JoNova

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


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Archives

David Suzuki bombs on Q&A, knows nothing about the climate

“What data? “  David Suzuki on Q&A

David Suzuki’s performance on Q&A last night was extraordinary. I was knock-me-over amazed that he has not heard of UAH, GISS, HADcrut and RSS, and knew nothing of the pause in global surface temperatures that even the UK Met Office and IPCC lead author climate scientists like Hans von Storch are discussing.

How afraid is Suzuki about man-made global warming? So afraid, it doesn’t occur to him to check the data, incredibly he doesn’t even know what the data is. Tony Jones had to rephrase the questions to explain them to Suzuki, who doesn’t even understand them.

How much is his reputation as a scientist worth when he doesn’t even bother to check the evidence for a cause he stakes his reputation on?

Three times in Q&A he admitted he didn’t know — he didn’t know there was a pause in warming for the last 15 years, he didn’t know how global temperatures are measured, and he didn’t know that cyclones were not increasing over the Great Barrier Reef. He wants politicians jailed for “denying the science”. “You bet!” he exclaims, but then admits he hasn’t thought that through either.

The cartoon-like responses were incongruous. Should we go nuclear to reduce emissions? Suzuki tosses numbers, evidence, and cost-benefits down a deep well of ignorance: “It’s just crazy”. “What the hell is going on”. “You’ve got sunlight!” “Solar farms could be spread everywhere”.  “There is plenty of sunlight beyond anything humanity needs”. The audience member who asked then pointed out we don’t have the batteries to cope with sunless cloudy days. Even Tony Jones asks how realistic solar is. At this first prod, Suzuki throws his hands up in the air, “I don’t know”.

The man is emphatically an activist who might as well be innumerate. He is unburdened by data, evidence or logic. Why is the ABC giving him such a hallowed space, which is usually only given to PM’s?

Watch David Suzuki here.

Credit to the ABC for allowing Bill Koutalianos and Professor Stewart Franks to ask the first two questions and to respond. The event quickly became the “Professor Stewart Franks versus Professor Steve Sherwood Show”, because it was obvious it was a waste of time asking Suzuki a scientific question. The two of them, for a short while, were debating by proxy, and Suzuki was sidelined. He simply didn’t know enough to keep up. Even Tony Jones knew more about climate science than Suzuki did.

With typical bias, Stewart Franks was introduced as simply a professor of Environmental Engineering while Steve Sherwood was introduced as a “professor” and a “lead author of the IPCC” and a “Director of the Climate Change Research Centre at UNSW” (8:50). Stewart Franks had to point out that he is an expert reviewer of the IPCC report as well.

Suzuki’s research on our atmosphere amounted to reading Naomi Oreskes, Jim Hoggan and DeSmog. He promotes the smear campaign against senior scientists but apparently has never read anything those senior scientists have written. This is living in a fishbowl, where Suzuki made a religious decision years ago to believe in the evil of corporate polluters and only ever reads people who agree with him. It leaves him completely naked in any science debate, knocked over by the average reader of any skeptical blog.

Credit to Tony Thomas for asking if Suzuki still thought politicians should be jailed for denying the scientific consensus, thus exposing the inner-totalitarian. For a man who argues that consensus is a reason to be alarmed about the climate, it’s a tad hypocritical that Suzuki later discussed GM, where he disagrees with the consensus. He later  talks about how the Canadian government is building new jails and seems to be afraid of being jailed himself: “I’m wondering whether our Prime Minister thinks he is going to be creating new categories of crime, like eco terrorism or, as he calls us, environmental radicals, radical extremists.” Righto. Talking power to truth again David. He hasn’t noticed that all the power and money is on the climate consensus side. His principle seems to be “jail them if they disagree with me”.

Suzuki’s world view is simplistic: “Government good, corporations bad”. He says ” …big corporations are bigger than most governments on the planet, they have the ability to fund political campaigns…” . There go the numbers again. The US Government has a $4 trillion annual budget, while the largest corporations in the world have less than $500bn annual revenue each. The US Government also has that slight military advantage over those scary corporations, who may wield malevolent cheques, but not so many missiles.

When I was a student of science communication we were wheeled out to see David Suzuki speak as a hero of the field. That says it all really.

Andrew Bolt was right.

 

Simon Turnill at Australian Climate Madness has a short edit video.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 8.5/10 (214 votes cast)
David Suzuki bombs on Q&A, knows nothing about the climate, 8.5 out of 10 based on 214 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/l2nl28b

572 comments to David Suzuki bombs on Q&A, knows nothing about the climate

  • #
    J.H.

    Suzuki is a Phoney. Bolt is right on the money…. Not though we sceptics need convincing of the fact.

    To think that once upon a time I thought this guy’s documentaries and narrations was good stuff…. It’s a long time since I thought that, but I cringe at the memory.

    691

    • #
      Incunabulum

      The problem, I think, is these guys get popular speaking about stuff they *do* know about, the public turns to them for their opinions and they start thinking they can offer knowledgeable discourse on stuff way outside their area of expertise simply because they’re ‘scientists’.

      Phil Plait (Bad Astronomy http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy.html) is doing almost the same thing (at least he can throw numbers at you). He says there’s a consensus and by Georg that should be good enough. Except he’s an astronomer with no education in economics. So even if we were to accept the premise that man is causing GCC, his pronunciations on what we should be *doing* about it hold no water.

      132

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        He says there’s a consensus and by Georg that should be good enough.

        Appeals to Consensus are no more than manifestations of group think.

        “Everybody I know, knows that, therefore it must be correct, which proves I am right”.

        Dropping that into a conversation, when “the consensus” comes up, can stop the conversation dead. That is the up-side.

        On the down-side, you risk loosing a few former friends (or clients).

        150

        • #
          Manfred

          Nice RW. Conversational grenades do have their place.

          20

        • #
          Jazza

          If I hate any political comment more than the appeal to consensus in what should be a matter of science,it is the leftie/ greenie “undecided” person who will stop dead any conversation or argument with the pitiful non comment of” Well I don’t like either side”,and they usually then either change the subject or turn away. GRR!

          50

    • #
      Olaf Koenders

      Ditto JH. I stopped listening to Suzuki and even Michio Kaku (who’s had his head in as many BBC doco’s as possible lately). They obviously don’t understand the science and simply parrot opinion. If that’s how they earn a living, it’s not worth the money or the time watching.

      200

    • #
      Ian

      I watched Q&A and agree with Jo that Dr Suzuki was out of his depth. Tony Jones was about as even handed as he usually is although that said he did give Prof Franks plenty of question time. What wasn’t said in the blog however is that the audience seemed fairly impressed with Dr Suzuki judging by the amount of applause he received. I wonder if this was because the audience were in awe of Dr Suzuki and were prepared to applaud anyway or because the audience had been carefully selected or because they were just being polite. Tellingly, Professor Sherwood did advise that 97% of climate scientists agreed with the AGW consensus.

      50

    • #
    • #
      Matty

      I just hope the msm starts to see these guys as scientists in name only. They are mainly a bunch of mystics. Sir James Lovelock was a classic – he inspired many a warmer with his “Mother earth has poison in her veins” mumbo. They thought they were submitting to some deity they had discovered. Flannery, they’re all the same. The runaway warming scenario is tied to the idea that Gaia can discriminate between human CO2 and the rest; looks like pure green spirituality to me. When is it false religion? When it pretends to be scientific.

      70

    • #
      Belfast

      Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! (Wizard of Oz)

      00

  • #

    This appears to be a running theme with many of our favourite alarmists. A complete disconnect with hard evidence and opinions based on assertion, “consensus” and worse (including of course vilification of anyone who disagrees, even if only slightly).

    This wouldn’t be so bad if they were all of Nutticelli or Gore’s ilk – useful idiots who are not part of academia or the scientific community but have inexplicably self-forged a blustered path to authority and world attention. But many of these people are academics and their complete divergence from the kind of integrity, patience and even tempers I associated with my image of “scientists” and “researchers” from childhood. In fact it boggles my mind how many have been awarded professorships. Obviously they must be giving them away on the back of cereal packets.

    I will be completing my PhD within the next six months and in all honesty I don’t know whether having ‘Dr.’ before my name is going to be a help or a hindrance. In some ways I’m already feeling embarrassed by it. People like Suzuki, Lewandowsky etc cheapen academic and scientific credentials every time they open their mouths, as do every institution or publication that uncritically carries their word.

    801

    • #
      AndyG55

      IMO, a person with a PhD should only ever use the Dr when talking to areas linked to their specific area of expertise.. In other areas, it is meaningless, as Suzuki has shown. (Although he appears to be not so flash even in his own area)

      Mind you, if I ever finish mine, I’ll probably use Dr for a month or so as a lark :-)

      332

      • #
        Ian H

        I almost never use it.

        In an academic context everyone is a Dr so what is the point. We mostly use first names anyway. In a non-academic context calling yourself Dr. is just an invitation for people to tell you about their embarrassing medical problems.

        273

      • #
        Manfred

        I disagree AG55.

        Possessing a PhD never informed any one about the discipline in which it was gained and it was never intended that it should do so. It is as you may know an honorific title – Doctor of Philosophy – and it indicates for the most part a level of achievement in academic endeavour. More specifically, it reflects the achievement of conducting a detailed study in a particular area, of making an original contribution in an academic field and of acquiring the ability to independently conduct and to supervise research. It requires some smarts, but more than anything, it requires tenacity.

        A PhD signals the highest degree level of academic achievement. It denotes that the holder has acheived a certain level of academic competence, though I appreciate this is not always the case and nor is it an indication that the holder necessarily understands the scientific method. In the main however, it remains a significant indication of achievement and even more importantly, of expectation.

        In the case of Dr David Suzuki, he has demonstrated here that he was unable to exercise his intellect in a manner consistent with the fact he holds a PhD. I rather think that reveals quite a lot about the man and his motives.

        I think that all who hold a PhD should always be obliged to cite their title and to live up to it. It is a life sentence. It formally requires something more of the holder and it broadcasts this fact to everyone else. Furthermore, a holder should theoretically know when to keep their mouths shut. Opinions are like a-h’s, after all, everyone ‘s got one.

        Don’t complain about the sheeple, the low levels of critical analysis, the intellectually impoverished media. Societal expectations are geared to dumbing down in the name of anti-elitism. The current climate mess is a fine example of where that got us.

        181

        • #
          AndyG55

          In some ways I agree, but a PhD study is such a tiny niche of knowledge.

          What I really don’t like is someone with a Dr in say English Lit or psychology, using the Dr as some sort of authority in any field of science.

          By all means use it in areas associated with the actual PhD’s area of study, but otherwise, it is irrelevant, so leave it out.

          It shows a lack of respect for the PhD status itself.

          ie.. its a W*nk !

          160

          • #
            Manfred

            As I mentioned a PhD per se is not indicative of any area of study. It is an academic credential of the highest order and it is a bar worth living up to. Individuals who possess it should be held tightly to it. Whether science or the arts, it is usually representative of an education in systematic thinking and critical anaylsis, useful assets indeed with which to embark upon an anaylsis of knowledge in any field.

            That Dr Suzuki appears to lack the insight between that which he advocates and any detailed knowledge of temperature datasets is most revealing of the man himself. He has shown us that at the very least temperature is not his present focus. Why should it be? We know that he is a self proclaimed idealogue and we know where his focus lies. No surprises I think. So he appears to invalidate his own PhD by not living up to the high bar he tells us he is capable of by virtue of possessing the degree. Still more is revealed of his nature.

            As for psychologists and your general assertion in their regard, you may not be acquainted with the work of Justin Kruger and David Dunning, two eminent psychologists with PhD’s at Cornell who published an enlightening study that exemplifies scientific methodology.

            It is entitled:

            ‘Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One’s Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments’

            Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (1999) Vol. 77, No. 6. pp1121-1134.

            70

        • #
          ghl

          By Wikipedia Dr S has been campaigning on climate change for 25 years, long enough to develop expertise. He is 77 years old, he may be losing focus. Or not. I just looked at an old UTube, he was enthusiastic and spoke in generalities 6 years ago. After the effusive lickfest so far it was lovely to see him tested.

          30

    • #

      I bailed from getting my PhD in Pharmacology in the mid 1960s for thee reasons. The first was that I could not withstand the continue poverty. The second was that I decided I was not interested in doing research the way big pharma was doing it. The third was my passion was for making things that worked. Putting ten thousand compounds into a hundred thousand rats was not my idea of making things that work.

      I have found the old joke about BS, MS, and PhD where PhD equals piled higher and deeper to be largely true. Just because you have a PhD doesn’t mean a damn thing. It is what you can actually accomplish that counts. If you can actually accomplish something useful, the PhD soon becomes little more than meaningless ego inflation. Ditto for practically any other credential.

      In the final analysis, it is what you have done of value for yourself and others this week is all that matters. The letters before and after your name are nothing but letters before and after your name.

      251

      • #
        Robert

        Hiya Lionell.

        That pretty much goes for everything from an Associates on up. I continually run across people who just HAVE to tell me how they had a 4.0 GPA as though it means anything more than they were good at memorizing. Actually applying it is another matter entirely and many of these 4.0 students who seem to feel we should bow down to their superiority are epic fails in that respect.

        The only reason now, at 49, that I am back to working on a degree I started some 20 odd years ago is simply that I would like to finish it. But given the financial costs of obtaining a degree as well as the cost in time I have no intention of going beyond the B.S.E.E. I am working on. It would be nice if once I have the paper I reap some economic benefit from it but I already make fairly good money and if push came to shove the current job does very well at paying the bills while my coursework is a bill.

        A.S., B.S., M.S., PhD, may sound good but if one presents themselves as an idiot as Suzuki appears to have done then all the titles and certifications really mean is that the institution that bestowed it didn’t really care if the recipient actually understood it.

        120

    • #
      MemoryVault

      Good luck with the studies, Katabasis.

      Always remember, titles, of themselves, are meaningless.
      It is how you use the knowledge that defines its worth.

      111

    • #
      Gbees

      Dentists use the Dr title also. Listening to Suzuki I couldn’t delineate his rumblings from that of a root canal!

      50

  • #
    Adamski

    Gees – you ‘re stupid

    133

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    I used to sheepishly engage in debates on climate at parties. As I spoke to more and more people though and questioned them on their reading, I discovered almost without exception I knew more about the actual evidence of the debate than the next person in the room. As someone who dropped out of high school to work on fishing boats at 14 years old, I in no way regard myself as “educated”. However in the past 20 years (now 47) I have developed an insatiable hunger for knowledge and more importantly truth.

    It is this hunger for the facts and deep desire to be on the “right” side of an argument when right means the position supported by evidence, that led me to places like this and topics like these. AGW is tailor made for the inquisitive, the data is there and its not impossible to decipher (mostly), you just have to read and take your time.

    “Being curious may bring you back to the conventional wisdom, or it may not; but at least you’ve arrived there of your own accord and not just followed the crowd. Be a sceptic, a contrarian, an iconoclast even, if you have the where-with-all for it. Most don’t, so it will never be a crowded field.” Neville Kennard

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/06/eulogy-neville-kennard-had-unconventional-wisdom/

    So my experience has taught me, do not be afraid to engage anyone in this debate if you have done your homework. The main reason being, the highest likelihood is, your opponent wont have done theirs. So Suzuki’s performance does not surprise me in the slightest, on the contrary, I have found it to be the norm rather than the exception.

    This is the result of obtaining your views on a scientific topic via authority rather than research. It explains why the term “but the science says” and “the science is settled” are the precursors of wildly inaccurate and poorly researched comments from warmists, the left, the greens and people like David. They hear that there is a consensus, so they assume they can safely spout nonsense in the belief that “the science”, “the settled science” will be there to save them when they choke on their own feet.

    As Jo has pointed out so many times, “the science” is not a thing, or a person, or a deity to be referred to like it solves all problems in the same way God solves all problems for arguments with the religious, “god did it”. There is only the data and our ability to rationally and systematically interpret it (good, honest, open science). Interpretations often vary, this is why both science is rarely ever “settled” and why fantastic predictions are rarely ever correct, or they would be very “fantastic” would they David?

    In a proper scientific debate, people would come to the topic educated and they would value the contributions of those who disagreed with them, because that is how progress is made. The absence of those elements in the climate debate is how you can tell it is a debate prosecuted by people with political, social and “other” agendas and not science.

    http://youtu.be/7hYaPnkGTLM

    Its called observational evidence.

    920

    • #
      Another Ian

      It is called a degree from UHK that you have IMO (University of Hard Knocks)

      260

    • #
      handjive

      Sorry folks, I just broke the green thumbs up button.

      40

    • #
      Roger

      You are a great example of the disconnect between schooling and education. Education does not require schooling, and schooling does not necessarily result in education.

      160

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The most important words in science: “Now, that is interesting … why on earth …?”

      Anybody can, and everybody should, do that.

      50

    • #
      delory

      To add to Roger’s comment…. There is also a big difference between ‘education’ and ‘intelligence’. I know a number of very intelligent people who (for various reasons) have not had the opportunity to pursue formal education beyond high school. I also know of numerous people who are well educated, but not particularly intelligent. Unfortuantely, many of those ‘well educated’ people cannot spot the difference.

      30

    • #
      Belfast

      The important thing about a classical education is that enable you to despise the money it prevents you from earning.

      10

  • #
    Grant Burfield

    An astonishing hour of vacuous drivel on Q&A. What Dr Suzuki knows about climate science I could scratch on the back of a sixpence with a crowbar. An irrelevant, ignorant, wealthly clown.

    560

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      And to think it is through the global scientific community and the media that a man like David Bellamy has his life and career basically ruined for daring to give an opinion. Sure DB can be a little “off the wall” at times, but he has remained on the evidence supported side of this debate at the cost of his reputation.

      If the career of Tim Flannery is anything to go by in relation to his demonstrated lack of knowledge and wildly inaccurate predictions costing this country hundreds of millions of dollars, then Suzuki will get a Nobel science prize for that performance, such is the mess we call a scientific community these days. Flannery, Suzuki and Co are the science equivalent of celebrity chefs, nothing more.

