JoNova

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



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



Big-Oil money fund warmists, confusing attack machine

Pew Charitable Trusts is an influential “progressive” think-tank with $5 billion in assets. What was the The Pew Center on Global Climate Change has lost the Pew name and funds, and become the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES).

Pew used to supply $3.5 million of the center’s current $4.4 million annual budget. Instead, in complete green purity, Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Hewlett-Packard Co. and Entergy Corp. will be the principal founding sponsors for the new C2ES.

DeSmog immediately denounced them and declared that all of their pronouncements are automatically biased since they are now oil-funded deniers:
Desmog: page not found

Or maybe not. If Shell had sponsored a skeptic, Desmog would have turned it into a high rotation ritual chant.

But apparently if the evil oil money funds unskeptical groups that’s quite legit. Why, because they say they are independent:

Industry sponsors must agree that the center maintains independent judgment, Claussen said.

“Every one of these companies does some things that we don’t like,” Claussen said in an interview. “They’ve got trade associations to do their bidding and they’ve got lobbyists. They view their association with us as different because we are in fact independent.” [Bloomberg]

Naturally Heartland says its independent too, and none of their donors provides more than 5% of their income, and they are one of the only NGO’s who did declare their income transparently, until it became clear few of the others would follow.

As usual, the ad hominem argument shows itself to be a singularly pathetic tool to sort out reality — like sifting sand with a hammer, or chopping wood with a fork, it’s the true choice of the confused.

As Steve Milloy says: Enviro double standard on funding, Exxon bad, Shell Good.

Pew got a mention under “Green Groups” in the Climate Change Scare Machine Chart:

Climate Scare Machine

Click for the Climate Change Scare Machine post.

H/t Willie Soon and Joe Bast

UPDATE: Just for clarification — The Desmog “page not found” is a satirical poke at them. If they complain about this big oil funding, do let me know :-)

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (52 votes cast)
Big-Oil money fund warmists, confusing attack machine, 9.3 out of 10 based on 52 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/bwkacwb

269 comments to Big-Oil money fund warmists, confusing attack machine

  • #
    Wendy

    how predictable of desmogblog. It’s quite amazing that the warmistas protest that the oil companies fund “skeptics” when in fact, the oil companies have bent over backwards to fund the warmistas!
    I hate that the oil companies (one of which I work for) play the greenie game.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Andrew McRae

      That kind of greenwashing is to be expected in a cryptoecotheocracy.

      ExxonMobil Australia pleaded that the carbon tax should remain a fixed tax and not an ETS, their reason being someting like… oil companies’ costs are directly affected whereas other companies can just sit in an office and game the system to profit from the carbon price. They didn’t name names, but I think they know a scam when they see one. If there was really a carbon climate crisis then they wouldn’t be taxed they’d be shut down and protesting their prison sentence. Hence the redistribution by government and the commensurate corporate greenwashing, the required symmetry in deception.

      OTOH, this complaint never struck me as being a logical argument, it just sounded whiney. I find it hard to feel sorry for oil companies, as they will pass the tax on to customers and continue to rake in the billions. It’s no skin off their nose when they supply a must-have commodity that has no substitute in sight.

      May we even see ExxonMobil and BP switching their road tankers to electric motors and using wind turbines and CSP for powering their refineries to cut their carbon permits? It would be so crazy that these days it would pass for normal.

      Shell already stopped selling E10 at most of their servos because it cost too much. We would have to attain the arable land of Brazil to keep playing that particular greenie game.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        “cryptoecotheocracy.” love that word!

        By the way, you call those that accept the science “warmists” but you are not disputing the world has warmed? You might as well call us realists! However, if you call us “warmists” then you have to accept some will call you “deniers” for denying the warming and the science. If you don’t want to be called deniers then don’t call others warmists! Easy!

        I care not where the money comes from as long as the science is good. With carbon tax about to be implemented here and elsewhere I guess the oil companies would like to be at the forefront of alternate renewable energy sources.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          In other news… strawmen are made of straw.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Wendy

          ah Max….
          see, here is where you are wrong. We don’t deny that the world has warmed. We deny that it’s caused by man. You and your mob maintain that man is causing the warming.
          But if you insist, we will call you something better and more in line with your views.
          How does “Catastrophists” sound?


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Sean McHugh

          Maxine said:

          By the way, you call those that accept the science “warmists” but you are not disputing the world has warmed? You might as well call us realists! However, if you call us “warmists” then you have to accept some will call you “deniers” for denying the warming and the science. If you don’t want to be called deniers then don’t call others warmists! Easy!

          What the? Your logic generates a shopping list of convolutions.

          First, you have us accepting that the earth has warmed (as it has in the past) and denying it at the same time. Will you please you make up our minds?

          Second, calling someone a ‘warmist’ does not deny warming any more than calling someone a ‘train spotter’, denies trains.

          Third, you yourself translate ‘warmist’ to ‘realist’, so clearly you can’t find the term, per se, offensive.

          Fourth, ‘warmist’ is a rather benign and bland abbreviation for one who believes that man is responsible for dangerously warming that planet and is usually someone that believes that humanity is going to perish through floods, drought, cyclones, heat, blizzards, diseases, drowning, sharks etc. etc., unless we are taxed. The appellation itself can hardly be considered offensive. Any perceived disparagement must be with the belief system to which the term relates. But that part is not of our design.

          Fifth, we aren’t usually referred to as ‘warming denialists’ but ‘climate denialists’. That’s the complete form. Who the hell denies that climate is happening?

          Sixth, ‘denier’ is an unequivocally a pejorative word that implies false denial of that which is true and has connotations of Holocaust denial.

          Seventh, the suggestion, that if we don’t call those who believe in catastrophic man-made global warming, ‘warmists’ they won’t call us, ‘deniers’, surely introduces aerial swine. If this is simply tit for perceived tat, and could be easily ended (you do say that) if we bad sceptics stopped name calling believers, how come one has never heard of this objection and proposal before?


          Report this

          00

          • #

            Catastrophic runaway climate change will be.

            I never mentioned any catastrophic warming, that may come if we don’t act but that is still a couple of generations away and I never mentioned catastrophic warming.

            Weren’t me that set up a strawman!

            Try again!


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Winston

            Catastrophic Runaway Climate Change, henceforth known by the acronym CRCC, is a strange and wondrous concept. Especially when coupled with the next phrase, “I never mentioned any catastrophic warming”! So what precisely is the catastrophe and how is it running away if not warming. Is the temperature staying at or about the same level suddenly catastrophic? Is climate variability of any degree now considered runaway? I think the only thing running away is Maxine’s imagination! A graduate of the Chicken Little Climate Academy.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    Have you looked at how much subsidies oil companies get to “go green”?

    Imagine giving out pittance against your own company so that the greater money is given by governments for “research and development” purposes. Considering they already do research and development that does not necessarily for the green development.
    Pretty good incentive to give to the funding for “green groups”.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Spot on the money Joe, literally.

      Get subsidies from the Government for “Green Research”, syphon some of that off to support a moderate Green lobby group, get some publicity in the process, and then get more subsidies for “Green Research”.

      Isn’t that a nice little trough to get your snout in?

      And it all justifies the need for a carbon tax to pay for the subsidies – awesome!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Otter

    Looks as if the smog blog deleted the page? Too embarassing?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    The Black Adder

    `But apparently if the evil oil money funds unskeptical groups that’s quite legit. Why, because they say they are independent`

    Hmmmmm

    That sounds like Bob Brown (PM of Australia)

    2004 – Big business giving political donations to the big political parties (ie. the ALP & LNP) is reprehensible.

    2010 – The Greens receive the biggest donation in Australian Political History of approx $1.6 mill.
    PM in waiting, Bobby Brown says this is a great day for Democracy!!…..

    Hmmmm….

    P.S. I accept no resposibility to the accurate nature of my post. But. it`s bloody close. There, Robert Manne (and media inquiry) are you happy?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    On this subject, the name Bob Ward might be familiar to readers? He’s the Policy and Communications Director at the Grantham Research Institute in London. The Institute is funded by billionaire Jeremy Grantham, 8.7% of whose portfolio, according to this article, is made up of oil and gas companies. Jeremy Grantham’s five largest oil and gas buys in 2011 Q2 include Exxon Mobil (of which he now has 11,309,048 shares) and companies Suncor Energy and CNQ, which are involved in oil sands mining and extraction in Canada. I recommend this article at the Climate Resistance website for further reading.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #

    UPDATE: Just for clarification — The Desmog “page not found” is a satirical poke at them. (No they didn’t delete a page). If they complain about this big oil funding, do let me know. :-)


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Tom

    You do know that the Pew family fortune was made in the oil industry? Joseph Pew was the founder of Sun Oil in Pennsylvania.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    PJB

    Just as a note of encouragement for all that are here and concerned, especially our Australian friends that have been sold down the river by their “green” leader.

    Over the past couple of years, the tenor and vehemence of the response to my communicating climate reality to the un or mis-informed has gotten much, much less strident and belligerent. More people are asking questions and understanding the point of hammering away with the facts against the warmist innuendo and model-generated consensus claptrap.

    Keep up the good work, it is working.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      We have a Green Leader? No, Bob Brown is Leader of just a minority of people.

      Your inuit citizens are getting rather discommoded by the thawing of the tundra, aren’t they? Why don’t you spend your time helping them?

      And how many million acres of softwood forest have been killed by the Bark Beetles? Quite a few? You know, now your winters aren’t killingly cold anymore too bloody many of these tree killing beetles survive the winter hibernation?

      And, the govt has improved its standing in the electorate by leaps and bounds so your whole post is wrong.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        living in Canberra

        Maxine, it goes to show that you are talking a load of BS.

        What on earth are Bark Beetles?

        Now to deal with the garbage that you have spewed:

        1. Bob Brown exerts too much influence over the minority ALP government. At the same time Juliar is a “green” or rather a watermelon.

        2. The tundra is not melting.

        3. The pine beetle is I think the correct name for the pest that has been destroying some of the Canadian forest, which is mostly the larch pine.

        A clarification on these little beetles. There are two ways in which they can be destroyed. One way is by fire, and the other way is by heat. Prior to the winter of 2009 the temperature had not been quite cold enough to kill the beetle. However, the 2009 winter and the 2010 winters were a lot colder than the 2008 winter. This means that it is more likely that the beetle has been eradicated. However, a good forest fire will achieve the same objective. On top of that the fire is necessary in those regions in order to produce new growth. Without the fire the pine cones will not open.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    DBD

    O/T but for those who don’t you have to check this guy’s ‘weekly round up’feature – http://dailybayonet.com/?p=9291


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andy

    At the school where I teach, the Science department have a ready-made pack of posters and worksheets that are used to brain-wash the kids about AGW.
    Which company produced the pack and has their logo all over it?
    Yep, you guessed it: BP


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John Wilson

      That propaganda should be burned.

      It is nothing but Child Abuse!

      No self respecing teacher whould use it!


      Report this

      00

    • #

      It IS the science after all! You don’t expect frauds like Monckton and Plimer in the curriculum do you?

      I am delighted that kids are being taught real science!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        living in Canberra

        so why should children be subjected to the lies that come out of the CRU at East Anglia University? That is not science. It is pseudo-science. Lord Monckton is a mathematician. Plimer is a geologist and therefore he is a scientist.

        Clearly our children should not be exposed to the nonsense coming from the likes of Phil Jones and Michael Mann et al.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Mike W

    Thanks Jo for this..off topic for a second..I was searching for your site the other day and found a “science” blog denouncing you as a “denier”.
    And when the author was chastised about the term..”defended” it by saying it was just a display of “wit”.
    Wow..who would have thought.. :)
    It was a very scientific blog site too..on the same page it mentioned you denying that carbon is dangerous..and ranted about carbon.
    I thought the first one was just a typo..and the second time etc but then came to realise that was how clueless the muppet was who wrote it.
    Bring back unSceptical science I say. :)


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Jo and you DO deny the science of AGW! Don’t get too precious, petal.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        bobl

        Maxine, petal… you are such a denier.

        Do you deny that the temperature has steadied and cooled in the last decade or so.

        Do you deny the science of sea temperature measurements since argos was deployed.

        Do you deny that there is little evidence of sea rise from the satellite record.

        Do you deny the evidence is in that Global Warming does not increase storm, or cyclone energy or frequency?

        Do you deny that giving one sided unscientific propaganda to children is detrimental to their development.

        Does, the logic escapes you that beetle populations can’t be related to GLOBAL warming, since global temperatures have been steady for a decade – where’s your cause and effect? Observation is Lack of Global Warming leads to High beetle populations !

        Do you deny that the pidling little tax that might change the temperature by 0.00004 degrees and costs for each degree of cooling (by taxation) at least 5 times global GDP (220 Trillion) is a useless gesture funded by Australian Taxpayers INCLUDING YOU.

        Oh, and the big finale,

        Do you deny the basic tenet in science that any number of proofs can never prove a hypothesis, but just one observation can disprove it.

        Say, I deny, I Deny, I Deny, I am Maxine….

        I dub thee Maxine the Denier.

        Bob


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Joe V.

    OT now, but another Democracy has just been well hung.
    After the EC leaders denying the Greek PM from consulting with his people about leaving the Euro, in a referendum last week, a Central Banker has just been appointed to replace him, as Prime Minister.
    The Greeks are being denied self determination as they are being made out to be irresponsible & so somehow unworthy of the consideration that should be shown to other nations.
    The EU is all sweetness & light until things start getting tricky. Then the true characters shine through while the little tyrants reveal themselves. .


    Report this

    00

    • #
      John Wilson

      The EU is a failed political experiment.
      It should be disbanded.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Yeah, the new PMs in Greece and Italy being ex-Goldman Sachs drones IS worrying!

      I reckon Papandreu should have stuck to his guns. Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal and even poor tortured Ireland will depart from the Eurozone before long. That will likely mean France will too, and again Europe will be split, hopefully without war this time!

      Dunno what relevance this has to AGW I dunno but it is a slow motion car(country/continent) smash we can’t tear our eyes away from.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Robert

    Hmmm… Hewlett-Packard… Not very many people call them that anymore, Carly made a big stink about changing it to HP and you rarely see the “Hewlett-Packard” logo on anything that isn’t at least 10 or so years old.

    Doesn’t surprise me they are contributing to this “think tank” since they have become a very political place. Having worked there as a contractor for a number of years I can’t say anything they do would surprise me. But it is nice to know which side of the coin they are shining, makes it even easier for me to continue to walk past their products and choose a competitors.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robert

    Bah… Sorry Jo, hit the Post Button before I realized I dropped a letter on my email.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Crakar24

    This is OT and i hope no one else has posted this but it is a real crakar (no pun intended)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/10/only-52-days-left-get-on-with-the-dying-already/

    I am not going to spoil it for you all just have a read


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Crakar …hilarious. I have the deck chair out, organised the Bourbon and Coke, just need to buy some popcorn and I should be right to witness the whole event.

      Thanks for the update waiting anxiously for the great fart !!

      Say YES to an election now !!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Neville

    O/T again but Bolt will have climate comissioner Will Steffen as a guest on the Bolt Report on Sunday channel 10 at 10am. Usually within 24 hours on youtube.

    Last time they spoke on radio Steffen claimed that China was the great green saviour for the planet.
    Bolt disagreed and told him that the facts proved China’s emissions were soaring through the roof which of course we’ve all been reminded of again this last week.

    I just hope that Bolt sticks to the facts and nails him on this fraudulent, deceitful co2 tax and the easily understood CON/LIE of AGW mitigation.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Crakar24

    OT again but dont forget it is rememberance day today.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Sadly one of our local memorial sites is ringed with Temporary Fencing.

      Newcastle staggers on and that’s just the local Council.

      The drinkers can barely stand without pushing over a Council “Alcohol Free Zone” sign post.

      Weird world.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Joe V.

      Not many of our World Leaders glad handing at the G20 Free Lunch Club in France last week seem to have remembered.
      http://m.flickr.com/#/photos/francediplomatie/6309221111/sizes/in/photostream


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I set the clock on my mobile phone to go off at eleven minutes past eleven. I was the only one in the office to do so, and people thought I was odd.

      Mind you they always think that anyway, so I supposed nobody actually noticed. :-(


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Joe V.

        For the first time ever our office put out a reminder to everyone about it & not once but twice.
        In GB its held at 11 o’clock and tuned into Radio 4 (BBC) it was pure silence.


        Report this

        00

      • #

        I remembered and posted this on my board:

        11/11/11

        93 years ago an armistice was sought by the Germans.

        It should have been rejected. Yes, rejected and the war go on a few more weeks at least! Why?

        The Australian troops, using sensible tactics (like advancing in open order instead of the STUPID British close order that saw them mowed down in heaps by German machine guns) were attacking continuously, one unit advancing 1000m then digging in while a second unit would pass them and advance another 1000m (yards really, back then I guess.) While these units did take casualties they were very light by the standards of WWI. If these attacks would have been allowed to continue until they were a few Km into Germany then the German people would have seen their army was defeated on the battlefield. Instead, the attacks were called off and in Germany the German Field Marshall on the Western Front, Gen Ludendorf, could mouth the excuse of the “Dolchstoss” or stab in the back. It wasn’t old Ludy’s fault Germany was defeated, it was the population back home who didn’t support the army as well as they might have. Under Nazi hands this became betrayla by Jews, Marxists etc.

        The Versaille Treaty was a recipe for WWII, disarming and humiliating Germany and demanding heavy reparations that could not really be made.

        So on the 11th minute of the eleventh hour on the eleventh day of the eleventh month stop what you are doing and pay homage to all the poor fools and dupes on both sides that died in both world wars. Fucking idiots should have turned their weapons on their officers and all gone home!

        38 years ago, 11/11/75 the Libs showed how much they believed they were born to rule in the irregular sacking of PM Whitlam. Nothing that was according to the constitution got done! Then Fraser does nothing for 8 years then cries when he gets (legally and properly) turfed out of office by Hawke!

        Today, it became abundantly clear that Abbott would never become PM and would fairly soon be booted as LOTO, leaving him how to work out how to repay his huge $700K mortgage on a backbenchers salary—this just shows how a complete narcissist and incompetent he is!

        So, yes, I do keep remembrance of Armistice Day but am not blinded by the bullshit about it.

        If anyone here is up to the task there is a fairly thick Penguin called “The Kings Depart” covering the period from when Germany first sought an armistice to a few years after. Very well documented, incisive coverage and analysis of how we staggered from WWI inevitably to WWII.

        Anyone here know why Germany sued for an armistice when it did? The yanks hadn’t made made much difference, the Eastern front had been closed by the Bolshevik revolution, the Germans had an attack by its kommandos winning ground daily and its citizens were fairly resigned/still thought they could win the war.

        What happened was that the State of Bavaria was making noises about reaching a separate agreement with the Allies. Bavaria is the largest state of Germany and the second most populous so if it withdrew its forces from the front the German position would collapse!


