ is my ongoing file of the brouhaha which has lies, distraction and misdirection coming from every direction. Perception Alteration outlines the mind game perpetrated on the populace. And the new subsection including foreign policy shows how that is institutional.

    And of course Wikileaks is the talk of the day, although I am already receiving serious counterproposals that it’s another disinformation scam.

    For reasons that will become obvious if you scan my pixellations – I have to say that’s worth thinking about. The Vet’s Voice articles are perhaps the most intriguing.

    Opit’s LinkFest! http://opitslinkfest.blogspot.com
    http://my.opera.com/oldephartte/links

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Bob @158,

    Thanks for the complement. If you’re sure of your points and stick to your guns they can’t do much. But there are a couple of real basket cases over there.

    00

  • #
    well

    Baa Humbug @ 144

    you say “I’d take Idso anyday and everyday.”

    i bet you would, and you’d probably take Richard too.

    of course take anything except the evidence shwoing a higher sensitivity value is more likely.

    you say “324 vs 1,728,000??? Ask HarryReadMe of Climategate fame about “weight of numbers” lol”

    so you’re will to accept Argo height data, which is only a byline product of its main purpose, over the Jason-2 satellite data which was specifically built to measure the height of the ocean? feel free to explain why the 324 / day figures are more reliable than the 1,728,000 / day.

    00

  • #
    well

    Baa Humbug @ 145

    you say “This is yet another oft repeated meme.”

    you should have paid more attention to previous threads.

    Nova posted the 800 peer reviewed papers, http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html , from that you can read “Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record”, where they cite “In conclusion, a solar change might significantly alter climate. It might trigger several climate feedbacks and alter the GHG (H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.) concentration, as 420,000 years of Antarctic ice core data would also suggest [Petit et al., 1999].”

    that’s whats funny about you guys contradicting each other.

    of course if you want some research on the matter from somewhere other than the anti-AGW it’s pretty easy to find.

    http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=antarctic+ice+core+feedback&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

    feel free to “doubt” them too.

    00

  • #
    well

    Richard S Courtney @ 148

    yes you do continue to avoid the question.

    follow the links and then search for the word “empirical” – you can do that right? [snip]

    for a start, try answering TWinkler @ 300 – Idos performs localised short term studies that don’t account for the response of the whole planet.

    if you approve of Poptech’s references, then you also approve of models, but only sometimes if they agree with your low sensitivity. you’re a bit all over the place hey Richard.

    00

  • #
    well

    Baa Humbug @ 149

    re: Huybers – that’s one of many studies and good on him for not pretending there’s more accuracy than there actually is – unlike Idso/Richard – they know it EXACTLY and damn all others that pretend there is uncertainty. what was it you said “bwahhahaha”.

    you say “if you genuinely truly wish to learn about climate sensitivity, DERIVED FROM ACTUAL, REAL OBSERVATIONAL DATA … GO HERE” … HA – to another website. really, the truth is held on a website is it – forget all the peer-reviewed science, we should just read what some guy on the internet thinks and swallow that without question. is John Daly a climate scientist and what scientific journal publications has he produced? Nope and nothing is the answer – just another guy giving his opinion.

    oh and looking at http://www.john-daly.com/ he argues against sea level rise based on one reading of mean sea level at one location vs a photo taken at low tide. this is the quality of hiw work? this is who you present as an expert? lol

    00

  • #
    well

    BobC @ 152

    so lets apply your same standard of logic to Idso. he looks at the atmospheric dust in Arizona and assumes it affects the temperature.

    well done BobC, you just defeated all of Richards/Idso’s evidence too.

    personally I wouldn’t assume either Idso or Hansen make an assumption.

    00

  • #
    well

    Rereke Whaakaro @ 153

    you say “You see, some of us can understand a little bit of theoretical physics, when pushed, and others of us are trying to learn, in order to overcome our dumbness.”

    and some overestimate their own ability – where is George these days? i wonder how his publication is going?

    00

  • #
    well

    eddy @ 155

    see reply to Richard above.

    or better yet, tell me why you think Idos is right and all others wrong?

    00

  • #
    well

    eddy @ 156

    see above post to Baa Humbug.

    you say “We know it was not CO2 levels as they were lower than todays level. ” .. so name one climate scientist that thinks CO2 alone is responsible.

    you say “I never wrote that the ARGO data shows a decline in sea levels.”. in post 96 you link to a fox news article that cites the Heartland Institute (oh gee ain’t we full of credibility!) that the “sea level isn’t rising at all”. in post 99 you supported the Argo-based opinion of janama@64 that also showed no sea level rise. now you realise what a dumb position it was you try to squirm out it – ha.

    you say “And I never said that you said they would! Care to cite the comment where I did?”. As stated before, your post 118 when you tried changing the subject and said “The ice at the North Pole floats in water. When ice melts it contracts enough to equal the amount of ice that was protruding from the water.”.

    you say “I replied at 29″ .. an “interview hosted on a website” vs Jason-2 data – I’ll go the satellite data thanks. and again you promote a graph of only southern sea ice. how dumb are you to continue repeating the same mistake? try global http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

    you say “@96 I replied:” – so what, you fail to show how sea level is not rising. you fail to show how sea ice is not declining, you get distracted and go off about the irrelevant relationship between sea ice and sea levels. try sticking to the topic.

    00

  • #
    well

    eddy @ 157

    you say “Fist of all, it was a quote of someone else!” – thinking of your sweetheart Richard again are you?

    you say “Perhaps you should have said that I quoted someone?” – i said what post it was, you can easily see it was someone else you were supporting after all you’re the one who quoted them!

    you say “Second, just because the ARGO buoys utilize the satellites for calibration purposes does not mean that the ARGO buoys are reliant on the Jason-2 satellite for their data.” lol … have another think about that.

    you say “the ARGO data was “reliant” on the Jason-2 data then the ARGO data would be redundant, wouldn’t it?” … starting to catch on now aren’t you. i think one more step and you’ll be there.

    the Argo’s primary task is to capture data about the oceans as it dives deep below it. tracking their position when they surface is necessary to monitor what part fo the ocean they are measuring; they use the satellite data to do this. the primary purpose of the Jason-2 satellite is to measure the ocean height.

    that’s the funny thing about you guys. you jumped at the chance to show how Argo data might show a decline in sea level, without bothering to actually perform a sanity check first – in the end you not only look stupid for having done so, but it also exposed your lack of scientific method.