      430

      • #
        Apoxonbothyourhouses

        Numbers are billions not millions. Though I’ve said it before it needs to be endlessly repeated … so much wasted that could and should have been used to those with empty bellies / no clean water / inadequate education – the list is desperately long. Shame on those who, after cheering on Suzuki, get in their cars to return to supper, a glass of wine and their warm, safe beds.

        120

      • #
        Allen Ford

        At least celebrity chefs can cook!

        40

    • #
      Jazza

      Nailed it
      The only respect he deserves is to be offered a seat on the train cos he’s old and doddery!

      00

  • #
    LevelGaze

    I was hoping that you would draw attention to Suzuki’s total ignorance and incompetence. (Even The Age couldn’t bear to comment on it.)

    I was tempted to add a link to the Canadian TV spot that showed him up as a money-sucking old lecher, to boot. But I’m too much of a gentleman for that (tonight, anyway…).

    190

  • #
    Rich

    The picture at the top of the post is begging for a caption. I suggest, “Wha…?”

    60

  • #
    Rob

    The most disturbing thing for me was not David Suzuki – I kind of expected that – but that so many people in the audience still agreed with him and gave him so much applause.

    390

    • #
      Albert

      I got the impression that some in the audience prefer to live a life of being alarmed, they will agree with anything that is frightening, so instead of accepting the science, they seek the ”fear factor” to judge the science

      60

      • #
        MudCrab

        I think there is a reasonable percentage of the population, that seems to be mainly ‘left’, that seem to only be happy when they are angry at something.

        If you look at the long term share price of Fairfax, there is a noticiable drop about the time of the 2007 election. It is almost as if ‘left’ types (ie – Fairfax’s core reading audience) were only buying the papers to read about what a nasty pasty that Mr Howard was. Post 2007 election of course everything was rosey, progressive and good, hence they no longer needed to buy and read newspapers.

        I would be interested to see that now we have a ‘right’ government again, if the Fairfax sales figures pick up.

        30

    • #
  • #
    Michael P

    I wonder if David Suzuki and his kind would approve of hard jail time for people that preach fraud as fact as he appears to do. After all he did seem to approve that ” politicians should be jailed for denying the scientific consensus” so fair is fair.

    250

  • #

    My jaw hit the floor when it became apparent that he had no idea what UAH, GISS, HADcrut and RSS were. It would appear to me that he is a person who may crave popularity and controversy for controversy’s sake. He makes stirring populist announcements – all based on an argument from authority – but very little in the way of personal research to back it up.

    270

  • #
    Robin Pittwood

    His response reminds me of Gina McCarthy when head of air quality at US EPA. She was asked how much CO2 was in the atmosphere in a US congress testimony. She had to admit she did not know. What gross ignorance in these folk. Even their trolls know better than them. And now Gina is head of EPA.

    270

  • #
    Albert

    I rarely watch Q&A but I gave it a few minutes and watched the repeat. I did’t expect Suzuki to be so ignorant on subjects where he is supposed to be an expert

    190

  • #
    Dave

    email to Greg Hunt.

    Dear Sir,

    I am writing in order to locate the following two items:

    1. Eight Nespresso Gemini CS200 Pro Machines (The clean energy people spent $20,000).
    2. Five Melitta Bar II units on (The Climate Change department spent $74,945).

    As all property of the Federal government would be listed on each department register of assets, I would appreciate it if you could verify that they are still the property of the taxpayer.

    As you are aware, the Global Extremist David Suzuki arrived at exactly the same time as you gave Tim Flannery the boot and scraped the departments & commissions etc. As the new Climate Council is trying to raise funds, these machines would be a good start.

    Plus Suzuki is a bit loose with the truth, so he could be a tea leaf as well as a fruitloop.

    But I am not willing to accept that anyone except the Australian taxpayer should own these machines, and so could you verify their location. Hopefully not on the way to Canada via FedEx.

    I am monitoring ebay, gumtree and other online for sale sites to keep an eye out for them, and will let you know if I spot them.

    Awaiting your reply.

    Regards

    Dave *******

    310

  • #
    MichiCanuck

    David Suzuki’s expertise is in the realm of fruit fly genetics. He has long held sway as the “go to” scientist at the CBC and for decades hosted their fluffy “science” program “The Nature of Things”. His knowledge of physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology and clearly climatology is ummm, limited. I can’t speak to his knowledge of fruit flies. I am not shocked (except maybe in the Captain Louis Reynaud sense) at his performance on ABC. Canadians have had to suffer from him for many many years.

    240

    • #

      Full marks on the “Fruit Fly Geneticist”.

      It is worth referring to Vivian Krause on this issue:
      http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/2012/07/what-got-me-started.html

      For years, the David Suzuki Foundation, Alexandra Morton and other environmental groups made dire claims that sea lice from salmon farms put wild salmon at risk of extinction. “Sea lice have commonly killed over 80 per cent of the annual pink salmon returns,” warned the David Suzuki Foundation, adding “… local extinction is certain.”

      fwiw

      60

    • #
      Bruce

      Hey MishiCanuck, Suzuki was a very good geneticist in the early 1970s.

      It seems the glare of the media, mainly CBC, got to him.

      There he could get away with spouting any poorly investigated scientific trash provided it was entertaining and was consistent with the CBC’s leftist-/Eco-leaning culture.

      He has done well for himself, without spending time to understand what he is talking about.

      He is self-serving of course, but that will not affect his god-like status among the true believers.

      30

    • #
      Gee Aye

      not this again… they are vinegar flies!

      I wont elaborate this time. look it up yourselves

      01

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Suzuki’s research on our atmosphere amounted to reading Naomi Oreskes, Jim Hoggan and DeSmog.

    Not much of a resume is it? As I said about Suzuki in an earlier thread, he comes across as a total phony — expert on everything but master of none of it. It’s no surprise that he couldn’t stand up under some basic questions.

    190

  • #
    Tim

    David Suzuki on ABC: “The overwhelming majority of climate scientists…”

    A clever use of the word ‘overwhelming.’ It can mean
    ‘extremely large in amount or proportion’

    OR

    ‘having such a great effect as to be emotionally overpowering’

    Maybe they’ve found a term that can’t be challenged percentage-wise.

    150

  • #
    Speedy

    Jo

    Perhaps you could send him a copy of the Skeptic’s Handbook?

    He might learn something.

    Cheers,

    Speedy

    190

  • #
    warcroft

    So. . . Suzuki is on a whirlwind tour of Australia, making TV and radio appearances to spruik the ‘catastrophic dangers of climate change’ but already on his first to appearances he has bombed? Both on The Panel and Q&A.
    What show is next for him?
    How much is he being paid per appearance?
    How on earth were skeptics able to ask him such questions on shows which are renown for their warming bias?
    The PR teams really screwed up this time.

    130

    • #
      LevelGaze

      Indeed.
      Who paid him and how much?

      Hope it wasn’t our taxes. But how can we find out?

      70

    • #
      Tim

      ‘Custer’s / Suzuki’s Last Stand.’ I doubt he will be back. They are now in retreat mode. Defeated by logic and on the run.

      130

      • #
        Albert

        If he comes back, the ABC will need to better screen the audience and allow only dumb or pretend scientists.
        They will need to present anyone with an Arts diploma or Economics diploma or degree as ”Climate Scientists”
        Add a few of our greens to the audience will make him seem intelligent

        80

  • #

    A fantastic piece Jo as ever. I recently dug around to find quotes highlighting the “heated debate”. Susuki was a prominent name and leader of the hate speech against sceptics.

    So, it might be well worth remember the fate of one Monsieur Guillotine … inventor, revolutionary and later victim of the revolution.

    If there are eco-jails and if Susuki gets put in one, it most likely will be because he first supported the idea.

    160

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Sorry Mike,
      Monsieur Guillotine didn’t invent the guillotine and he survived the Revolution.

      Doctor Joseph-Ignace Guillotin (1738-1814) was not the inventor of the machine, he proposed its use for all ranks of society, and on the grounds that it would be the least painful method of execution (as against bungling with swords and axes). He may have suggested an angled blade for more impact.

      He died as a respected member of society, something not likely in the case of Suzuki.

      50

  • #

    Warcroft: “How on earth were skeptics able to ask him such questions on shows which are renown for their warming bias?”

    The government changed?

    150

  • #
    King Geo

    An Ode to the failed Theory of AGW

    I love watching the failed Theory of AGW crash & burn,
    Knowing full well that the likes of Suzuki, Flannery & Co are going to squirm,
    As Abe Lincoln once famously said about those peddling lies even though it wasn’t a crime,
    “You can fool all the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time.”

    And now that 15 years has elapsed,
    Where is the “Global Warming”, has it collapsed?
    And now we hear that another “Little Ice Age” is soon to be born,
    Does that mean we burn more carbon to keep planet Earth warm?

    100

    • #
      Reinder van Til

      Your last sentence. That would be wiser than to decrease our emissions. To try to avoid another glacial era

      10

  • #
    Lance

    Can you keep him there please. We don’t want him back…..

    80

  • #

    Here is the great Thomas Sowell explaining what makes the likes of Suzuki, Hansen, Flannery et al tick.

    (“making alarming predictions, offering solutions to our problems….need for crusades”)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rweblFwt-BM

    80

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Thomas Sowell is a man we need a lot more of. There are all too few clear, critical thinkers like him.

      30

    • #
      Annie A

      Hi Baa Humbug,

      I tried to watch the clip of Thomas Sowell that you linked to. But it would not load. Do you have to have certain software to view it? If so, could you let me know? ( or is there another link to the same clip?)

      I also feel this man speaks alot of sense and agree with Roy Hogue. I enjoy reading his articles and he always poses thought provoking ideas.

      Many Thanks,

      Annie A

      00

  • #
    Stan

    As a genetisist he doesn’t have a clue about golden rice or golden bananas?
    Isn’t that fairly close to his supposed area of expertise?

    80

  • #
    mpcraig

    The root of Suzuki’s belief system is Malthusian, anti-economic growth, anti-capitalism. He views man as a virus headed to overgrowth and on the “current path” to eventually perish. He believes what he does is going to save mankind.

    When I was younger, I found people like this to be noble and looked up upon. I now find them disturbingly dangerous (knowing their method of operation).

    120

  • #
    Michael the Realist

    I was knock-me-over amazed that he has not heard of UAH, GISS, HADcrut and RSS, and knew nothing of the pause in global surface temperatures

    That is because only climate misinformers are fixated on a cherry picked portion of a temperature graph, without reference to the science, the trends and natural factors. It has only become an issue because misinformers have made it their whole arguments.

    Realists know that the temperature trend has many ups and downs and pauses but with a strong underlying and continuous upward trend. They know that the atmosphere is only one small place where the energy coming in is going. They know that there are many natural cycles of yearly to decadel and longer durations that can affect the trends, and they know that when all the evidence is taken into account it is all consistent with the science of AGW. So I am not surprised that he was not overly fixated on a small period trend, it is not science, we only argue because it has been used to deceive and cause doubt and unless Suzuki frequents misinformer blog sites he would not be aware that this is all they talk about.

    566

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Bullshit!

      380

    • #

      People, let’s all hold hands while Michael reads from the Prayer-book of Alarm. Obviously he’s reciting a ritual cant, he can’t possibly have been reading this site where we’ve discussed short trends, medium trends, long trends and trends back to the precambrian. Meanwhile, let’s pray it won’t hurt him too much when he realizes everything he said was a mindless chant.

      Michael, ponder that Suzuki thinks life on Earth is in danger — the whole species at risk — and the best data we have (as bad as it is) comes from Hadcrut GISS, RSS and UAH. Tell yourself again how it would not occur to a scientist with those feelings to … look at that data? Ask yourself exactly how many IPCC reports this man has read?

      581

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        I was knock-me-over amazed that Michael admits that UAH, GISS, HADcrut and RSS are misinformer blog sites.

        180

      • #
        sophocles

        Michael, ponder that Suzuki thinks life
        on Earth is in danger — the whole species at risk …

        But it is! Just not in our lifetimes. In about 5 billion years, the sun will
        expand to beyond Mars’ orbit, which will be the end of life on this mud-ball.

        That’s assuming Man will leave the it more or less intact … but given our
        present behaviour as its major tenants, I’m not so sure.

        I’m not going to hold my breath over either of those points, and I suggest
        you don’t as well.

        40

      • #
        Sean McHugh

        When I encounter a demolishing article like this one, I quickly scan down to find red numbers, eager to see who is going to be driven and crazy enough to try to resuscitate rigor mortis. There will always be one and the way he or she will attempt it will always the same. The more hopeless their case, the more blustery and narky will be the demeanor. Rather than climb out of the hole in which they find themselves, they will furiously dig in deeper. Rather than dust themselves off, they will try to blind you with their flying dirt, hoping you will no longer be able to see their unenviable situation.

        140

    • #
      Sean McHugh

      Michael said:

      Jo Nova: I was knock-me-over amazed that he has not heard of UAH, GISS, HADcrut and RSS, and knew nothing of the pause in global surface temperatures

      Michael (who says he’s for real): That is because only climate misinformers are fixated on a cherry picked portion of a temperature graph, without reference to the science, the trends and natural factors. It has only become an issue because misinformers have made it their whole arguments. [rest of ranting red herring snipped]

      Michael, taking the last 15 years as a whole is not cherry picking. Picking four (or the four) premier temperature data sources is not cherry picking. But even if it were, submitting that as the reason the illustrious David Suzuki knows less than any blogger here, is an absurd and weird non sequitur.

      Like the rest of us, the questioner would never have dreamed that Suzuki had not only never heard of the pause (supposed or otherwise), but hadn’t even heard of the main establishments for providing temperature figures. Everyone is just stunned.

      Your guru is a goose. It’s not our fault that he’s tragically clueless and it’s not our fault that he’s your brains trust.

      250

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        The sad part is, even Michael has heard of the pause and wouldn’t blink at any reference to UAH, GISS, HADcrut and RSS.

        Michael knows more about the subject than David Suzuki.

        90

    • #
      diogenese2

      great advice Michael, ignore the real world and carry on. It reminds me of advice I saw recently in Yellowstone,
      “if attacked by a grizzly bear, curl up on the ground and pretend to be dead”
      plus point: you won’t have to keep up the pretence for long

      100

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      In the old days various people with complicated psychological motives would take themselves off to wild places to preach the good news to the heathen savages. Those savages normally received them peacefully until such time as they found them boring, disruptive or mad, and usually popped them into a cooking pot.

      Michael sees himself as one of those missionaries, and comes to us to preach the bad news. I don’t know if he is mad, but he is certainly boring and disruptive.

      Fortunately for Michael we won’t use the cooking pot. Why waste time and fuel on something so indigestible?

      50

    • #
      PeterB in Indianapolis

      Once again, for all to see, Michael has the delusion that he is somehow a “realist”. Since, if one suffers from delusions, one cannot ACTUALLY BE a realist, he thus exposes himself to the world for the charlatan that he is.

      If believing in lies and spouting them back to us whole cloth is his idea of “reality” he is doing great.

      80

    • #
      Reinder van Til

      Between 1880 and 1920 CO2 in our atmosphere increased while the temperature decreased. Between 1940 and 1980 same thing. Oops, CO2 has just a very small role in our atmosphere. And about 90% of such a small role is natural CO2.

      90

    • #
      MemoryVault

      consistent with the science of AGW

      The “science” of AGW?

      Is that a branch of phrenology?
      Or does it fall under the study of epicycles?

      100

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Epicycles
        Are they ridden by members of the Epicyclical Church?

        40

        • #
          sophocles

          They were once an important concept to the Roman Catholic Church …
          and they were the support of an important consensus of the time.
          Just ask Galileo!

          10

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Or does it fall under the study of epicycles?

        Sometimes I just can’t resist — it’s not epicycles, it’s unicycles. Don’t all the world’s clowns ride them? ;-)

        I really should have thought of this earlier…

        10

    • #
      handjive

      Hey there Michael.
      I was gonna play devil’s advocate, give the level 10 maggot the benefit of the doubt, and suggest he possibly didn’t understand the Aussie accent as the questioner spoke quickly (possibly nervous). When repeated slower, it was clearer. But, your rant is much better and closer to reality.

      QUOTE: “Realists know that the temperature trend has many ups and downs and pauses…” Too Right!

      PS. Your concept of a realist might be slightly different to most.

      30

    • #
      Manfred

      To Michael the Realist #26.

      To date 17+ years no warming with a background of rising CO2 – a very nice fat cherry. Watch the stone doesn’t choke you.

      Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 5th July, 2005

      The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant….

      Dr. Phil Jones – CRU emails – 7th May, 2009


      Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried

      100

      • #
        sophocles

        and don’t forget:

        Dr. Phil Jones:

        “… from then [2003] to date[05/02/2008, interview on bbc.co.uk], there has been a slight cooling trend of 0.03degrees per decade, but it isn’t statistically significant!”

        10

    • #
      Backslider

      That is because only climate misinformers are fixated on a cherry picked portion of a temperature graph

      Ahh! SO that explains why you are so fixated on 2001 to 2010. Thanks for the confirmation!

      They know that there are many natural cycles

      Yes. Such as seasonal and yearly fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 which completely falsify the IPCC theories on greenhouse gases. Thanks again for the confirmation!

      30

    • #

      Michael the apologist writes,

      That is because only climate misinformers are fixated on a cherry picked portion of a temperature graph, without reference to the science, the trends and natural factors. It has only become an issue because misinformers have made it their whole arguments.

      He he he,

      the problem is that your pathetic attempt to divert from the fact that David didn’t know what UAH, RSS, HadCrut and GISS were is a failure.From Andrew Bolt you didn’t read:

      David Suzuki on the very first question is revealed as a complete know-nothing. His questioner tells him that the main climate data sets show no real warming for some 15 years.

      Suzuki asks for the references, which he should have known if he knew anything of the science.

      His questioner then lists them: UAH, RSS, HadCrut and GISS – four of the most basic measurement systems of global temperature.

      Suzuki asks what they are.

      Anyone interested in global warming should know right there that Suzuki has absolutely no understanding of what he is talking about.

      bolding mine

      Your cherrypicking argument is dead on arrival since the point was that Mr.,I mean DOCTOR Suzuki didn’t know what GISS,UAH,RSS or HadCrut were about.

      Mike still droning on in his failed deflection try writes,

      Realists know that the temperature trend has many ups and downs and pauses but with a strong underlying and continuous upward trend.