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Well Maxine,

          Anyone here know why Germany sued for an armistice when it did?

          The reason you quote is not quite correct at all, or most probably the version that you wish to believe, coloured by one authors’ version to suit his own agenda.

          As a matter of fact, the end of the War had an awful lot to do with an Australian.

          John Monash had impressed English High Command with his 93 minute rout of the Germans in his perfectly planned Battle of Hamel on the 4th July, a battle which included 1000 of General Pershing’s Americans, the first time they had been in battle, and the first (and only) time Americans were under the control of a non American Commander.

          Because of this he was tasked to plan the much larger strategically important Battle of Amiens starting on the morning of the 8th August. This battle was another comprehensive rout, and was over just after lunch on that same day. 170,000 Australians took part, and Monash’s losses were less than 1%, totally unheard of at that time, and most of them were walking wounded. They took 5 miles back when yards over weeks and months was the norm.

          Germany’s General Ludendorf realised then and there immediately after that battle that the War was lost, and in fact he said that this one single day was the blackest for Germany in the whole War, and in fact, hastened the end of the War, and all of that stemmed from that one Battle on August the 8th.

          Monash was then given the task of organising more battles as they (mainly almost a quarter of a million Australians) fought the Germans back beyond the Hindenburg Line. At the time Monash had 50,000 Americans under his Command.

          One man is not solely responsible for winning the War, but John Monash played a huge part in doing just that.

          On the 5th October 1918 the German High Command asked for an immediate Armistice, and the time passed down was that 11th hour of the 11th day of November.

          So, contrary to the reasons you give, the Roland Perry book on John Monash discounts what you say.

          For more in depth detail, read my Post at the following link.

          Remembrance Day And The Importance Of Australia’s General Sir John Monash

          Source – Monash – The Outsider Who Won A War. (Random House Australia)

          Tony.


          Report this

          00

        • #

          Maxine,
          I know that no one will bother coming back this far to this Post, and to this Comment, but gee, if this is an indicator of how well you go into the background of anything you post (anywhere) then it’s no wonder you’re treated so disparagingly.

          So on the 11th minute of the eleventh hour on the eleventh day of the eleventh month stop what you are doing and pay homage to all the poor fools and dupes on both sides that died in both world wars. Fucking idiots should have turned their weapons on their officers and all gone home!

          You then go on to say:

          So, yes, I do keep remembrance of Armistice Day but am not blinded by the bullshit about it.

          This of itself proves conclusively that you obviously do not observe, (or most probably never have observed) Armistice/Remembrance Day at all, because if you did, you would know without even stopping to think about it that it’s not at 11 minutes past 11.

          It’s at precisely 11AM, which was the time passed down to the field for the Ceasefire to take effect.

          Maxine, if all your ‘work’ is researched in this manner, you will remain a laughing stock.

          Your first statement also indicates you have absolutely no comprehension whatsoever of the ethos of those who serve in the (volunteer) Military Forces.

          Their way of going about things is 100% at odds with what you assert here, because, in the main those who do serve in the Military are the ones who have given you the right to think the way you do. This again show a ‘failure of research’, because had you even bothered to ask anyone from the Military, they would laughed at your assertion.

          You perceive that these men did (and do) these things blindly because they were told to.

          (Hard) Discipline is involved at the front end of any Military Service, for a reason. After a few months, it then becomes second nature.

          Then, usually after years, (and without the person even realising it) that original externally imposed discipline evolves into a self discipline that then stays with you for the remainder of the person’s life.

          THAT, Maxine, is something that you will NEVER understand.

          I’m even certain that in the vast majority of the non Military populace, your diatribe here is the opinion of less than the tiniest fraction of 1% of people’s thinking.

          It’s YOU Maxine, you, who needs to check their facts before rushing to your ‘hit and run’ Comments.

          Tony.


          Report this

          00

          • #

            Gee, Tony from Dumbsville,

            I DID say it was the Australians made the big gains. I went on to say they should have been allowed to go one for a few weeks until the war entered German territory and German citizens could see their soldiers retreating.

            But, other advances had been made and the Germans were advancing at one part of the front in Belgium, so the success of the Australians would not necessarily have made the German govt sue for an Armistice. That was the state govt of Bavaria making noises about making a separate peace.

            11 or 11.11? I got taught the latter, big deal. But I do remember, I just think the sacrifices were largely in vain, many made because of the incompetence of the Brit high command, the failure of govts and diplomats in Jun 1914 etc.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Crakar24

        Rereke,

        Tey probably thought you were odd because you set your alarm 11 minutes too late LOL.


        Report this

        00

    • #
      Joe V.

      Trust The Guardian, to miss the point.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    I remember when the vogue for “ethical investment” was getting going in the UK and some financial institution or other produced a list of “ethical” companies, in which its considerably-holier-than fund thou would be investing the money of the ostentatiously sanctimonious Alongside, was a parallel list of companies that would receive no such investment, because they were Badder than Bad. BP was in the first list, Shell in the second.

    Those that didn’t long ago go bust by betting on the likes of Solyndra must be tying themselves up in pseudo-ethical knots by now. The power companies operating in Britain are achingly “ethical” for their love of wind-farms, but they pass the enormous costs on to the public, which isn’t very ethical, after all. Meanwhile, The Greenest Government Ever impels the proliferation of expensive, unreliable “renewables” and simultaneously rails against the sky-rocketing prices of gas and electricity, as if the two are simply unconnected.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Crakar24

    Well here is a story confirming what we already knew, long live the carbon tax.

    Do we still need to invade Iran?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Mark D.

      just who makes up the “we”? Last I heard from you on the matter of invasions it was G. Booosh’s fault.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        crakar

        If you read the link (granted i forgot originally) you will find that we now believe oil and gas is produced by the earth not some fantasy about rotting dinosaurs therefore no need to invade


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          Sorry, the total amortised cost of petrol production, including new exploration and current extraction and refining, still matters to the logistic curve of supply and demand. This, combined with the fact Earth has a finite volume and finite surface area, is why Peak Oil theory is essentially true regardless of the size of total proven reserves. What an alternative origin can do is shift the date of the production peak from some time this decade to some other later decade by making it cheaper to discover new oil reserves.

          ASPO has already commented on this (but I can’t read the whole article to verify it matches what I’ve said.)

          For Peak Oil to never be a problem you have to invent and deploy an alternative to taking oil out of the ground. There are theoretically two or three possibilities there, but nothing that is ready today.
          The logistic curve still applies. The abyssal abiotic theory doesn’t change the fact that diminishing EROEI leads to a decline in production long before you ever get anywhere near taking “the last drop” from the ground.
          A country powered by cheap oil can beat a country powered by expensive oil. Invading Iran still holds appeal (for some) when you consider the price of oil and the supply rate are both important, not just the size of the deposits.

          Thomas Gold was the most famous proponent of the deep abiotic theory, but Kutcherov seems to have taken the lead now. Further evidence that Kutcherov is right and the mainstream is wrong is the fact Nature tried to trash-talk his team and his work. More recently it has taken a whole 2 years for his more developed theory to go from manuscript receipt to actually published in AGU.
          Plenty of scientists are citing Kenney & Kutcherov 2002 in follow-up work.
          Yes… the science is not settled!


          Report this

          00

          • #

            Here is one abstract from your reference:

            Although hydrocarbon-bearing fluids have been known from the alkaline igneous rocks of the Khibiny intrusion for many years, their origin remains enigmatic. A recently proposed model of post-magmatic hydrocarbon (HC) generation through Fischer-Tropsch (FT) type reactions suggests the hydration of Fe-bearing phases and release of H2 which reacts with magmatically derived CO2 to form CH4 and higher HCs. However, new petrographic, microthermometric, laser Raman, bulk gas and isotope data are presented and discussed in the context of previously published work in order to reassess models of HC generation. The gas phase is dominated by CH4 with only minor proportions of higher hydrocarbons. No remnants of the proposed primary CO2-rich fluid are found in the complex. The majority of the fluid inclusions are of secondary nature and trapped in healed microfractures. This indicates a high fluid flux after magma crystallisation. Entrapment conditions for fluid inclusions are 450 550 °C at 2.8 4.5 kbar. These temperatures are too high for hydrocarbon gas generation through the FT reaction. Chemical analyses of rims of Fe-rich phases suggest that they are not the result of alteration but instead represent changes in magma composition during crystallisation. Furthermore, there is no clear relationship between the presence of Fe-rich minerals and the abundance of fluid inclusion planes (FIPs) as reported elsewhere. δ13C values for methane range from – 22.4‰ to – 5.4‰, confirming a largely abiogenic origin for the gas. The presence of primary CH4-dominated fluid inclusions and melt inclusions, which contain a methane-rich gas phase, indicates a magmatic origin of the HCs. An increase in methane content, together with a decrease in δ13C isotope values towards the intrusion margin suggests that magmatically derived abiogenic hydrocarbons may have mixed with biogenic hydrocarbons derived from the surrounding country rocks.

            That deep ocean theory for the source of hydrocarbons is ludicrous! Really! I am sure there is a rain of dead plankton, fish, octopi etc etc on the deep ocean floor. A very thin layer, not capable of doing anything, cetainly not being able to end up in sedimentary rocks! Really!


            Report this

            00

            • #
              Andrew McRae

              Maxine @ 21.1.1.1.1

              A rain of dead octopusses does seem far fetched for making oil, but which specific part of the abstract do you object to or support? You quoted the entire thing, as though you object to all of it. I am no expert in any of their referenced scientific measurement types and I would be surprised if you were an expert in ALL of them, as well as an expert in petroleum geology. So which specific part of the abstract do you disbelieve?
              And how would that be anything more than an argument from incredulity?
              You do understand the paper did not claim the bulk of the hydrocarbons came from dead fish, right? They said it was contaminated by biologically-preferred carbon. The abstract does not tell us by how much, and so I cannot even begin to judge if this is a ludicrous claim or a plausible one.

              Perhaps more pertinently, the first person to mention the “ludicrous” “deep ocean theory” in this topic was not me nor the authors of that paper, but rather yourself.
              I do hope this is not another strawman argument.


              Report this

              00

          • #

            Andrew, that abstract was found following the link you said were further studies of the wackaloon theory about deposits on ocean floors being the source of oil.

            That theory is wrong on so many levels!

            Ocean crust is not continental crust—do a Google and some reading.

            A rain of plankton and bigger organisms does rain down on ocean floors, but a lot gets eaten by deep ocean scavengers. None enters sedimentary rocks tho!


            Report this

            00

  • #
  • #
    Mike M

    Murphy’s Third Law of Crony Capitalism: When the supply of any commodity can be manipulated by political rather than only market forces, the largest companies will be certain to bribe politicians to squash the little companies by enacting laws that hurt those little companies that try to undercut the big companies. This eliminates competition thus driving up the price which benefits BOTH the large companies by way of larger profits AND the government by way of more revenue on those profits.

    Greens want high oil prices to curb GHG’s – big oil companies want high oil prices to get high profits, government wants high oil profits for more tax revenue. It all goes together. Independent oil exploration companies are getting killed off by changes to corporate tax laws made last year that hurt them and not the big oil companies.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
  • #
    Crakar24

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/09/carbon-dioxide-emissions-up-sharply-yet-temperatures-are-flat/

    The Department of Energy 2010 emissions data also show why it would be futile and foolhardy for our nation to enact severe carbon dioxide restrictions. While global emissions have risen by 33% during the past decade, U.S. emissions have not risen at all.

    So 33% rise in CO2 since 2001, no rise or arguably a slight drop in temps and we have a tax to fix what exactly?

    Anyone care to answer?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    • #

      I sense that Juliar might be adding the the greens to the list of her hits ie;

      1. the Australian Public
      2. Kevin Rudd
      3. The Australian Labor Party
      4. The Murdoch Press
      5. QANTAS
      6. The Malaysian Solution

      Just to name a few things she inserted the knife squarely in the back, willfully or not !!

      Say YES to an election now !!


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Gnome

      I loved that! Bob Brown says Larissa Waters was only saying what is possible.

      It is just as (or even more) possible that I will gouge my eyes out with spoons whiles singing the Marsellaise in swahili tonight, but I think it unlikely. Ask me tomorrow!


      Report this

      00

  • #
    pat

    11 Nov: Herald Sun: AAP: NSW power bills to display carbon tax cost
    POWER companies in NSW will have to display the cost of the Federal Government’s carbon tax on bills under a new plan unveiled by the NSW Government…
    He (O’Farrell) says bills would also display the cost of renewable energy schemes including the solar bonus scheme.
    “The public have a right to know how much all these schemes and taxes are adding to their bills,” Mr O’Farrell said in a release today.
    “NSW Treasury estimates the carbon tax alone will add up to $498 a year to household bills and families should be reminded about this impost every time their bill arrives.”
    Mr O’Farrell said energy companies would be required to either list the cost of the carbon tax separately on each bill or put a general estimate of the cost of the carbon tax on householders on each bill…
    But NSW Greens MP John Kaye said if Mr O’Farrell was serious about telling households what’s driving up their power bills he would also tell them about the State Government’s $17.9 billion spend on electricity infrastructure…
    The NSW Nature Conservation Council has called on Mr O’Farrell to also include the full costs of coal-fired power to be detailed on bills…
    (the Counciles chief executive Pepe Clarke):”A prudent account of electricity prices would also factor in the millions, if not billions, we’ll need to prevent or mitigate the impacts of rising sea levels, increased natural disasters and other impacts of climate change.”
    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/nsw-power-bills-to-display-carbon-tax-cost/story-e6frf7jx-1226192336833


    Report this

    00

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Change Big Oil Money to Big Globalist Bankers Money..toxic derivative, credit default swaps, carbon credits = large scale criminal fraud..jail the lot!!!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    beale from the Climate Commission panel, who has a BA majoring in History and Law from the University of Queensland, studied economics at the ANU and completed a Master of Industrial and Labor Relations (Economics) at Cornell University knows all about our future climate. Sydney will be save somehow:

    11 Nov: SMH: Mark Wetherell: Public cool rooms suggested for future heatwaves
    COOLING rooms – airconditioned public centres where heat-stressed people can take refuge – may become necessary by 2050, when deaths from extreme heat events are likely to double today’s toll.
    The cooling room concept has been raised in a high-level report into Australia’s preparations for a future, hotter era…
    Heatwaves kill more Australians than any other natural disaster and that is likely to get far worse, particularly for Melbourne and Brisbane due to their particular climatic conditions, says the report produced by PricewaterhouseCoopers in collaboration with government and meteorology experts…
    By 2050, the number of heatwave days could more than triple in Melbourne, but changes would have a minimal impact on Sydney because of its lower maximum temperatures…
    Roger Beale, a principal of the firm and former secretary of the environment department, chaired the report and said deaths linked to heat were likely to double by 2050 ”if we don’t change the way these events are handled as the population grows and ages”…
    He said Australia needed a ”national heatwave plan. The economic and social costs of extreme heat events are significant and potentially avoidable.”…
    The report was initiated by PwC and co-funded with the Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/public-cool-rooms-suggested-for-future-heatwaves-20111110-1n9k9.html

    note when Beale got his “environmental” awards:

    Climate Commission: Roger Beale
    Roger Beale is an economist and public policy expert, and currently the Executive Director of Economics and Policy at Pricewaterhouse Coopers. He is a former Secretary of the Department of Environment and Heritage, and was a lead author for the UN’s Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report.
    Mr Beale was made a Member of the Order of Australia in 1995 in recognition of his contribution to economic reform and was awarded the Centenary Medal for leadership of the environment portfolio in 2001. In 2006 he was promoted to Officer of the Order of Australia in recognition of his contribution to the development of national environment policy.
    http://climatecommission.gov.au/about/roger-beale/

    also with Greenfleet, liked this excerpt:

    Greenfleet Advisory Council: Roger Beale
    He is an economist, a consultant and company director – and a motoring enthusiast…
    http://www.greenfleet.com.au/About_Greenfleet/Who_we_are/Advisory_Council/index.aspx

    busy Beale – but nice he cares about the coming heatwaves:

    Quarantine & Biosecurity Review: Panel Members
    Mr Roger Beale AO
    Roger Beale is a Senior Associate with the Allen Consulting Group. He has extensive experience at senior levels in national economic and environment policy, as well as in corporate governance in the private and public sectors. He held Commonwealth department head level posts in the environment, transport and prime ministerial portfolios, and is currently Chair of the ACT Electoral Commission, Chair of the Advisory Board of the National Institute of Governance and a director of a number of major companies.
    http://www.quarantinebiosecurityreview.gov.au/members


    Report this

    00

    • #

      pat,

      you say above:

      COOLING rooms – airconditioned public centres where heat-stressed people can take refuge….

      They’re currently called Shopping Malls.

      Tony.


      Report this

      00

    • #

      Hi Pat, according Roger Beale in one of those reports he thought that deaths related to heat will be doubled by 2050. I just did a search at ABS for “deaths associated with heat” and couldn’t find anything, not one case caused by heat.

      So I agree with what Winston at #31 !! 2 * 0 is ZERO how is this dangerous..what a waste of bandwidth !!

      Say YES to an election now !!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Robert

        Perhaps he should check on deaths related to hypothermia. Friends in the UK have informed me there were a number of them last winter and they are expecting more this winter.

        We have had elderly here in the US die from heat waves due to no air conditioning. We have also had a number of people (in a wider range of ages) die from the cold.

        Mother nature is a bitch, humans who think they can control her are deluded. Perhaps it is more akin to pagan rituals to appease the spirits hoping she won’t freeze or fry them? Odd bunch however you see them.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Winston

    when deaths from extreme heat events are likely to double today’s toll.