    00

  • #
    Mark

    There’s a crack supplier somewhere in the world who’s made a good living tonight.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    well,

    If Jo had a prize for the most consecutive posts on one thread you would walk off with it without a doubt. Amazing!

    00

  • #

    well: #161
    December 1st, 2010 at 8:44 pm

    of course take anything except the evidence shwoing a higher sensitivity value is more likely.

    errr no, I’ll consider any study using empirical data, just like the ones I cited, as opposed to computer models input with preconceived assumptions just like the ones you cited.
    Speaking of assumptions, you’re making an ass of yourself but you are entertaining.

    #162

    “In conclusion, a solar change might significantly alter climate. It might trigger several climate feedbacks and alter the GHG (H2O, CO2, CH4, etc.) concentration,

    Might doesn’t make right. And you didn’t even attempt to answer my questions which i will ask again..

    So pray tell Well, how much warming did/does Milankovitch cycles cause? What degree of warming is required to release CO2 into the atmosphere? How much is/was released? Does this Milankovitch warming manifest itself globally or regionally?

    So, Well, you got the knowledge and/or the MITE to answer or are you just trolling mmmmmm?

    #164

    HA – to another website. really, the truth is held on a website is it

    I don’t recall you sending anybody hardcopy or a street address to go to, YOU ALSO CITED WEBSITES for the info you wished to convey. That’s how blogs work don’t you know lol
    But I digress. So tell me, do you have any constructive comments/criticisms of the paper I cited? It details 6 different ways to derive climate sensitivity USING OBSERVATIONAL DATA. Any comments about the results? or just some smart arse remarks about a man who passed away 6 years ago. You’re showing good troll form to all those who are reading this. (and I’ll bet Eddy and Richard and Bob and Rereke are laughing, you making a clown of yourself and all :)

    But I do apreciate your efforts here Well, just the other day I was telling the other commentors how much I missed our resident troll MattB and then lo and behold you arrive. How lucky can I get? I don’t miss out on my regular exercise intellectually pummelling lightweight trolls like you. So welcome and I hope you stay a while.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    (not so) well engages in “drive-by argument” — he tosses off a smart dumb—ass comment or two and races on.

    Slow down a moment, welly boy, and let us know what the evidence is that proves Humans can control the climate by shutting down fossil fuel use.

    Or have you forgotten what this is all about?

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Well:

    At #163 you again claim I am avoiding a question.

    I have repeatedly said I have not avoided any question and I have repeatedly asked you what question you think I am avoiding.

    But all you do is say

    yes you do continue to avoid the question.

    What question!? There is no such question. You are making it up.

    Richard

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Baa, Bob, Richard,

    I love it! If nothing else the entertainment value of this thread has gone up remarkably since Well arrived. You guys have nailed his sorry carcass to the wall over and over but still he trudges on like a little drone. He could almost be a computer program as Mark D. suggested to me about some at Deltoid. Are you a computer, Well? You just repeat the same program over and over. I’m suspicious.

    Baa, your sense of humor beats mine by 10 times. I’m gonna have to take lessons from you!

    00

  • #

    Well,

    I keep waiting for the shoe to drop.To read of your new post with details of at least one published “peer reviewed” science paper,that disputes the Isdo paper.

    Just one that uses real data and NOT one based on climate models.

    Why is that too hard for you to produce?

    But alas all I see are prevaricating replies to Richard Courtney,who has all along posted honest replies to you.

    It appears to me that you have NOTHING to sell but B.S.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Opit @ 159:

    Scanned some of your links. This one in particular caught my interest:

    It wasn’t until I left America that I started to realize how badly the American plutocrat owned media lies to the American people through its disinformation campaign.
    Well today for a span of at least this one Daily Kos diary, you will get to see what the American plutocrat owned media never wants you to see, and that is how Europe in particular and the world in general has come to see America as a country in decline, whose people are so badly misinformed by the media, they actually don’t realize that America is the only major industrialized nation in the world that by right of law does not offer universal medical access, paid sick leave, paid maternity leave and paid annual leave.

    1) I agree that the Main Stream Media often engages in disinformation (like about AGW). That is why so many Americans are applying due diligence and getting information from multiple uncontrolled sources (like this blog, for instance).

    2) About no universal access to medical care: It’s the Europeans that are misinformed by their media into believing this. If they would take a lesson from the growing number of Americans who are diversifying their information sources, they would realize they are being lied to. I have helped haul injured Europeans out of the Colorado back country who expected to be billed 10′s of 1000′s of $’s for the service, only to be shocked mute when they found out the service was free, as is medical services to anyone, without resources, who shows up at a hospital. If they collapse in a public place, the transport to the hospital is also free. (These hospital emergency rooms, BTY, are open 24-7; Which is more than you can say for a lot of the “free” services in Europe.)

    It’s true: This is not the most efficient way to provide universal medical access. The current argument in the US is about how to provide universal access — not whether to do so. I would bet that >90% of those “informed” Europeans don’t have a clue about this.

    3) As to whether it is America or Europe that’s “in decline”: Let’s wait and see.

    (BTY: Michelle Obama’s extremely high-paying job, before the election, involved figuring out ways to dump “free” patients onto other hospitals. Nice.)

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    Well, you need the help of a competent mental health professional and you need it NOW!

    well:
    December 1st, 2010 at 8:59 pm
    eddy @ 155
    see reply to Richard above.
    or better yet, tell me why you think Idos is right and all others wrong?

    No need to. See Baa humbug @ 172

    well:
    December 1st, 2010 at 9:03 pm
    eddy @ 156
    see above post to Baa Humbug.

    I did and you didn’t answer my questions @ 156! Once again, read my post and answer the questions, troll!

    you say “We know it was not CO2 levels as they were lower than todays level. ” .. so name one climate scientist that thinks CO2 alone is responsible.

    I do not need to “name one scientists.” That is a red herring and a straw man to boot. During the warm periods that occurred during the current interglacial when CO2 levels were lower thasn today, what other forcing could account for the higher temperatures? IF CO2 is such a powerful forcing, and there were no other forcings at work, how could temperatures have been higher when CO2 levels were lower then today’s? Care to cite empirical evidence that detail these other forcings? You are the proponent of the CAGW hypothesis and it is therefore incumbent upon yoiu to make your case. You haven’t made one valid point or argument on this entire thread.

    you say “I never wrote that the ARGO data shows a decline in sea levels.”. in post 96 you link to a fox news article that cites the Heartland Institute (oh gee ain’t we full of credibility!) that the “sea level isn’t rising at all”. in post 99 you supported the Argo-based opinion of janama@64 that also showed no sea level rise. now you realise what a dumb position it was you try to squirm out it – ha.