      Jo then must be a realist because she made a blog post a while ago showing the undeniable warming trend from the mid 1850′s with warming and cooling trends in it.Heck she even used Dr. Jones temperature data as posted at Roger Harrabin’s blog post about his interview with Dr. Jones:

      Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

      In it are the temperature data Jo used to make this chart:

      http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1103-post-8790.html#pid8790

      Here is another temperature chart from the mid 1800′s also from my forum because I can’t use the Image link in this postbox:

      http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/thread-1103-post-8791.html#pid8791

      I am sure you will pass out when you learn that Skeptics long knew that it has been warming for over 150 years now.

      Michael drones on with the warmist speech,

      They know that the atmosphere is only one small place where the energy coming in is going. They know that there are many natural cycles of yearly to decadel and longer durations that can affect the trends, and they know that when all the evidence is taken into account it is all consistent with the science of AGW.

      Gosh,everything you wrote is adequate until you came to this part:

      …and they know that when all the evidence is taken into account it is all consistent with the science of AGW.

      Not really since it is well known that the many cycles and such you refer to has never left the NULL hypothesis grounds thus you have nothing to support the AGW conjecture with.I will elaborate on this a little soon.

      Now to this part that reveals YOUR tortured apology attempt in your feeble effort to cover for Davids embarrassing lack of knowledge.

      So I am not surprised that he was not overly fixated on a small period trend, it is not science, we only argue because it has been used to deceive and cause doubt and unless Suzuki frequents misinformer blog sites he would not be aware that this is all they talk about.

      No,He was exposed directly on the posted VIDEO link showing his lack of knowledge on what RSS,GISS,UAH and HadCrut were.He didn’t know they were temperature database and was unaware there is a current pause in the warming trend going back for more than a decade either.

      Your cherrypicking arguments are flat dumb because what was pointed out was Davids IGNORANCE on several points in the Q and A session that exposed him for what he really is.A person not adequately informed on basic information of temperature trends and what the main temperature database centers are.

      HE DIDN’T KNOW!

      Now you whine about Cherrypicking while the IPCC PROJECTED that there would be a warming trend of .20C for EACH of the first two decades of this century.The first decade was about half of the .20C prediction for the IPPC’s favorite temperature data center:

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2010

      Now that we have almost 3 more years added on,it is now a slight cooling:

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/to:2013

      12 full years out of twenty years that is supposed to be a total warming prediction of .40C as predicted by the IPPC based on the never verified AGW conjecture.Instead we have a slight cooling overall over the last 12 years and more cooling is being forecast for the future.

      You need to stop making excuses for people like David who long ago made it clear that he is a hater of the human race:

      1972 clip of David Suzuki comparing humans to maggots

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsLOcZQheoE

      Let him go as he is not worth it.

      100

      • #
        Dave

        Sunsettommy,

        Also it amazed me with Suzuki not knowing about, and Michael above in justifying the reason for not knowing about GISS, RSS, UAH & HadCRUT is David Suzuki’s statement here.

        “You know, we can cherry pick all kinds of stuff. Cherry pick, in fact, the scientists that we want to listen to, but let’s listen to the IPCC

        So David Suzuki uses the IPCC reports as gospel for his information.

        Michael the Realist is lying, and David Suzuki has never read any of the IPCC reports at all, so he too has blatantly lied to the Q&A audience.

        Here is the number of times each of the data sets have been used in the IPCC Reports.
        1. GISS – 1,406 times
        2. UAH – 9 times
        3. HadCRUT – 24 times
        4. RSS – 17 times

        Go here Michael and check, it’s the IPCC search facility, I typed Michael in but ZERO result.

        It’s obvious that Suzuki just gets his stuff from his advisors who know nothing of the science, have not read any of the IPCC Reports (AR4, TAR, SAR or FAR) at all. And in this, it confirms Michael The Realist is also a liar, and simply trying to back up his GAIA hero in David Suzuki.

        I think Suzuki and Michael probably have the biggest carbon footprint of all the CAGW alarmists.

        Confirmation bias occurs in all fields, but CAGW seems to be outright winner.

        90

    • #
      cohenite

      Lewandowsky purported to describe the psychology of the denier and failed because climate scepticism is not a state of mind but a process of enquiry based on an open mind.

      Noone has done the same for believers of AGW. In fact belief in AGW is a religious belief. Religious conviction is beyond reason even though reason is often employed to justify or prove the religious conviction [see the Jesuits for example].

      There are many motivations for religious conviction. One of the strongest is a sense of belonging which would explain the fervent need among AGW believers for a consensus.

      Another is the need for a benevolent protector which is why so many AGW believers accept authoritative pronouncements no matter how wrong and contradictory those sources of authority are.

      The similarity between AGW and religion has long been noted. I think it’s time sceptics started approaching AGW and its acolytes in the religious sense instead of bashing our heads against a brick wall by trying to convince them of the error of their science.

      So with Michael the realist the only sensible response is to say that is your belief, you are entitled to it, but we live in a secular society and religious beliefs do not trump the secular, scientific and legal framework.

      70

    • #
      Angry

      michael the real moron…..
      There I fixed it for you.

      11

    • #
      Reinder van Til

      About cherry picking:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFbUVBYIPlI

      Hilarious!

      00

  • #
    Michael the Realist

    I also notice that Flannery (in stark contrast to claims of money fixation) and fellow scientists are going to continue their good work on a voluntary basis and through donations.

    138

    • #

      Hmm!

      If he’s going to continue on a voluntary basis, then I was just wondering why he was so willing to accept the taxpayer’s $180,000 in the first place.

      Tony.

      350

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      A zealot is someone who,when he finds a bad idea, pushes it for all it’s worth. And he will keep that idea until hell freezes solid before giving it up.

      That describes Tim Flannery perfectly. Suzuki and Flannery deserve each other.

      And let’s not be so willing to believe this either.

      in stark contrast to claims of money fixation

      A man like Flannery will work it for every speaking engagement, advisory position and anything else he can find to generate revenue. You can bet on it.

      Michael, I saw a lot of men and women willing to put their names on Monkton’s letter of complaint about John Cook and his flawed — actually careless — study. They have an impressive range of credentials and experience. Now you once claimed to know more about climate science than Joanne Nova ever would but failed to give your credentials. Don’t you think it’s time to rectify that little omission? It’s time for you to put up or shut up.

      251

      • #
        AndyG55

        Michael probably does know more of the lies and bulls**t that make up the alarmist side of climate science. Its just that he doesn’t realise that most of it is lies and bulls**t.

        His grip on real reality is extremely tenuous to say the least.

        He lives in his own little imaginary world, where only his reality exists.

        111

    • #
      Sean McHugh

      Remember, he also has a Flannery fixation. But the fix will only be temporary. Maybe he can start on his autobiography.

      50

    • #
      Jaymez

      Michael,
      Flannery also said that he and others had decided to set up the Australian Climate Council after the enormous support and encouragement they had received following the announcement of his and the Climate Commission’s sacking. But it turns out the Council’s domain and web site was set up on the 16th August, even before the election. But what’s another lie from Flannery?

      It’s ironic that the only prediction he has ever got right is that Labor would lose the election!

      Oh, and Flannery said he’s always been non-political and that the Australian Climate council will be an independent source of climate information. No doubt they’ll include a link to this site?

      Actually, that’s pretty unlikely since the domain site was set up and owned by a known climate warmist activist.

      Read here: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/09/flannery-co-s-clairvoyant-climate-council

      I don’t suppose the ABC and main stream media will be angry with Flannery for lying to them and using them to promote his new ‘non-profit’ organisation, for which Flannery says he will be volunteering his time “initially”, “to get it started”. Rest assured if the money starts rolling in like they hope it will, there will be plenty of remuneration and cost offsets.

      260

    • #
      PeterB in Indianapolis

      This will undoubtedly be better for Flannery anyway, Bill and Melinda Gates have billions of dollars to give to people like him.

      At least it won’t be our taxes going to fund this ridiculousness.

      50

    • #
      AndyG55

      Good, It will be nice to watch morons like you throwing their money down the toilet. :-)

      31

    • #
      handjive

      What do they need the money for? To continue to fly around telling people not to fly?
      Remember, they are doing it for the children’s children.
      How can you put a monetary value on that?

      20

    • #
      MemoryVault

      I also notice that Flannery (in stark contrast to claims of money fixation) and fellow scientists are going to continue their good work on a voluntary basis and through donations.

      Flim-Flammery and his fellow trough-scoffers are all still firmly (and expensively) attached to the taxpayer’s teat.
      See my post below at #36.

      51

    • #
      Manfred

      Oh Lord Michael. Are you implying they’re martyring themselves for the cause? With a sycophantic MSM, it’ll be a self-publicity extravaganza and there’s nothing like believing in your own publicity. They’ll become even more insufferable, that is until they inevitably run into the reef of their own belief.

      51

    • #
      AndyG55

      So Michael.. how much have YOU sent to Flannery..

      have you trothed a set $50 a week or something like that ?

      How much are you going to pay to make up his ex-labor propagandist salary ?

      30

    • #
      Backslider

      Flannery….. and fellow scientists are going to continue their good work

      Oh, good work? So I take it that you also are a believer…. here are some classics from Timbo:

      “I wake up in the morning thinking there are lots of times when people have woken up feeling like this, like the Old Testament prophets.”

      “For the first time, this global super-organism, this global intelligence will be able to send a signal, a strong and clear signal to the earth. And what that means in a sense is that we can, we will be a regulating intelligence for the planet, I’m sure, in the future … And lead to a stronger Gaia, if you will, a stronger earth system.”

      “This planet, this Gaia, will have acquired a brain and a nervous system. That will make it act as a living animal, as a living organism, at some sort of level.”

      “Perhaps the day will come when a prosecutor in some yet-to-be-formed international court will appear with a copy of Scorcher under his arm”

      And how about some of that “good work” re. climate:

      “Picture an eight-storey building by a beach, then imagine waves lapping its roof”

      “It’s hardly surprising that beaches are going to disappear with climate change”

      “Perth will be the 21st century’s first ghost metropolis”

      (Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane would) “need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months.”

      “the water problem for Adelaide is so severe that it may run out of water by early 2009.”

      “Australia is likely to lose its northern rainfall”

      “some may say that Australia deserves its fate”

      “so even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems ”

      Halleluja brutha!!!! Get on down and kiss the ground the messiah walks on!!!!!

      I will say yet again Taco Boy…. you should be so embarrassed that you want to crawl into a hole.

      60

      • #
        Backslider

        This one from Tim Flannery really deserves its own spot, so let’s just see it again:

        I wake up in the morning thinking there are lots of times when people have woken up feeling like this, like the Old Testament prophets.

        Yeh…. I wake up most mornings thinking I am the second coming Timbo……..

        40

    • #
      Jazza

      And without any government patronage- How long do you think the “good works” will last once the initial flush of money runs out?

      00

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      Can’t let the religion get cold, can we.

      00

  • #
    Steamboat Jon

    From the “Dr David Suzuki Foundation” web site:

    “Science Integrity Protocol — The David Suzuki Foundation uses evidence-based information and analysis to promote progressive policy-making and public awareness of complex environmental issues. To uphold scientific principles, we commit to peer review of research and analysis, transparency and access to relevant information, and accuracy in our communications.”

    It would seem the founder/namesake does not hold himself to the same standard for science integrity. Very telling is his “group think” on climate and his being against “group think” when it comes to GM food.

    120

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      You need to decode that statement (and any other he makes):

      Evidence-based information: Information presented somewhere, by someone, as evidence in support a debated position. The word “Evidence” does not imply that the information is correct, complete, or even honest.

      Progressive policy-making: A significant change to policy that will be made, over time, by stealth. This is the opposite of radical policy-making, which means significant change all at the same time. Neither statement should be taken to imply that the change would be beneficial to any party.

      Public awareness of complex environmental issues: How the message should be understood by the recipient, usually cast in terms of the best possible interpretation.

      To uphold scientific principles: Maintain the status quo.

      We commit to peer review of research and analysis: Of the evidence-based information (see above).

      Transparency and access to relevant information: Only the information that the writer deems to be “relevant”, will be exposed in a transparent way.

      Accuracy in our communications: “When I use a word, … it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.” Lewis Carroll, “Through the Looking-Glass”.

      90

  • #
    TomRude

    Did David Suzuki swimm to Australia? I don’t think so… LOL

    50

  • #
    klem

    Suzuki used to be my hero years ago, until I finally saw through the facade and realized that he’s not the scientist I believed him to be. Suzuki is still held high as the representative voice of science in Canada, primarily because the CBC has an undying love for him.

    Whenever the CBC has a science question, they trot out old Suzuki to reprimand Canadians for their evil consumption behavior, or to condemn some corporation for their evil environmental behavior. He makes the CBC journalists feel all warm and fuzzy.

    Suzuki has become an embarrassment and needs to be retired, but there is no one to replace him in Canada.

    80

  • #
    klem

    Steamboat Jon said “It would seem the founder/namesake does not hold himself to the same standard for science integrity.”

    Suzuki was forced to step down from his beloved David Suzuki Foundation a year or two ago, because he was openly playing politics and there were some questions regarding financial irregularities…. Oops.

    120

  • #

    [...] David Suzuki bombs on Q&A, knows nothing about the climate [...]

    00

  • #
    janama

    Andrew Bolt talks to Donna Laframboise about Suzuki.

    http://www.2gb.com/audioplayer/15626#.UkHWV4ZkOSo

    30

  • #

    Jo, today I set up a climate sceptic forum called “TalkWatts.com and have added a trailer to this article.

    If there are any problems please contact me or post on the forum.

    10

  • #
    pattoh

    Gee Whiz!

    I hope some of this video goes viral.

    I often thought Australia would not have had phenomenon of Kevin 07 if the media (& particularly staged breakfast TV) had not collectively gone red in the face blowing so much into him.

    However, Suzuki has been around for decades, acting like a disgruntled teenager, sucking it all up.

    That bubble has been well & truly pricked.

    60

  • #

    For David Suzuki, a well-known climate activist, to stumble over his knowledge of climate is really bad. What I find worse is an interview given to the BBC by Dr Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UNIPCC. From Roger Harrabin’s account.

    He also dismissed suggestions of a slowdown in global warming.

    “There’s definitely an increase in our belief that climate change is taking place and that human beings are responsible,” he told me.

    “I don’t think there is a slowdown (in the rate of temperature increase). I would like to draw your attention to the World Meteorological Organization which clearly stated on the basis of observations that the first decade of this century has been the warmest in recorded history.

    At least ABC showed up Suzuki. Harrabin didn’t think it odd that Pachauri contradicted what the BBC say will be ‘central’ to IPCC climate report – explaining global warming pause. Would be worth an article Joanne.

    31

    • #
      Manfred

      There’s definitely an increase in our belief that climate change is taking place and that human beings are responsible

      Spot on. Nix about science.

      All belief. Nothing hidden. It’s out there for all to see.

      20

  • #
    MemoryVault

    .
    Further up the thread people were commenting on the Climate Commission’s intention to proceed on public donations. This is utter tosh.

    Of the six “Commissioners” of the now defunct Commission, four – including Flannery – hold tenured positions at Australian universities, one is the Executive Director of a multi-million dollar company with a vested interest, and one is the retired Managing Director of BP Australasia.

    Of the eight members of the former “Science Advisory Panel”, six hold tenured university positions, one is employed full-time at the CSIRO, and one at the BoM.

    So, twelve people firmly on the public teat, plus one director in a company with a vested interest, and a retired millionaire. These people need public donations like Bill Gates needs your small change to buy a cup of coffee.

    This is simply a localised re-run of “The Team”, who set up their “Ready Response Group” in the form of the RealClimate website, then proceeded to run it from the comfort of their existing, highly-paid, public-funded jobs. Does anybody really believe the authorities at Maquarie University will be data-logging Flim-Flammery’s computer to ensure he is working on university business, and not blogging on his new website?

    .
    Question is, will our new “conservative” government just allow it to happen, or will it lead to greater ministerial scrutiny of university grants and budget funds for the CSIRO and the BoM?

    201

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The difference between an Executive Director, and somebody who is simply a Director, is that an Executive Director is a full time employee of the company, and so gets a regular Senior Management salary. They also usually get various allowances, attached to their Directorship, in recognition of their “additional responsibilities”.

      All of them get a pretty good whack of the money stick.

      20

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Judging by this and past appearances on TV David Suzuki looks like another activist poster boy, I may not have DR at the start of my name but at least I have the ability to think objectively and care enough about others so as not to make their lives harder by pushing inhumane agendas.
    He has shamed the name of Michio Suzuki who unlike him gained notoriety for invention, intellect, and didn’t sell out his name to appease lunatics.

    40

  • #
    warcroft

    Just remember everyone. . . us skeptics have been saying “this is the final nail in the coffin” for a good number of years now.
    The global warming scare just will not go away. Its like a cockroach!

    30

    • #
      credirt

      Hi warcroft

      I do agree. The skeptical side does seem to fluff up their position on a regular basis; not sure if this is because of the odds stacked against us. However, the other side has won all the major propaganda battles – I.e. the minds of the sheep. Most of the sheep only argue about who read the newspaper the best, as opposed to critically analysing what its saying. Having said that – I do believe in the “killer meme” – the small chisel that will shatter the rock. (I did think Climategate was that meme – buuut the sheep just need to be told that 3 inquiries found no wrong doing and they are back on board)

      Importantly, ad homs, anger, frustration, division, overly technical debates from our side play into the opposition hands perfectly. Simple deductive reasoned logic will be the killer blow – we just gotta find it

      20

  • #
    scaper...

    Typical Suzuki, all noise and splutter but no go.

    I’m a Honda man.

    100

    • #
      Backslider

      I’m a Honda man.

      Eh!…. Ducati….. zooom……..

      20

      • #
        scaper...

        Yeah, beautiful machinery. Had the pleasure of borrowing my mates’ bikes in the late seventies. Torn between the 450 Desmo and the 750 Super Sport. The 860 was too conservative for me back then.

        Lost my big toe in ’79 on a Honda road/dirt bike.

        30

        • #
          Yonniestone

          Yeeoowch! I bet you remember that ride :)
          One of my favorite bikes is a Suzuki GSX1100,the power is scary fast for it’s time and the seat is just perfect.