    What’s double of zero again. I don’t for one minute believe that anyone’s death in Oz has been attributable to heat, from a medical reality point of view. Having written many death certificates myself over the last 23 years (100′s in fact), as well as working in A&E at many teaching hospitals, not one death has been due to heat prostration or any other heat related condition. This is a figment of statistician’s minds, rubbery figures with no relation to reality. Have they no shame, honestly.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    TonyfromOz -

    love the shopping malls comment…

    11 Nov: South China Morning Post: Stephen Chen: Electric car an idea that may have had its day
    One expert attending the meeting said the government was increasingly concerned about problems in the industry, including its cost-effectiveness, technological difficulties and the uncertain benefits to the environment, according to the 21st Century Business Herald.
    It said Beijing was reconsidering its support for pure electric cars and may rethink how to spend the 100 billion yuan (HK$122.6 billion) fund set up to develop green vehicles – perhaps by shifting resources to hybrid cars…

    However, in July, Premier Wen Jiabao wrote a long article in the Communist Party’s mouthpiece Qiushi magazine in which he said he was confused by the latest developments and the future of electric cars.
    He also criticised the lack of co-ordination and planning of local authorities and warned against committing resources to premature technologies. “Whether electric cars will be a mature product, we don’t know,” he wrote.
    Professor Zhou Dadi , vice-chairman of the National Energy Advisory Committee, told the South China Morning Post yesterday that the government should reduce or stop subsidising electric cars as the technology has not yet reached maturity…

    “Consumers show no willingness to buy electric cars, no matter how subsidised they are. Those who bought one complained of huge inconvenience, such as the short battery life and many other unsolved technological problems.
    “It’s not that government is being more thrifty, there are real problems in electric car technology”…

    BYD, the biggest electric car manufacturer on the mainland, in which US billionaire Warren Buffett took a 10 per cent stake in 2008, released its all-electric MPV in Shenzhen this month. The official price of the vehicle is 360,000 yuan, with a 120,000 yuan subsidy evenly shared by the central and Shenzhen governments.
    Shares of BYD fell more than 8.3 per cent yesterday to a two-week low after the company reported a 23.5 per cent fall in car sales in the first 10 months of 2011.
    http://www.scmp.com/portal/site/SCMP/menuitem.2af62ecb329d3d7733492d9253a0a0a0/?vgnextoid=85dc73dfc5e83310VgnVCM100000360a0a0aRCRD&ss=Companies+%26+Finance&s=Business


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Pompous Git

    I don’t get why ExxonMobil, BP & Shell are “big oil” when they “only account for 10% of the world’s oil production and 3% of its reserves”. [Dambisa Moyo in How the West was Lost]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Hey Jo, I haven’t received my BIG OIL MONEY cheque yet can you please ask them why it’s taking so long !!

    Say YES to an election now !!


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    • #
      memoryvault

      Nice graph, Maxine.

      Demonstrates pretty conclusively that the world has been warming since the LIA.
      Entirely as one would expect it to, given the cyclical nature of climate.

      .
      And your point is . . . . ?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        And your point is . . . . ?

        Zebra stripes are unique … more proof of climate change …


        Report this

        00

        • #
          memoryvault

          There’s a “peer-reviewed, published, scientific paper” just out that suggests that land animals are going to have to travel an extra 1.6 klm (a mile) each year to escape the effects of climate change.

          Given that zebras already have to travel 3,200 klm (1800 miles) each year on the Serengeti Migration, I am desperately worried a lot of them won’t be able to make that last mile.

          Consequently I am considering starting the “Zebra last mile complementary bus service” (I got the idea from the local RSL booze bus service).

          After we’ve saved the surviving zebras we can go back, gather up the ones that didn’t make it, and throw them out of planes for the polar bears. I got that from a Greenpeace advert.

          Where do I apply for funding?


          Report this

          00

          • #

            memoryvault,

            Where do I apply for funding?

            The U.N. and specifically, the UNFCCC.
            It’s covered under the CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) the money churn, sorry, wealth redistribution sorry, well, part of the Kyoto Protocol anyway.

            The best part is that for all the money you sink into your venture, you get back some pieces of paper, sorry, International Carbon Credits, which you can then trade at auction as you see fit.

            Tony.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          It’s worse than expected, Wookiees do not live on Endor!

          If there is anything happening in the climate that you cannot explain then a man-made climate catastrophe is imminent!

          If the hockey stick’s bent then you must repent!


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Gordon

        Maxine was talking about global event, the LIA was a localised phenomenon. Your point is…


        Report this

        00

        • #
          memoryvault

          Yeah, Right.

          And the MWP only occurred at a spot about two miles south-west of Nuuk Airport – current site of the the Nuuk Golf Club, Kitaa, Greenland – and then it only lasted for six months.

          Endlessly repeating BS doesn’t make it anything other than BS no matter how much you climwits would wish otherwise.

          The MWP and the LIA were global events – even Mann and the IPCC have recanted on that aspect of the infamous “hockey schtick”.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Gordon

            Oh oh, here we go again, Mann has recanted, according to who? The denial lobby?

            Mann’s hockey stick itself was made up of nearly half a dozen independent studies. Independent studies have been done by the NRC using these independent proxies. But you still rely on one study done in 1950s where bulk of the proxies came from central England. Yeah ok, whatever…


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Bulldust

    I have just been informed that the esteemed Prof Flannery, Australia’s Chief Climate Kommissar Commissioner shall be presenting at the Curtin Institute at Bentley Campus on 24 November:

    http://www.business.curtin.edu.au/index.cfm?objectid=57F114B3-E98E-4E9E-EA9C3AA08F68EFC6

    No doubt everyone here will be rushing off to reserve places and hang off every word of this “leading thinker.”


    Report this

    00

    • #
      pattoh

      Mr Bulldust, I am sure he will be armed with a copy of Maxine’s Nasa GISS graph above.

      I wonder how much UHI/cherry picking/homogenization is included in the last 50 years of the data though.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        memoryvault

        Especially interesting when one compares Maxine’s GISTEMP homogenised, pasteurised, low-fat record for the last decade, with HADCRUT’s equally homogenised, pasteurised, low-fat record for the same period.

        It’s hard to believe they are both records of the same thing, from much the same thermometers, on the same planet.

        Since both records are beyond reproach and question (not to mention the science being settled), perhaps Maxine can tell us which one is correct?
        GISTEMP in red and rising, or HADCRUT in blue and belly-flopping.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp-dts/from:2002/to:2011/plot/gistemp-dts/from:2002/to:2011/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2011/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2011/trend

        It’s especially interesting that the difference in the trend for the two records is around 1.2 deg C (after just a decade), which is nearly twice the claimed total temperature rise for the whole 20th century.

        Perhaps Maxine would like to explain for those of us of lower intelligence.

        .
        Of course, if climate was cyclical, the HADCRUT record would simply be indicating that the cycle had swung from natural warming to natural cooling, and that would be too simple, so it must be something else.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          memoryvault

          For the rest of you, (with apologies to ‘Allo, ‘Allo), listen very carefully, for I shall say this only once.

          The question is for Maxine. I’ll explain later.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Andrew McRae

          I reckon Sea surface temperature is where it’s at.

          Climate:
             When a natural climate cycle repeats, the AGW should add to give faster warming.
          + The 30 year trend of 1990s is same as 1920s, despite the 1998 El Nino and AGW.
          => Therefore whatever additional warming was man made is too small to be detected yet.
          => Therefore claims of CAGW cannot have a scientific basis in 2010 even if future observations were to support it with new evidence.

          — — — —
          CO2:
             Equilibrium temperature is logarithmic w.r.t. [CO2], so exponential increase in CO2 gives a linear rise in temperature.
          + The 1900..1950 trend isn’t very different to the 1950..2000 trend.
          => Either the rate of exponential [CO2] increase has not changed significantly since 1950s, or the increased warming by CO2 is being reduced by other climatic factors, or CO2 is so weak as a GHG that it is not significantly shifting temperature in any part of the graph.
          + Carbon accounting shows carbon is accumulating in the atmosphere at nearly half the rate that we are emitting it, which is also predicted by Le Chatelier’s principle due to ocean absorption.
          => Industrial CO2 is the main source of the Keeling-era averaged annual [CO2] increase.
          => The rate of [CO2] increase must have been artificially increased after 1950 by industrialisation.
          => The influence of industrial CO2 on warming is small or is being offset in the Keeling era by other factors.
          The self-regulation of temperature by cloud albedo provides a possible solution, as does some analyses of ERBE data showing CO2 sensitivity at half the assumed rate, and it may be a mix of the two, but here the science is not totally settled.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Wendy

      Hmmmm!!! We’re in Perth on holiday…..have to think about attending this. Thanks for posting this Bulldust!
      Cheers


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Helen M

    So what is the problem? The Pew fortune came from oii – Standard Oil I believe. These massive US trusts were formed to dodge death duties. The Grandkids who sit on the Trust Boards are being persuaded to put the money to uses that would have their their ancestors spinning in their graves.

    Our system of no death duties is better. The families get it, to invest of fritter, as is their right. We do not have the US system of wealthy trusts attracting attractive sharks.

    They getting all precious over the barrel it comes from


    Report this

    00

  • #

    The oil companies are merely a front for the banksters. Max Keiser explained the scam recently(last couple of months). It was the best presented explaination of how it works. The oil revenues are deposited into the banks who use that oil money as collateral for their fiat money printing machine. Without such large guaranteed deposits by the co-operating OPEC nations, there would not be as much holdings in the banks to leverage against.

    The true irony of the situation is that the act of depositing oil profits into the banks(part of the export contracts), OPEC nations are devaluing their profits as the fiat spin cycle abuses all savings held. OPEC appears to be just a small, though necessary, player in the global financial scam which has taken over our monetary systems.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Dave

    Totally O/T just received it on email

    Scene: A car yard. BRYAN is perusing the stock. He is approached by JOHN
    John: Morning! Looking for a new car?
    Bryan: Nope. New Prime Minister, actually.
    John: You’re the third one this morning. Anything in mind?
    Bryan: You know…… nothing fancy, reliable, economical family model. Something to get the country from A to B.
    John: You mean like a Howard?
    Bryan: Yeah…a little Johnny. Nothing flash, does the job. Low maintenance, economical, sensible. Runs for years, no troubles.
    John: So…. you used to have one?
    Bryan: Yeah. About 10 years. Great little model – don’t know why I got rid of him — biggest mistake I’ve ever made.
    John: What happened?
    Bryan: Traded him in for a Kevin 07.
    John: Big mistake.
    Bryan: Lot of people bought it. Good political mileage.
    John: How was the Kevin 07?
    Bryan: Came with a $900 factory rebate – that was good.
    John: Anything else?
    Bryan: Not much. Sounded nice but nothing under the bonnet. It was a lemon.
    John: Didn’t stick around for long did it?
    Bryan: Nah – had a factory recall. Shipped overseas and was never seen again.
    John: What was the problem?
    Bryan: Lots. But the final straw was the navigation system. Plug it in and it automatically loses its own way.
    John: Whatcha got now?
    Bryan: It’s a Gillard-Brown.
    John: The hybrid?
    Bryan: Yeah. The Eco-drive system – not a good idea. An engine that can’t deliver hooked up to a transmission stuck in permanent reverse.
    John: Green paintwork with a red interior. And steering that always lurches to the left for no apparent reason – that’s the one?
    Bryan: The Fustercluck model.
    John: The only one they made, Bryan. Not the vehicle of choice for the road to recovery – but did they finish up fixing the navigation system?
    Bryan: Made it worse. Turn it on and it does a press release, heads off in all directions and goes nowhere.
    John: So that’s why you’re here?
    Bryan: That’s right. I’m stuck with a car that’s wasteful, expensive, ineffective and past its use by date. I don’t suppose you’ve heard of the “Cash for Clunkers” scheme?
    John: Join the queue brother.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gordon

    Give us a break. The fossil fuel industry is a trillion $$$ industry, Exxon and Koch industries are some of the most valuable companies in the world. It’s not surprising to find them funding all these rightwing think tanks like Heartland/CATO/GWPF etc whose sole aim is to spread disinformation so as to delay climate legislation. Sending out acolytes like Monckton and Singer to sing the denial mantra and climate science bashing.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      memoryvault

      Don’t get out much, do you Gordon?
      You left out “Big Tobacco”, not to mention the Ku Klux Klan.

      It’s pretty obvious you didn’t even read the article, otherwise you’d realise just how stupid and inane your comment is, given the subject matter.

      If you’re going to have another go at making a fool of yourself, you might include a short explanation of why a financial adviser from Goldman Sachs sits on every regional Board of Directors of Greenpeace.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Gordon

        Obviously you haven’t seen the pretty little map of the Climate Change Scare Machine. You must be reading the wrong article.

        Greenpeace is an environmental group, then there’s the science and the IPCC. The science is clear and whatever you say, there is a consensus. But you carry on reading the press releases of these right wing “think tanks” and their regurgitated thoroughly debunked cut and paste denial BS if it keeps you happy.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          memoryvault

          I just love the way you climwits resort to providing non-answers to non-questions.

          Starting from 36.1.2.1.1 The point in question was whether the LIA (and MWP) were “global events” or not, something you conveniently side-stepped simply by claiming the LIA was “local event”.

          Localised to “where”? Mann’s hockey schtick “hide the decline” graph doesn’t even account for them in the NH. In that he has even been contradicted by fellow climwit climate “scientists”, and even the IPCC have stopped using the hockey schtick as a result.

          Greenpeace is an environmental group, then there’s the science and the IPCC.

          Greenpeace is a multi-million dollar political advocacy group that just happens to have a financial adviser from Investment bankers Goldman Sachs sitting on every regional board of Greenpeace. A minor point you neglected to comment on.

          Fully one-third of all the supposed, alleged, “gold-standard”, “peer-reviewed scientific literature” cited by the IPCC in its last Report, was, in fact “grey literature” (political advocacy material) from Greenpaeace and similar advocacy groups (you know – the ones who work hand-in-glove with Goldman Sachs and the other investment Bankers). Fully two-thirds of the IPCC’s current crop of authors and reviewers are officially associated with Greenpeace and other political advocacy groups.

          And this is “science”?

          The science is clear and whatever you say, there is a consensus.

          “The science is clear” – would that be why, after a decade of denying that temperature rise had ground to a halt, in the last three months we have had “peer-reviewed”, published papers from “climate scientists” claiming:

          A) – temperatures are still rising – anything else is a figment of deniers’ imaginations;
          B) – temperatures have not been rising but it’s only because “natural variation” is “temporarily” swamping CO2 warming;
          C) – temperatures have not been rising but it’s only because of aerosols produced as a result of China burning dirty coal;
          D) – temperatures have not been rising but it’s only because of aerosols produced by volcanic activity;
          E) – temperatures have not been rising but only because the “missing heat” somehow went and hid itself in the “ocean deeps” (where we can’t measure it) – the latest incarnation of “Trenberth’s Travesty”.
          F) – temperatures have not been rising but only because maybe we underestimated the effect of solar activity.

          Please note that ALL these contradictory alternatives come from papers published by “climate scientists” on YOUR side of the climwit fence, and with the exception of “F” ALL have been rebutted by “climate scientists” from YOUR side of the climwit fence.

          Is this the “consensus” you speak of?

          Or perhaps you are referring to the “97% consensus”? That’s where of 75 out of 77 cherry-picked respondents out of around 1,000 respondents out of 10,000 cherry-picked “climate scientists” (many of whom didn’t even have a degree) responded to an email survey.

          Is THAT your consensus?

          But you carry on reading the press releases of these right wing “think tanks” . . .

          No thanks. Don’t need to. Back in the Sixties in high school in physics I learned that climate went in 25 to 30 year (approximate) warming and cooling cycles, and these in turn fitted into longer 300 year (approximate) cycles of warming and cooling.

          Nothing I have seen, or read, or experienced in the almost half a century since, suggests that anything other than what I learned in high school has happened, is happening, or is likely to happen in the foreseeable future.

          But hey, don’t you let observable fact get in the way of your religious dogma.

          .
          Regardless of reality, you keep the faith, man.
          You’ve got little else going for you.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Gordon

            Wow, looks like you just repeated every cut and paste denial argument out there on the internet except maybe the SUVs on Mars argument. So much so, why don’t you start your own rant blog, you’re doing much better than Jo.

            But back to the original argument. Which bit of “Mann’s hockey stick is made up of several independent studies” do you not understand? Also, the hockey stick has been verified by the NRC using their own methods. But according to you, looks like they are ALL in this massive scam…


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Tristan

            Hey Mv, do you feel like retracting the claim that ‘the high priests of agw didn’t even acknowledge the sun was a driver of climate until last year’.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Whilst it isn’t a direct argument about climate, it does indeed seem to be the case that Goldman Sachs runs the world.


        Report this

        00

    • #

      Hey Gordon,

      how come I never get one of those “big oil” check?

      I run a climate skeptic forum for 4 years.Yet still no oil money at all.

      What did I do wrong?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    Maxine said:

    Catastrophic runaway climate change will be.

    See, you do believe, as do other warmists.

    I never mentioned any catastrophic warming, that may come if we don’t act but that is still a couple of generations away and I never mentioned catastrophic warming.

    You never mentioned catastrophic and you never mentioned catastrophic? OK, so why do we need to act?

    Weren’t me that set up a strawman!

    The cap fits.

    Try again!

    No need.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    Maxine said:

    Catastrophic runaway climate change will be.

    See, you do believe, as do other warmists.

    I never mentioned any catastrophic warming, that may come if we don’t act but that is still a couple of generations away and I never mentioned catastrophic warming.

    You never mentioned catastrophic and you never mentioned catastrophic? OK, so why do we need to act?

    Weren’t me that set up a strawman!

    The cap fits.

    Try again!

    No need.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Wow! You really had to say that twice did you? Even tho it was wrong and irrelevant?

      Can I have some of what you are smoking?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        memoryvault

        No.

        This got discussed once before Maxine, when you claimed you had to grow your “herbs” under shade-cloth because of CAGW.

        At that point it was decided by consensus (you know – scientifically) that whatever you were growing was far more potent than anybody elses “herbs”.

        So smoke your own.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Sean McHugh

        Maxine said

        Apologies to the group for the double send. I suspect others were able to figure out the accident.

        Wow!

        “Wow!”? You need to get out more, Maxine. Better do it in small stages.

        You really had to say that twice did you?

        No Max. Let me show what saying something twice looks like:

        I never mentioned any catastrophic warming, that may come if we don’t act but that is still a couple of generations away and I never mentioned catastrophic warming. [Maxine]

        Copies and repetition are different.

        Even tho it was wrong and irrelevant?

        What, exactly, was wrong? And if I was addressing your ‘strawman’ accusation, about warmists prophesying catastrophe, how can that be irrelevant?


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Sean McHugh

        Maxine said

        Apologies to the group for the double send. I suspect others were able to figure out the accident.

        Wow!

        “Wow!”? You need to get out more, Maxine. Better do it in small stages.

        You really had to say that twice did you?

        No Max. Let me show what saying something twice looks like:

        I never mentioned any catastrophic warming, that may come if we don’t act but that is still a couple of generations away and I never mentioned catastrophic warming. [Maxine]

        Copies and repetition are different.

        Even tho it was wrong and irrelevant?

        What, exactly, was wrong? And if I was addressing your ‘strawman’ accusation, about warmists prophesying catastrophe, how can that be irrelevant?


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    To Jo Nova:

    Hi Jo,

    Another double post! With the first one, I thought I mast have hit ‘Post’ before and after a received phone call. I no longer believe that happened. This time, ‘Post’ was definitely hit once. I notice that each copy has the same time stamp as the original. If this one does the same, I had better stop posting to this thread.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    To Jo Nova:

    Hi Jo,

    Another double post! With the first one, I thought I mast have hit ‘Post’ before and after a received phone call. I no longer believe that happened. This time, ‘Post’ was definitely hit once. I notice that each copy has the same time stamp as the original. If this one does the same, I had better stop posting to this thread.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Gordon @ 41.1.1.1.1

    Wow! All those words of ad-hom attack without once actually addressing the issues raised.