    Me @ 96

    First, I quoted you

    as for your article on sea level rise, the satellites disagree with you http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ sorry if i don’t hold the “scientist guy on the web” and his pdf in the same esteem.

    Then, regarding sea levels I posted

    Well, you have opened your mouth and inserted your foot, again! The professor is considered to be the world’s leading authority on sea level. Here is a graph showing tidal gauges from 1880 until 2000. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png There has been nothing but a consistent rise in sea levels in 120 years. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators/pdfs/ClimateIndicators_full.pdf “While absolute sea level has increased steadily overall, particularly in recent de- cades, regional trends vary, and absolute sea level has decreased in some places.

    Then I mentioned that Dr. Morner has a new paper out, so what? Show me where I have expressed an opinion on Dr. Morners paper? You sure are desperate, Well!

    The only way sea levels can rise is for either the oceans to warm or a lot of ice to melt. Antarctica contains 90 percent of the world’s ice and it just broke an all time record for total ice mass. BTW Dr. Morner has a new paper out on sea level rise. See http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/19/sea-level-rise-global-warming/

    Wow! The following quote proves what a disingenuous troll you really are. It is another red herring and an attempt to segue from the questions put to you by discussing irrelevant minutia.

    you say “And I never said that you said they would! Care to cite the comment where I did?”. As stated before, your post 118 when you tried changing the subject and said “The ice at the North Pole floats in water. When ice melts it contracts enough to equal the amount of ice that was protruding from the water.”.</blockquote

    You had accused me of putting words in your mouth and I never did. If I did then you could cite the comment on this thread but you cannot because I did not. Adding to a conversation is not the same as changing the subject. There is stupid, there is real stupid and then there is you, Well.

    you say “I replied at 29″ .. an “interview hosted on a website” vs Jason-2 data – I’ll go the satellite data thanks. and again you promote a graph of only southern sea ice. how dumb are you to continue repeating the same mistake

    Good God, Well, you are obtuse! One more time. Over 98% of the worlds frozen water is contained in Antarctica and Greenland. If the ice does not melt or the sea temperatures increase then sea levels will only continue to rise as they have been during this interglacial. If CO2 is causing sea levels to rise at an accelerated pace then the ice would be melting at a much greater rate then it currently is or the world’s oceans would need to warm significantly! Another question for you to evade!

    you say “@96 I replied:” – so what, you fail to show how sea level is not rising. you fail to show how sea ice is not declining, you get distracted and go off about the irrelevant relationship between sea ice and sea levels. try sticking to the topic

    More non sequitur BS! Failed to show how sea level is not rising? Sea ice not declining? You idiot, you are asking me to prove a negative! You cannot show that sea levels are rising in an unusual manner. The rate of increase has remained steady. Prove that sea levels have been rising at an accelerated pace.

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    well:
    December 1st, 2010 at 9:11 pm

    eddy @ 157
    you say “Fist of all, it was a quote of someone else!” – thinking of your sweetheart Richard again are you?

    Is that the best you can do? You need to be drummed out of the Loyal Order of Trolls! You do not have the wit to realize the difference between a statement and a quote?

    you can easily see it was someone else you were supporting after all you’re the one who quoted them!

    Again, you don’t even know the difference between a quote and a statement

    you say “Second, just because the ARGO buoys utilize the satellites for calibration purposes does not mean that the ARGO buoys are reliant on the Jason-2 satellite for their data.” lol … have another think about that.

    You are an absolute fool! The Argo data is the best and most reliable. It will become more useful as the years go by. After all, it has been deployed for only a few years. Then again, the Jason 2 satellite is even newer as it was not launched until June of 2008! The ARGO data consists of detailed temperature readings at various depths as well as sea level.

    you say “the ARGO data was “reliant” on the Jason-2 data then the ARGO data would be redundant, wouldn’t it?” … starting to catch on now aren’t you. i think one more step and you’ll be there

    Are you trying to convince us that climate scientists wasted money on the ARGO project? So, if the empirical data disagrees with model based calculations that we should discount the empirical data? If there is a disagreement between data sets are we to assume that the data that fits your preconceived belief in CAGW is correct and anything which disagrees is wrong?

    that’s the funny thing about you guys. you jumped at the chance to show how Argo data might show a decline in sea level, without bothering to actually perform a sanity check first – in the end you not only look stupid for having done so, but it also exposed your lack of scientific method.

    That’s the funny thing about you, Well. You jumped at the chance to show how Jason 2 data is better than Argo simply because the ARGO data challenges your religious dogma. If only you were seeking the truth instead of just acting like the troll you are! Anyone who reads this thread will, in the end, think you look like an idiot as well as being someone who promotes a religion as if it were science! You wouldn’t know the scientific method if someone hit you over the head with it!

    Well, it is a pleasure watching you debase and dishonor yourself on such a consistent basis!

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    @177,

    As we see with Obama-care, when the government starts dictating things it becomes a king instead of a leader. If I remember my history we overthrew one king by force in order to stay free of just the kind of nonsense we see going on in the UK regards AGW. And anyone with any sense is now working to overthrow our current would-be king.

    What the rest of the world thinks about us doesn’t bother me much. What bothers me is that we’re now throwing away the freedoms our ancestors fought so hard to procure for us and then for so long have fought to keep for us. The United States has stood for something for a long time and now, suddenly the founding ideals that made us the nation people have been trying to get into for centuries, not out of, are all wrong.

    This letter was emailed to me today. The doctor is real and his opinion points out very poignantly what our current problem really is.

    Dear Mr. President:

    During my shift in the Emergency Room last night, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient whose smile revealed an expensive shiny gold tooth, whose body was adorned with a wide assortment of elaborate and costly tattoos, who wore a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and who chatted on a new cellular telephone equipped with a popular R&B ringtone.

    While glancing over her patient chart, I happened to notice that her payer status was listed as “Medicaid [government charity, RH]“! During my examination of her, the patient informed me that she smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and somehow still has money to buy pretzels and beer.