          11

          • #
            scaper...

            Sure causes a balance problem at times but my excuse for falling over after a few drinks.

            The fastest and best handling bike I ever rode was a fully worked Laverda 1000 in a alloy frame that my memory fails to remember around ’87.

            Reminds me of a Laverda club party in the hills near Woodford, Qld. After a few drinks I exclaimed, “I’ve lost my artificial big toe in the mud.” Had them all combing through the mud looking for this supposed big toe.

            After about five minutes, got a fair distance and yelled, “Fooled youse.” A good time was had that night.

            20

            • #
              Yonniestone

              The Laverda could have had a Rickman frame? very nice triple and fastest bike around for many years, never rode one but drool over them at shows.

              10

      • #
        Backslider

        What was I saying about zoom?

        The was a dude on a Duke back in the 80′s on The Sunshine Coast who always did the same…. they just could not catch him.

        00

  • #
    Orson

    This embarrassing performance ought not to come as a surprise. Suzuki BELIEVES the Oreskes-style enviro-agitpop is true. That’s my conclusion about him on reading about his climate change activism in Wikipedia, for instance, this statement from The David Suzuki Foundation website, there:

    The debate is over about whether or not climate change is real. Irrefutable evidence from around the world – including extreme weather events, record temperatures, retreating glaciers, and rising sea levels – all point to the fact climate change is happening now and at rates much faster than previously thought.

    The Wikipedia text continues to explain his reasoning, thusly:
    Suzuki says that despite this growing consensus, many in the public and the media seemed doubtful about the science for many years. The reason for the confusion about climate change, in Suzuki’s view, was due to a well-organized campaign of disinformation about the science involved. “A very small number of critics” denies that climate change exists and that humans are the cause. These climate change “skeptics” or “deniers”, Suzuki claims, tend not to be climate scientists and do not publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals but rather target the media, the general public, and policy makers. Their goal: “delaying action on climate change.” According to Suzuki, the skeptics have received significant funding from coal and oil companies….

    Therefore, with evilly motivated opposition and irrefragable evidence for AGW, why would Suzuki bother to follow the particulars of today’s great debate about global warming? He wouldn’t.

    20

  • #
    Rod Stuart

    Suzuki is quite possibly affected by his childhood. He was in an internment camp in Saskatchewan when he was very young. I suspect that this is the reason for his hatefulness of anything and everything.
    During WWII, Japanese invasion was broadly feared in British Columbia. The fear was so real that the USA spent a bundle on building the Alcan highway to Fairbanks, starting at Mile Zero, Dawson Creek, BC.
    Suziki’s family was one of hundreds of Canadian families of Japanese extraction living along the West coast, and many had lived there for several generations. When the Japanese Imperial Navy started releasing unmanned aircraft from carriers in the Pacific, laden with incendiaries to crash on Vancouver Island and ignite forest fires, panic was at a fever pitch. Who could tell whether or not these Asians were Canadians or Japanese spies? They were relocated until VJ day. No doubt it would be enough to produce a bitter mind. I think this is conceivably at the root of this fellow’s madness.

    52

  • #
    pat

    reality:

    24 Sept: Deutsche Welle: Airbus predicts global aircraft fleet to double by 2032
    Rising global air traffic would create demand for an additional 29,220 new aircraft by 2032, European planemaker Airbus said in its Global Market Forecast released Tuesday.
    The 20-year outlook predicted particularly strong demand from emerging economies such as China, Brazil and India…
    Leahy also said that air travel in the Asia Pacific region would overtake that of Europe and North America by then.
    On a global scale, Airbus forecast passenger numbers to double over the next 20 years, from currently 2.9 billion to 6.7 billion. The planemaker attributed the rise to a bigger global middle class, urbanization, migration and tourism…
    Overall, new orders for aircraft would amount to $4.4 trillion (3.3 trillion euros), the report added.
    http://www.dw.de/airbus-predicts-global-aircraft-fleet-to-double-by-2032/a-17112336

    10

  • #
    pat

    check the various components of this Special IPCC Issue:

    Outlook for Earth: A Nature special issue on the IPCC
    http://www.nature.com/news/specials/ipcc2013/index.html?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20130924

    10

  • #
    Brian G Valentine

    Suzuki is dreadful, responsible adults waste time trying to prevent him from taking Canada or any free country down the toilet.

    Time wasted on these people needs to come to a halt, somehow.

    41

  • #
    pat

    AP’s Borenstein as classy as ever:

    24 Sept: CTV: AP: Seth Borenstein: Scientists liken certainty of global warming to deadliness of smoking
    WASHINGTON — Top scientists from a variety of fields say they are about as certain that global warming is a real, man-made threat as they are that cigarettes kill.
    They are as sure about climate change as they are about the age of the universe. They say they are more certain about climate change than they are that vitamins make you healthy or that dioxin in Superfund sites is dangerous…
    There’s a mismatch between what scientists say about how certain they are and what the general public thinks the experts mean, experts say…
    One climate scientist involved says the panel may even boost it in some places to “virtually certain” and 99 per cent.
    Some climate-change deniers have looked at 95 per cent and scoffed. After all, most people wouldn’t get on a plane that had only a 95 per cent certainty of landing safely, risk experts say.
    But in science, 95 per cent certainty is often considered the gold standard for certainty…
    The president of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences, Ralph Cicerone, and more than a dozen other scientists contacted by the AP said the 95 per cent certainty regarding climate change is most similar to the confidence scientists have in the decades’ worth of evidence that cigarettes are deadly…
    But even the best study can be nitpicked because nothing is perfect, and that’s the strategy of both tobacco defenders and climate deniers, said Stanton Glantz, a medicine professor at the University of California, San Francisco and director of its tobacco control research centre…
    http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/scientists-liken-certainty-of-global-warming-to-deadliness-of-smoking-1.1468879

    00

  • #
    pat

    reality:

    Spain renews aid for coal-fired electricity generation
    PAMPLONA, Sept 24 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Spanish coal will be guaranteed a 7.5 percent share of the electricity mix up to 2018, Spain’s major trade union confederation said last week, indicating a u-turn by the government which previously said state support for coal-fired generation could finish at the end of 2013…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2593493?&ref=searchlist

    00

  • #
    RoHa

    “Government good, corporations bad”

    Depending on which aspect of their activities you concentrate on, you could say either “government bad, corporations worse” or “corporations bad, government worse”. But since they work hand-in-hand much of the time, there isn’t a lot of point making a choice.

    20

  • #
    KinkyKeith

    I paid good money to see Suzuki talk at a Newcastle Venue some years ago.

    What an arrogant, rude and condescending performance.

    An appearance on The Project a couple of nights ago was also without substance on the topic of Man Made Global Warming.

    A real opportunist it would seem, moving on the world stage gathering acclaim from uneducated, trusting people who want something to “believe” in.

    What will happen to them when the truth dawns?

    KK

    40

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Sounds more like a staged performance KK.
      If you saw him now could you restrain yourself from heckling him?. :)

      20

      • #
        KinkyKeith

        It was long time back and it was more of an environment thing before Global Warming had really arrived.

        He doesn’t come across as a scientist, just a publicist on the make.

        The reception he got on “The Project” the other night was adoration of the master environmentalist; no difficult questions and like something you would expect to see on the ABC.

        KK

        20

  • #
    handjive

    2 minutes to midnight for the UN-IPCC AR5.
    A good time to review the performance of AR4 of 2007. Specifically, food production.
    Google “IPCC food production” returns this page, Chapter 5: Food, Fibre, and Forest Products – AR4 WGII – IPCC.

    This article from the Guardian, titled, “The state of crop harvests around the world” has further links to UN-IPCC projections, with continents separated for comparison.

    It summarises UN-IPCC AR4 thus:
    “New UN forecasts indicate world cereal production will be reduced by 2.6% in 2012 following last year’s record crop.
    Wheat production is expected to fall 5.2% – largely because of the heatwave in the United States, and other grains by 2.3%.
    The global rice crop is expected to remain mostly unchanged, with falls in India offset by an increase in China, Japan and the Philippines.”

    Note: cO2 levels 400ppm.

    Now to compare the UN-IPCC with reality:
    Good:
    USDA projects record corn crop
    Agriculture insiders see bumper crop on Prairies
    Canada May See Most Wheat in 22 Years With Record Canola Crop
    Bumper crop could mean record year for U.S. blueberries
    Russia – Fourth sugar beet test confirms record sugar yields for third consecutive year
    Ukraine, Russia see record maize crop
    British Maize crop up 20pc as record year is forecast
    India’s Food-Grain Harvest Seen Rising to Record on Monsoon Rain
    Indian Droughts Declined As World Warmed
    Yemeni fruit production sees record growth
    ACROSS the lush farmlands of South Australia, a once-in-a-generation crop is emerging.
    Bad:
    Argentina: ATC releases lemon damage estimates
    Frost damage in Brazilian wheat edge futures higher
    For those who like to imbibe …
    2013 wine harvest breaks records
    CO2 Fuels Marijuana Yield!

    40

  • #
    jorgekafkazar

    650 cc Suzuki in a 1500 cc world….

    30

  • #
    ianl8888

    O/T

    Last night (Tuesday Sep 24), the ABC TV 7:30 show had the anchorwoman interviewing Turnbull, ostensibly on the NBN

    But given her greenie bias, she was unable to resist poking at the CAGW issue, hoping for Turnbull to disagree with Abbott’s viewpoint

    She noted the “well known” hiatus in the Global Temperature Anomaly over the last 15 years, commenting that the imminent IPCC AR5 discusses it

    To my knowledge, this is the first time that ABC TV has even mentioned the hiatus, albeit as a “well known basis” for her question to Turnbull

    I admit to astonishment … and perhaps some slight hope

    50

    • #

      I agree that it is at least encouraging that the ABC is now actually referring to a ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’. On the Q & A program that this thread is all about, the moderator, Tony Jones, mentioned it several times. If you then watched the Lateline program that followed, Emma Alberici, also mentioned it several times.

      Although I find this encouraging, there is a slight semantic problem for me in the use of the word ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’. If you think it through, it is actually quite an unscientific word to use in this instance because we do not know if it is a pause or a reversal or a down turn. To use ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ to describe the current situation since 1998, implies that the warming trend will continue. It implies that this is just a temporary state. You can only imply this is you agree with the climate sensitivity assumptions in the models. To use the word ‘pause’ is not a scientific approach because it assumes that you know the result of the experiment before the experiment is conducted.

      We should be careful in letting people off the hook when they use the word ‘pause’. How do they know it is a pause and not a correction to the mean? How do they know it is not a reversal?

      50

  • #
    Ricko

    Hi I am in Japan have been following this Blog for years, I watched the Suzuki video – I couldnt believe it how embarrassing the whole thing was – is that what passes for debate on Australian TV – looked more like a love fest to me. The audience obviously was stacked with Suzuki supporters – very few questions to debate – and a guy who shouldnt be given any air time. Is David Suzuki really a scientist – he didnt back up one single assertion with any kind of report or paper it was all his own opinions. Mockton would kill him in a debate – I would pay serious money to watch that. Keep up the good work Jo – here in Japan they only pay lip service to global warming – lots of talk and no action.

    40

  • #
    NoFixedAddress

    David Suzuki is a star of Comedy Science.

    20

  • #

    [...] » David Suzuki bombs on Q&A, knows nothing about the climate How much is his reputation as a scientist worth when he doesn’t even bother to check the evidence for a cause he stakes his reputation on? [...]

    00

  • #

    David Suzuki reminds me of Michio Kaku. Kaku was a good physicist, then he seemed to find getting his face on television far more satisfying than theoretical physics and became whatever it took to get air time. It’s sad that once the media enters, all science will often go out the door. Anyone with a degree becomes an “expert” on every topic out there. (At least Bill Nye was an entertainer to start with……)

    00

  • #

    Mondays Q&A was a bit wierd.
    Usually, when a darling of the left gets in trouble with a question, the host Tony Jones intervenes or cuts off the questioner to shield the darling.

    But on Monday night, when Suzuki got tangled up trying to answer Bill Ks question, not only did Tony Jones not shield Suzuki, but he invited further probing by Bill K i.e.

    TONY JONES: Do you want to respond to that, Bill?

    In past shows, Tony Jones would not have asked for a response, on the contrary, he would have cut short and moved on to a “friendly” questioner.

    I get a sense that maybe Suzuki pissed off Tony Jones. Maybe he was too demanding or dismissive what with his air of superiority etc.

    I found it interesting, I wonder if Bill Koutalianos sensed/observed something on the night.

    10

    • #

      Even Canadians think that Suzuki’s appearance was a bit wierd. The video shows a Canadian response. (I learnt a new expression: “tongue bath”.)

      Well, they seem surprised that it was permitted to ask His Suzukiness questions of substance by people who understand what they’re talking about.

      Another bit dealing with big, bad corporates, etc.

      00

  • #

    I have worked for a number of educators and so called PhDs who have larger than life egos to go along with their presumed larger than life brains. I found all of them to be largely a fraud, they knew I had been violently harmed in the past and I did not. They conspired with others who did the violent harm to me, conspired in various degree frauds towards that end, compelled my marriage to a German national who was a state paid shill and femme fatale they’d later use to attempt to euthanize me informally with. I worked for SUNY Buffalo CEDAR and have a BSEE from SUNY Buffalo that is worthless via their frauds and crimes against me.

    This guy is just another example of how these so called experts are not.

    Some photos of how I was lynched and vivisected in 1981 and later had the State attempt to euthanize me informally for it. Amnesia from the attack made it impossible to witness against until later, decades later really.

    https://www.facebook.com/TerryAllenJonesTheUndead/media_set?set=a.1089324204840.13004.1578528697&type=3

    http://terryallenjones.wordpress.com/

    11

  • #
    greig

    Suzuki is the poster-boy for the left wing media here in Canada and as such he is NEVER asked a tough question or confronted with facts that contradict his left wing propaganda,especially from the CBC. Thanks to a relatively new broadcaster in Canada, the SUN news network, Canadians now have an alternative to the left wing lame-stream media and through Sun News, we were actually able to see portions of the Q & A debate, something that all the other broadcasters completely steered clear of. Suzuki really showcased how he hasn’t a clue about what he is preaching. Just another huckster, like Al Gore. I have often said, when my carbon footprint reaches 1/1000th of that of either Al Gore or Suzuki, then talk to me about global warming, climate change, climate disruption, or whatever the fad name of the day is. Good job JoNova. Want some real news from Canada? Check out Sun News at http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca
    regards
    greig from Canada

    61

  • #
    halfacow

    With typical bias, Stewart Franks was introduced as simply a professor of Environmental Engineering while Steve Sherwood was introduced as a “professor” and a “lead author of the IPCC” and a “Director of the Climate Change Research Centre at UNSW”

    It is somewhat hypocritical to complain of such trivialities when you yourself (and Bolt) have never once afforded Professor Tim Flannery his correct title.

    07

  • #
    Patrick Carroll

    This article is priceless! JoNova has done what none of the Canadian media have dared to do in bursting the bubble of legitimacy surrounding this pompous and arrogant know-nothing excuse for a scientist. His reputation will forever be tarnished.

    51

  • #
    Reinder van Til

    Well, this professor emeritus, geologist knows about climate and what he is talking about. Great hearing. He starts at about 10 minutes and 30 seconds in front of this committee:

    http://www.tvw.org/index.php?option=com_tvwplayer&eventID=2013030153

    21

    • #
      FijiDave

      I’ve watched it, Reindeer, and found it excellent. Don certainly had them a bit agitated when he spoke of data manipulation.

      I thought that that Kevin Ranker was a bit obtuse – kept asking questions that had just been answered. Kept harping on the 97%.

      I thought it a very good and worthwhile presentation. A free Uni lecture, so to speak.

      21

      • #

        Ranker at the end asked if the models that the Professor had used to be made available and if they’d been peer-reviewed. Models? Clearly that Senator had not been listening.

        One thing that the Prof missed in answer to a question by one of the other Senators about decreased alkalinity in some areas is that it’s not just the potential of upwelling moving more cold water closer to the surface that lowers pH; there’s also runoff from increased rain. Rainwater is normally acidic with a pH of around 5.2. The pH as it enters the oceans is largely determined by how it reaches the ocean.

        11

  • #
    FijiDave

    Huh?

    Suzuki says at about 30:00:

    Even nuclear energy is going to run out!

    Sounds a bit suss to me. Anyway what do I know, I’m not up with fruit-fly genetics.

    10

    • #

      From the transcript:

      DAVID SUZUKI: Well, I just happen to think that if you’re talking about a sustainable future, then how can you make a commitment to something that is simply not sustainable in the long run? You know, even nuclear energy is going to run out. But, at the same time, why would we indulge in a technology that creates problems in the end when you use it? We’re left with the question of waste and we still haven’t solved what we’re going to do with that waste. …

      If we switch to Thorium as the “fuel”; then the Thorium that has been dug up already as an “unwanted” by-product of the extraction of rare earth elements will probably be enough to power civilization as we know it for more than 1000 years.

      Indeed, that Thorium in stockpiles is considered radioactive waste. But using that waste in a (“fast”) nuclear reactor can also be used to burn up the long-lived radioactive “waste” from other reactors, extracting useful energy. Search the WWW for SPHINX (SPent Hot fuel Incinerator by Neutron fluX). (PDF and video presentation)

      Solutions to the “waste problem” are known. Practical deployment of the solutions is being hampered by charlatans like Suzuki.

      10

  • #
    janama

    What I found interesting about the Suzuki program was the look of surprise on his face. Obviously he had never been challenged on climate change before because he constantly moves in warmist circles.

    Let’s face it, he’s a science parrot just like David Attenborough or the reporters on Catalyst, they tell the story that has been told to them by the scientists whose work they are covering at the time.
    Climate scientists have been filling Suzuki’s head with their BS and he just soaks it up like a sponge and repeats it with authority. He was totally convinced that the warming has continued, that cyclones and extreme weather events are increasing, that man and CO2 are responsible.

    In that respect he’s no different than my friends on facebook who all believe the same thing.
    He’s only an authority on science when he’s spouting someone elses research yet to go around lecturing all the BS in schools etc is in fact fraud! I’m sure in all his $30,000 speeches he tells his audience that the warming is continuing, sea levels will rise metres, extreme weather events are increasing etc etc and they all walk out believing he’s an authority on science.