    How . . . . how . . . . typical for a climwit.

    How about we get back to where we started?
    What is your actual evidence that the LIA (or the MWP for that matter) were “local phenomenon”? (Apart from Mann’s claims via his hockey schtick that is). And if local, localised to where?

    You can claim the “hockey schtick graph” sans LIA or MWP has been “verified” by the NRC, the CIA, the NSA or the RSPCA for all anybody cares. Since both the LIA and MWP are historicaly recorded events – you know – recorded in the history books – it is up to you and the other climwits to prove they didn’t happen after all, and records of them are merely the result of collective delusion.

    Like the observable and observed cyclical nature of climate.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Gordon

      Yeah, the Thames froze over, and Greenland was green. Yeah real good proxy approximations… So the Thames froze over twice during the LIA? When during the LIA? Which part of the Thames froze over? Guess what, the Thames froze over in the 1960s too. Which part of Greenland did the Vikings colonise? I wonder why they call Iceland Iceland? Doesn’t really tell you much about the Southern Hemisphere does it!!

      That’s why they do GLOBAL temperature reconstructions using corals, ice cores, sediments, tree rings, bore holes etc. Note the word GLOBAL!! That’s why Mann’s hockey stick is constructed from several studies. NRC is the National Research Council, an body that’s part of the NAS. Probably just a bunch of acronyms to you but hey!


      Report this

      00

      • #
        memoryvault

        Are you perchance suggesting that Mann’s hockey schtick graph was a “global” temperature reconstruction?

        If so you are even more out of touch than I gave you (non) credit for. Here is a link to the graph as it appeared in the IPCC Report:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg

        Notice the label at the top: “NORTHERN HEMISPHERE”.

        So, Mann only ever claimed his record was from the NH, but people like you have extrapolated from that (in direct contravention to recorded history) that the LIA and the MWP “didn’t happen”.

        Why?

        Well, do the words “we have to get rid of the MWP” ring a bell?

        Read through the relevant “climategate” emails and tell me what part of “bullsh*t” you don’t understand.

        http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/UnprecedentedWarming.htm

        Then go and have a look at this graphic.

        http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

        Scroll your mouse over the graphs. Most of them relate to papers – peer-reviewed papers – some of them going back fifty years and never refuted – demonstrating that the MWP was a “global event”.

        And what are you offering as a rebuttal?

        A “bent” graph even the IPCC won’t use anymore, produced by a Mann who agreed “we have to get rid of the MWP”, and who, to this day, will not release the code behind his “bent” graph.

        And this, according to you, is “science”?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Gordon

          I ask again, which part of Mann’s hockey stick is constructed from many studies do you not understand?

          And no sh!t Sherlock, thanks for the link (skeptical science with the multitude of reconstructions) yet you base your significance on the conclusions of one study done in the 1950s with proxies primarily from central England, which is in the Northern Hemisphere (note Northern Hemisphere). Mann’s hockey stick, (I say again) based on “many studies”, is constantly going updates and southern hemisphere proxies show a greater uncertainty in these reconstructions, hence it’s primarily a Northern Hemisphere reconstruction.

          Where do you get “we have to get rid of the MWP” from? Did the denial lobby come up with that? And how much more of these climategate BS does the world have to go through? Bunch of carefully chosen words in 13 years of emails taken out of context. Why don’t you read the whole trail of the emails instead of getting it spoonfed to you.

          Also, Mann’s work has been independently reconstructed, as mentioned before, at the request of Congress, and guess what? It’s still came out looking roughly like MBH.

          http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=113


          Report this

          00

          • #

            He he,

            another clueless supporter of one of the most debunked science paper in history.First of all it was only for the NORTHERN Hemisphere.Secondly,it contradicts decades of research in several fields.Geology,History and a few more you never read about.

            Memoryvault gave YOU this link.That shows numerous examples of MWP as being global in extent.Based on peer reviewed published science papers.

            Then go and have a look at this graphic.

            Try not to ignore it this time.


            Report this

            00

          • #

            Gordon,

            why are you still replying Memoryvault.After all he effectively exposed your deep ignorance about the H.S. paper.You kept saying the paper is a GLOBAL in coverage.I quote you,

            That’s why they do GLOBAL temperature reconstructions using corals, ice cores, sediments, tree rings, bore holes etc. Note the word GLOBAL!! That’s why Mann’s hockey stick is constructed from several studies. NRC is the National Research Council, an body that’s part of the NAS. Probably just a bunch of acronyms to you but hey!

            You being exposed as a fool very easily.

            Where is your warmist pride?


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            The NRC is part of the gravy train so the interpretive assumption has to be that they can only tell a small amount of truth without risking their careers. Even so, that NRC report is an interesting one.
            Regarding MBH99 they say:

            For periods prior to the 16th century, the Mann et al. (1999) reconstruction that uses this particular principal component analysis technique is strongly dependent on data from the Great Basin region in the western United States.

            i.e. MBH99 is spatially biased and isn’t a good global indicator of medieval climate.

            Some of these criticisms are more relevant than others, but taken together, they are an important aspect of a more general finding of this committee, which is that uncertainties of the published reconstructions have been underestimated.

            i.e. MBH99 tells us little about the reality of medieval climate even for the northern hemisphere.

            As part of their statistical methods, Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions. In practice, this method, though not recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature; reconstructions performed without using principal component analysis are qualitatively similar to the original curves presented by Mann.

            The NRC are not infallible and the above is misleading.
            Ross McKitrick tells the sad story of the hockey stick in “What is the Hockey Stick Debate About?” 2005. Note his Figure 6 where there is no difference between proper PCA and a standard arithmetic mean, but there is clearly a difference between a proper PC1 and the MBH98 hockey stick. The hockey stick was a computer program artifact, not a representation of reality:

            In 10,000 repetitions on groups of red noise, we found that a conventional PC algorithm almost never yielded a hockey stick shaped PC1, but the Mann algorithm yielded a pronounced hockey stick-shaped PC1 over 99% of the time.

            To argue this doesn’t matter in the end because co-incidentally the 20th century warming happens to be strong and unprecedented is unscientific. Because MBH98/99 is the only proposal ever that 20th century warming was high and unprecedented, a view contradicted by many other kinds of proxy studies, this fanatical warmism smacks of circular logic too.

            Whilst trashing Mann’s original claims, the NRC is obliged to let him off the hook in their conclusion:

            Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.
            The substantial uncertainties currently present in the quantitative assessment of large-scale surface temperature changes prior to about A.D. 1600 lower our confidence in this conclusion compared to the high level of confidence we place in the Little Ice Age cooling and 20th century warming. Even less confidence can be placed in the original conclusions by Mann et al. (1999) that “the 1990s are likely the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in at least a millennium” because the uncertainties inherent in temperature reconstructions for individual years and decades are larger than those for longer time periods, and because not all of the available proxies record temperature information on such short timescales.

            So the uniqueness of 20th century warming is “plausible” purely because the tree-ring proxies used in MBH99 are so uncertain that it can’t be definitively ruled out (or ruled in). The Mann hockey stick is then reduced from a definitive statement of science to a hand-waving question: “Maybe this is what happened in 1100 A.D.??!!?”

            Unfortunately as McKitrick pointed out, the Hockey Stick is not even in the realm of plausibility:

            Under a corrected method the hockey stick shape is demoted to the fourth PC and the analysis suggests it accounts for less than 8 percent of the total explained variance, making it at best a small background signal. ….
            If the flawed bristlecone pine series are removed, the hockey stick disappears regardless of how the PCs are calculated and regardless of how many are included.

            Mann’s hockey stick was not just constructed from multiple studies, it was manufactured from multiple studies.

            You can’t defend the indefensible. The Mann Hockey Stick was a crock.
            The LIA was global. The MWP was global and was at least as warm as the late 20th century.


            Report this

            00

      • #

        Oh Gordon,

        now you try a deflection by dodging Memoryvault question completely:

        What is your actual evidence that the LIA (or the MWP for that matter) were “local phenomenon”? (Apart from Mann’s claims via his hockey schtick that is). And if local, localised to where?

        with your Thames freezing and Greenland being green babbling.It is clear that you have nothing to counter with but a bad deflection.

        You are getting desperate and you know it!


        Report this

        00

      • #
        BobC

        You keep talking about science, Gordo, but you never actually produce any. Perhaps you can respond to some peer-reviewed papers from your heros, the climate scientists:

        Yeah, the Thames froze over, and Greenland was green. Yeah real good proxy approximations… So the Thames froze over twice during the LIA? When during the LIA?

        You know how to type, and you have a computer, so why are you unable to do the slightest research? Take a look at the Wiki Page on London “Frost Fairs” and many of your questions will be answered. (P.S. They also have a bunch of references at the bottom of the page, some to peer reviewed literature, if you want to verify any of the claims.)

        Oh, and before you complain that “the river was shallower and slower” then, note also that: “Solid ice was reported extending for miles off the coasts of the southern North Sea”. I don’t think the North sea has changed much.

        Doesn’t really tell you much about the Southern Hemisphere does it!!

        That’s why they do GLOBAL temperature reconstructions using corals, ice cores, sediments, tree rings, bore holes etc. Note the word GLOBAL!! That’s why Mann’s hockey stick is constructed from several studies.

        (What is it about these warmists that causes them to think that multiple exclamation marks equal an argument? Maybe a brain defect?)

        Here’s a bunch of peer-reviewed papers on the GLOBAL extent of the LIA; and Here is another set on the GLOBAL extent of the MWP.

        Why don’t you give us a critique on these studies (assuming you can read them)?

        Here’s betting you don’t respond to even one.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    memoryvault

    Tristan @ 41.1.1.1.2

    Hey Mv, do you feel like retracting the claim that ‘the high priests of agw didn’t even acknowledge the sun was a driver of climate until last year’.

    What, you mean so that you can quote the 1990 IPCC Report (twenty years old) – like you did last time – where they waffle that they didn’t know the effect of solar output, and completely ignore the IPCC 2007 Report that relied entirely on the Judith Lean paper claiming that Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) was insufficient to explain “global warming” (which isn’t happening anymore anyway).

    In the light of recent revelations admitting that TSI might be of some major significance by the CRU, I’d rather we discussed the the Judith Lean (and therefore IPCC) view of “irrelevance” in the light of current observable fact.

    Surely you would have to agree that makes more sense than discussing an IPCC twenty year old observation which turned out to be wrong anyway.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike M.

    Gordan, you’re wrong, you lose. Glacier study in Patagonia indicates a strong LIA signal.

    http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/7/3131/2011/cpd-7-3131-2011.pdf Published: 5 October 2011

    page 3148:

    Radiocarbon dating of samples collected near the present glacier front, indicates that the glacier front had retracted to its current 2011 position just before the start of 25 the Little Ice Age. During the LIA advance, a proglacial forest was overridden and remained buried and preserved throughout the LIA, and re-appeared in 2003 when the ice covering the dead trees retreated.

    Additionally, what ought to be able to go without saying, is that a warmer period obviously preceded the LIA period there in order for a forest to have existed to be over-run by the glacier in the first place. (They have found the same thing in Alaska, receding glaciers exposing ancient forests.)

    If you cite contrary evidence from the SH then by all means, don’t be shy.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Gordon

      Yeah ok I lose, I’m sure you can cherry pick dozens of examples of what’s happening somewhere in the world at some point. But I’m sure most scientists would prefer to look at the overall picture.


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Gordon,

        Mike M. gave you a reference to a published science paper that shows the LIA was also in the Southern Hemisphere.

        Your reply is all backpedaling.You offered nothing of value in your reply to Mike.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Gordon

          sunsettommy, why don’t you read my reply to Mike M. Something happened somewhere in the world at some point, but most scientists would prefer to look at the overall picture.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Robert

            Very true Gordo, something happened somewhere in the world at some point in time, and it is used as proof that global whatever is occurring. We see it time and time again, like the weather event on the East coast of the US just recently. A local event but the media claims it must be proof of your global fantasy.

            So while a number of scientists in a variety of fields use historical records and observational evidence to determine what has occurred on a planetary scale over eons you quote modellers who extrapolate global results from localized data over a period of decades.

            Gee, who to believe…


            Report this

            00

      • #
        Mike M.

        NOT ‘decades’ – Jorge Montt glacier has been monitored for over one hundred years, (try reading some of the paper…).

        I’m sure most scientists would prefer to look at the overall picture.

        YOU are the one who stated above:

        …with your Thames freezing and Greenland being green babbling.It is clear that you have nothing to counter with but a bad deflection.

        Those are in the NH Gordon, the paper I cited is new and for a glacier in the SH.

        How about YOU name some other scientist(s) or paper(s) showing that the MWP and LIA did not occur in the SH? When Mann said there was lack of evidence – that was then – THIS IS NOW. Either produce EVIDENCE or admit you are just a shill for the multi-billion dollar CAGW gravy train.

        And try to keep it straight in your mind that there is NO PLACE on earth that is ‘global’


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Robert

          Hmmm… Mike, I’m referring to warmist results generated from models from which their data generally consists of decades only. I realize other scientists who have been looking at planetary matters (such as geologists) have been looking at records that span centuries if not longer. Observational evidence, not modeled assumptions.

          What I was waiting for was for Gordon to acknowledge that by the same logic he uses for his claim that some event somewhere is not proof that his global fantasies are false, some even somewhere does not prove them true either. Even though the media and many “scientists” try to use single localized events as proof of their global whatever.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Mike M.

            It depends upon the nature and extent of the evidence being submitted. The alarmists firstly manipulated the data to take away the MWP but because they were caught red-handed on that they then claimed it was only local and then later.. only in the NH.

            The extent of the MWP is now accepted as global and having been slightly warmer than now with a lot less CO2. It’s just another nail in their theory. They saw it coming, tried to change it, tried to minimize it – then lost.

            I guess what I’m driving at is that no matter how many instances the alarmists can present evidence in support of their CAGW theory it only takes ONE piece of evidence to disprove it. Gordon seems to think that it more like ‘keeping score’ or something. Unfortunately for him that isn’t how science works.

            CAGW theory does not explain the MWP or the hiatus from continued warming for over a decade. Increased CO2 is not warming the planet right now and something besides CO2 warmed the planet during the MWP as well during the Roman and Minoan warming period which were also global.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Gordon

    Gee, who to believe. That’s true. Maybe that’s why scientists use rolling trends and frequency of events.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robert

    Is that also why their rolling trends and frequency of events aren’t showing anything out of the range of natural variability?

    Or are we still just looking at your model output rather than reality?

    Inquiring minds want to know, will you duck and dodge as usual or actually provide evidence to support your claims?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike M.

    Back to the topic – how do we shame the leftist media to report the facts concerning oil money being used to prop up the green lie?


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gordon

    Whoah, it seems to me I’ve attracted the bloodlust of the wingnut community. I didn’t know there are so many fruitloops and conspiracy theorists out there. Too many to respond to. In that case tell me chaps, not so long ago, denial theory said there was no global warming latter half of this century, it was a conspiracy by scientists. Now BEST has come in, where are we chaps? The scientists are still lying to us? The whole result is tainted by UHI even though 70% of the globe is ocean? BEST isn’t worth the paper it’s written on? Or the world is warming but its not anthropogenic?

    Also, what’s this grand conspiracy? Are those evil climate scientists being paid by renewable companies and/or nuclear companies to bury fossil fuel companies? Or now, they’re being paid by fossil fuel companies so fossil fuel companies want to bury themselves? Or those evil scientists want to hamper 3rd world development as the “The Great Global Warming Swindle” suggests? Or are scientist trying to establish a New World Order? Alternatively, scientists are so stupid they got everything wrong?

    And please, don’t answer on a postcard, you need to chop too many trees down for that. Maybe you should discuss with each other and come up with the grand conspiracy theory. Eagerly awaiting your answer… Yours Gordon…


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Robert

      Ah yes, Gordon, living up to everything we expected of you.

      No support of any of your prior claims but plenty of name calling.

      Changing the subject rather than answer questions previously put to you, as I said before duck and dodge.

      We are still awaiting some proof from you, some indication that you actually understand science rather than your own conspiracy theory.

      Not that we are holding our breath, but we are still waiting on you.

      What will you change the subject to this time?


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Gordon

        Typical denial stance, the proof is with you that world isn’t warming when both land base and satellites show warming. That if it isn’t warming then someone is lying. NASA GISS and HADCRUT are very clear on the trend. There is a warming trend and it is statistically significant over a longer period.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Robert

          Still providing no proof, only claims of proof. Your only real skill appears to be name calling.

          As others have noted, you have nothing so you can supply nothing. Not that we are surprised.

          Perhaps you should listen to actual scientists, not activists. Objectivity is a part of science, one it is sacrificed to activism then those that are guilty (Hansen, Mann, et. al.) are no longer practicing science.

          But you can continue to quote them all you like. Until you can provide proof that the root cause is CO2 you like the rest still have nothing.

          You see Gordon, we don’t have to prove that CO2 isn’t the cause, those who claim it is the cause have to prove their claim. Something they haven’t done yet.

          So follow your hero Trenberth in trying to rewrite the rules of the null hypothesis so you don’t have to actually prove anything. That isn’t how science works.


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Mike M.

      You must be a PAID shill for the CAGW crowd,(maybe even money from Exxon?)

      Joanne has already exposed massive government spending on ‘climate change’, including both direct allocations such as from just US government alone for now over $2 BILLION per year and, ‘subsidies’, (read: “bribes to get corporate support for failed green energy ideas”), together have added to over $80 billion of mostly WASTED tax dollars on this hoax.

      BEST is funded by some of that money but, unfortunately for you, it in fact SUPPORTS my claim of natural variability and both Muller and Curry agree. It will be very entertaining for all us to see a shill like you eat your just desert trying to SPIN THIS:

      …We have both said that the global temperature record of the last 13 years shows evidence suggesting that the warming has slowed. Our new analysis of the land-based data neither confirms nor denies this contention. If you look at our new land temperature estimates, you can see a flattening of the rise, or a continuation of the rise, depending on the statistical approach you take.

      Continued global warming “skepticism” is a proper and a necessary part of the scientific process.

      So no, there’s no conspiracy Gordon, there is only a massive THEFT going on with tax payers being raped to support the political motivation of an entitled elite class under the guise of ‘climate change’ as though there was any science that proved humans are having a significant affect on earth’s temperature. There isn’t any such science, you and no one else has ever presented any.

      For an added chuckle Gordon, name for us what entity hires the huge majority of ‘climate scientists’? Let’s talk about gravy trains…


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Gordon

        Just as you a paid wingnut for the denial movement. Now why don’t you explain how this theft works? So if there’s more than one person surely it’s a conspiracy? How do these scientists benefit? How do the national scientific institutions benefit? So what if US government spends $2 billion a year? Nobody said combating climate change would be cheap. Maybe we should start addressing the half trillion $$$ tax breaks and subsidies the fossil fuel industry gets globally.