    And, you and our Congress expect me to pay for this woman’s health care? I contend that our nation’s “health care crisis” is not the result of a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. Rather, it is the result of a “crisis of culture”, a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on luxuries and vices while refusing to take care of one’s self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. It is a culture based in the irresponsible credo that “I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me”.

    Once you fix this “culture crisis” that rewards irresponsibility and dependency, you’ll be amazed at how quickly our nation’s health care difficulties will disappear.

    Respectfully,
    STARNER JONES, MD

    I realize that this point of view may not agree with the opinion of some readers and I respect your right to disagree. But I would rather have a system where individuals have to take responsibility for themselves and where there is a good incentive for them to do so. Where we have marginal people in society we can make provisions for them. But it must come with an incentive to get out of trouble and stay out of trouble. No wasting the people’s money as the woman described by Dr. Jones has done. And there must be a limit on how long you can live off the public purse. A similar incentive must exist for everyone. Otherwise we’re soon going to be unable to pay for it all.

    And yes, if you can’t pay for care we will provide it for nothing. But we want you to be working to be able to pay your own way. It’s called being a responsible citizen.

    00

  • #
    well

    Baa Humbug @ 172

    you say “errr no, I’ll consider any study using empirical data, just like the ones I cited, as opposed to computer models input with preconceived assumptions just like the ones you cited.”

    you or your fun bud Richard are you unable to refute Twinkler’s comments about Idso @ 300 in the other post. you also can’t accept the findings of other studies using empirical data and was listed in the other thread.

    take for example http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v360/n6404/abs/360573a0.html which they explicitly state is “An alternative to model-based estimates ” find climate sensitivity from the data to be 2.3 +/-0.9 °C.

    and if Idso was so exactly right, how come the temp anom has already exceeded his predictions for a doubling of CO2, without even doubling yet, let alone allowing time enough to come to an equilibrium?

    you say “Might doesn’t make right. And you didn’t even attempt to answer my questions which i will ask again.”

    you didn’t read the dozens of other papers on the topic I linked to either. i don’t do the calcs bumbug, i just point you in the right direction ;)

    you say “I don’t recall you sending anybody hardcopy or a street address to go to, YOU ALSO CITED WEBSITES for the info you wished to convey. That’s how blogs work don’t you know lol”

    the sites I reference give the links to the peer-reviewed research that supports their evidence.

    so answer my question … “Is John Daly a climate scientist and what scientific journal publications has he produced?”

    you say “But I digress. So tell me, do you have any constructive comments/criticisms of the paper I cited?”

    i directed you to the comments of Twinkler earlier – i mention another above – it ain’t working out for him. that he likes to completely ignore feedbacks and time for equilibrium does not bode well for his intellectual display of climatology.

    that you or Richard swallow his crap without being able to defend the remarks made against it or show fault with other climate sensitivity studies shows that you are truly “doubters” – are we allowed to use this D-word?

    00

  • #
    well

    BobC @ 173

    you say “Slow down a moment, welly boy, and let us know what the evidence is that proves Humans can control the climate by shutting down fossil fuel use.”

    rather than go off on yet other topic, how about you stick to the argument. to recall, i said “well done BobC, you just defeated all of Richards/Idso’s evidence too.”

    so genius, can you answer that?

    00

  • #
    well

    Richard S Courtney @ 174

    the question is simple.

    why do you continue to support Idso’s low climate sensitivity value given the number of problems pointed out with here in the this thread and in the previous one?

    why do you ignore other climate sensitivity studies, even those using empirical data, that arrive at a much higher value than Idso?

    you keep ignoring the other studies, and you cannot rebut the arguments made against Idso – you pretend you don’t, that is what you continue to lie about.

    00

  • #
    well

    Roy Hogue @ 175

    you say “You just repeat the same program over and over. I’m suspicious.”

    perhaps you could take a break from throwing insults around and answer the questions posed to Richard?

    no? i didn’t think so.

    00

  • #
    well

    sunsettommy @ 176

    you say “I keep waiting for the shoe to drop.To read of your new post with details of at least one published “peer reviewed” science paper,that disputes the Isdo paper. Just one that uses real data and NOT one based on climate models.”

    Isdo? did you mean Idso?

    i had already linked to many that do not use models, but do agree somewhat with the higher sensitivity values that models also produce.

    as for peer-review work that directly addressed Idso.

    Kerr back in 1982 rebutted Idso’s method http://www.sciencemag.org/content/217/4560/620.full.pdf

    and Stephen Schneider also took Idso’s work apart … http://www.springerlink.com/content/v2j1462312248441/

    more history on the matter http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm – search for Idso.

    00

  • #
    well

    eddy @ 178

    you say “No need to. See Baa humbug @ 172″

    he failed too. surprising that the “brightest” minds of this forum still can’t answer the simple question.

    you say “I did and you didn’t answer my questions @ 156! Once again, read my post and answer the questions, troll!”

    i answered many – which do you feel needs more love?

    you say “I do not need to “name one scientists.” That is a red herring and a straw man to boot. ”

    not at all – you are the one with the strawman argument of thinking CO2 is the only driver of climate. you reinforce that notion by saying “IF CO2 is such a powerful forcing”.

    you say “You haven’t made one valid point or argument on this entire thread.”

    yeah so I can tell by the flood of answers about Idso – or should that be “Idsnot”?.

    you say “Wow! The following quote proves what a disingenuous troll you really are.”

    and again you go off about sea levels when what I had to say about them was “you can doubt that sea levels are rising.” but keep trying to cover your embarrassment at defending janama’s statement – even janama was smart enough not to continue defending that silly statement.