    It’s sad really.

    60

  • #

    [...] We then had the thoroughly bizarre spectacle of David Suzuki admitting on Australian TV that he did not even know what the main global temperature datasets [...]

    10

  • #

    [...] David Suzuki bombs on Q&A, knows nothing about the climate – JoNova This entry was posted in Big Environment, Climategate, David Suzuki, environmentalists, Ezra Levant, Propaganda, Your tax-dollars. Bookmark the permalink. ← “We have met the enemy and he is us” [...]

    00

  • #
    algoa

    I live in Toronto.

    Problem is that people like Suzuki make a tidy living peddling the green story over and over. He has a spot on CBC (a.k.a Canadian Bias Corporation when it comes to matters green) where he peddles the green dogma to receptive lefties. Of course, these are all anecdotal accusations.

    But here is something more factual: a few years ago the Town Council of Markham (a town on the Northern edge of Toronto) started a major development – really to house the many thousands of Chinese immigrants who are moving to Toronto (though they’d never admit it). There was significant opposition from local residents. To make the whole development more palatable they called in Dr Suzuki and flew him over from Vancouver. He charged a $12,000 appearance fee to give a brief appearance at the development presentation and added his imprimatur to the proceedings. He declared the project ‘green’. Markham was going to be a green city. The whole visit lasted about four hours and then he was gone.

    But Suzuki had served his purpose. Opposition to the project was silenced. Whenever objections were raised they were countered by David Suzuki’s quotes regarding a ‘green city’.

    Time went by and as expected there was nothing ‘green’ about the development. High rise condos (flats) and shops and offices sprung up and nary a park was to be seen. Only a blind person could conclude this was a green environmentally responsible initiative. So my wife emailed Suzuki saying – in effect – hey the Markham development was supposed to be green (your caring self declared it as such) are you aware what is happening? There is nothing green here at all. Eventually after two follow up emails we received back from Suzuki a short garbled email telling us that he is not responsible for the town’s actions. And then nothing. Subsequent emails from us were ignored.

    It was clear that the good doctor cared not a fig for the development he had, for a fee, linked to his name. It was clear, however, that for all Suzuki’s declared environmental passion, in the end, Suzuki, like the rest of us, put moola over his declared principles.

    Plain and simple Suzuki is a successful businessman who has discovered a wonderful technique for extracting money in bucket loads from the gullible for little personal effort or commitment. Suzuki’s efforts are nothing to do with science or environmental concern and everything with making a buck. Suzuki is, in effect, running a successful scam.

    20

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      Quite correct. It is not accurate to accuse him of being ‘stupid’ as has sometimes been done.
      The alchemists tried and tried to turn lead into gold.
      Suzuki discovered how to turn bullshit into gold forty years ago.
      It is a large part of the population, and the CBC that are stupid.
      Even more stupid are the people that cannot see through this scam.

      10

  • #

    [...] And then at Jo Nova’s fine site. David Suzuki’s performance on Q&A last night was extraordinary. I was knock-me-over amazed that he has not heard of UAH, GISS, HADcrut and RSS, and knew nothing of the pause in global surface temperatures that even the UK Met Office and IPCC lead author climate scientists like Hans von Storch are discussing. [...]

    00

  • #

    [...] blogger Joanne Nova: The man is emphatically an activist who might as well be innumerate. He is unburdened by data, [...]

    00

  • #
    Robert Holmes

    Suzuki claimed during the show I saw him on last week that ‘hundreds of millions’ has been spent by big oil on deniers. What do you think of this, Jo Nova?

    11

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I am not sure who these “big oil deniers” are, who deny the size of the oil companies? Would you care to clarify what you are trying to say?

      10

  • #
    Pete from Perth

    Q&A obviously mistook him for a climate change scientist, when he’s never claimed to be one, then stacked the decks with conspiracy theorists and global warming denialists. It’s like if you call for a “housing industry expert” – then attack the financial economist for not knowing how to lay bricks and the sparkie for not knowing the tax code for first home depreciation.

    It’s a sad reflection on most of the commenters here that they fail to grasp that very basic point.

    00

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    It’s a sad reflection on most of the commenters here that they fail to grasp that very basic point.

    Au contraire. Most of the commenters here recognised that the Q&A team hadn’t a clue. But since that criticism can be applied to the majority of the media, it is taken as read. There are better things to talk about than the dismal state of the media.

    But for the sake of clarification, could you explain what you mean by “conspiracy theorists”? The association of those two words produces an oxymoron. A conspiracy is either real, with tangible evidence, or it is hypothetical, and therefore cannot have any evidence, and is therefore not a conspiracy. Which of these definitions apply?

    Also, for clarifications sake, can you explain what you mean by “global warming denialists”? Are these people who deny that the median global temperature could get warmer, over time?

    If you intend to throw epithets around on this site, then you had better be clear about your definitions.

    English is a language of communication. If people are not clear in their communication, it indicates that they are not clear in their thinking. That is not a criticism of you per se, merely an observation.

    00

  • #
    James

    This kind of analysis is fantastic! I can’t figure out how to sign up for emails of these. Help!

    ——————

    James, look on the right column under “Find Things” for the next heading “Register for emails”. But I’m highly random at sending them. Sorry! I have been using twitter and facebook more lately. – Jo

    10

  • #
    Asmilwho

    “The stricken nuclear plant at Fukushima in northern Japan is in such a delicate condition that a future earthquake could trigger a disaster that would decimate Japan and affect the entire West Coast of North America, a prominent scientist has warned.”

    Who might that prominent scientist be, I hear you asking …. Why none other than our very own David Suzuki, who is now an expert on nuclear reactor safety.

    http://on.rt.com/060st8

    10

  • #
    Diane

    I guess most who commented on David Suzuki here could not aspire to his intelligence, experience and absolute commitment to the welfare of his fellow inhabitants on Planet Earth.
    Most of you would be a product of The Lucky Country and wouldn’t have a clue about anyone or anywhere else – typical ignorant Australians. David Suzuki has contributed and achieved more in his lifetime than all of his skeptics put together. You are just a bunch of couch pontificators.

    27

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      Perhaps it does take some intelligence to lie, cheat and steal your way to prosperity.
      Exactly how you consider that he has a commitment to anyone but himself escapes me.
      I suppose one could well say that Joe Stalin, Robert Mugabe, and Josef Mengele had intelligence, experience, and commitment to some ideal or other.
      In Snoozuki’s case, the commitment is certainly not to the inhabitants that he has always considered “maggots”.
      I take it you are either a yogurt-knitting dung weaver, or one of the latte-sipping chardonnay drunk set.

      41

      • #
        MemoryVault

        Fair shake of the sauce bottle, Rod.

        Apparently Sleazuki has a deep and abiding interest in at least some people.

        .
        Perhaps Diane is just jealous she wasn’t picked?

        40

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        To be fair I think he only considers people who ignore the science for their own greed or ideological purposes to the detriment of future generations.

        Lets liken it to someone with cancer. Say that virtually all the expert doctors (97%) tell a person that he has cancer that needs operating on immediately with follow on chemo. The person then goes to a naturopath who tells him that he should just take lemon juice as it is 500 times more powerful than chemo (true story). In this story you are the patient who listens to the naturopath and takes lemon juic, and ignores the fact that you keep getting sicker.

        This is where we are at. We have been told since the 80′s that this is a problem with resultant likely effects, these effects are happening, a lot of them worse than predicted. But people like you keep saying ‘nothing to see here’ (except rising sea levels, shrinking arctic, increasing extreme weather, ocean acidification etc). What will it take for you people to put people ahead of your greed, ideology, apathy or fear and do something before it is to late?

        07

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          In the first paragraph I meant he only considers those people maggots. Forgot that bit.

          07

          • #
            AndyG55

            That’s ok .
            We consider Suzuki and those that worship him, (you for instance) to be akin to rotting dead flesh.

            20

            • #
              AndyG55

              ps.. his brain has certainly turned to rotting flesh over the past decade or so.

              20

            • #
              Dave

              AndyG55,

              He’s up to his old cut and paste tricks:

              He stole the lines above, straight from the most eminent scientists and actor George Clooney.

              10

        • #
          MemoryVault

          .
          REALLY bad choice of example, Master Baiter.

          A whole slew of recent, peer reviewed, published studies, including one a week or so ago in Lancet, tend to suggest that chemo is, at best, pretty much useless as a treatment for most forms of cancer, and at worst, positively deadly, especially for lung cancer.

          So, once again the “consensus” opinion proves to be horribly, fatally wrong.

          .
          For the record, sea levels are currently rising at 1.6mm a year, or about six inches a century, arctic ice is returning to historic averages, there has been NO increase in “extreme weather” (whatever that is), in fact, “weather” is currently less turbulent than it has been in the past 100 years, and you can’t “acidify” a buffered alkaline solution.

          But then, you have been told these observable and observed facts before, but since they contradict your adopted religious cult beliefs, no doubt you will continue to ignore them in the future.

          Religious fervor thrives on studious pig ignorance, eh Master Baiter?

          21

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            I am quite happy for you to solve your cancer with lemon juice. For the record sea levels are increasing at over 3mm py and is at the top range of predictions, Arctic ice shows a decline of 7% per decade http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2013/11/Figure3-350×261.png and extreme weather in the form of heat waves, drought, floods and increasing intensity of storms is increasing in documenting and observational evidence. Just look at Australia. Hottest 12 months twice, hottest summer , hottest day etc etc. But you don’t care do you? How about a reason for temperatures so hot and globally within the hottest 10 years? Solar is falling, ENSO is neutral etc. The oceans falling ph has much documented effects already occurring. Play word games, delay action while the planet feels the increasing effects.

            But common sense, logic and truth is not part of your dihonest vocabulary.

            07

            • #
              MemoryVault

              .
              Actually, Master Baiter, we “solved” my wife’s life-threatening melanoma with wheatgrass juice.

              .
              As for the rest, I only commented to point out the fallacy of your appeal to authority and consensus vis a vis your example of chemotherapy treatment for cancer.

              I have no interest in attempting to debate science with a pig-ignorant religious cultist, hell-bent on chanting many times disproved ritual dogma as an argument against observed, measured, documented scientific facts.

              30

          • #

            I would be interested in what papers you are referring to Memory Vault. When did lemon grass become mainstream instead of pseudoscience? I am not saying that your wife may not be cured, but since we generally deal with science here, I guess some references to studies on lemon grass and some studies on the failure of chemotherapy (in specific cancers or generally?) would be helpful to we science types.

            00

        • #

          Since you picked a bad example for MV, I’ll answer. Your cancer example can have two outcomes: There person gets better or they don’t. If they get better, either the chemo or the lemon grass worked OR the cancer was misdiagnosed in the first place. It is pretty much a black/white outcome. The outcome in one patient says nothing. The outcome in 1000′s of patients addresses probability of success. NO outcome gives 100% certain. If 98% of the people with melanoma used lemon grass and recovered in controlled studies, then we’d be producing lemon grass far and wide.

          Now, climate change. First, there is the problem of “all outcomes mean it’s true”. That’s not a theory. It’s garbage. So we are left with probable outcomes. Like more hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. None of that is happening. NONE. The scary graphs with the giant, off the chart endings on them (i.e. hockey sticks), always have dates too far in the future to even be marginally valuable. It’s not getting warmer at the moment, the sea is rising at the same rate as it has for decades. So, what we have is a miss-mash of psychic grays here. Maybe it will get hotter if we just keep saying so and eventually that hockey stick will kick in. Not in anyway scientific.

          Cancer treatment and climate change are totally different sciences. One is based on measurable, demonstrable outcomes. The other is based on scary predictions years in the future so no proof can ever be had.

          The sea is rising and we are not all going to drown from burning fossil fuels. The sea has always risen and fallen without us here. No scary graph changes that.

          10

          • #

            I left out the possibility of a third outcome: Spontaneous remission, either permanent or temporary.

            01

          • #
            MemoryVault

            Sheri,

            Sorry if I hit a raw nerve, Sheri. I’ll do my best to answer your queries / assertions / accusations.

            Our personal journey started in 1991 (pre internet) when my wife Thumper, noticed a small mole on her chest had turned ugly. It was diagnosed as a particularly nasty and advanced melanoma. No chance of misdiagnosis here – we had it biopsied four times. Thumper was given three months to live unless she opted for major, dramatic, disfiguring surgery and follow-up chemotherapy, both of which she refused.

            I had a large mailing list in those days – 3,000+ in NSW and SE QLD alone. So we hit the phones and fax machine, seeking advice. We started several treatments, including the wheat grass juice (which, by the way, is EXACTLY what it says, juice from WHEAT sprouts, NOT lemon grass, which is a cooking herb). Then we threw a tent and sleeping bags in the car and set off on a journey of discovery, meeting and talking with people all over Eastern Australia.

            We also bought a lot of books, and visited a lot of libraries, and did a lot of reading, including medical studies. Thumper took particular comfort in advice and guidance from Dr Ian Gawler (you can google him these days). The melanoma grew for three months (when Thumper should have been dead), and then began to shrink. It was biopsied regularly, and it was two years to the day between the first diagnosis of melanoma, and eventual diagnosis of a return to a benign mole, which was subsequently removed. What we learned in between can be summarised as follows:

            Melanomas are not a “cause” in themselves, they are merely a symptom of a more deeply rooted malady. Hence having them cut out is usually pointless – nine times out of ten they will eventually resurface somewhere else. Keep it up long enough, and eventually it will manifest as something like inoperable bone cancer. The only way to permanently treat melanoma is to cure the underlying malady, which involves dietary and lifestyle changes, amongst other things.

            .
            Although peripheral to our own journey of discovery since we never used it, we heard lots of horror stories about chemotherapy, rarely from survivors, usually from grieving widowed partners or adult children of dead parent(s), or former parents of a dead child.

            The most important thing we learned about chemotherapy is that when it is offered to a desperate patient, it is ALWAYS a “new” and “promising” treatment. No cancer patient is ever offered an “old”, “tried and tested” chemotherapy regime, simply because there aren’t any. I have personally seen this in action.

            In early 2008 my eldest uncle, Eddie, was diagnosed with lung cancer. He was given a year to live, unless he underwent this “new” and “promising” chemotherapy treatment. I stayed out of it, since my entire family, at that stage at least, were pro mainstream medicine. Eddie started on the chemo, and four months later died in hospital, drowned by his own mucous-filled lungs. By that stage all his hair, and most of his teeth, had fallen out.

            Most of Eddie’s immediate family, including his youngest brother Larry, were at the hospital the night Eddie died. His last words to his brother were, if he was ever diagnosed with cancer, forget the chemotherapy. Given the chance to go back, Eddie would have rather lived out his last year in relative comfort, rather than suffer the hell he had been through over the past four months.

            .
            At the end of 2008 Larry was diagnosed with lung cancer. He was given a year to live unless he had chemotherapy. Remembering his brother’s words and fate, and knowing of Thumper’s battle with melanoma, Larry got his wife, Shirley, to contact us. We were literally on the eve of leaving Perth to relocate back to QLD. I printed out some material from the internet, and that evening we went and visited. Larry’s adult children were there.

            Larry was adamantly opposed to chemotherapy, having seen what happened to Eddie. He was very open to alternative treatments. We all spoke long into the night, and the family were all supportive. I left Larry and Shirley the material I had downloaded and promised to send them more once I got back to QLD. The next morning Thumper flew out, and I left in the car. I ran into some mechanical problems, and it was twelve days before I arrived in QLD.

            On arrival I had two emails from Shirley. The first was dated the day after I left. It was almost apologetic. The specialists had told them all about a “new” and “promising” chemotherapy regime, and Larry had opted to undergo it.

            The second was dated the day before I arrived. Larry had received three chemo treatments at which point his entire immune system had collapsed, along with several vital organs. The specialists had declared him beyond help and had discontinued treatment. They gave Larry six weeks to live. He lasted eight. Apparently they were not pleasant.

            .
            Just as an aside, I might add that both Larry and Eddie were recorded as “smoking related” deaths, even though neither had smoked a cigarette for over a decade at the time of diagnosis of cancer. No mention was ever made of the fact that both were wet plasterers, who spent every working day of their lives breathing in lime and cement dust. Mainstream medicine could never be accused of letting mere facts get in the way of a useful statistic.

            .
            Since Larry’s demise four years ago I have taken a particular interest in chemotherapy treatments. Not a week goes by without a much-heralded announcement of a “new” and “promising” chemo regime. And hardly a week goes by without a peer-reviewed paper being published somewhere, seriously questioning the efficacy of chemotherapy. However, these are much less heralded, and have to be actively sought out by internet search.

            I have no interest in, nor intention of, doing your research for you. As stated previously most of our initial research was pre internet days,out of books. However, out of interest I did a Bing search on “effectiveness of chemotherapy”, and got 2,920,000 hits. The very top link is to an article on the paper I printed out for Larry and Shirley, so here it is.

            That should be enough to get you started – if you are genuinely interested in finding out the truth.

            20

            • #

              I really wasn’t asking you to do my research–far from it. I like to learn. I just needed a point in the direction of where to start and perhaps to clarify your position, which you did.

              I understand your dislike of chemo and that an alternative treatment worked for your wife. I am sure you also know of many people who used alternative medicines and died from the cancer just as those do with chemo. That’s why I asked about the studies on alternative medicines. Generally, I have little or no luck finding actual clinical studies on these alternatives.

              Personally, I have no objection to people choosing to skip chemo or using alternative medicines. The only objection I have is that, as noted above, I little find any evidence, other than anecdotal, that such treatments work. I suppose to me, if I advocate the use of science in deciding if global warming is real, I would be insincere if I threw out the science in other areas. You are brutal to Michael–calling his beliefs religious fervor. I could say the same of the people I know who advocate alternative medicines. Your anger at Michael seemed inappropriate since you chose to follow other than the usual scientific evidence in the case of cancer. I suppose that is what “struck a nerve”, not your statements on cancer. My family has run the gambit from totally trusting of the medical field to “not believing in genetics–it’s all about diet”. So your viewpoint is not unfamiliar to me.