        PS if you say man has no effect on climate then are you saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas or man’s contribution since the industrial revolution is no where near 30%-40%, or both?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Mike M.

          How do they benefit? How about having something to EAT as a benefit?

          The huge majority of them would be unemployed looking for new careers if not for the government paying them to keep studying ‘the problem’,(directly or via gov grants to universities ), an activity in which they gladly participate because if they dare report the truth, indicate that there is really no problem – they know, I know, YOU KNOW and everyone else knows that their job would be irrelevant and gone tomorrow.

          Nobody is paying me to be here or anywhere else on line to state my position as a mechanical engineer – yes, I have a degree in science.

          I didn’t exactly see any denial from you that you are being paid to be here – care to state directly that you are not? (If you refuse to answer then I think Joanne will have had enough of you..)

          “half trillion $$$ tax breaks and subsidies the fossil fuel industry gets globally” – absolute total RUBBISH. For ANY other business, deducting your expenses to calculate your before tax or gross income is an ordinary common sense accounting practice. But for oil companies according to CAGW shills, the practice is now deemed a ‘subsidy’ and or ‘tax break’ Just because you say so doesn’t make it anymore true than when you say humans cause catastrophic global warming.

          PS if you say man has no effect on climate then are you saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas or man’s contribution since the industrial revolution is no where near 30%-40%, or both?

          FALSE! CO2 does have an affect on earth’s temperature, (it might even be the reverse of what we though if Nasif Nahle is correct), but ALL of CO2′s affect is so small that ZERO paleogeologic or current day measurements have been able to detect it’s affect against all the other MUCH larger drivers of natural variability so, the amount of CO2 that humans add, less than 5% of the total emitted to the atmosphere each year, is like spitting in the ocean; so tiny it’s farcical to think it can ultimately cause harm, (and you still can’t even get THAT straight either, that ‘harm’ part, like those 50 million climate refugees). The only outcome of empirical evidence is that CO2′s impact on temperature is … INSIGNIFICANT … cannot be measured.

          Nobody said combating climate change would be cheap.

          And nobody said pensioners in UK would have to choose between eating and staying warm in increasingly colder winters thanks to your watermelon alternative energy scams either. You’re probably proud of it – they’ll die sooner and therefore be ‘helping earth’.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    BobC

    Gordon
    November 14, 2011 at 11:21 pm

    Just as you a paid wingnut for the denial movement.

    Just what are we supposed to be denying, Gordo? We are the ones bringing up the inconvenient data — or haven’t you actually read any of Joanne’s posts?

    Now why don’t you explain how this theft works?

    Sure, although I doubt you understand enough about Human nature and your own society to follow, but perhaps others can:

    How do these scientists benefit?

    They benefit by being generously funded. There is a very small market for climate scientists outside of the national government. Many, if not most, climate scientists are on what is called “soft money”: They get paid if they continue to apply for and get government grants — if they fail at this, they are unfunded and go into another (perhaps honest) line of work. This funding is overwhelmingly for scientists who find problems that require government solutions — there is no funding for those who find that there is no problem.

    So, the funding agencies are selecting for scientists who will go along. This is the reason that so many prominent skeptics are either tenured faculity or retired — their livelyhoods can’t be threatened.

    How do the national scientific institutions benefit?

    The government bureaucracies, like NOAA, as well as the organizations that are entirely or mostly government-funded such as NCAR would cease to exist if they didn’t get government funding. Many of the other “national scientific institutions” are government-funded to some extent. The government funding available for finding problems that have to be solved by increasing government’s power dwarfs any funding for those who show that such problems don’t exist, or don’t require government intervention.

    The government, like any other bureaucracy, tries to expand it’s power and size. People become politians largely because the exercise of power compensates for the hassle of campaigning, fund-raising, public scrutiny, etc. They are naturaly drawn to causes that support the increased exercise of power.

    (The Tea Party in the US may be changing this dynamic somewhat, by demonstrating that politicians must reign in government power in order to remain politicians. It will be interesting to see how long this can be maintained and what it can accomplish.)

    So what if US government spends $2 billion a year? Nobody said combating climate change would be cheap.

    But this isn’t about combating climate change, it’s about government power. If it were about “combating climate change”, then the US would be getting accolades for cutting CO2 emissions more than nearly all the Kyoto treaty signatories. That, however, is never mentioned — only that the US didn’t ratify the treaty. Political power is what’s important, not results.

    (Besides, any honest broker with half a brain can see that controlling the climate is not possible anyway. I make no hypothesis as to which of these two characteristics you lack.)

    Maybe we should start addressing the half trillion $$$ tax breaks and subsidies the fossil fuel industry gets globally.

    Why shouldn’t the government promote cheap energy? It is what has caused the Human standard of living in the industrialized countries to be the highest in the history of mankind. It is why the un-industrialized countries want to join in as fast as possible.

    Why don’t you try living without support from those nasty “fossil fuels” for a while and see how it works out? The rest of us would benefit by not being exposed to your naive ramblings, at least.

    PS if you say man has no effect on climate…

    There is a big difference between saying man “has an effect” on climate and claiming that man can control the climate, although this may be too subtle a distinction for your simplistic philosophy.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gordon

    Whoah, looks like I’ve incurred the wrath of more posters from the d[snip] mob. And nice to meet you Bob, looks like it’s the first time we met. Sorry chaps, it would be good if you all made one post rather than individually. So I’ll have to skim through it, too many theories. So yadda yadda, so to condense it all, it’s all a funding scam or something. Governments, scientists, universities, institutions like NOAA etc are all in it together trying to get more money from…. the taxpayers… which anybody who is in employment, is a taxpayer. In the meantime, the world is warming… or not, because d[snip]s say they faked the results or BEST is corrupted, except no wingnut seems to be able to make up their mind. Great theory chaps, makes about as much sense as a waterproof towel.

    Yeah well, back on to the fossil fuel subsidies…

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/04/us-iea-idUSTRE7931CF20111004

    so reports the International Energy Agency… but wait for it… it must be a lie because it’s also part of the conspiracy and/or scam…

    [Stop using the "d" word in any form! This is the only warning.] ED

    00

    • #
      BobC

      Gordon;
      too many theories. So yadda yadda, so to condense it all…

      Seems to have all gone over your head, I see.

      …it would be good if you all made one post rather than individually

      “Yadda, yadda” is probably the best you can hope to do, since we are “pedaling” science and reason here — not a religious canon like you seem to expect. If you can’t reason, I imagine it would appear confusing — kind of like watching chess when you don’t know the game. Perhaps you would be happier going back to the “believer” sites where they don’t expect you to think.

      (You aren’t Tristan at some other address, are you? “Yadda, yadda” is one of his fave replies also, when he is suffering brain freeze.)


      Report this

      00

    • #
      BobC

      Yeah well, back on to the fossil fuel subsidies…

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/04/us-iea-idUSTRE7931CF20111004

      so reports the International Energy Agency… but wait for it… it must be a lie because it’s also part of the conspiracy and/or scam…

      You’re suffering from your inability to think, Gordon:

      First, the Reuters article doesn’t even try to define what a “subsidy” is, but simply parrots a politically motivated claim (like you do).

      Doing a little reasearch among the “believer” sites, I did come across such a definition:

      What is a fossil fuel subsidy?
      A fossil fuel subsidy is any government action that lowers the cost of fossil fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers or lowers the price paid by energy consumers.

      So, they include the normal expenses and tax deductions that everyone gets, just like Mike M. said, making your parting shot about “lying” seem pretty stupid.

      Of course to get the tally up, they also include everything else they can think of, including foreign policy decisions made by the government, government-printed informational brochures about the industry, and a whole lot of other stuff that most people wouldn’t call a “subsidy”.

      One wonders if they were that inventive about the “renewable energy” subsidies?


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Mike M

    Stop avoiding the question Gordon – are you or are you not paid to post comments in favor of AGW? I just want to see you deny it writing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gordon

    To Mike, your question, am I paid? No, why? Are you? If you are, good for you, maybe you can start your own conspiracy site one day.

    To BobC, since your conspiracy includes research grants, salaries of lecturers, operating costs of institutions etc then I don’t see why definition of “state aid” is not a subsidy? Also, try living on a £8000 research grant, I’m sure most researchers would do a lot better working as a director of communications for these rightwing think tanks. Much easier trawling the internet collecting conspiracies and sewing them together to try to prove climate science is a hoax than to actually go out onto the field and do some research!


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Robert

      Would that be like the research you have done which is why you cannot provide any proof of causation, only continual ramblings about the effects of your supposed cause?

      The same type of research that has made you such an authority on the topic that you can’t answer a single question about it but always change the subject, resort to name calling, or just ignore the questions completely, that kind of research?

      There is a difference between doing research (which many here have done) and blindly accepting the dogma (which appears to be your style).

      Much easier trawling the net for claims to regurgitate so you can simply say anyone who is skeptical is a conspiracy theorist, in denial, or some other such drivel than to actually debate them with facts and proof isn’t it Gordon?

      You are projecting again.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      BobC

      To BobC, since your conspiracy …

      I outlined no conspiracy, but simply explained how society works when everyone acts in their own interest. You could learn something by watching Milton Friedman’s video on the making of a pencil. Do 10s of 1000s of people “conspire” to make pencils? No, they just act in their own interest.

      I predicted you didn’t know how your own society works.

      The point that Mike M. made (and you implied he was a liar for it) was that paying taxes on your net income, rather than your gross income, is not a “subsidy”. Everybody gets to do this, even you — although you seem to have trouble understanding it.

      Also, try living on a £8000 research grant

      Already doing it (although I consult for a number of companies as well). You wouldn’t be trying to imply that you are a “scientific researcher” would you? That would be amusing.

      I’m sure most researchers would do a lot better working as a director of communications for these rightwing think tanks.

      Most of them aren’t smart enough.

      Much easier trawling the internet collecting conspiracies and sewing them together to try to prove climate science is a hoax than to actually go out onto the field and do some research!

      Two points:

      1) This site deals in data, extracted from observations of reality. This seems to have escaped your notice, probably because you aren’t capable of understanding logical argument and haven’t read any of the background material here. As an example, no amount of conspiracy theories can prove something about the physical world, it takes data to do that. This is beyond you, apparently.

      2) It’s a lot easier to play with computer-generated virtual realities (like most “climate scientists” do) than to do field research also.

      Your comments, Gordon, identify you as a nitwit.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Gordon

    To the 2 Robbies

    Robert,

    I had to look for a question from you, you want an answer to your dumb strawman question. OK, here’s a little terminology for you, it’s not proof, because proof is absolute, for example, there’s proof CO2 is a greenhouse gas because you show it 100% of the time. It’s weight of evidence, probability, likelyhood, even risk etc.
    i.e. most scientists believe that the current warming is most likely anthropogenic, through observation backed up by experimentation. That’s why scientific reports always talk in probabilties. It’s usually mathematicians talk in proof (and lawyers) That’s why doctors always say there’s a risk to smoking (not proof), that’s why probability of surviving a motorcycle crash is greater when you wear a helmet (not proof). That’s why scientists measure the frequency of events and trends and the trend has been measured to be upward and statistically significant.

    As to the rest of your question, do a search yourself on the internet because I can’t answer your self debunking and incoherent question.

    Now Robert, how about your ‘PROOF’ that natural variability can account for the current warming?

    Bob,

    Seems to me your scam or whatever you call it involves majority the scientists high and low from ONE branch of science all deciding to defraud and defraud in exactly the same way. Obviously, you are offering no proof whatsoever but hey…WTF… can’t expect much from you. [snip] ED


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Robert

      I see, so you have no proof then? You are the one saying mathematics deals with proof yet aren’t the models simply mathematical constructs? You would think they should then be able to prove something wouldn’t you, rather than being wrong all the time.

      And one has to love your “most” scientists rubbish. Name them, because we can name just as many who say different.

      You live in your own conspiracy theory where claims of “big oil support” is one of your primary arguments. Then try and fantasize that others who can show you economic analyses of policies proving they will not accomplish what is claimed are engaging in a “conspiracy theory.”

      The “greenhouse gas” meme is quite old, that science isn’t even yesterday’s news. Current experiments are proving that line of rubbish for what it is.

      I will leave it to someone else to provide links to them should they choose, I’m between classes and don’t feel like wasting the little free time I have trying to educate one of the true believers. You don’t even understand that which you support but love to claim how it is we who are in denial.

      As I have said before, you are projecting again.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Gordon

        Where’s your “proof” I asked for? Are avoiding my question? Also, please provide “proof” there’s a scientific conspiracy while you are at it.

        SSo everything I’ve just written about how ‘proof’ works went completely over your head. Models provide simulation, big difference! No scientist ever says that alone is done and dusted and there’s the complete proof. It’s about observation and experimentation. Don’t tell you missed that bit too?


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Robert

          Oh, you mean ice core data and other geologic evidence that establishes that CO2 lags the increase in planetary temperature rather than leading it?

          Or perhaps the mathematical evidence that human CO2 production in comparison with planetary CO2 production is insignificant and therefore cannot cause your so called “statistically significant probabilities.”

          You are the one claiming anyone who doubts you is doing so out of some conspiracy theory which is in itself your own conspiracy theory.

          Why is it that the observational evidence doesn’t support the models Gordon?

          Your little song and dance about how proof works is all fine and wonderful, when you then make a claim of “most scientists” yet don’t name any, can’t list or provide any of the evidence, and duck and dodge answering the questions (or others not just myself) who provide you with evidence that doesn’t support your view.

          As we have said before, you have nothing.

          Would you like a list of scientists who doubt the warming is anthropogenic or who believe it may have an anthropogenic component but on a far less significant weight than any of the IPCC or other papers have shown?

          Probability Gordon, that is what you said, so how probable is it that a trace gas of which the “human” component (if it can even be accurately measured) is statistically insignificant is causing all of these “climate” events? How probable is it that you are full of b.s.?

          There is a statistically higher probability of the latter than the former.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          BobC

          Hey Gordo,

          Why don’t you try reading some of the background information on this site? You look like a fool claiming we have no “proof” or data when you are surrounded by such that you haven’t read (or can’t understand).

          Can’t wait to see your response to the information in, say, the skeptic’s handbook.

          (Well, that’s not really true — I have no interest in whatever passes for “thinking” in your brain.)


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Mike M

    most scientists believe that the current warming is most likely anthropogenic

    Even if that was true, (it is not actually true, far more scientists do NOT believe warming is anthropogenic because there has been no warming for over a decade), who says that they cannot all be wrong?

    Is there some sort of ‘rule’ that because more scientists ~think~ this or that then it must be the ‘settled’ science? That’s simply total RUBBISH Gordan because science has NOTHING to do with how many people believe it. Consensus in science have been wrong many times in the past and will be in the future. Was there or was there not once a consensus that the sun revolved around the earth? That there HAD to be an ‘aether’ in space for radio waves to propagate? That Newton’s law of gravity was so elegantly simple that it was accepted as perfect?

    Much more like CAGW theory there was Piltdown Man – a total hoax. There was a strong consensus,(plenty of Gordans around too I suspect) .. for a while.

    Weidenreich, being an anatomist, easily exposed the hoax for what it was. However, it took thirty years for the scientific community to concede that Weidenreich was correct.

    When temperature was generally rising in the late 80′s and in the 90′s there was a casual correlation between temperature and CO2 so the AGW theory at least had that to claim to insist it was possible, (even though there was never that ‘hot spot’ they said would exist to verify their models).

    But now temperature has been FLAT for over a decade. Hansen admits it, Trenberth admits it, Jones admits it, Curry admits it, Muller admits it – etc. – so ‘your’ climate scientists are admitting that AGW theory is flawed. Your correlation is GONE Gordan! A flat temperature trend is the END of your precious warming theory. Other climate factors, (known or maybe yet unknown) are obviously more powerful than CO2 and NOT represented or represented properly in the climate models used by the UN’s IPCC, (a POLITICAL organization),

    Your consensus scientists are busy back-peddling to adjust the theory to allow for what they were not expecting but here you are claiming what they were telling us a long time ago… try to keep up.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gordon

    Oh my goodness! Can’t you 3 clowns club together and give ONE coherent post?

    Robert, Where’s your proof? Why do you avoid my question?

    Robert, you haven’t a clue how proof works do you? As for scientists, the IPCC AR4 has over 800 authors and reviewed by 1500 reviewers. Models DO support the real world. Hansen (Dr Evil to you lot) gave 3 scenarios to Congress. What you are quoting Robert, is something out of a Michael Crichton novel where he cherry picked one scenario only. Hansen has over 3 decades of experience in the climate field and has authored over 100 climate papers. Now who have you got Robert? Rent-a-scientist Dr Singer?

    Now Robert, let’s have your proof!!

    BobC

    Bob, we want “proof”! Where’s your proof?

    The IPCC AR4, probably the most comprehensive scientific document in the history of man authored **see above to Robert’s reply**. Are you telling me ALL of them are liars? Where’s your proof? Are you a joke BobC? The Skeptic’s handbook is just a copy and paste job regurgitating debunked information from all these d** sites. It’s been thoroughly debunked by skeptical science, I suggest you use google to find it yourself.

    MikeM

    Stop cherry picking my posts! Do you know why scientists use trends? Do you understand what a statistically significant trend is? If you don’t, then don’t go on about flat lining because you don’t understand what a statistically significant trend is.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Robert

      I’m just doing a “Gordon” apparently you don’t like it when someone responds to you the way you respond to others. I wonder why that is.

      The “other 90% of the time” right, there is no evidence of CO2 leading temperature increase, though it would appear it may lead a temperature decrease. Doesn’t say much for your warming fantasy does it? Proof of natural variability is in the geologic record, which doesn’t support CO2 as a cause.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Gordon

        Robert, feel free to tell only part of the story about CO2/temps relationship in the interglacial cycle.

        Meantime, I noticed you still haven’t provided any proof of any of your accusations. Really, why should I bother with clowns like you.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Robert

          The ONLY reason I respond to you is I like to feed trolls and watch them explode.

          So far you have provided no evidence and continually change the subject or dodge questions. When called out for it you then try and claim the other party is guilty. Finally when you do provide an answer it is such a mishmash of horse manure that means so little that you may as well have stayed silent. Nothing new there, it is what we expect of you. Which (as I stated previously) is why I will just do a “Gordon” when responding to you.

          James “ex con” Hansen must be one of your shining examples of apolitical scientists only interested in the facts huh? Someone who stays out of the politics and retains his scientific objectivity? Must be why he keeps getting arrested and is currently under investigation for his other income while employed by NASA.