    00

  • #
    well

    eddy @ 179

    you say “Is that the best you can do? You need to be drummed out of the Loyal Order of Trolls! You do not have the wit to realize the difference between a statement and a quote?”

    sure i do – you made a statement by quoting a quote – now you feel foolish because the Jason 2 data is far superior that Argo for measuring sea level height, especially given that Argo relies on satellite data for a heights reading.

    in post 99 you made a rushed and stupid attempt to support janama’s statement. suck it up!

    you say “The Argo data is the best and most reliable. ”

    er, not for gathering sea height data – are you already back to supporting Argo data showing a decline in sea levels?

    you say “After all, it has been deployed for only a few years. Then again, the Jason 2 satellite is even newer as it was not launched until June of 2008! ”

    so you now think Argo data is better at sea level height because it has been out there longer – interesting scientific deduction there!

    you say “The ARGO data consists of detailed temperature readings at various depths as well as sea level. ”

    you’re obviously very lost eddy. this argument is about the height of the sea, not about what’s happening underneath it.

    you say “Are you trying to convince us that climate scientists wasted money on the ARGO project? ”

    if their purpose was to use Argo for measuring sea level height, then yes. fortunately they aren’t that dumb and this was not their purpose for creating the Argo floats.

    you say “So, if the empirical data disagrees …”

    you should accept the more accurate data – that’s what I am saying.

    you say “You jumped at the chance to show how Jason 2 data is better than Argo simply because the ARGO data challenges your religious dogma. ”

    no i did it because i know the millions of readings that a satellite specifically built to take sea level readings will be more accurate than another system that takes 1 height reading every 10 days for location purposes only.

    so in the space of two posts you’ve contradicted yourself saying that sea levels are rising but that the Argo data showing a decline is more accurate.

    i’d hate to be your brain with that kind of contradiction going on inside.

    00

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Well:

    It seems thjat you enjoy making a fool of yourself.

    At #184 you write to me:

    the question is simple.

    why do you continue to support Idso’s low climate sensitivity value given the number of problems pointed out with here in the this thread and in the previous one?

    why do you ignore other climate sensitivity studies, even those using empirical data, that arrive at a much higher value than Idso?

    you keep ignoring the other studies, and you cannot rebut the arguments made against Idso – you pretend you don’t, that is what you continue to lie about.

    I have repeatedly explained (both above and in other threads) why I continue to support Idso’s value: simply, Idso’s derivation is correct, has not been refuted by anybody and is supported by all – yes, ALL – other empirical studies.

    In a recent post to Sunsttommy which is after all your posts to me you provide some links to articles that attempt – and fail – to challenge Idso’s work. But so what?

    I have repeatedly explained (both above and in other threads) that I do not “ignore” the theoretical derivations: I reject them because they are proved to be wrong by the empirical studies including that of Idso.

    There are no “problems” with the Idso study – none, zilch, not any – and you have not “pointed out” any in this thread or elsewhere. Subsequent to all your posts to me you have now posted some links that you clearly fail to understand, but you have not stated any “problems”. Indeed, the articles in those links attempt to dispute Idso’s work but fail.

    The only lies are yours in your untrue assertions that I ignore what I do not, that I have not answered questions that I have answered repeatedly, and that I do not answer rebuttals of Idso although you have made no such rebuttals.

    Crawl back under your rock.

    Richard

    00

  • #

    well: #181
    December 5th, 2010 at 9:59pm

    take for example http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v360/n6404/abs/360573a0.html which they explicitly state is “An alternative to model-based estimates ” find climate sensitivity from the data to be 2.3 +/-0.9 °C.

    I did, and it’s behind a paywall. i assume you didn’t read the whole paper either, just the abstract. If you have a copy of the paper, I’d be happy to scrutinize it and give you a considered opinion. That is what you’re after isn’t it well, a considered opinion?

    But since all we’ve got (for now) is the abstract, I can happily draw your attention to the fact that this study is based on PALEO records. Meaning, by their very nature, paleo reconstructions exhibit low resolution.
    So yes I have considered this study, and I have compared it to the six (6) empirical studies that I refered you to. I still go with the 6.

    Speaking of which, I had asked you to comment on those 6 studies. They are simple and straightforward with basic maths. The fact that they are on a blog site and not behind a paywall means you can test your skills and deconstruct the paper quite easily no? Go ahead, I’m waiting.

    You keep asking why I take this paper over the numerous ones you cited. It’s because these 6 different ways all come out with the same figure within tenths of a degree. Whereas your cited papers and the IPCC consensus can’t narrow it down much better than 1.5-4.5 and others as high as 8

    you didn’t read the dozens of other papers on the topic I linked to either. i don’t do the calcs bumbug, i just point you in the right direction

    Dozens of other papers at about US$32each. yeah right, each time a meme troll comes along (and “points me in the right direction” instead of discussing their understanding of said papers) I gotto spend a few hundred bucks to satisfy your sorry ass? EFFOFF. By the way, it’s Mr Humbug to you.

    “Is John Daly a climate scientist and what scientific journal publications has he produced?”

    For the sake of this discussion, lets assume John L Daly is a primary school educated trench digger who happens to have posted a paper about climate sensitivity. I asked you to read it and comment on it. Now surely an intellectual giant such as yourself will have no trouble in deconstructing Johns paper in a couple of minutes flat.
    If you don’t do this simple thing that I ask, me and all the other readers/commentors on this blog will believe (rightly so) that you are infact an intellectual dust mite.
    And in the context of my earlier comment “mite doesn’t make right”, that you’re an intellectual dust mite, might just be right. Right? Alright then.

    that you or Richard swallow his crap without being able to defend the remarks made against it or show fault with other climate sensitivity studies shows that you are truly “doubters” – are we allowed to use this D-word?

    yes you may most certainly use the word doubters, though I doubt you’d be RIGHT. (see, I just doubted, I’m a doubter and you’re right, I’m big enough to admit it. Now lets see how big you are dust mite)
    Show fault with other climate sensitivities? No no no dust mite, (aaachooo, excuse me) I just think that a bunch of XBox studies that can only get within an accuracy of 3 times from low to high, compared to 6 studies, all different, all empirical, that come within tenths of degrees is more believable TO ME. You accept whatever you wish. What dust mites accept or not is irrelevant to me other than from an entertainment point of view, for which I’m grateful to you, thankyou.

    Now, onward we go.
    At #142, you brought up the Milankovitch cycles. At #172 I asked you a question to offer you a chance to support you arguement. You didn’t answer. And even as late as today, at #181 you cited my post of #172 but still avoided my question on Milankovitch. I will ask again..

    So pray tell Well, how much warming did/does Milankovitch cycles cause? What degree of warming is required to release CO2 into the atmosphere? How much is/was released? Does this Milankovitch warming manifest itself globally or regionally?

    pssst, did you get the funny in the question, “pray tell well”?
    But I digress yet again. So well, show the rest of us what an intellectual giant you are amongst dust mites and answer me about Milankovitch.

    If you don’t, I shall not play with you any longer. :( Cast aside like the dead mouse that has outlived it’s usefulness.