              Also, I have to remember that medicine in Australia is probably not the same as the USA. I actually know several people who went through chemo and recovered. (I knew one person who went through chemo for pancreatic cancer and survived another 10 years or more–which is not common.) I also know one who went with alternative medicine and is doing okay. I had not run into the “new and improved” treatment options here.

              Thank you for answering and I will look up Dr. Gawler and check out your information link.

              11

              • #
                MemoryVault

                Hi Sheri,

                I’m glad we cleared that up.

                Please understand, I am not against mainstream medicine per se. I am only here today because three years ago a dedicated team of doctors and nurses spent a week battling for my life in an intensive care ward. I continue to survive today because of a stent in my left carotid artery, that ensures an adequate supply of blood to my brain (the original cause of the heart attack and stroke).

                That is not the same as giving mainstream medicine a free pass. I have outlined my own family’s experience with chemo, and provided a link to an article about an extensive study done by three Australian Oncologists, that casts serious doubts over the efficacy of chemotherapy.

                I have had to pull both my GP and my Cardiologist into line many times these past three years. If I had stuck with the drug regimens they had given me, I would be dead now. It’s not that I am smarter or better educated than them, just that I have a lot more time available and inclination to research my own particular case.

                Here in Australia at least, too many people are too eager to elevate medical professionals to the status of demigods, and trust in their every utterance, when in truth often they know no more about the subject than the average well-read person on the street.

                A regular commentator here, Winston, a medico himself, recently explained that many in his profession finish medical training with a certain, defined set of medical knowledge, and then never bother updating themselves with new developments. I can certainly attest to the validity of that.

                10

              • #

                I certainly understand not giving mainstream medicine a pass. I have been fortunate–or maybe by necessity–to have physicians that will put up with my inquiries and my refusal to do things unless they are explained fully and I find them necessary. (I won’t get A1C’s done to check blood sugar control. They have no value for me. I only have them done if the doctor will admit it’s for his benefit and my current doctor will not do so.) I, too, research extensively. Maybe because I have more time or maybe because I have a bigger stake in the outcome (I have unique reactions to medications.). I look up all drugs prescribed. My doses are split throughout the day–and my physician was the one who figured out I needed smaller doses spread out. I have checked out of hospitals AMA. Guess I’m not the shy, submissive type!

                11

              • #
                Rod Stuart

                Sheri you seem to be gaining an understanding of why MV and others are sometimes “brutal” to this Michael Avatar.
                In his last epistle he refers to his “climate literacy” course, which originates in one of the bastions of Green/Left ideology: the University of British Columbia. Said institution is ‘home base’ for the snoozuki repository of extra thick bulldust.
                He apparently now has great green gobs of the stuff to sling around, with the all of the fervent witchcraft of the cult to which he belongs.

                20

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                Oh Rod, perhaps you could use your ability to write a lot about nothing to actually write something about science and answering my question.

                But unfortunately, as is so abundantly obvious to even yourselves, you have nothing but taunts and insults and no actual science to argue with.

                05

            • #
              Truthseeker

              MV,

              I would be interested in what the “deeply rooted malady” was that the wheat grass juice seemed to correct.

              My personal experience of cancer is from my father who drunk and smoked heavily most of his adult life, stopped smoking about 10 years before he died of cancer that had got into most of his organs, starting in his lungs. I have no doubt that his chosen lifestyle, especially smoking, was the largest contributing factor to his ultimate medical problems. He did not go with the chemotherapy (as he was diagnosed quite late), preferring to meet the problem on his own terms, living in his own house until quite close to the end.

              00

              • #
                MemoryVault

                Hi Truthseeker,

                I deliberately chose the term “malady”, since it is not a simple, single cause – one size fits all. In your father’s case it may well have been his drinking and smoking, and other aspects of his lifestyle. If not the actual cause, then they would almost certainly have been major contributory factors.

                In Thumper’s case it was almost certainly stress. Thumper used to worry about almost everything, and then she used to worry about worrying too much. She became obsessive compulsive in her behaviour, literally everything needed cleaning or fixing, or both. Eventually the continual self-imposed stress led to not breathing properly (short, sharp, shallow breaths), and that led to an acidification of the bloodstream.

                That’s my best guess anyway.

                In truth I have never studied a case of cancer where stress was not a major factor. From what I can gather – supported by various medical studies – a body under stress shuts down its immune system – part of the old “fight or flight” syndrome. Trouble is, under continual stress, the immune system remains inactive, allowing all sorts of nasty things to happen in the body.

                For instance, even in a normal, healthy person, cancer cells are forming all the time. They are not a problem, as the immune system quickly dispatches them. However, if the immune system isn’t functioning the cancer cells thrive until they do become a problem.

                In both Larry and Eddie’s cases, diagnoses of cancer were preceded by eighteen months to two years of serious financial difficulties.

                It may turn out that the very best medical advice in the world is -

                Don’t worry – be happy.

                10

              • #
                Truthseeker

                MemoryVault, thank you for this reply. I also think that the problems in the mind (of which stress is a manifestation) will always affect the body if they are not corrected.

                I agree about the medical advice.

                Don’t worry – be happy.

                10

              • #

                This is all starting to sound like a song here. “Don’t worry–be happy” Next do we get “It’s more important to be happy than right”?

                While excess worry is bad, if none of us worry and only “be happy”, you’d see these blogs dry up overnight. Arguing for the right thing can be very stressful. Are you recommending we go home and veg out and be healthy while Al Gore and the IPCC pillage the planet (which probably makes them very happy)? Please say no……..

                00

              • #
                MemoryVault

                Sheri,

                I have been fighting the good fight since 1985, and I remain as committed to the cause as ever.

                However, after two strokes and five major heart attacks, I’ve learned to be a little laid back about it all.

                .
                Perhaps you should too. The bad guys aren’t going anywhere, they will still be there to fight tomorrow.

                10

              • #

                No, the bad guys aren’t going anywhere. However, sitting back and believing they are not going anywhere seems to me how they got to the level of influence they are at now. Since the 70′s, I have been trying to get people to understand incrementalism and how it works. Seems they understand about the time they have lost the battle or at the point the battle becomes much more difficult. You are correct–the bad guys are out there plugging along while the good guys try to believe the bad guys just won’t win.

                After all the strokes and heart attacks, probably it is a good idea to cut back a bit. We need your ideas and input! :)

                I also realize that some degree, we, too are happy in what we do or we wouldn’t do it. Perhaps that’s what keeps us going. While I do find it frustrating, I truly would be more stressed if I tried to cut back. I’m pretty good at pacing myself, however, so I’m not really sprinting, rather running a marathon!

                10

            • #
              Mark D.

              Somehow I missed out on this whole thread so am way behind. MV, happy to hear that Thumper has done so well. I can relate a different story about chemo and stage 4 kidney cancer (a friend of mine) that spread to her hip such that she was wheelchair bound till the completion of chemotherapy for fear that it would snap. Her kidney was removed, her hip replaced and she is now in complete remission after some three years. Without chemo she would most certainly be dead by now.

              Thanks for the link though, I have a relative in the Oncology business I’ll see what he thinks.

              00

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            Now, climate change. First, there is the problem of “all outcomes mean it’s true”. That’s not a theory. It’s garbage. So we are left with probable outcomes. Like more hurricanes, tornadoes, etc. None of that is happening. NONE.

            Sheri please provide the references in the IPCC documents where they predict more hurricanes and tornadoes. I have read the documents and they specifically say they do not expect more hurricanes and it is inconclusive on tornadoes as different effects of climate change pull them in different ways. So typically as is always the case you have debunked a prediction that was false in the first place. A common strategy among those wishing to ignore the science.

            As to the rest your information is very very wrong on many many counts. You are correct about it being based on probabilities and they all support AGW being correct on the balance of probabilities.
            AGW is based on known physics of the radiative properties of CO2 (and other greenhouse gases), measurable in the lab, calculable and measurable on the ground as back radiation increasing due to increasing CO2. Also measurable from satellites as a reduction in energy in the radiation bands in the CO2 range of energy leaving Earth. Also measurable as more energy coming into the planet as leaving meaning that by the law of conservation of energy the energy inside of the planetary system is increasing. We have had the stratosphere cooling at the same time as the troposphere warming, also matching the fingerprint of warming due to AGW.

            But you guys do not look at the whole system and expect perfection when even in your own explanation Sheri of cancer, the real world does not work like that. Energy is increasing but it can go into many different areas and the energy is free to move around the system. The atmosphere is only one place (and only about 5%) where that energy can go, as well as the land, oceans and melting of the ice etc. Also we have natural variations in the system such as ENSO, PDO, Solar, Volcanos etc which effect movement of energy on short time scales. So lets focus on the record since 1950.

            ENSO is neutral overall over this period (and neutral at the moment), solar has been falling and there have been some big cooling volcanos. Regardless of all this, temps have increased 0.6 deg c (they should have fallen going on natural factors), and as predicted, the Arctic is melting drastically, Sea levels are rising twice as fast over the last 20 years than the previous 100 year average, oceans are still warming, hot day records over cold day records are 3 to 1 and 5 to 1 at night, Extreme precipitation events are up 7% by observation. Recent studies are showing an increase in storm intensity and much more. So you are intentionally ignoring all the science and all the actual observational evidence available that make it virtually conclusive that mans emissions are changing the planet as predicted, and certainly on a balance of probabilities the IPCC is probably correct with its 95%.

            so to ignore all that and just dismiss the science and data in the way that you have shows that you have other reasons that are not scientific in origin for your views. They may be greed (I don’t think so), ideology(likely due to what I have read when you put politics in your blog), an inability to mentally accept the consequences of our actions (also likely as it is difficult to accept that we may be the reason for all the damage and suffering already starting to occur and likely to occur to our kids and grankids), or some other reason. but it is not based on the science and observations, they are pretty clear to anyone without confirmation bias. Nobody has been able to come up with an alternative, scientifically valid and accepted, with data and observations, alternative to AGW for what I have outlined above. Even you have said ‘anything else’ and another poster has said ‘something that we have not even discovered yet’ that is the strength of the lack of science and ability to accept the evidence. Anything but the most logical, well documented, matching the evidence, 100 years worth of science behind AGW.

            Please examine your motives and look at the damage your delays are already causing.

            15

            • #
              Michael the Realist

              Some of the key indicators from NASA
              http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

              14

            • #
              AndyG55

              “Please examine your motives and look at the damage your delays are already causing.”

              Please examine YOUR motives and look at the extreme damage to the environment and world wide economy that the pseudo-environmental response to the non-existence problem is doing.

              You are a total and absolute FOOL, whose mind is floating somewhere in the realms of non-reality.

              41

              • #
                Heywood

                Andy,

                Why are you engaging this idiot on a two month old thread??

                Responding to him makes him think he has some relevance.

                41

              • #
                AndyG55

                Playing with clowns and trolls is always fun. :-)

                Gets my mind of doing important things after a day’s work.

                I can slow my mind to a crawl and still confuse and annoy the poor little creature.

                And if I can keep him going until the sun comes up……………………. even better ;-)

                31

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                Typically vacuous argument that proves you do not have a scientific argument. So if you are so positive of your science how about answering the key question, what has caused the warming over the last 60 years when according to natural factors temps should have dropped slightly?

                Instead the warming has caused changes that have started causing unnecessary pain and suffering already, let alone what the future will involve as we completely ignore the science. Don’t come across with your fake worries, you only care about yourself.

                14

              • #
                Dave

                Is that you George Clooney?

                41

              • #
                AndyG55

                You poor little insignificant little boy ! You can keep ignoring the science for all I care. You always have been.

                The “response” to the AGW fraud has been far more devastating to nature and the economy than any tiny amount of warming would ever be.

                The small amount of warming has been overwhelmingly beneficial to the world, as has the increase in atmospheric CO2

                You are just too stupidly and thoroughly brain-washed to realise that.

                If you don’t understand that.. Go and live in Siberia. :-)

                Bet ya don’t.. I bet you choose to live somewhere NICE AND WARM, like Perth or Sydney

                31

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                Wow I am amazed that you people are not too embarassed to converse with me. It must be embarrassing to have so little. You can’t answer my question, can you. So you revert to insults and personal attacks and ridiculous statements not based on any science or fact.

                I do live in Perth Andy, and it is hot. Temps here since the 50′s have increased 0.8 deg c. This has resulted in increased number of heat wave days over 35 and daily minimums have risen faster than maximums. Rainfall has fallen by 15% and this has resulted in water into our dams falling from an average of over 300 gl annually to less than 50. 2010 had only 13 gl for the year. This is due to the soil profile needing a certain amount of rain to saturate it before it goes into the dams. Evidence of the non linear nature of the effects of climate change. Evidence shows that our rainfall has shifted South and this has increased snowfall in Antarctica, even though temps in West Antarctica have risen 2.5 deg.

                Complicated isn’t it? Obviously to complicated for you. Studies of ice cores in Law Dome in East Antarctica have found an inverse relationship between high snowfalls and rainfall in southwest WA. They show that this is several thousand years to early for a typical natural cycle. I could present all the links if you would like to see where I got this all from. I studied my area for an assignment in my Climate Literacy course. You see, unlike you I am skeptical and always looking for further information and knowledge to increase actual understanding. Our water authority has built 2 desal plants so far within the last 7 years, with plans to double the capacity of the second one and has a trial wastewater treatment plant to top up our aquifers. Yes we have run out of water, in the future they do not expect to use our dams for new water.

                Ask the Philipines or our bush fire prone areas what they think of your nonsense.

                I await your next scientifically vacuous and factless statement.

                04

              • #

                Michael, proof please that you can actually tell .8 degree differences in temperature. I find myself not believing. As for the heat waves, again, go back to 1900 and see if it was this hot before. Pre-airconditioning. I think people lived through that?

                I have lived in a drought for over 12 years. Nothing in my head tells me that this is permanent. Why would anything tell me that? Drought and floods are part of the natural cycle. Hey, it snows still, even after the predictions children would never see snow in the future. Which is the irrational belief? The drought will end or snow will never happen again?

                No, it’s not complicated at all. We check the data, the methods and we see the flaws. Very easy.

                We don’t ask the Philippines or the brush fire proved areas for SCIENTIFIC answers–that may be your confusion. We check the data and see if things are getting worse or better. Then we figure out how to help the people deal with these changes in a productive fashion–like defensible space. There is NO, read me, NO way to prevent hurricanes, tornadoes and floods with any degree of success. Flooding can be controlled somewhat, tornadoes and hurricanes cannot. Best we can do is try to build in a way that survives some wind and water.

                Life is full of dangerous things–I guess you missed that message. We cannot control the weather or climate, no matter how many studies we do, how much CO2 we cut, etc. We are not that big and powerful. Get over it.

                30

              • #
                AndyG55

                Yes, if the link to the Law Dome snow record is real, it seems that Perth’s last major sustained rainfall deficit (similar to the deficit since about 1974) would have coincided with the NATURAL warming period called the Medieval Warm Period.

                Seems that that this current NATURAL, slightly warmer than the Little Ice Age, period may be having a similar effect.

                Good thing for Perth that it will be changing back over the next few years.

                Have they got some extra dams ready?

                That’s the mistake they made in Brisbane and Melbourne, not preparing for the inevitable natural switch in rainfall.

                20

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                Michael, proof please that you can actually tell .8 degree differences in temperature.

                In what way? Do you mean we cannot measure to that accuracy? Is that a scientific statement in some way that I don’t see? Apart from saying that we can measure to much higher accuracies than that, I don’t where else to go? Does not seem to be an argument in there.

                I have lived in a drought for over 12 years. Nothing in my head tells me that this is permanent. Why would anything tell me that? Drought and floods are part of the natural cycle. Hey, it snows still, even after the predictions children would never see snow in the future. Which is the irrational belief? The drought will end or snow will never happen again?

                There is no science in there at all. you seem to live on opinion on what you think or feel rather than science and evidence. I have pointed out repeatedly that science can and does measure most natural factors and we know what the climate should likely be doing going on those measured factors. There are many many fingerprints outlined above that point to the warming coming from increased greenhouse gases of which CO2 has increased by 40% due to mans emissions. You seem to consider the climate, the atmosphere and the planet itself to be voodoo magic that is unknowable and we are all just making guesses. I have provided the science and the data and the reason and logic, which is all consistent and fairly straightforward, so I think you need to reevaluate your sources of information, you are obviously getting incorrect info when you keep bringing up the 1900′s or 30′s thinking they were as hot as now when they where .5 and .8 respectively lower. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

                02

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                Yes, if the link to the Law Dome snow record is real, it seems that Perth’s last major sustained rainfall deficit (similar to the deficit since about 1974) would have coincided with the NATURAL warming period called the Medieval Warm Period.

                What link? There is specific research available. Nobody denies that the climate changes naturally, it is changing naturally now, it reacts to things that influence it, including, solar, volcanos, ocean currents, continental movements, orbital variations and atmospheric composition, to name a few. We have influenced the atmospheric composition, the planet is reacting to that, we can determine the effect of natural factors and we know that it does not explain the warming, the excess CO2 does explain the warming and is consistent with the science and the physics and matches observations and fingerprints. So it is not a question of whether it has been hot before, that is not an argument, it is a statement, it is a question of why and what will be its effect on us.

                03

            • #

              Nice try, Michael. You know full well I never say the IPCC predicted more hurricanes and tornadoes. They leave that up to the news media to do it for them.

              You continually repeat “AGW is based on physics”. Yes, but a complex system. Your statement is equal to “the universe is composed of molecules”. Yes, and those are composed of, and then those smaller units are composed of …….Oversimplification in an attempt to look scientific.

              There is no justification for focusing on the system since 1950, other than you get rid of the hot temperatures of the 1930′s. I believe you would call that cherry picking. We have plenty of instrumental data going back to the late 1800′s. Try starting there.

              How do you know the temperatures “should have fallen”? We were still pumping out CO2, the driving factor in climate according to the theory of AGW. They should have been rising a lot since we crossed the 350 and 400 ppm thresholds that were the “drop dead” levels–or points of no return.

              There is no increase in storm intensity. There is an increase in the news media’s reporting on the intensity of storms. Check out the real data, not the news media. The hurricane in the Phillipines was unusual, but no unprecedented, either in size or frequency.