          Apparently that “probability” that you claim isn’t very high because the warming he expected isn’t there. Which is why he went looking to blame Chinese aerosols?

          I don’t have much respect for a “scientist” who rather than considering that he was mistaken insists that when his expected results do not occur there must be some other reason besides his theory being wrong.

          You see Gordon, I recognize a clown when I see one, that rubber nose of yours was apparent when you arrived. However unlike you I have a sense of humor and can see comedy potential you present us with.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Gordon

            Hmm, I see, avoiding my questions. Still no proof that natural variability can account for the current warming. Still no proof of any scam or conspiracy. However, I’m suppose to constantly dig stuff up for you clowns. No Robert, you haven’t respect for ‘science’, not just ‘scientists’.

            You’d rather get spoonfed by the likes of Monckton the PR merchant and rent-a-scientist Dr Singer. Are telling me those clowns know more than the majority?The IPCC AR4 is probably THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE scientific report in the HISTORY OF MAN. It has 800 authors and 1500 reviewers. Are you trying to tell me each and everyone of them are liars? If you are, you are bigger joke than I gave you credit for!


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Gordon

    Oh, you mean ice core data and other geologic evidence that establishes that CO2 lags the increase in planetary temperature rather than leading it?

    Slip past me, nice try Robert, now try describing the other 90% of the cycle where CO2 leads temps.

    (You can tell us yourself.It is permitted here.That you express in your words along with some science research support.To be able to support your interesting claim) CTS


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike M.

    gordan:

    Stop cherry picking my posts! Do you know why scientists use trends? Do you understand what a statistically significant trend is? If you don’t, then don’t go on about flat lining because you don’t understand what a statistically significant trend is.

    No gordon – YOU are the one who doesn’t understand ‘significant trend’ Over a year and a half ago Phil Jones said THIS:

    And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

    (He has more recently made a U-turn on that position, probably because of flak he received from other gravy train passengers but it all goes to show just how fragile the CAGW position actually is.)

    As for cherry picking your posts – so what? I’m merely targeting your juiciest misrepresentations because when they fall – the rest of the house cards comes falling down. You on the other hand NEVER respond with any attempt to address the facts I and others present always opting to deflect with irrelevant subterfuge.

    And your ridiculous misrepresentation of Hansen’s three scenarios conveniently IGNORE what they were based upon. His ‘A’ model is totally IRRELEVANT having NOTHING to do with reality at all! It assumed CO2 remained constant after 2000. Did CO2 stop rising after 2000 gordan?

    No it did not. CO2 actually rose MORE than Hansen’s 1.5% per year scenario C!

    Lastly your:

    the IPCC AR4 has over 800 authors and reviewed by 1500 reviewers.

    Ok gordan… LET’S SEE A LIST OF MORE THAN 100 NAMES of IPCC authors who support the claim that humans make a significant impact on climate?

    Gotcha!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gordon

    U turn? **Alert** disinformation originally started by the Daily Mail. Why? Because interviewer picked a set of dates (1995 – 2009) where there wasn’t statistical significance. But guess what!!! I tracked down the original transcript of that interview with Phil Jones on the BBC site. And this is what YOU missed out!!

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

    I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

    So where was this U turn? So how many more myths and/or disinformation are you going to post? And are you going to cherry pick anymore my posts to answer (or dates)? As for the rest, download the IPCC AR4 and look at the names for yourself. I’m not going to bother with clowns like you.

    Now how about showing proof of that natural variability accounts for most of the current warming? Or is this going to be a one-sided debate where you jump around like a cat on a hot tin roof!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gordon

    MikeM

    More on your “so-called” U turn. Note, “another year of data”.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510

    Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not significant – a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change.

    But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are “real”.

    Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis.

    I’ll let you read the rest of the article for yourself. Now do you understand statistical significance?

    **let’s hope this is the last of your disinformation campaign**

    Now let’s have proof of your gravy train conspiracy or whatever you call it!

    (Nowhere does Dr. Jones show that it is spiraling upward at an increasing rate.He is telling us that the trend is a weak warming trend.) CTS


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Has Gordo answered any questions put to him? He is not interested in a conversation so much as a shouting match.

    What you shout, Gordo is really, really stupid:

    The IPCC AR4, probably the most comprehensive scientific document in the history of man

    You mean the one where they used Greenpeace propaganda flyers to decide how fast Himalayan glaciers were melting, instead of the well-documented studies by Indian scientists? One hopes mankind can do better than that (although it probably seems OK to you.)

    The Skeptic’s handbook is just a copy and paste job regurgitating debunked information from all these d** sites. It’s been thoroughly debunked by skeptical science, I suggest you use google to find it yourself.

    Skeptical Science has been debunked itself, recently by Lobos Motl (a real physicist, as opposed to one-time physics student John Cook who cooks up the garbage in SS) Your choice of authorities demonstrates your inability to reason.

    Where’s your proof?

    You also seem unable to engage in a reasonable discussion. Why bother talking to someone (you) who only shouts back and calls names? Try engaging in a real conversation sometime.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike M

    Boy you either don’t ‘get it’ Gordan or you are an entrenched shill for the alarmists or simply a Chinese communist who wants the free world to fall into abject poverty. Whether or not warming took place is NOT the lynchpin of whether or not CAGW is true, the planet has ALWAYS warmed and cooled and way warmer and cooler than humans have ever experienced too.

    My whole point of presenting the flip flop by Jones was to point out just how WEAK your ‘statistically significant’ trend actually is! If earth’s temperature had been on track with Hansen’s ‘worst case’ ‘C’ model scenario since 1988 then I’d be saying “OMG!!! We had better do something dramatic and fast!” and be on your side to send out the warning.

    But that didn’t happen, the models were WRONG, the theory is seriously flawed attributing way too much net forcing, (which HAD TO include positive feedback via water vapor because CO2 by itself is way too small), to increases in CO2 while thoroughly disregarding the power of NATURAL climate factors that have and remain to be in total control of our climate. There was never any proof that humans cause global warming but now that we’re seeing temperature FLAT LINE with a very slight warming or cooling trend either way – your precious theory is dead.


    Report this

    00

  • #
  • #
    Mike M

    look at the names for yourself. I’m not going to bother with clowns like you.

    There are in fact fewer than 100 IPCC authors who think human CO2 causes measurable global warming – the rest DISAGREE. The politically motivated people who wrote the summary, mostly NON scientists, grabbed at the conclusions of the scientific MINORITY and snowed you that it was the majority. That’s the fact and I leave it to YOU to produce a list of IPCC authors who agree with you. You know that you cannot so that’s why you resort to an ad hominem attack calling me a clown.

    YOU are the clown here Gordan. You have nothing.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mike M

    Gordan:

    Slip past me, nice try Robert, now try describing the other 90% of the cycle where CO2 leads temps.

    Just caught that. What a load of BS! If temperature initially led CO2 then WHEN exactly does CO2 suddenly take over? How is that possible Gordon? HOW do you know that temperature really wanted to start back down but that pesky CO2 just wouldn’t allow it?

    If horse starts running and there’s a cart attached to it by long rope – the cart later starts following the horse. When the horse slows downs the cart keeps rolling and might even pass by the horse for a little while but the HORSE is always going to ultimately determine which way the cart goes.

    Eventually, in the ice record, over and over, the temperatures eventually DO stop rising and start coming back DOWN again. How is that possible when all that CO2 now in the atmosphere was causing it to go up? The CO2 didn’t go away Gordan…

    Rising temperature is what causes CO2 to rise and there is not ONE reason to suspect that it does not CONTINUE to do so.

    But if you ‘think’ there such a reason then please don’t keep it a secret – tell us why! (a reason that doesn’t rely on fake ‘models’ that is)


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Robert

      Mike this is something that has intrigued me and the work by Nasif Nahle among others further intrigues me.

      I don’t believe the role of CO2 is as well understood as claimed, and I suspect it serves more as a regulator than an instigator of temperature change. Is it the case? Too soon to tell really as it seems too few people are looking at other possibilities.

      The list of questions regarding how our atmosphere works and how it influences our climate are far greater than the list of things we do know about it. Apparently with all those unknowns we are to believe it is understood well enough to claim that CO2 is doing something historical evidence contradicts.

      That’s an odd way of doing science.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Hi Robert

    Well put.

    I haven’t got past the first line of the comment you replied to – junk.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Hi Mike and Robert

    Gordon doesn’t seem to able to understand the influence of the sun.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gordon

    MikeM/Robert/BobC/Kinky

    Can’t you clowns do one conherent post instead of jumping all over the pace? How many more bunkums will you throw up? Here’s the debunking to some of the myths you dest keep bringing up.

    Kinky, no scientists ever says the sun doesn’t influence, but you need the full picture, here it is

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

    MikeM

    Check the Milankovitch theory, you know Earth’s precession, obliquity, and the eccentricity cycles causing changes.

    Here’s the link

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Milankovitch.html

    Can’t remember which clown keeps repeating the partial story of CO2 lags, but here is the link

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

    MikeM, glad you now understand statistical significant, there was no u-turn, well done!

    MikeM, so now it’s the Chinese communists! Where’s your proof?

    Robert, let’s have your proof of this scam.

    BobC, can’t remember which conspiracy you keep subscribing too, but hey, good luck…

    Kinky, nice to meet you, how about helping to get your lot together and do ONE COHERENT post!


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robert

    Looks like Gordon can’t read.

    Even the IPCC acknowledges that natural variability is swamping their “climate change signals” and that there hasn’t been any warming recently.

    Then again, Gordon’s best defense is to claim anyone who is skeptical doesn’t understand or respect science (showing how poorly he understands what science truly is). But do we really expect anything better from someone still relying on AR4 which even the IPCC sees as out of date and irrelevant? Poor Gordon, yesterday’s man…


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Gordon

      I see none of the questions above have been answered. Also no proof of your so-called scam and/or conspiracy. Is that how your science works?

      AR4 is an assessment report, as more data comes it gets updated, AR5 is due out in 2014 I believe. Of course the science considers natural variability, that’s why the report is so comprehensive, it looks into all areas. As the sun is another major climate driver, it is considered heavily too, you only need to read it to see how comprehensive it is instead of relying on the usual soundbites from these dist websites.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Robert

        Just answering questions as you do Gordon, why are you complaining?

        Now next time you claim we don’t “respect science” perhaps you should first provide some.

        Remember Gordon, “the science is settled” a statement which no one truly aware of the workings of science would make.

        Your “assessment report” which you have previously claimed is such a comprehensive document of science is full of holes, activist advocacy, misinformation, and inadequacies that it better than anything displays your lack of understanding of science.

        You see Gordon In my posts to you I am only providing you with a mirror with which to see yourself. It is hardly my fault or my problem if you don’t like what you see.


        Report this

        00

      • #

        As the sun is another major climate driver, it is considered heavily too,

        haha you just make it up as you go along.
        “ANOTHER MAJOR”? climate driver? Take away the sun, what other major climate drivers are there Gordon?

        Furthermore, according to the IPCC, the sun is NOT a major driver.
        from their WG1 Summary for Policy Makers Fig.SPM2 on page 4…

        Radiative Forcing Components:- (in Wm2)

        CO2………………1.66
        CH4………………0.48
        Halocarbons……….0.34
        tropospheric Ozone…0.35
        Land use change…..-0.2
        Aerosol Direct……-0.5
        Aerosol Cloud Albedo-0.7
        Solar irradiance…..0.12

        Care to pull another one out of your proverbial?
        Do you think you can just spout cow patties and expect everyone to believe you?


        Report this

        00

        • #

          Just so as we’re clear on this Gordon, the section of the AR4 SPM which deals with forcings is at the very beginning of the SPM.

          This section is titled “Human and Natural Drivers of Climate Change.”
          It comprises of the table I quoted from (Fig.SPM2) and eleven (11) paragraphs.

          Lets see how HEAVILY they CONSIDER old man Sol.

          Paragraph 1 “Changes in the atmospheric abundance of greenhouse
          gases and aerosols, in solar radiation and in land surface
          properties alter the energy balance of the climate system.
          These changes are expressed in terms of radiative
          forcing, yada yada yada”

          Para 2 “Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly yada yada yada”

          Para 3 “Carbon dioxide is the most important anthropogenic
          greenhouse gas (see Figure SPM.2) yada yada yada

          Para 4 “The primary source of the increased atmospheric
          concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial
          period yada yada yada

          Para 5 “The global atmospheric concentration of methane has
          increased from a pre-industrial value yada yada yada

          Para 6 “The global atmospheric nitrous oxide concentration
          increased from a pre-industrial value yada yada yada

          Para 7 “The understanding of anthropogenic warming and
          cooling influences on climate has improved since
          the TAR yada yada yada

          Para 8 “The combined radiative forcing due to increases in
          carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide is yada yada yada

          Para 9 “Anthropogenic contributions to aerosols (primarily
          sulphate, organic carbon, black carbon, nitrate and dust) yada yada yada

          Para 10 “Significant anthropogenic contributions to radiative
          forcing come from several other sources yada yada yada

          Para 11 “Changes in solar irradiance since 1750 are estimated
          to cause a radiative forcing of +0.12 [+0.06 to +0.30]
          W m–2, which is less than half the estimate given in the
          TAR.

          At last, after 3 pages, in paragraph 11 and that’s the FULL PARAGRAPH, no yada yadas

          They haven’t even included a pretty picture of the Sun in it’s bright burning glory, nothing, zip zilch, about 3 lines that’s all.

          But look, there is a nice full colour chart titled “SPM1, Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide over the last 10,000 years (large panels) and since 1750 (inset panels).”

          Awww, nothing about the OTHER MAJOR DRIVER of CLIMATE.

          That is the full extent of the IPCCs “HEAVY CONSIDERATION” according to Gordon, 3 frigging lines in amongst 3 pages.

          you only need to read it to see how comprehensive it is instead of relying on the usual soundbites from these dist websites.

          Maybe you will be kind enough to link to where the IPCC COMPREHENSIVELY and HEAVILY CONSIDERED the Sun.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Robert

          Do you think you can just spout cow patties and expect everyone to believe you?

          Apparently he does.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Hi Baa

          The is NO WATER on that list of “drivers”.

          How I hate that unscientific, emotionally laden term Drivers.

          Never heard it during Chemistry or Physics lectures at Uni.

          Water vapour is a major component of the atmosphere and the major compound in the so called GHG effect.

          Noticeably in the IPCC crap wherever you read it, is the absence of the following relevant scientific summary:

          “In terms of heat retention in the atmosphere, aka “the GHG effect”, CO2 is quantitatively much smaller than water as a relevant factor.

          Additionally the proportion of human origin CO2 is a very small part of the total CO2 present.

          The final balance shows that human origin CO2 is insignificant when compared with the thermal effects of natural Origin CO2 and the major player WATER.

          If the problem was so serious the first line of attack would be to remove all water vapor from the atmosphere.

          The fact that this is not being done is something of a mystery when we are told that the world is in peril.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Mark D.

            Gordon, you must have to sit on two bar stools at the same time on account of you being such a big ass. Why don’t you tone it down a notch or ten? I know it must be stressful for you to have to deal with so much rational thought at one time but try you must.

            Start by taking some time away from skeptical science. Those people are fully indoctrinated and no longer approach theories with scientific openness.

            Then take a deep breath and hold it for 8 to 10 minutes. You’ll be surprised at how much better we’ll all feel after that.

            If after step two you are still interested, read cover to cover the Skeptics handbook

            Then after that take a close thoughtful look at this: Climategate 30 years in the making

            Then read this Handbook II

            Lastly, read this: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf

            If you do all these things and still have the urge to call us names, you can’t be helped. If you can’t be helped then go away.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    Mark D.

    It looks like Skeptical Science has traffic problems. They had to send Gordo here to drum up some pageviews. What’s the matter Gordo can’t pay the server bills?

    Sorry Gordo, that site is blocked by my browser. Nothing new and a whole lot of groupthink there. It isn’t surprising that you shop for information on that site and it explains your blog manners too.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gordon

    My goodness, more wingnuts joining the debate!!

    Still no answers from you lot. CAN YOU CLOWNS ALL CLUB TOGETHER AND POST ONE COHERENT POST instead of jumping around like a rabbit on speed? Can any of you clowns provide proof that natural variabiltity can account for the present warming? Can you lot provide proof of conspiracy and/or scam?

    The IPCC AR4 has 800 authors and 1500 reviewers. Are you telling me they are all so stupid or a bunch of scammers and the only correct scientists are the like of Dr Singer and Tim Ball, that are wheeled out everytime they want to diss climate science?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Sean McHugh

      Gordon screeched:

      My goodness, more wingnuts joining the debate!!

      Still no answers from you lot. CAN YOU CLOWNS ALL CLUB TOGETHER AND POST ONE COHERENT POST instead of jumping around like a rabbit on speed?

      Are you all right? Because if you are, it doesn’t sound like it.

      Can any of you clowns provide proof that natural variabiltity can account for the present warming?

      This comes from the AR5 draft:

      Climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability over the coming two to three decades.

      That comes from the very folk to whom you assign authority, the folk whom you loudly brandish at us. Of course that doesn’t provide proof against CO2 having input. But there is no requirement for us to provide such proof. The onus on proving CO2′s degree of responsibility is on the CO2 catastrophists.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Gordon

        Oh no, not another wingnut, they just keep coming. Wingnut Sean, you completely missed my post about proof further above didn’t you. Scientists don’t usually go on about proof, because proof is absolute, it is in the realms of mathematics you go on about proof. Scientific reports talk in probabilities, likelyhoods, etc etc etc. It’s all documented in my posts to MikeM above, go back and read it before you use the word ‘proof’.

        Wingnut Sean, the onus is to understand the mechanism of the climate, because in this universe, scientists believe there’s a mechanism behind everything and scientists strive to understand the mechanism. For example, quantum theory, theory of evolution etc… Through observations and experimentations, scientists believe natural variability cannot explain the current warming. That’s why scientists believe current warming most likely anthropogenic because evidence seems to point that way. Wingnut Sean, note the word ‘most likely’ and note the word ‘seem’.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Robert

          List the scientists and provide the documentation supporting your claims.


          Report this

          00

        • #
          Sean McHugh

          While still recovering from a nasty seizure, Gordon spat:

          Wingnut Sean, you completely missed my post about proof further above didn’t you.

          Nope. Didn’t see it, didn’t miss it. You need to keep in mind that your actual importance does not equal your self-importance.

          Scientists don’t usually go on about proof, because proof is absolute, it is in the realms of mathematics you go on about proof. Scientific reports talk in probabilities, likelyhoods, etc etc etc. It’s all documented in my posts to MikeM above, go back and read it before you use the word.