    00

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    well @184,

    December 5th, 2010 at 10:16 pm

    Roy Hogue @ 175

    you say “You just repeat the same program over and over. I’m suspicious.”

    perhaps you could take a break from throwing insults around and answer the questions posed to Richard?

    no? i didn’t think so.

    Ah! So I got under your skin then? Good!

    I’ll not be wasting my time answering questions Richard has already so ably answered (and repeatedly). I read what you say and what Richard, Baa, and Eddy have said and you don’t come off looking good. You have used up more space on this blog, not to even mention everyone’s time, repeating the same litany over and over. You’ve contributed nothing useful, nothing interesting. But still you continue endlessly.

    While doing all this you hide under an alias lest your true identity be known. We are beset by such as you; all knowing, omniscient, god like in your great wisdom. But it’s all nonsense. Well, hiding your identity so you can throw spears anonymously is just plain cowardly!

    Do you deny that you repeat the same thing over and over? I think you can’t get away with that. You have been both answered and exposed for the fool that you are. And if you object that I speak my mind about it, remember, you brought up the subject. As I have said before, if the shoe fits, wear it. You picked it up and put it on.

    It would not hurt anything if you would treat us to correct writing and capitalize the first letter of sentences, the personal pronoun “I” and so forth. Credibility begins there.

    Now quit wasting our time. We’ve tolerated you quite long enough.

    00

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    Well @ 186, 187
    Are you paid by the big oil companies to look stupid? They must be paying you a lot of money based upon your solid performance!

    I am not going to waste my time with a point by point demolition of your inane and mundane posts as it is not necessary. Anyone following this thread will realize that you are a pathetic, dishonest and dissembling troll. You have already committed intellectual self immolation. Allow me to cite a few examples:

    Here is Well @ #60 revealing the depth of his ignorance. This is what he has to say about Dr Nils-Axel Morner, the world’s most renowned expert on sea level.

    sorry if i don’t hold the “scientist guy on the web” and his pdf in the same esteem.

    Here is Well @ 65 responding to Richard Courtney’s defense of Idso. Well has been asked by Mr. Courtney to show how and why Idso’s empirical evidence is wrong or where it has been successfully rebutted. Besides the “troll two step” (i.e. cut and paste) what is the best that Well can do?

    just like the way you support Idso’s low climate sensitivity but can’t justify why you ignore all others.

    Here is Well at 86 repeating himself because he cannot dispute what Richard courtney has to say:

    you support Idso’s low climate sensitivity but can’t justify why you ignore all others.

    Here is Well demonstrating his lack of rhetorical skills and inability to reason logically:

    sure, what about it? and how does it disprove co2 forcing? you realise that the solar forcing aloone isn’t enough to explain the temp changes during this period?

    Well has been asked to provide, by Jo, a link showing the current ARGO data. Despite the fact that Jo and others have told Well that the data is not current and up to date for public viewing Well blunders on:

    Jo repeats the claim that Argo data is hard to get hold of, even though it’s been pointed out on numerous occasions that it can be easily downloaded online.

    Still waiting on the link, Well!

    Here is Well employinfg a red herring. Rather then addressing Richards request for evidence to disprove Idso Well repeats the lie:

    well:
    November 28th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
    Richard S Courtney @ 89
    liar. you ignore the other empirical-based calcs of climate sensitivty in this thread
    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/what’s-the-harm-in-acting-anyway/

    Well believes that any question can either be avoided or answered by the “cut and paste” argument:

    well:
    November 29th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
    Rereke Whaakaro @ 133
    there are plenty of websites that already explain the difference rather well.

    and

    but you’re pretty dumb if you expect me to waste time on explanations for your other numerous and irrelevant questions.

    Here is Well, stalling because he cannot find anything to “cut and paste” which would disprove or rebut Idso:

    well:
    December 1st, 2010 at 8:59 pm
    eddy @ 155
    see reply to Richard above.
    or better yet, tell me why you think Idos is right and all others wrong?

    Here is the best that Well can do when cornered like the troll that he is:

    well:
    December 1st, 2010 at 9:11 pm
    eddy @ 157
    you say “Fist of all, it was a quote of someone else!” – thinking of your sweetheart Richard again are you?

    Here is Well the hypocrite doubting somebody because he is not a “scientist.”

    so answer my question … “Is John Daly a climate scientist and what scientific journal publications has he produced?

    Yet in the same comment, rather than offering any evidence to refute Idso, Well refers to the “scientist” TWinkler:

    you or your fun bud Richard are you unable to refute Twinkler’s comments about Idso @ 300 in the other post.

    and

    i directed you to the comments of Twinkler earlier – i mention another above – it ain’t working out for him.

    To sum up what a lying, mentally ill piece of work Well is let me conclude with this little gem:

    i answered many – which do you feel needs more love?

    00

  • #
    BobC

    well:
    December 5th, 2010 at 10:01 pm

    BobC @ 173

    rather than go off on yet other topic, how about you stick to the argument.

    That’s rich, coming from you — dodging arguments you can’t answer is your SOP.

    to recall, i said “well done BobC, you just defeated all of Richards/Idso’s evidence too.”

    so genius, can you answer that?

    What you actually said was:

    so lets apply your same standard of logic to Idso. he looks at the atmospheric dust in Arizona and assumes it affects the temperature.

    well done BobC, you just defeated all of Richards/Idso’s evidence too.

    It doesn’t take genius, well — even you should be able to do it. Simply read past the first page of Idso’s paper (your drive-by techniques aren’t serving you ‘well’), and you’ll see that Idso didn’t put much stock in the Arizona measurements due to the uncertainty introduced by the necessary assumptions. It was only after the other six methods, some with no assumptions, got essentially the same answer for the sensitivity that he concluded that the assumptions in the Arizona measurements were most probably correct. (Oh, and Idso was looking at changes in atmospheric humidity, not dust — but to know that you would have had to read the paper.)

    Looking for corroborating evidence is kind of “Scientific Method 101″ — but we wouldn’t expect you to understand that.

    00

  • #
    well

    Richard S Courtney @ 188

    you say “I have repeatedly explained .. why I continue to support Idso’s value”.

    no you don’t. you just repeat yourself. you have not address any of the questions Twinkler raised in post 300 of the other thread. you simply continue to state that Idso is correct. no rebuttal against why he ignores feedbacks, no rebuttal against why the temp anom is already exceed his calculation. just a dumb “Idso is right because I say so!!!” response.

    same again when faced with the work of Kerr or Schneider, you say “Indeed, the articles in those links attempt to dispute Idso’s work but fail.” but you can’t explain why. you’ve a large gap between what you say and what the reality is.

    you say “Crawl back under your rock.”

    please don’t beat me with your walking stick .. no please don’t mr burns.