              Again, you use “twice as fast” instead of real numbers. A sea level rise of 3mm versus 6mm is NOT significant, either in actual size or threat due to “doubling”. If your chance of heart attack doubles, it sounds scary. If your chance was one in 10000 and now it’s two in 10000, you’d be foolish to worry about the “doubling”–though I suspect some people would eat only lettuce and take 10 medications if they were told this would prevent the “doubling”. It’s actually a great sales technique to the scientifically illiterate.

              Saying we don’t know IS SCIENTIFIC. We know that air pollution is bad and can be fatal. We don’t know how much pollution is bad, so we shut down everything on the planet that might harm us. Nothing “impure” goes into the air because it MIGHT kill us. Society is completely destroyed, wars erupt and we end up killing thousands outright with the idea that ANY amount of pollution will kill us. We can’t wait and see if we can tolerate some pollution, we can’t say we don’t have enough information to insist on the drastic change–we just wipe out all of industry because IT’S GOING TO KILL US ALL. That is plain, outright insanity. Just as the AGW idea is. We just do NOT know enough. (I would also point out that we at one time put radioactive material in toothpastes and soaps as “beneficial”–guess we should have gathered more information on that one????)

              Yes, if we disagree with you we are greedy or ideologically motivated, etc. You, of course, are so pure in spirit you would die before you ever let anything motivate you other than “science”. Seriously, how can you be so blind?????? How about you look at the dead citizens of England who froze to death due to fuel poverty? Or is your pure, altruistic self happy with killing granny to save the planet?

              You preach science and then devolve to insults. THINK. (And I’m starting to agree with everyone else here–I am starting to doubt you can. You repeat yourself over and over and over and when no one listens, you start with insulting and questioning motivations. You’re not helping your case at all.)

              40

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                You know full well I never say the IPCC predicted more hurricanes and tornadoes. They leave that up to the news media to do it for them.

                Nice try Sheri. The science categorically states that an increase in the number of storms is unlikely (they may even fall), and an unknown for tornados, but YOU TRY TO USE IT TO PUT DOWN THE SCIENCE and then say it came from the media, SERIOUSLY? Get real, this is a media that more often than not gets their information from those that are promoting delay and against the science. The science says what it says, you have taken false information spread by your own side and then used it to put down the predictions of science. Typical, but not honest.

                AGW is based on physics”. Yes, but a complex system. Your statement is equal to “the universe is composed of molecules”. Yes, and those are composed of, and then those smaller units are composed of …….Oversimplification in an attempt to look scientific.

                No it is not equal to the universe is composed of molecules. It is exactly what I said, an atmosphere, composed of known components, properties of which we are well aware off, can be measured, have been measured and match the science, the physics and the calculations. You try and make it look like everything is unknowing and we are in the stone age. Feel free to stop using the computer based on the same laws of physics and running calculations at 3 billion instructions per second, through about a billion quantum transisters in a package the size of the palm of your hand. I explained what has been measured, where and what it is telling us. You surely are not that ignorant to believe what you right.

                There is no justification for focusing on the system since 1950, other than you get rid of the hot temperatures of the 1930′s.

                I only use it because it is the period with the most accurate information. Go back to the beginning of instrumental measurements http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif and you can see a clear trend and that your so called ‘hot temperatures’ of the 30′s were .5 deg c colder than today (what are you on?). In fact the 2001 – 2010 decade was the hottest on the instrumental record globally, on every continent, in both hemispheres and seperately in land and ocean over the period, and likely for several thousand years.

                You are playing down the type and intensity of storms like you have in the past. Such as Sandy was the widest storm in that ocean as well as being unusual for the time of year, and for going into land as well as the impact of storm surges being worse due to sea level. Same in the Philipines, highest winds to hit land ever coming a year after Typhoon Bopha, give the poor guys a breeak, with similar worse effects due to storm surges with higher sea levels. There is much more evidence but the time taken to find it at work is outweighed by the fact that you would not take any notice of it.

                A sea level rise of 3mm versus 6mm is NOT significant

                Your kidding, right? IT IS AN OCEAN, it covers 70% of the planet, the amount of water that represents is huge, is not uniform, and increases the effects of storms etc. WOW your excuses are really getting extreme, can you provide some science for that statement.

                I could go on but i am getting bored, I think that adequately shows that you base all your information on false sources under the umbrella of extreme confirmation bias with none of it based on science. They are vague and unscientific arguments, and mostly incorrect.

                03

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                How do you know the temperatures “should have fallen”?

                Woops, couldn’t let that one go. I explained how I know. Unlike you I do not believe the climate in unknowing magic cloaked in secrecy. We can measure all significant natural factors such as solar, ENSO, PDO, volcanos etc, and work out that on natural factors alone temps would have fallen. I have provided research before from Mclean et all (your side) where they predicted temps from the 1950′s in 2011 due to natural factors. That is clear evidence that even your side know you are wrong and that their motives are questionable. Only the influence off CO2 can you account for the warming. Again you are ignoring the fact that it is a big complicated system where energy sloshes around and that the atmosphere is only 5% of where the extra energy goes, as well as the land, ocean and melting of ice. The long term record clearly shows ups and downs with an upward long term trend. you also ignore the warming oceans and the fact that natural factors are cooling but we have not cooled. Cherry picking and ignoring of evidence. Do you understand the scientific method?

                03

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                You know full well I never say the IPCC predicted more hurricanes and tornadoes. They leave that up to the news media to do it for them.

                Nice try Sheri. The science categorically states that an increase in the number of storms is unlikely (they may even fall), and an unknown for tornados, but YOU TRY TO USE IT TO PUT DOWN THE SCIENCE and then say it came from the media, SERIOUSLY? Get real, this is a media that more often than not gets their information from those that are promoting delay and against the science. The science says what it says, you have taken false information spread by your own side and then used it to put down the predictions of science. Typical, but not honest.

                AGW is based on physics”. Yes, but a complex system. Your statement is equal to “the universe is composed of molecules”. Yes, and those are composed of, and then those smaller units are composed of …….Oversimplification in an attempt to look scientific.

                No it is not equal to the universe is composed of molecules. It is exactly what I said, an atmosphere, composed of known components, properties of which we are well aware off, can be measured, have been measured and match the science, the physics and the calculations. You try and make it look like everything is unknowing and we are in the stone age. Feel free to stop using the computer based on the same laws of physics and running calculations at 3 billion instructions per second, through about a billion transisters in a package the size of the palm of your hand. I explained what has been measured, where and what it is telling us.

                There is no justification for focusing on the system since 1950, other than you get rid of the hot temperatures of the 1930′s.

                I only use it because it is the period with the most accurate information. Go back to the beginning of instrumental measurements http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif and you can see a clear trend and that your so called ‘hot temperatures’ of the 30′s were .5 deg c colder than today. In fact the 2001 – 2010 decade was the hottest on the instrumental record globally, on every continent, in both hemispheres and separately in land and ocean over the period, and likely for several thousand years.

                You are playing down the type and intensity of storms like you have in the past. Such as Sandy was the widest storm in that ocean as well as being unusual for the time of year, and for going into land as well as the impact of storm surges being worse due to sea level. Same in the Philipines, highest winds to hit land ever, coming a year after Typhoon Bopha, give the poor guys a break, with similar worse effects due to storm surges with higher sea levels. There is much more evidence but the time taken to find it at work is outweighed by the fact that you would not take any notice of it.

                A sea level rise of 3mm versus 6mm is NOT significant

                IT IS AN OCEAN, it covers 70% of the planet, the amount of water that represents is huge, is not uniform, and increases the effects of storms etc. Can you provide some science for that statement.

                I think that adequately shows that you base all your information on false sources under the umbrella of extreme confirmation bias with none of it based on science. They are vague and unscientific arguments, and mostly incorrect.

                03

              • #
                Heywood

                ” Do you understand the scientific method?”

                Do you understand that we don’t give a rat’s ar$e what you have to say? Still struggling with that concept like most activists.

                10

              • #
                Rod Stuart

                He isn’t even aware that if he continues to repeat this nonsense there is a danger he will start to believe it himself.
                The real danger being that some day when he is shivering because he sold his coat, his subconscious will attack his conscious and he will have a meltdown.

                10

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                What always strikes me when I come on this site is how the majority of the argument is based on a personal attack against me and how few of you actually try to argue my science with science. Also telling is the lack of attempt by anybody to answer my key question.

                Also if nobody cares then why whenever I turn up there is a huge flurry of activity of people ready to attack me? Methinks thouest protesteth to much.

                04

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                Rod I accept the science, and when you can explain to me why temps have increased by .06 deg c in the last 60 years after an overall neutral ENSO, a falling solar and some big cooling volcanos then we can have a rational scientific discussion. Apart from that I think it proves how little actual science your side depends upon.

                06

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      LOL! Thanks for the laugh. Do you use a periscope to see out his navel when you write?

      10

  • #

    Michael: If we cannot feel or see any difference in .8 degrees temperature change, why does it matter? Do you run to the doctor when your temperature exceeds 99 degrees F? If not, why not? It’s rising and it could hit 106 F and possibly kill you. Are you going to wait for more evidence and risk death???

    Interesting–do you consider quantum physics “voodoo magic” because we cannot find the unifying theory? That’s your claim for me–I can’t identify all the factors of climate and therefore admit I lack predictive and real understanding of the phenomena. The same is true of many diseases–we don’t understand them. In your world, saying that is saying disease are punishment from God or cused by a voodoo doll.

    And you call that science. Explains a lot.

    (You have provided models and trend lines. AGAIN, for the 100th time, models and trend lines are NOT reality. However, I would direct to a web sight for investment based on models and trend lines if I thought you had enough money to lose. You’re a prime candidate for a Bernie Madoff investment–you see trends and models are reality. Bernie would have loved you.)

    20

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      Your analogy is all wrong. I would more liken it to finding a breast lump under a breast screening test, and you saying that I will wait until it starts to hurt. Well that would have been where we were at in the 80′s when the IPCC was first formed. Now you have got to the stage where it has started to hurt and a biopsy has confirmed it is malignant but you are saying to wait a bit longer it might just go away. Well we have all the measurements and it is starting to hurt, at .08 degrees we have lost half of the Arctic extent, rises in sea levels have increased the damage in storm surges, floods are more intense, heat waves are starting earlier and longer and heat records are being regularly broken. Just in Western Australia where I live rainfall has fallen 15% and water into our dams have decreased 80%. Hot days over 35 deg c have increased and our minimums have risen even faster. So contrary to the little bubble you live in we are feeling and seeing the difference in .08. I would point out that the difference between an ice age with 3 km of ice over Montreal and an interglacial like now is only 6 deg c. You really do not understand our global climate and the difference small changes globally have on regional effects.

      Interesting–do you consider quantum physics “voodoo magic”

      this comment makes no sense to me, what are you talking about? I accept the science that is well known accepted and measurable, such as the physics of the greenhouse effect and the radiative properties of CO2. There is no magic here. It more seems that you think we know nothing and have accomplished nothing and are still in the dark ages. You are the one saying that because you do not know every factor of climate that we cannot predict anything and therefore that we should do nothing. so to me your claims point to yourself. We know and can measure most properties and factors involved in the greenhouse effect and the climate. Apart from the extensive predictive capabilities we have, we can look back and know that natural factors have provided an overall cooling effect but we have heated by .08 deg c. You and noone here has adeqautely explained that with science, thinking that the climate is magic that just ‘happens’.

      (You have provided models and trend lines.

      That is dishonest, please point out where I have used models, and trendlines coupled with known science and measurements do add to the evidence. In fact your only argument is a cherry picked trend line without any science. When you look at all the data, the science and observations from all sources (not just the ones that fit your bias,) the science is clear.

      07

      • #
        Truthseeker

        Go on Michael the Surrealist, please explain

        the physics of the greenhouse effect

        We can all do with a good laugh …

        40

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          Truthseeker, it was my understanding that jonova accepts the science of the greenhouse effect. Nevertheless, since you have asked for help in understanding the science of our atmosphere and what keeps our planet warm I will point you to a very good explanation I know off.
          http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html

          Complementary and equally important is the carbon cycle, you can learn that here.
          http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

          I hope you enjoy the education :-)

          04

          • #
            Truthseeker

            Michael the Surrealist,

            None of that actually shows any valid physics relating to the greenhouse effect. I also disagree with Jo on this point. Lets look at some actual data and simple analysis that disproves the “greenhouse effect” of gases.

            First off is a simple like-to-like comparison of the atmosphere of Venus (95% CO2) in the 1000Mb to 100Mb range of atmospheric pressure and compare that to Earth (0.04% CO2) for the same pressure ranges. Just in case you know what it means, this is why you do not need to correct for albedo or make any other such adjustment.

            Also, you can start here and move forward for a much more complete and detailed demolition of the GHE. By the way, this be someone who does real physics for a living and is not on the government payroll.

            30

            • #
              AndyG55

              Sorry TS.. Its not on his new little CD. He won’t understand. :-)

              30

            • #
              Michael the Realist

              Lol, opinion blog nonsense from a blogspot site. Do you know of any science? You guys are really so sad. Science is not done by opinion blog, if you could actually prove it you would actually do a peer reviewed journal article in a reputable science journal. In that way you would be famous for turning over 100 years plus of science.

              If your actions were not so damaging it would be funny that you fall for this stuff.

              08

              • #
                MemoryVault

                .
                Meanwhile, out in the real world, seventeen years without warming, and counting.

                31

              • #
                Truthseeker

                Micheal the Surrealist,

                You really are a 2D cartoon character with the depth to match. I give you data, methodology and results and you make your judgements on the basis that it has been publicised on a blog? Epic fail. You are correct that science is not done by opinion, but you do nothing else but offer opinions as “proof”. “Peer review” is just someone’s opinion and is not science. Epic fail … again. Science is observable data, repeatable methodology and verifiale results. I gave you observed data, repeatable methodology and verifiable results. I gave you science and you respond with opinions. Epic fail … yet again.

                Your arguments are laughable because you cannot understand the hypocrisy that is inherent in everything you say.

                60

              • #
                Truthseeker

                Michael the Surrealist,

                If you love “peer reviewed” papers so much, try this one that uses observations, established theory and reproducable results to complete debunk the entire “greenhouse gas” theory such as it exsists …

                This is called real science in case you do not recognise it.

                50

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Well done Truthseeker!

                That was very nicely played.

                30

              • #
                AndyG55

                Not really RW, michael will have great difficulty understanding that, IF he ever tries to read it.

                Its got, like… maths , in it. !!!

                20

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                But he kept on insisting on getting some real peer reviewed science … So he must be able to understand it when he gets it … otherwise why would he ask … please don’t tell me that it has all been a lot of bluster and noise?

                But not to worry. He will go to Alarmist Central, and they will find a punctuation mistake, and then he can claim that the poor punctuation totally discredits the scientific argument put forward. And things will return to normal.

                Except I hope not. I would prefer it, if Michael could finally realise that there are lot of people on this site who are real working scientists, and/or registered practicing engineers, who just come here to relax, chat about Jo’s subject of the day, have a bit of fun, and learn from each other.

                He is one of a half dozen, who feel a religious obligation to force feed the pseudo science and/or the political propaganda du jour, down our throats. We get enough of that at work. We don’t really need the activist stalkers after hours, as well.

                50

              • #
                AndyG55

                And all he does is harden the resolve to show the world what TRASH his meme really is.

                His whole purpose here is counter-productive to what I assume is his motive.

                The M&M’s and especially BA4 totally reinforce the FACT that most “followers” are just plain BUTT IGNORANT.

                The blog is always so much more pleasant without their slime tripping all over it.

                I can be nice, that’s who I am ……… but never to people like them.

                Anyways.. enough of that.. I have now finished marking those 3rd yr uni engineering exams for the year.. YIPPEEEEEEE !

                Into the RED ! :-)

                And if this darn weather decides to fine up… the beach and the surf calleth !

                30

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Have a good break, Andy.

                00

              • #
                Truthseeker

                Rereke Whakaaro,

                Michael the Surrealist is a zealot and like all zealots completely irrational on the subject that he has chosen for his zealotry. The more he talks, the more his irrational beliefs become apparent.

                When you are arguing with a zealot you need to keep in mind that you are not arguing to convince the zealot of something that is against his beliefs. That is impossible because if they had the intellectual integrity to accept rational arguments then they would not be a zealot. Since they are a zealot, all rational counter arguments will be ignored and blocked out by their zealotry filter.

                When you are arguing with a zealot, you are really arguing to the silent audience. They are the ones that will see the zealotry for the irrational dogma that it is and will turn away from that darkness to the light of rational thought around observation, verifiable data, testable hypothesis and repeatable results.

                The “Venus No Greenhouse Effect” link is a perfect way to show zealotry for what it is. They will invariably shy away from the clear scientific process that it embodies and turn towards irrelevant arguments about the forum it is published on, or the author himself. It is a cartoon trap that these zealots with their cartoon level arguments will fall for every single time.

                41

              • #
                AndyG55

                TS et al..

                Here is another link worth thinking about.

                Especially Fig 2 and its ramifications.

                http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/agw-an-alternate-look-part-1-details-c.pdf

                41

              • #
                gee Aye

                and your scepticism deserts you suddenly?

                03

              • #
                MemoryVault

                and your scepticism deserts you suddenly?

                Andy suggested it was something to “think about”, NOT blindly accept as delivered, unquestionable wisdom from on high, as you cultists treat everything proclaimed by the Al Goracle, Mann, Hansen, Flannery and others.

                31

              • #
                AndyG55

                Really Gee? Can’t you read.. I said “think about“..

                Its just more information into the mix.

                Can you handle that, or would it cause your leaf veins to go “pop” ??

                21

              • #
                AndyG55

                And Gee, did you read and understand that pdf.

                To you understand the implications for CAGW hypothesis IF this rather solid engineering analysis is proven to be correct?

                Remember.. most engineers are forced to live in the real world, otherwise things don’t work, processes don’t proceed, bridges fall down.. etc etc

                They are not like climate scientists who have basically got every projection/prediction wildly wrong, yet still have a job !

                21

              • #
                Gee Aye

                Here is another link I suggest for you all to think about

                http:/ [SNIP!]

                [W........T.........F....?.......!!!!!!!] ED

                12

              • #
                AndyG55

                Your brain is mulched, I thought you had more intelligence that that.