          That’s lovely, but you need to talk to the other Gordon, the one who demanded proof from sceptics. My reply was to his post. Perhaps in his juvenile rage, he neglected to convey what he really meant.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Gordon

    Oh my goodness, just come across this. This must list as one of the top ten strawman arguments. Kinky, no scientist ever says it’s not a major component, but it acts more like a feedback mechanism. Do you understand what a feedback mechanism is? That means it’s temps driven. Do you understand what that means?

    The is NO WATER on that list of “drivers”.

    How I hate that unscientific, emotionally laden term Drivers.

    Never heard it during Chemistry or Physics lectures at Uni.

    Water vapour is a major component of the atmosphere and the major compound in the so called GHG effect.

    Sorry Editor, those clowns aren’t skeptics, they are (Snipped). Constantly posting disinformation, lies and strawman arguments. I can’t possibly debunk all of them, they’re coming in thick and fast!

    CTS


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Mark D.

      Gordon, you must have to sit on two bar stools at the same time on account of you being such a big ass. Why don’t you tone it down a notch or ten? I know it must be stressful for you to have to deal with so much rational thought at one time but try you must.

      Start by taking some time away from skeptical science. Those people are fully indoctrinated and no longer approach theories with scientific openness.

      Then take a deep breath and hold it for 8 to 10 minutes. You’ll be surprised at how much better we’ll all feel after that.

      If after step two you are still interested, read cover to cover the Skeptics handbook

      Then after that take a close thoughtful look at this: Climategate 30 years in the making

      Then read this Handbook II

      Lastly, read this: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf

      If you do all these things and still have the urge to call us names, you can’t be helped. If you can’t be helped then go away.

      Moderator, sorry about the double post, the first one went in the wrong place.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Sorry Gordon

      That should have read “There is no water” not “the is no water”.

      Gordon: the dream is over.

      The science is in.

      Man made CO2 is quantitatively irrelevant.

      Man can burn all he likes and the heat will simply drift up and away into that great big heat sink in the sky.

      I know that fact has been obscured, deliberately hidden or whatever but water is the major greenhouse gas, and that doesn’t include the water in clouds which makes the warmer situation even worse.

      Activism does not equate to science just as have scanned Skeptical science does not make you a scientist.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Gordon

        Kinky, cool, no more top ten strawman arguments, but…

        Man can burn all he likes and the heat will simply drift up and away into that great big heat sink in the sky.

        Oh good, I like this one. You have no idea do you Kinky, absolutely no idea. If anything, scientists are more concerned about ocean heat content than surface temps.

        Activism does not equate to science just as have scanned Skeptical science does not make you a scientist.

        I never said I was a scientist and considering your post above, you are a lost cause.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Robert

    Wrong again Gordon, but what else is new.

    Scientists are concerned with facts, with attempting to get closer to the truth.

    Activists and politicians are more concerned with ocean heat content because surface temps aren’t co-operating with them. So Trenberth and the rest are trying to find their missing heat in the oceans now since the hot spot wasn’t where their models said it should be.

    Imagine that. All you have is a hypothesis to defend, one which keeps falling apart as more people examine it. No wonder Trenberth wants the null hypothesis reversed. He can’t find any evidence to support him so he needs to rewrite the rules so he doesn’t have to.

    Now that I have YOU asking for proof we can turn your own arguments back on you. I hope that trail of breadcrumbs that led you around by your nose fattened you up some, wouldn’t do to starve our trolls.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    rod-spared Rodney wrote:

    Wingnut Sean, since you d******* always ask for proof. Please provide proof. None of you have so far.

    It’s interesting to observe how catastrophic global warming advocacy brings out the bitterness in its proponents, in their comments, their in-house e-mails, their manners and their politics. I didn’t actually ask for proof, Rudney, I invoked the expression ‘onus of proof’ simply to redirect your demand for ‘proof’. When I do ask you for the goods, I won’t ask for ‘proof’, I’ll ask for significant and consistent evidence. In law, philosophy, debating and in general, ‘onus of proof’ refers to the question of whom is to be allocated the burden. Fulfillment generally doesn’t require the rigor expected in mathematics.

    You previously said:

    Scientific reports talk in probabilities, likelyhoods, etc etc etc.

    Compare that to this description of ‘onus of proof’:

    The onus of proof rests on the party seeking to uphold the limitation. The standard is the civil standard, by a preponderance of probabilities, and proof to the standard of science is not required

    Happy? So if I do call on you to satisfy the ‘onus of proof’, we will enjoy a mutual and congenial understanding of what is required of you.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gordon

    Again, can’t you clowns post one coherent post?

    Wingnut Sean, very good but wrong forum, we’re not talking about the constitution of Canada, we’re talking about climate. But when you do get time, do read the posts of your fellow (Snipped) and read their demands for proof.

    (Again, you go into the name calling.You have been asked to stop using the word denier.You try to evade by using this instead.de******.I will snip them out from now on) CTS


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Sean McHugh

      Rodney said:

      Wingnut Sean, very good but wrong forum, we’re not talking about the constitution of Canada, we’re talking about climate.

      Rodney, whoever told you that you’re witty was not your friend. We were actually talking about your taking exception to my using the expression, ‘onus of proof’ in a global warming debate. You disallowed it on the basis of science being about probabilities. The Canadian page defined ‘onus of proof’ in terms of probabilities. You didn’t dispute the actual definition in that page, so on what basis did you reject its application to the global warming debate? You can’t have rejected its application to science by claiming that science is not about probabilities, because you robustly asserted that it was. You can’t have rejected the page for not allowing for probabilities, rather than absolutes, because that page did define ‘onus of proof’ in terms of probabilities rather than absolutes.

      Further on that:

      we’re not talking about the constitution of Canada, we’re talking about climate.

      So are you proposing that words and phrase aren’t transportable between subjects? Should one be allowed to use English when talking about global warming?

      And there’s another point. Though I agree that some sciences deal with probabilities, especially ones based on induction (statistics etc.) rather than deduction, others are quite rigorous. Tell us how Special Relativity is about probabilities. Regardless though, depending on the application, ‘onus of proof’ can be accommodated by, ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. Here is another (official) example that obviously refers to ‘climate change’:

      Recommendation 3
      Given the extent of the climate and environmental crisis, in establishing environmental bottom
      lines, the onus of proof in the Act should be reversed so that only actions which can be shown
      to have no significant impact on matters of national environmental significance should be
      contemplated.

      In an earlier post, you wrote:

      Can any of you clowns provide proof that natural variabiltity can account for the present warming?

      Given that you vehemently objected to the term ‘proof’ being used, because of its supposed absoluteness, I must assume that your reciprocal challenge retains that definition. Ironically that makes the job easier here. Even if one assumes no natural cycles accounting for higher and lower overall temperatures occurring with various time periods, randomness will provide a non-zero chance of higher temperatures bunching abnormally in a nominated period. So that scenario can’t be excluded from your “can account” specification.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        BobC

        Sean, Sean — you can’t teach a pig to sing, and you can’t teach village idiot Gordo to think. It will prove to be literally impossible for him to respond rationally to your carefully reasoned post #78.1.

        He isn’t even aware of his own contradictory statements:

        What Gordo demands of others:

        Can any of you clowns provide proof that natural variabiltity can account for the present warming?

        and

        I said ‘proof’ mate ‘proof’! Which bit of ‘proof’ do you not understand.

        What Gordo says when asked for proof himself:

        Scientists don’t usually go on about proof, because proof is absolute, it is in the realms of mathematics you go on about proof. Scientific reports talk in probabilities, likelyhoods, etc etc etc. It’s all documented in my posts to MikeM above, go back and read it before you use the word.

        Of course, the idea that there is any similarity between Gordo and a scientist is absurd — even the worst of the Climate Crowd aren’t as stupid as this.

        Gordo, about your persistent plea that we simplify our discussion so that you might be able to comprehend it:

        CAN YOU CLOWNS ALL CLUB TOGETHER AND POST ONE COHERENT POST instead of jumping around like a rabbit on speed?

        First, Gordo; People here (trolls excluded) are capable of thinking for themselves — they aren’t true believers like yourself.

        Second: I’m afraid that your performance here has shown it’s impossible to post any logical argument that you would be able to follow.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Gordon

    More wingnuts joining the debate! Again, why can’t you clowns make ONE coherent post? I know you all love attacking science. But make ONE COHERENT attack. Right now, there’s too many different strawman arguments and conspiracies. I still haven’t any “proof” from any of you of a scam/conspiracy. I still haven’t had any “proof” that natural variability can account for the current warming.

    Mark, I believe you are new joiner in science bashing posse. Nice to meet you, what was your post again, let’s read…. yadayada, oh yeah, another rightwing thinktank funded pamphlet. Chaps, this has been repeated on numerous conspiracy sites. Jo needn’t have bothered and could have just given you chaps the links in the first place.

    Robert, where’s your proof? Still waiting for it. What’s this about Trenberth. Oh yeah, the 13 years of emails taken out of context, nice one. Also apparently surface temps aren’t cooperating, where did this crock start from? My goodness, you chaps are coming out with them thick and fast. Jo needn’t have bothered making another pamphlet, you chaps are imaginative enough.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Robert

      So Gordon why are you asking me for proof of some scam? Nowhere in any of my comments have I mentioned a scam, so why do you ask me to prove something which I never claimed? Reading disorder?

      Since all you can manage is name calling, cherry picking of a portion of what a person says in order to “refute” them without actually addressing that which they stated, and other forms of intellectual failures I don’t have anymore time for you.

      But you are welcome to continue your ranting until the mods get tired of you, it’s not my blog so what they do with you isn’t my business.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Mike M.

    I’m not responding to Gordan anymore because it’s obvious he’s a shill for the alarmists and will just say anything to keep the lie going. He keeps demanding proof but supplies none himself.

    But now none of it matters anyway because, in the broadbrush look of things, the most recent summary from the IPCC is indicating they are THROWING IN THE TOWEL!

    Projected changes in climate extremes under
    different emissions scenarios5 generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three
    decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this
    time frame. Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame is
    uncertain.

    They are liars like Gordon but they aren’t stupid, they see the writing on the wall, (dropping temperature, dropping sea level, no historic indication of an increase in extreme climate events), so they’re running for cover – TIME. Put the scam on hold for the next 20 to 30 years and then they’ll take it up again if they are still around being funded.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Sean McHugh

    Mike M said:

    I’m not responding to Gordon anymore because it’s obvious he’s a shill for the alarmists and will just say anything to keep the lie going.

    Gordon is simply trying to save a world that wants nothing to do with him.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    @Gordon #various

    Can you lot provide proof of conspiracy and/or scam?

    Well I’m just a little sick and tired of your rants and abusive posts you obnoxious little twit.
    So here’s what I’m going to do for you. I’m going to cite the scam artists own words to provide you with what you’ve been screeching for.

    I’m going to start with just one, then when you respond with the inevitable “context context” meme, I’m going to cite some more, then some more and more and more.

    In other words you offensive sh**head, in the tradition of my political hero Paul Keating, “I’m going to do you slowly.”

    Lets start.

    Here is a note from WWFs Adam Markham to the University of East Anglias Mike Hulme and Nicola Sheard, about a paper that Hulme and Sheard had written about climate change in Australasia:

    Hi Mike,
    I’m sure you will get some comments direct from Mike Rae in World Wildlife Fund Australia, but I wanted to pass on the gist of what they’ve said to me so far.
    They are worried that this may present a slightly more conservative approach to the risks than they are hearing from Australian scientists. In particular, they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events beefed up if possible. …
    I guess the bottom line is that if they are going to go with a big public splash on this they need something that will get good support from Australian scientists (who will certainly be asked to comment by the press).

    Well sh**head, can you see a problem with an environmental activist asking IPCC scientists to “beef up” the conclusions of their paper in order to get a better impact?
    Do you see unscientific behaviour there? can you give me a reason why the conclusions of the paper shouldn’t stand on its own merits?

    Would you say this was corruption or fraud or just bad scientific practice perpetuated to con the public who will digest it?

    [* by ED]


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Crakar24

      Ah i love the sound of crickets in the afternoon, well done BH you have done us all a service and we are forever in your debt.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Gordon

      Looks like I upset [a snip, usual baseless insult]

      I said ‘proof’ mate ‘proof’! Which bit of ‘proof’ do you not understand. If someone wrote you an email asking you to commit murder, does that automatically make you guilty of murder? [snip an allegation of a "lie" without a direct quote, without substantiation, or a quote or link to a correction explained in polite terms.]

      It’s pathetic you lot picking a few phrases here and there in emails to prove your climategate, when reconstruction after reconstruction shows the WORLD IS WARMING!! Yet you ignore the debunking of the myths you lot keep repeating [be specific, name a myth, explain the reality, link to a paper]. Have you anything to say about yet? NO!

      Now if my posts upset you, I suggest you [snip rather base and baseless insult]

      —–
      Gordon. Do better. Tame the aggression, the swearing, the anger. It’s only a science theory. Explain it again with manners. Try not to get too excited about “the world is warming” — that doesn’t mean CO2 caused it. We don’t want to snip. You need to self-edit. People who need too much snipping can’t post. Jo

      00

      • #
        Gordon

        Jo, apologies but with respect

        No links – Post 61, MikeM, Jones’s u turn, there was no u turn. A complete misrepresentation at best.

        With manner’s – check the others. I post something and I get a torrent of strawman’s turning into abuse.

        Doesn’t mean CO2 caused it – It means scientists use reasoning and deduction backed up by observations and experimentations. Decades worth. They also do their best at building up a picture of the climate of the past, it’s not perfect, but they do their best.

        Why do they think it’s CO2? – There must a mechanism behind climate and natural variability doesn’t seem to explain current warming. How long are we ignore CO2 and claim it should be anything but CO2.


        Report this

        00

      • #

        Upset? nah mate, just treating you like the way you treat others. What’s the matter sweetheart, you don’t like it when you’re on the end of it?

        OK, lets go with the 2nd round.

        This is an email from Joe Alcamo, Director of the Center for Environmental Systems Research in Germany, to Mike Hulme and Rob Swart:

        Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.
        I would like to weigh in on two important questions—
        Distribution for Endorsements—
        I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500 signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000 without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a different story.
        Conclusion—Forget the screening, forget asking them about their last publication (most will ignore you).Get those names!

        Hmm now where have we heard the words “1000 scientists” “2500 scientists” before? I would think from just about every minister/politician talking up the AGW meme.
        Oh and don’t you like it when scientists talk about who might/might not check their claims.

        It’s science Jim but not as we know it.

        I’ll let you catagorize this one Twit. Is it fraud because they’re misrepresenting facts to con people? Or maybe it’s a scam coz they’ve all got something to gain. Or maybe it’s even a conspiracy because 3 or more are meeting via email and deciding to do the dirty.

        Waddaya reckon Twit?

        p.s Would Twit like to comment on the opening sentence containing the word “cause”? When people have a cause they’re fighting/working for, are they scientists or activists? Is it misrepresentation if an activist passes himself off as a scientist?


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Gordon

    MikeM/Robert/Sean

    Any news on your ‘proof’ current warming can be explained by natural variability? Or even your conspiracy and/or scam?

    Ed

    What can I call these people if I can’t call them the d word? They are not skeptics, it is an insult to skeptics to call them skeptics. So far we’ve have the CO2 lag myth, global cooling myth, scientist never considered the sun myth etc and the top ten AGW is a theory therefore it can’t be true. Well electromagnetism is a theory, why don’t they stick their fingers in a live 240V socket. Should be safe, because it’s only a theory.


    Report this

    00

    • #

      My dear friend the Richard Cranium Twit.
      Due to work commitments, I may not be able to post tomorrow (if you’re lucky) so I am going to give you the bonus of a double post for today. Aren’t you just so excited?

      David Parker, of the United Kingdom Met Office, writes to Neil Plummer, Senior Climatologist at the National Climate Centre of the BoM, in Melbourne:

      There is a preference in the atmospheric observations chapter of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report to stay with the 1961–1990 baseline. This is partly because a change of baseline confuses users, e.g. anomalies will seem less positive than before if we change to a newer baseline, so the impression of global warming will be muted.

      We certainly wouldn’t want to mute the impression of global warming now would we Twit?

      What would you call the above? fraud? Scam? Misrepresentation? One thing for sure, only a Richard Cranium Twit would call it science.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    crakar

    Settle Gordon,

    The email in 82 clearly shows a third party trying to influence the outcome of a scientific study, were they successful i do not know maybe BH can comment on that, in the end you failed to address BH’s post i would like to see you do so in a more purposeful manner please.

    In regards to sticking fingers in sockets is ok as it is only a theory, sorry but you are wrong you should familiarise yourself with Ohm’s law and Kirchoff’s current law.

    Now sorry if i am going over old ground but can you tell me the location of trenberths missing heat and no i dont want abuse, name calling or anything like that just a simple reference to a paper that proclaims to have found it.

    Regards

    crakar


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Hi crakar

      Actually it’s not so important whether the attempt was successful or not.
      The fact that an enviro activist has the paper prior to it being finalised, and that he feels comfortable and confident to even ask to have the conclusion of that paper “beefed up” is damning enough.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Gordon

    crakar

    It would be good if you didn’t cherry pick arguments to prove a point.

    With regards to Trenberth’s missing heat, a two second google search would have answered your question. Why you couldn’t do that I don’t know. I’m assuming you are talking about the “travesty” email. It was an email taken out of context but a discussion between two scientist. (I’m assuming two scientists having email debate amounts to a conspiracy). But the real travesty is how the email was misquoted. In a nutshell, Trenberth was talking about where the heat had gone, not that it wasn’t there in the first place.

    Here is the link to his statement if you like.

    http://www2.ucar.edu/news/record/on-the-record

    To answer your second post (Ohm and Kirchoff), you are getting into a little bit of a confusion here with laws and theories. Just as the transfer of energy laws would describe the greenhouse effect, Ohms would describes an aspect of electromagnetism (proportionality of the potential difference at two points). A theory however, is a collection of concepts, laws, observations etc etc… hence AGW theory and electromagnetic theory.

    Back to your first point, which bit of ‘proof’ do you not understand? If someone sent you an email to murder someone, does that make you a murderer.

    I’m sorry too you are going over old ground.

    Regards

    Gordon

    PS Now a question for you. Please can you show ‘proof’ that natural variability can account for current warming? Please also show ‘proof’ of a scam and/or conspiracy.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Crakar24

      Gordon,

      I like debating people like yourself because people like you throw up all sorts of red herrings to try and divert the debate into a meaningless argument.

      Take your claim of cherry pick, now you and i both know there was no cherry pick so nothing more to be said on that (see how i dodged your subterfuge?)

      Lets dodge a few more shall we, i followed your two second google search but alas i could not find an answer to my question (another subterfuge dodged)

      In a nutshell, Trenberth was talking about where the heat had gone, not that it wasn’t there in the first place.

      We are finally getting somewhere, can you tell me where the heat has gone? Remember my original question was

      can you tell me the location of trenberths missing heat

      You people need to learn to RTFQ. So with all the bullshit out of the way can you give me an answer?