    00

  • #
    well

    Baa Humbug @ 189

    you say ” I can happily draw your attention to the fact that this study is based on PALEO records” and yet they do contain feedback, something totally missing from Idso’s studies.

    is there any reason you think his study, that lacks feedback effects, can be taken seriously given that feedbacks are a major part of the sensitivity?

    you say “Go ahead, I’m waiting”

    i say, go back and re-read my posts. i and Twinkler already made many comments.

    you say “EFFOFF.”

    what’s that?

    you say “By the way, it’s Mr Humbug to you”

    sorry for calling you BUMBUG, i had richard in mind. no really my sincere apologies for upsetting you so much – i didn’t realise you also had a high sensitivity.

    00

  • #
    well

    Roy Hogue @ 190

    you say “I’ll not be wasting my time answering questions Richard has already so ably answered (and repeatedly).”

    you seem to lack the ability just as much as richard. he keep saying “just because!!” without giving any reason.

    you say “Do you deny that you repeat the same thing over and over?”

    i keep asking why people like Idso’s low sensitivity when his studies don’t consider feedback – yet i get no response. it seems the “doubters” have trouble with this question.

    00

  • #
    well

    Eddy Aruda @ 191

    Are you paid by the big oil companies to look stupid?

    no that would be Idso.

    http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=15

    you say “Here is Well @ 65 responding to Richard Courtney’s ”

    actually i have asked Richard many times, yet he still doesn’t address the question. instead he just say that Idso is right and all others are wrong, with no further explanation and he also ignores the comments made by Twinkler and myself regarding Idso’s papers.

    you say “Well has been asked to provide, by Jo, a link showing the current ARGO data.”

    it was handed to Jo in post 23 http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/is-the-western-climate-establishment-corrupt-part-3/

    Jo then changed the complaint from “the most recent Argo Data of ocean temperatures is virtually impossible to get.” to something else.

    you say “Well believes that any question can either be avoided or answered by the “cut and paste” argument:”

    the skeptical science site is very handy. i like the way the articles are backed by peer-reviewed papers, unlike the crap “web-science” we see here.

    you say “Here is the best that Well can do when cornered like the troll that he is:”

    although i do like teasing you and your boy friend, i did also point out numerous problems with Idso’s work. all your boy friend does in response is say “I am right – you are wrong – go crawl under a rock.”

    you say “Yet in the same comment, rather than offering any evidence to refute Idso, Well refers to the “scientist” TWinkler”

    on the one hand you ask for our comments, the next you say they’re not valid because i’m no scientist. by your own reasoning, you should shut up.

    secondly i did also post references to two scientists that did criticise Idso’s work. so by that reasoning, you should shut up.

    00

  • #
    well

    BobC @ 192

    poor snookem’s feeling poorly that i won’t play your game. there there pet.

    it could have any number of things in Arizona causing temperature change. Idso makes “necessary assumptions” for good reason. ;)

    00

  • #

    LOLOLOLOL,

    Give it up WELL.

    You have been beaten convincingly over and over.

    It is not pretty.

    00

  • #
    BobC

    well:
    December 18th, 2010 at 12:23 am

    poor snookem’s feeling poorly that i won’t play your game. there there pet.

    Can’t think of anything intelligent to say, eh?

    Why are we not surprised?

    00

  • #
    BobC

    well:
    December 18th, 2010 at 12:21 am

    i keep asking why people like Idso’s low sensitivity when his studies don’t consider feedback – yet i get no response. it seems the “doubters” have trouble with this question.

    You don’t seem to be able to grasp the difference between measurements and models.

    If you measure the response of a system to an input, all of it’s internal mechanisms are automatically accounted for, known and unknown. This is what Idso did. That is why his sensitivity figures are believable — they are what the climate system actually does when you increase the energy input.

    On the other hand, if you model the response of the system, you must know and include all of the relevant internal mechanisms if your model is to have any predictive ability. If the models don’t agree with the measurements, then it’s the models that are wrong.

    To insist that it’s the measurements that are wrong, would be as logical as claiming a road you are standing on doesn’t exist because it isn’t on the map you are looking at. (In other words, about as logical as you are.)

    Confusing the system with its models seems to be a common logical error of many AGW alarmists. An example is the many papers on CO2 cycle models that purport to show that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 100s or 1000s of years (in contrast to every other trace gas) — while the 36 (peer-reviewed! published!) studies that empirically measured CO2 atmospheric lifetime found an average half-life of ~ 5 years.

    BTY: Are you ever going to read past the first page of Idso’s paper? Your ignorance is getting tiresome.

    00

  • #
    well

    Sunsettommy @ 198

    you say “You have been beaten convincingly over and over.”

    you are right up there with Richard S Courtney in claiming victory without even trying to answer the questions posed.

    00

  • #

    LOLOLOLOLOL,

    You are reduced to bald faced lies.

    You are so feeble.

    00

  • #
    well

    BobC @ 199 & 200

    you say “Why are we not surprised?”

    because you know me well enough to know i’m not easily sidetracked.

    you say “You don’t seem to be able to grasp the difference between measurements and models.”

    sure i do, i’ve cited papers that have used both.

    you say “If you measure the response of a system to an input, all of it’s internal mechanisms are automatically accounted for”

    not on the timeframes that Idso uses. a 45 day period is not enough time for the oceans to warm anywhere near a new equilibrium. by comparison, even Schwartz recently redid his own work and used a timeframe of 8.5 years which produces a CS of 1.9 ± 1.0°C. transient CS is defined as the average temperature response over a 20 year period. Yet Idso’s 49 days is supposed to be enough?

    you say “To insist that it’s the measurements that are wrong”

    i’m not claiming the measurements are wrong, i am claiming that they do not represent the response of the planet.

    you say “Confusing the system with its models seems to be a common logical error of many AGW alarmists.”

    thankfully it’s not one i am committing.

    you say “CO2 stays in the atmosphere for 100s or 1000s of years … studies that empirically measured CO2 atmospheric lifetime found an average half-life of ~ 5 years.”

    you are confusing the term half-life with that of the CO2′s lifecycle.

    http://www.nature.com/climate/2008/0812/full/climate.2008.122.html

    Because the oceans suck up huge amounts of the gas each year, the average CO2 molecule does spend about 5 years in the atmosphere. But the oceans also release much of that CO2 back to the air, such that man-made emissions keep the atmosphere’s CO2 levels elevated for millennia.

    it’s 5 years for a half-life, but then it gets cycled between the ocean and atmosphere for many years after that.

    00

  • #
    well

    BobC @ 192

    you say “Oh, and Idso was looking at changes in atmospheric humidity, not dust”

    you are wrong. a quote from Idso’s paper

    I found what I sought in the naturally-occurring vertical redistribution of dust that occurs at Phoenix, Arizona, each year between summer and winter (Idso & Kangieser 1970). … Assuming that this temperature increase was a consequence of the extra thermal radiation produced by the seasonal redistribution of atmospheric dust, I divided the latter of these 2 numbers by the former to obtain a surface air temperature sensitivity factor that was identical to the result derived from my first natural experiment: 0.173°C/(W m–2).

    what was that you said? oh yes, here it is “but to know that you would have had to read the paper.” “Your ignorance is getting tiresome.”

    00

  • #
    BobC

    well:
    December 22nd, 2010 at 8:11 am

    you say “If you measure the response of a system to an input, all of it’s internal mechanisms are automatically accounted for”

    not on the timeframes that Idso uses. a 45 day period is not enough time for the oceans to warm anywhere near a new equilibrium.

    Still haven’t made it past the first page, I see.

    Because the oceans suck up huge amounts of the gas each year, the average CO2 molecule does spend about 5 years in the atmosphere. But the oceans also release much of that CO2 back to the air, such that man-made emissions keep the atmosphere’s CO2 levels elevated for millennia.
    it’s 5 years for a half-life, but then it gets cycled between the ocean and atmosphere for many years after that.

    Gee, you’ve heard of equilibrium reactions, then? Perhaps you know that, at equilibrium, exactly as much CO2 would go into the oceans each year as would come out?

    What apparently escapes you, is what happens when you perturb the equilibrium by, say, adding CO2 to the atmosphere. I’ll make it simple, so you can follow:

    1) The atmospheric concentration is increased, so more CO2 now flows from the atmosphere to the ocean, than from the ocean to the atmosphere.

    2) This flow unbalance continues until the concentrations are again equal in the ocean and atmosphere, so that the counter flows are also equal.

    3) This equalization process proceeds at a rate determined by the CO2 atmospheric half life, which is 5 years. The equalization process is essentially (94%) complete after 4 half lifes = 20 years.

    4) Since the oceans’ capacity (for CO2) is 50 times the atmosphere’s, the concentrations (and hence the flows) equalize when about 98% of the CO2 introduced into the atmosphere is contained in the ocean.

    So, is it technically true that “man-made emissions keep the atmosphere’s CO2 levels elevated for millennia”? Well, yes: 2% of man-made CO2 remains in the atmosphere indefinitly. At the current rate of production, we might be able to double atmospheric CO2 in about 4,000 years.

    Yep, that sounds like a crisis we need to handle in the next few years all right.

    The only question remaining is: Are you a Fool or a Knave?

    00

  • #
    BobC

    FYI: If anyone would like to see the above return to equilibrium reaction in action, look at Wikipedia’s graph of the Carbon 14 atmospheric bomb spike.. This shows the removal of C14-tagged CO2 from the atmosphere after the 1963 test ban treaty ended atmospheric testing of nuclear bombs.

    The data to 2010 limit the remaining fraction of CO2 to < 3%. The IPCC's estimates of ocean CO2 capacity would give 2%.

    00

  • #
    Richard C (NZ)

    Thanks BobC, I did “like to see”.

    00

  • #
    Snozzle

    Just heard “You’ve Been Warned” segment of the Sydney Writers Festival 2011 on ABC Radio National, an interview-come-chat with Naomi Oreskes, Paul Gilding, and Curt Stager hosted by Sam Mostyn. “Deniers” were accused of fear-mongering yet some participants’ responses to ‘Dorothy Dixer’ type questions fielded by Mostyn, the Australian facilitator, were replete with references to “catastrophe”, “crisis” and “warnings”. There was no mention of the climate work of Henrik Svensmark on the galactic-solar link, and no mention (of course) on Bjorn Lomborg’s statistics meta-survey (“The Skeptical Environmentalist”) of human environmental impacts showing many fears are unnecessary. Lots of what I felt was akin to smear by association from Oreskes about big oil and tobacco funding corrupting scientists, who were named. Nothing at all about the multi-billion dollar climate-related enterprises of iconic climate change luminaries. Fred Singer was criticized on the ABCTV by Tony Jones on “The Swindle Debate”. Singer didn’t get a right of reply then, will he get one this time around? Paul Gilding looked ahead to a great crisis that is going to hit Western civilization, and the enforced shift, helped along by lashings of government enviro-regulation, towards a mixed socialist-capitalist, eco-friendly lifestyle. Highly recommend this program to understand how environmentalism, millenial catastrophism and neo-marxism have merged togther to retain their relevance and ensure mutual survival. A frightening radio show that is well worth catching to understand exactly where we are headed…not with the climate of course, the climate is fine…but politically.

    00

  • #
    Snozzle

    Sorry to double post, but (perhaps due to poor searching skills) I cannot find a better Naomi Oreskes related thread.

    Today (22nd June, 2011) The American Thinker published an article by Fred Singer on the tactics of Ms Oreskes. This is long overdue, as Singer has copped a fair bit of negative press in our ABC. Naomi Oreskes is a perennial favorite interviewee on the (Australian) ABC as a search of their various radio and TV databases will show. And Fred Singer was indirectly criticized by Tony Jones in The Swindle Debate (which featured two warmists for every sceptic), but Singer got no right of reply (standard procedure for Jones?), possibly because Jones accepted Oreskes’ mud-slinging in her many ABC appearances.

    Now the venerable Fred Singer responds, which is great for those who have watched the slow-motion and unceasing exclusion and vilification of dissenting scientists in the official Australian Government media over several years with a mixture of horror and suppressed rage. The link is: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/science_and_smear_merchants.html

    Also, the link I omitted to include for the hysterically entertaining Oreskes radio interview in my previous post is listed under “You’ve Been Warned” at
    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/sydneywritersfestival/

    00