      Now onto the second point, you said

      Well electromagnetism is a theory, why don’t they stick their fingers in a live 240V socket. Should be safe, because it’s only a theory.

      I responded by quoting two laws that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is not theory so now you claim i am wrong of course. Ohms law dictates that if i have my big toe stuck up the water spout of my kitchen sink (Earth) and i then stick my fingers in the socket (potential) then the amount of current that travels through my body is dependent on the potential (value eg 240V P-P) and the resistance of my body in ohms (eg 10 Mega ohms) the higher the resistance the less current the more chance i have of survival. This is not a theory this is a law no matter how you want to dress it up.

      In regards to your question

      PS Now a question for you. Please can you show ‘proof’ that natural variability can account for current warming? Please also show ‘proof’ of a scam and/or conspiracy.

      I have no knowledge of the conspiracy of which you speak, in regards to the first part of your question why dont you tell me where Trenberths missing heat is first.

      Cheers

      Craig


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Crakar24

      Here is a link for you to look at in your own time (i got it from your link ironically)

      http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_0ZFCv_xbfPo/S80kvmdKttI/AAAAAAAAAW0/dUxsHgoNpzo/s1600/tren.sci.jpg


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Gordon

    Crakar

    Oh I see, I have to answer your questions but you feel you can delay answering mine. (I sense you will be delaying answering my question forever because I have inadequately answered your ‘strawman’ question). I’ve already provided you with a link and you could have done a 2 second google sreach yourself

    But anyway, in a nutshell, currently two theories to account for Trenberth’s heat. It is believed that it is stored in the Greenland and Artic ice mass (hence the observed accelerating ice melts) and also, the inadequacy of the ocean equipment for measuring the temps located deeper in the oceans.

    So, after this, I trust you will be keeping yourself with the latest developments instead of cherry picking words from emails?

    In answer to your 2nd question. I’m afraid there is not more I can do for you if you can’t understand scientific terminologies. Theories encompass concepts, facts, laws, equation etc etc and is a tool to help describe the world we live in. Laws describe the behaviour of something but doesn’t explain why it happens. For example, Newton’s law explains the behavious of a falling object but doesn’t explain why it happens. Ohms law describes the current between two points is proportional to the PD between two points but doesn’t explain why it happens. I hope this helps, if not, I hope you know how to do a google search.

    So will you be answering my question? (I won’t be holding my breath though, it’s typical tactic from your ilk)

    Best regards

    Gordon


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Crakar24

      Gordon,

      Firstly i am having a bad day and it is only 8 am so you have caught me at a bad time and therefore my post will reflect this. Now you will note that i have tried to be polite but you have failed in this area.

      You said:

      Oh I see, I have to answer your questions but you feel you can delay answering mine. (I sense you will be delaying answering my question forever because I have inadequately answered your ‘strawman’ question).

      This is typical bullshit from a big mouthed moron like yourself, truth be known i asked you a simple question “where is trenberths missing heat” and rather than answer the question you crap on about 2 second google searches that in the end do not answer the question at all.

      The key here is to nail idiots like you with one question and do not release foot pressure from throat until it is answered which is exactly what i have done and in the end you answer with this pathetic peice of tripe

      But anyway, in a nutshell, currently two theories to account for Trenberth’s heat. It is believed that it is stored in the Greenland and Artic ice mass (hence the observed accelerating ice melts) and also, the inadequacy of the ocean equipment for measuring the temps located deeper in the oceans.

      This is not an answer moron this is a belief, please answer the question or simply STFU.

      In regards to teh second question who gives a shit idiot just supply a study that can actually define the current location of trenberths missing heat.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Robert

    This should be good, I haven’t seen that much stupid in one place since I saw “It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad world.”


    Report this

    00

  • #

    This Twit is repeating what he has heard parrot fashion. let me demonstrate.
    Twit states…

    But anyway, in a nutshell, currently two theories to account for Trenberth’s heat. It is believed that it is stored in the Greenland and Artic ice mass (hence the observed accelerating ice melts)

    Lets see now. The IPCC and its crooked scientists have been telling us since the First Assessment Report that the Greenland and Arctic ice has been/will melt in an accellerating fashion.

    This means that they were aware of the fact that much energy would be used to melt this ice. If however as Twit states, they believe the “missing” energy might be explained by the melting ice, that means they didn’t account for it (the energy required to melt ice) in their energy budget calculations.

    So now we are faced with 2 options: Either the original energy budget calcs were false, or the excuse about the missing energy is just that, an excuse. Either way it’s bad science.

    Twit further states…

    and also, the inadequacy of the ocean equipment for measuring the temps located deeper in the oceans.

    Yes, the equipment required to measure temps in deep ocean are inadequate. But Twit, did you ask yourself where this energy or heat will travel from to get to the deep ocean? Will it rise up from the nether regions? No. It can only come from the top.

    AND GUESS WHERE WE HAVE OODLES AND OODLES OF EQUIPMENT MEASURING TEMPS AND OTHER VARIABLES? Go on guess, even a twit might luck the correct answer.

    YESSS THAT’S RIGHT, we have plenty of equipment measuring sea surface and near surface temps.
    Did these equipment come by the Trenberth Travesty Temps per chance?
    NO? You mean we didn;t detect any of the Travesty as it was making its way down to the abyss? PHANTOM TRAVESTY.

    Twit twit twit, ruminate before you ape, mull before you monkey, ponder before you parrot and cogitate before you copy.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Gordon

      As usual, still no answer to my question, just a rabid rant from humbug. I don’t it’s worth bothering with you wingnuts. I can’t even get on this site the usual way. **hmm, I wonder why, perhaps I’m not welcome**. You just jump around like a mad flea.

      Anyway Humbug, you’re not making much sense. Why would who want to falsify energy budgets? And what are you on about surface temps? Are you saying satellites and surface temps are falisfied as well? Perhaps the links below can help explain it better than I can.

      After you read it, yeah sure, so it’s a major conspiracy whatever. If cherry picking words out of a decade of emails is your science then good luck, you’re beyond help.

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming.htm

      http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Deep-Ocean-Warms-When-Global-Surface-Temperatures-Stall–.html

      http://skepticalscience.com/Tracking_Earths_Energy.html


      Report this

      00

      • #

        Isn’t it funny Twit that just as I start quoting emails from the first FOIA files, we get a new tranch of 5000.
        I may have about 5 years worth of replies to you LOL

        OK heres the next one. This is from a Mick Kelly asking for help from the infamous Phil Jones

        Hi Phil
        I just updated my global temperature trend graph for a public talk, and noticed that the level has really been quite stable since 2000 or so, and 2008 doesn’t look too hot.
        Anticipating the sceptics latching on to this soon, if they haven’t done so already …It would be awkward if we went through another early-1940s-type swing!

        Awkward? Why would it be “awkward” do you think Twit? Wouldn’t you think scientists studying data dispassionately would accept any and all data equally? What’s “awkward” abaout data?
        NAAHHH you don’t think they have pre-conceived ideas and plans do you Twit?

        Jonesy replies to Kelly to the effect of “don’t worry too much, I put it down to 1998 and the ensuing La Nina and put up a couple of figures, that fixes it.”

        But Kelly isn’t too convinced, he replies back..

        Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, I’m used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer—10-year—period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina, etc.
        This is speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the graph before I give the talk again, as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.

        WHOAAA!! see that Twit? Hide the decline part deux.

        You state I don’t do science, what about these scientists? Is “cutting the last few points” off of data in a presentation to the public “science”?

        Don’t worry about a decade of emails Twit. just concentrate on this one example I provided. THEY ARE FUDGING THE DATA TO PRESENT A NICE TIDY STORY TO THE PUBLIC.

        Now defend that.

        p.s. I’m quite familiar with all 3 links you provided. But here is your problem, from your first link…

        Trenberth was lamenting that our observation systems can’t comprehensively track all the energy flow through the climate system.

        The excuse for Trenberths travesty comment is that “we can’t account for all the energy flows” that means we have NO empirical evidence to back up Trenberths energy budget (your 3rd link) and your 2nd link is based upon unvalidated climate models.

        Don’t get into the science Twit, you’re not much good at it. Stick to abusive ad homs like “wingnut” etc, that you are excellent at.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Gordon, admit that you really aren’t very good at supporting your cause. You’re nothing more than a loudmouth drunk at the pub. Sooner or later everyone gets weary of your loud unintelligent ramblings and as the night wears on you become harder to understand.

    Better get a driver to take you home now………..

    PS I looked at only one of your Craptical Science links. (The Deep Ocean Warms) Why, Gordon the pub drunk, do I read the word “models” over and over again? What do real scientist use for proof? That’s right Empirical Evidence.

    When you sober up, read and absorb this: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/08/deep-ocean-temperature-change-spaghetti-15-climate-models-versus-observations/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    Mark D.
    November 25, 2011 at 2:14 am

    Gordon, admit that you really aren’t very good at supporting your cause.

    Actually, Mark, anyone who is willing to expose themselves to reading Gordo’s series of nearly hysterical posts here is much more likely to conclude that his cause is BS.

    Sort of like Bogart’s last scene in “The Caine Mutiny” convinces everyone (including his defense attorney) that he is bonkers.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Mark D.

    Bob, point well taken.

    I think Gordo is a Craptical Science groupie trying to earn his rank advancement and stripes. Sadly, for him he’s likely to remain a buck private and relegated to KP duty.

    BTW happy Thanksgiving (don’t eat too much)


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Crakar24

    http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf

    As of August 2010 Trenberths heat is still missing, anyone got a later paper on this travesty


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Evcricket

    Hilarious. Clutching at straws much?


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Robert

      Such as Trenberth claiming his missing heat is hiding somewhere that it conveniently can’t be measured?

      Why yes I do believe he is clutching at straws.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    BobC

    Interesting paper, Crakar;

    No actual measurements support the idea that the Earth is accumulating heat. The “data” that Trenberth and Fasullo use to derive this is Ftoa, the incoming radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere compared to the outgoing flux. This critical piece of data is, however, not measured — Trenberth, et. al, claim that it

    …is most accurately determined by modeling.

    But, the numbers don’t add up — there is no evidence in the 3500 ARGOS floats or the thousands of other actual measurements that such heat is coming in. So what could be wrong? If you are T & F you immediately assume that the measurements are all wrong (and Gordo accuses us of believing in conspiracies!).

    Most people with half a brain would suspect the models. At least we would want to know how they are validated (answer: not). It doesn’t even make the slightest logical sense — how do you determine that a datum is “most accurately determined by modeling”, when you can’t measure it accurately? This is faith, not science.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    Hi BobC

    The Earths thermal balance and its description has been used as a tool by Global Warming / Climate Change “scientists” to great effect.

    The public display of the “thermal balance” has a number of features which it might be useful to list.

    1. The very presence of such a balance gives the impression to all and sundry that the Goreists have covered every possibly relevant aspect of MMGW or CAGW.

    2. The accuracy of the balance is not crucial to the Warmers because it is such a complex system that they can bamboozle everybody and appeal to “authority” of their PhDs. This aspect cannot be overemphasised.

    3. To the expert eye it is an obvious sham for a number of technical reasons and the following list is not exhaustive, just indicative.

    a. Anyone with any expertise in thermodynamics and modeling of complex systems can see at a glance that this System id so complex that any claim to have an accurate thermal balance done is PREPOSTEROUS. They have not balanced heat content and heat flux in oceans, Earth surfaces( rock, dirt, oceans, atm etc).

    b. There are sub elements of the Earths energy system that have time lags varying from minutes (cloud shift) 24 hours (sun), 30 days (moons gravitation), years and tens of years and thousands of years (precession and other aspects of orbital mechanics).

    c. The nutty thing is that frequently there is shown a perfect balance. Heat in minus heat out = Zero, this is rubbish – there are too many complex factors.

    d. There is stored energy in plant and animal life.

    e. There is a complex chemical system which itself cannot be completely known.

    So, despite all of this readily observable complexity we are told that the Earths thermal balance can be sent over the top by a quantitatively insignificant input: Mans Combustion of a puny amount of fossil fuel.

    The Global Warming by Man Made Co2 concept has always just been a SHOW with lots of hoopla.

    It has never been any kind of Science.

    Getting back away from the nitty gritty allows us to see the full picture and tells a lot.

    Frequently we are arguing about trivia which can be shown to be irrelevant when the full scope of a problem is detailed.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Robert

    Hey Keith,

    Nice explanation. It is exactly that type of thing that bothers me when I read (or someone tells me) how their “science” shows <insert whatever> about CO2 and the climate.

    Basic thermodynamics says otherwise. But the masses apparently don’t understand some of the basic concepts of physics either at all or well enough to reason through any of this themselves.

    As a result exactly what you describe takes place, those pushing the nonsense rely upon their audience either knowing nothing at all or so little about the subject that they can make up crap and sell it because of their credentials.

    I am certainly glad I learned my science basics in school when I did as opposed to now, and doubly thankful for the professional engineers I grew up around who showed me practical applications of many theories and some of what they can and cannot do.

    The younger generations simply won’t be well enough equipped to reason these things out for themselves. Combine that with what seems to be a trend in wanting to let someone else think for them and all I can see is a bigger mess waiting to happen.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Gordon

    Good bit of quote mining there [snip] Humbug. Here’s a quote mine from,

    Andrew Kerr: already suffering from the serious impacts of global warming including rising sea-levels, rising sea temperatures, and increased extreme weather patterns
    ? to name just a few,

    Darn, those evil scientists had us believe climate change was something in the future. Here they are secretly admitting that it is happening now.

    Well, the (SNIP) lobby has had two years with emails and the public are still waiting for this so called “conspiracy”.

    (I am fed up with your nasty attitudes and the name calling.Next time I may just delete your next snotty post entirely!) CTS


    Report this

    00

    • #

      The twit says…

      Darn, those evil scientists had us believe climate change was something in the future. Here they are secretly admitting that it is happening now.

      hahaha hahahahaha hahahahha you actually “believed” climate change will happen in the future?

      Do you mean to say twit that you believe the climate hadn’t changed in the past?

      hahahaha hahahahahah hahahahahahah hahahahha what a gullible ignaramus.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Gordon

    Wow, a lot of (SNIPPED) posting here. But so far, not one can provide “proof” natural variability can account for the current warming.

    (Stop with the baseless name calling!) CTS


    Report this

    00

    • #

      Sorry twit, due to work commitments I haven’t had much time to continue “beating the crap out of you” (intellectually speaking of course)

      So, to continue.

      Below is the Journal of Geophysical Research standard request of prospective authors. their standards in other words

      Please list the names of 5 experts who are knowledgeable in your area and could give an unbiased review of your work. Please do not list colleagues who are close associates, collaborators, or family members.

      Seems like a reasonable request. We can’t have PAL REVIEW now can we twit (or can we)?

      Do you think our infamous Phil Jones, being a legit upstanding scientist and all, would abide by the JGR standards?

      Lets go to the video tape…

      I agree with Kevin that Tom Karl has too much to do. Tom Wigley is semi-retired, and, like Mike Wallace, may not be responsive to requests from the JGR.
      We have Ben Santer in common! Dave Thompson is a good suggestion. I’d go for one of Tom Peterson or Dave Easterling.
      To get a spread, I’d go with three in the United States, one Australian, and one in Europe. So I suggest Neville Nicholls and David Parker.
      All of them know the sorts of things to say—about our Comment and the awful original, without any prompting.

      Oooooooooo!!!! I wonder if I missed an important context regards this email. You’d tell me if I had wouldn’t you twit?

      This isn’t just a violation of professional ethics, this is outright Corrup…….awww lets sing it together to the Rolling Stones tune “Satisfaction”. C’mon twit, sing it with me..

      “I can’t get no, science corrrruptionnn.
      “I can’t get no, fudge factor action,
      “But I try, but I try, but I traayy.
      “I can’t get no, duh duh da, da dada dada”


      Report this

      00

      • #

        OK one more for the day, I’m sure you’re hanging out for these sequels aren’t cha twit?

        Now here is how climate science deals with data.

        Wigley to Jones…

        Here are some speculations on correcting sea temperatures to partly explain the 1940s warming blip.
        If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global average—but we’d still have to explain the land blip.
        I’ve chosen 0.15 degrees Celsius here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and I think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip …

        It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip?”

        “Lets remove the blip…no no lets leave a bit of this blip to explain the other blip. Make it 0.15DegC, that’s a figure I pulled out of my ar$e.”

        I know I know twit, it’s all explained in context….. (crickets). But I bet you are thinking exactly the same as me, i.e.

        WHY NOT JUST LEAVE THE BLOODY DATA ALONE?

        Then again maybe not. You’re not capable of independent thought


        Report this

        00

  • #

    Gordon, lift your game. You need to self edit, be polite and only use insults you can substantiate. Only posts that don’t need to be snipped at all will get through. No logical errors. No names. Anonymous cowards get no respect. — Jo


    Report this

    00

  • #
    BobC

    BobC to Gordon @ 46.1.3 (Re: Gordo’s claim that the LIA was local only)

    Here’s a bunch of peer-reviewed papers on the GLOBAL extent of the LIA; and Here is another set on the GLOBAL extent of the MWP.

    Why don’t you give us a critique on these studies (assuming you can read them)?

    Here’s betting you don’t respond to even one.

    I would have won that bet. If it’s not in SkepticalScience, you can’t even formulate a civil reply (and often, even if it is — you’re behavior has now put you on the verge of being banned).

    Now, you try desperately to change the subject by putting the onus on us to prove something that isn’t even happening:

    But so far, not one can provide “proof” natural variability can account for the current warming.

    First, even the “Climate Gang” admit to themselves that currently, it isn’t warming (see Baa Humbug’s post at #88.1.1).

    Second, it is the responsibility of those who claim that Human action is changing the climate (and demand massive changes in economics and energy use) to prove their case. They haven’t even come close, as is documented on this site many, many times. (Of course, you can’t be bothered to read any of it.)

    You keep quoting SkepticalScience as if it were an authority — but John Cook’s naive and deceptive “arguments” have been thoroughly debunked numerious times. A good reference in a single place is Lubos Motl’s article — a real physicist taking down former physics student John Cook’s propaganda. Cook’s attempted responses are pretty lame.

    You’re so unpleasant, Gordo, that no one here is particularly interested in tutoring you about anything (the links above are for lurkers — I have no illusions you will ever read anything contrary to your religious beliefs). But demanding that we provide proof to you (an impossibility in itself, for the above reasons) that something that isn’t happening (current warming) is caused by things that aren’t understood (natural climate variability) takes inanity to a new level.


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Crakar24

      Its like asking us to prove a negative……..by the way El Gordo has not made comment on the paper i linked to in 92 so dont expect him to comment on any other papers you cite.


      Report this

      00

  • #