                I sadly over-estimated you.

                The link I posted was from REAL engineers working in the field of energy absorption.

                And you, like all warmists, post moronic science fiction.

                GROW UP !! FOOL.

                41

              • #
                Truthseeker

                AndyG55,

                Looking at your the paper that you linked to, it makes the assumption that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the assumption that the forcing mechanism of the IPCC is valid. It is useful in showing that even if you want to live fictional world of the IPCC, there is no catastrophe looming on the horizon, but it does not really prove the “greenhouse gas” hypothesis.

                I remember someone else who did a simple analysis of the actual net temperature effect using two cities (one with small seasonal differences and one with large seasonal differences) of using the IPCC “science” and showing how completely non-alarming it really was. I will find the link and post it.

                21

              • #
                AndyG55

                The way I read it, they are “using” the IPCC definition of forcing to show that that the emissivity curves for CO2 show that even under the IPCC “greenhouse” effect, there is no extra forcing above 200ppm CO2.

                They are purposely vague about what “forcing” is.

                My guess is that their real thoughts on CO2 as a greenhouse gas are similar to yours and mine ;-)

                21

              • #
                Truthseeker

                AndyG55,

                The work that you linked to does pretty much exactly what this analysis also does. It takes the IPCC “logic” and shows that even if their assumptions and processes are correct, it does not really matter anyway.

                21

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Truthseeker,

              They will invariably shy away from the clear scientific process that it embodies and turn towards irrelevant arguments about the forum it is published on, or the author himself.

              And is was the way in which you finessed him into following that path, and digging himself an enormous hole, that he could then fall into, that impressed me.

              It really was, very nicely played.

              41

              • #
                MemoryVault

                .
                Nonetheless, I give it no more than a week or so, before he’s back.
                His ego and his zealotry will not allow otherwise.
                They dictate and demand that he proselytize to the great, ignorant masses (like us).

                Where else is he going to find an audience?
                From his point of view and with his needs there’s no point in preaching to the converted at cultist sites,
                and most other skeptical sites would ban him after a day or two.

                40

              • #
                Mark D.

                Probably right MV, unless he’s found a new venue. I think his ghost is still here though because we suddenly are getting more red thumbs.

                It would be a good time for us to go back and add some good closing comments in key places, for the benefit of anyone that stumbles onto this tangled mess in the future.

                40

              • #

                He was banned from one blog, and my blog did not have enough people to argue with. He will have to find a blog where they will tolerate his repetition and aggressiveness. Perhaps he will be forced to come back, though I would guess that he’ll be gone for a good while. Yes, his ego says to preach, but we all know who he is now. It’s not so easy anymore. Only time will tell.
                (The red thumbs may indeed be his way of staying present.)

                30

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Michael:
        Arctic ice was much less in the Medieval warm period when the Vikings settled in Greenland.
        Arctic ice was much less around 1660, at the depths of the Maunder minimum. There was much less from around 1810 to 1840 during the Dalton minimum cold period, and increased in the 1850-1860′s while Europe warmed and the glaciers there retreated rapidly. The ice retreated drastically from about 1910 until about 1945 while the Earth was warmer. It increased during the Little Cooling in 1950-1975. It has retreated since global warming hysteria started, and reached its minimum around 2007, and has increased somewhat since.

        How can you claim that its area has anything to do with the temperature of West Australia or anywhere else?

        I would go on about the stupidity of worrying about a supposed change of 0.08 degrees in a temperature measured to plus or minus 0.7 degrees, especially when the measurements are known to be “adjusted” to show an increase, but you would not even grasp the basic idea.

        20

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          Firstly the .08 was a typo, that should have been .8 (temp accuracy these days as I understand it is +-.01). Secondly, science does not agree with you. Studies have shown it to be at its lowest point for about 1400 years. Do you have anything more than opinion? Also nobody questions that the climate changes, the question is why and what are the consequences for us. Going on natural factors we should have seen a slight cooling in the last 60 years, instead it has increased .6

          Can you explain why, if not AGW, as all the science, data and observations point in this direction.

          04

      • #

        I have explained repeatedly. But until I agree with your “enlightened” state and say what you want me to, you will continue to repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat yourself, ad nauseum.

        Until you actually will listen to arguments and discuss the science, it’s pointless to answer you. In all honesty, the major reason for answering is that warmists like to sneak onto old threads and post their “gospel” and hope no one notices. Leaving the claims unanswered is presumed to be proof that we skeptics can’t refute your argument. Didn’t work out very well here, did it?

        Again, all of your examples are nothing but garbage. There is no increase in storm surges, the Arctic froze over again, and the weather is absolutely no different, nor is the climate, than it was in the past. Yet you continue to repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat………..

        Also, you have no understanding of what constitutes “climate change theory”. You say you don’t use models, but EVERY SINGLE climate change scientist and virtually ALL the papers published rely on models. Try finding one that does not reference models and then maybe you will have a point. Ignore my request and I will assume you failed at the task. As I know you will.

        50

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          There is no increase in storm surges, the Arctic froze over again, and the weather is absolutely no different, nor is the climate, than it was in the past.

          To date you have not provided any science or answers, only opinion. The Arctic froze over once winter hit, your point? It is still 710,000 km below average and continues the decline in ice of -7% per decade since the 50′s. Your ability to complain about trend lines and then take a one year trend as proof of something is breathtakingly shocking. Every year winter hits and you guys go ‘look it is freezing in winter, problem over’ pathetic.

          You need to do more research, the climate has changed. Extreme precipitation events by observation are increasing at 7% per degree, hot day records are beating cold one 3 to 1 and 5 to 1 at night. Many extreme heat waves such as the European one of 2003, the Russian one of 2010, US in 2012 and now Australia in 2013 are outside the norm and studies are saying they would not have occurred without the influence of AGW. To just say everything is the same is ridiculous, you could say that it was changing naturally or come up with another reason, but to say what you are saying just proves how much you are trying to misrepresent the situation. YOU SAID I USED MODELS, you were incorrect and you cannot answer my question so you are trying to manipulate the playing field. Nice try but my data and argument stands, by observations and actual data the planet has warmed by .6 deg c, this is despite actual natural factors such as volcanos, the sun, ENSO have seen a net cooling. Do you have a reason other than AGW or not? Stop making excuses, it is a simple request if you have any actual science and data for your assertions. Otherwise you have opinion not based on any science or data and should stop influencing the debate.

          06

        • #

          You misunderstand my reference to one year ice–I was pointing out that the trend line you so love (and I find statistically invalid) “could” be turning upward.

          I don’t know what to do with someone who lacks the intelligence to understand what a model is and how it is the entire basis of the climate change mantra. You accuse me of manipulating the conversation, yet VIRTUALLY EVERY PAPER ON CLIMATE CHANGE uses models. You did not provide examples of those that do not.

          It’s is you making the excuses. As always. Are you totally incapable of actually discussing the data? Does the manual say “Don’t engage or we’re toast? We have no data so just repeat this stuff and be persistent?” I really don’t understand why you ignore every single question and answer given. You’re not a realist in any way–just a “wizard of OZ” puppet, so far as your answers would indicate. If you want respect and to be thought of as a scientifically literate person, trying following the discussion through. Otherwise, the curtain remains pulled back and your tiny little self is showing.

          40

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        Michael
        You have been peddling this malarkey for so long you are going over the edge.
        Whether you want to admit it or not, you belong to a cult. Cults are dangerous. Cults lead to events like the Jamestown massacre.
        Church of Climatology
        You believe in things you can’t see or prove.
        You are devoted to a deity called “the science”.
        Your dogma comes from a vatican-like UN and its IPCC.
        You worship the pope, choo choo pachauri, and his high priests Mann, McKibbon, Hansen
        You attack and ridicule all of the evidence to the contrary.
        You sell ‘carbon credits’ and coeect taxes as a means for sinners to repent.
        You warn of horrible punishment for not believing.
        You constantly try to convert the non-believers while your leader gets rich from your unpaid labour.
        Michael, that’s a cult.
        When you finally awake to reality and discover that in fact the opposite of all your expectations has occurred, you will go mad. If you aren’t already.

        50

        • #
          MemoryVault

          discover that in fact the opposite of all your expectations has occurred, you will go mad.

          Sage advice, Rod, but more than a tad too late, methinks.

          Reading the Master Baiter’s posts always reminds me of a crazy old monk, on his knees, mumbling his way through the Rosary as he absently flicks through his string of beads.

          Some days I can even imagine the nun, Margot, kneeling beside him, in full back cape, droning on in concert with him, as they both stare up mindlessly at a big stained glass window featuring an effigy of the Al Goracle.

          60

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          Do you guys have any science? You are proving my point, no actual answer to my key question and only personal attacks on me and other scientists. You really don’t have any substance on your side once you scratch the surface.

          04

        • #

          Michael gets confused as to what side is doing what. He calls names, repeats himself and then thinks the other side is the one doing this. Maybe if he took one point at a time and actually discussed it?

          30

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          Church of Climatology

          You believe in things you can’t see or prove.
          ************* hmmm, like Radiation, CO2, Oxygen, the Atom, etc. Yes I do. (though they are proven, just not seen) Do you get your science from Tony Abbott, he to thinks that things he cannot see cannot hurt you)

          You are devoted to a deity called “the science”.
          ************** Yes, I do accept long accepted and tested scientific theories like the greenhouse effect and AGW. Unlike your belief in a deity that comes around behind you and cleans up for you, as you obviously believe anything you do has no consequences

          Your dogma comes from a vatican-like UN and its IPCC.
          ************** It comes from the peer reviewed science. The IPCC that summarises the current state of the science in reports is a good place for an overview. I think this is better than getting your science from opinion bloggers and think tanks, but each to his own.

          You worship the pope, choo choo pachauri, and his high priests Mann, McKibbon, Hansen
          *************** You are actually wrong on all counts, I accept the science only. I am not worried about people, I leave that to you guys with your focus on personalities.

          You attack and ridicule all of the evidence to the contrary.
          **************** You haven’t presented any evidence, I keep asking for your reason for the .6 deg c rise in temps, but only personal attacks come back.

          You sell ‘carbon credits’ and coeect taxes as a means for sinners to repent.
          ***************** I don’t sell anything. I am open to all solutions and it will take a multi faceted approach. I would like all the bickering about the accepted science to be over and a reasoned argument about solutions instead.

          You warn of horrible punishment for not believing.
          ***************** I am not punishing anybody, actions have consequences, those consequences are occurring. Those that have contributed the least to the problem and future generations that have not contributed anything will suffer the most.

          You constantly try to convert the non-believers while your leader gets rich from your unpaid labour.
          ***************** Isn’t that the point of this site, and heaps others like it, as well as facebook pages, commentators like Bolt, think tanks paid for by fossil fuel companies and roadshows by non climate scientists like Monckton, who continuously gatecrashes actual climate change conferences? Your comments a bit rich and hypocritical, don’t you think?

          16

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        Mr. M. Baiter
        I have here a recent message from one of the high priests of your cult; a Mr. Richard Muller, who says
        “It is wise to be cautious about the panic that sets in when a storm kills a large number of people. People search for reasons to believe the storms are worse than in the past, even if the numbers contradict them. Victims naturally wish to explain why loved ones died and they look for a villain — and they can find one in global warming.

        But global warming does not obviously lead to increased or more violent tornadoes. It is possible, for instance, that the increased energy brought by the higher temperatures of global warming is less significant than global warming’s reduction in the north-south temperature difference (the poles warm more than the Equator). The latter could reduce the kind of hot-cold weather fronts that generate severe storms. The current climate models are simply unable to make a clear prediction, and reduced tornadoes from global warming are just as plausible as increased ones.

        One thing is clear, however: The number of severe tornadoes has gone down. That is not a scientific hypothesis, but a scientific conclusion based on observation. Regardless of the limitations of climate theory, we can take some comfort in that fact.”
        He has obviously observed that when people start to freeze to death, clowns who have been in hysterics about a non-existent ‘global warming’ become victims. Take Heed.

        30

        • #
          AndyG55

          “The current climate models are simply unable to make a clear prediction, and reduced tornadoes from global warming are just as plausible as increased ones.”

          I have been talking to the guys that are trying to use the climate models to try and see if they can help with rainfall predictions for the next upgrade of ARR (Australian Rainfall and Runoff).

          The wording they use is “ZERO SKILL” ….sort of like the skill of an M&M.

          30

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          The IPC have said the same thing about tornados. I don’t think you have a point. As far as storms go both Typhoon bopha and Haiyan were among the top 10 storms of all time, I think Haiyan was said to have the strongest winds at landfall ever.

          05

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        Woops, my mistake, I was wondering why all the references to temperature. I meant .8 deg c not .08.
        Typo.

        http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/objtwr/imported_assets/content/lwe/cli/bulletin2006_climatechange_lmorgan.pdf

        03

  • #

    #2: How you know the temperatures should rise. Again, let’s try medicine. You have a fever of 103F and the doctor insists you take antivirals and aspirin to stop the rise in temperature. You take them and get better. You will insist that action made you well. But there is not PROOF of that, only probability.
    Your increase in temperature is based on circular reasoning. The temperature should go up and if it doesn’t go up, then the temperature is behaving contrary to “reality”. That’s what happens when you mistake trend lines for reality and bits of information for a complete theory. Promise me you’ll stay away from nuclear physics.

    #3–It did come from the media. If I were a scientist and my theory was being murdered by the media the way climate change advocates say theirs is, I’d be using as much money as possible to buy ads saying what the media is reporting is wrong. Yet, NO ads. Why not? Either scientists just don’t care about their theory, or they like the misrepresentation. Michael Mann and Hansen make huge, exaggerated claims all the time, so my inclination was to believe the scientists are following in the footsteps of their heroes. True, it’s based on probability. Maybe I can calculate a P value and see if it’s more or less probable that AGW.

    It is an atmosphere composed of known components that WE DO NOT KNOW HOW INTERACT. Wow, drug companies would love you. Give a patient 10 drugs with known side effects and ignore the interaction. Have you considered pharmaceutical sales as a career? You’d be great.

    I have produced science for the sea level change and you ignored it on my blog too. I know you’re only here looking for converts and practicing name-calling, but I do so enjoy sharpening my answers by responding. I’m not going through the data–go back to my blog and READ.

    You are the poster child for confirmation bias. That’s okay–I need to write a piece on confirmation bias and the sheer stupidity of advocates who proclaim they are immune to the phenomena. You’ve given me a lot of material. Thanks.

    No one argues with you because you don’t argue. You repeat yourself. You want converts, NOT learning. Sadly you do not seem to know the difference.

    Michael–until you understand that saying “We don’t know” is more scientific than following a flawed theory (you know, like blood letting before the discovery of germs. You probably would have gone for that too. It was “the science of day” and had to be correct, right???) you can never, ever, ever learn or be a scientist. Until then, you’re a patsy of a flawed theory. Have a nice day. Enjoy the bliss and the air of superiority in KNOWING you’re right. It’s almost like a religious experience……

    60

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      It is an atmosphere composed of known components that WE DO NOT KNOW HOW INTERACT.

      You would be amazed at how much we actually know. The science is not as much in the dark ages as you think or would lead us to believe. As pointed out repeatedly, we can and have measured the energy imbalance and at what points in the spectrum the fall comes from. Also we have measured increases in that same spectrum going back to the surface. Also we have measured the stratospheric cooling that shows that the energy going up has been reduced by being sent back down. We understand the physics of atoms and molecules and how they absorb and reradiate energy, in fact this is how light works. We have known a lot of these things for a very long time.

      You do not have any science on your blog, in my experience it was mainly political and you could not answer my question. I gave up when you answer to what has increased the temps if not CO2 was something we don’t know about yet. How wrapped up in confirmation bias are you when you reject all the actual science of over 100 years and data and observations to blame anything else even that which does not exist. Like I said, no science. Go and do a physics course, or ty to understand the link on the greenhouse effect.

      http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html

      04

      • #

        Actually, what Michael is saying is that anything that agrees with him is science and anything that does not agree is politics. I doubt the would recognize science if it bit him “somewhere”.

        Michael seems to live by the idea that any theory is better than admitting we just don’t know. It’s actually kind of sad.

        Actually, Michael, I have taken multiple physics, calculus, statistics, chemistry, psychology, philosophy and computer classes. How about you?

        40

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          Not sure what sort of answer you want here. I have a science, commerce and education degree and I am also taking specific science education courses on Climate Change science. Your point?

          I accept the science, the theory is long standing and solid and fits all the data and observations as I outlined below. It is sad that you are so biased that you will actually ignore the actual science and evidence in favor off ‘anything else’. Seriously, you actually call that scientific? What are you afraid off? A real scientist follows the science and the data wherever it leads regardless of how palatable or unpalatable it is to their own beliefs. Somebody once said…
          ‘Science is a dictatorship and evidence is the dictator’

          Follow the evidence, the science, the data. There is a reason you cannot find an alternative explanation or answer my query with science and data. Also desist in your ‘we don’t know’ type comments, not scientific. The right statement is ‘Sheri does not know’, science is much further along than you think it is, perhaps stop reading opinion blogs and go to some actual science sites might help your education.

          05

          • #
            MemoryVault

            .
            Meanwhile, more physical, measured, observed indication of a cooling planet.

            30

          • #

            Michael:
            Still haven’t read Darwin and the exclusionary principle, have you? Afraid you might find out you’re wrong?

            Michael doesn’t understand how theory works–I fully doubt he has a degree in anything other than BS. Sure, you can string together a bunch of true statements and jump to a totally invalid conclusion. For example:
            1. Michael claims to have taken science.
            2. Michael claims to understand climate science.
            3. Michael writes lots of stuff on old threads on Jo Nova’s blog.
            4. Michael repeats himself a lot.
            5. Michael has yet to indicate he took a logic course, meaning his mind is untainted by such things.
            Conclusion:
            Michael is telling us how the world works and we should listen to him.

            All the statements are true, the conclusion totally false. Only someone with a political science major could think so irrationally (note to Michael: poly sci is NOT real science.). Or some with the intelligence of a labrador puppy.

            People would stop insulting and beating you up if:
            You stop repeating yourself. We read it an understood it the first time. Repeating it is just annoying. If you have some kind of learning disability which requires you to have things repeated a thousand times before you get them, I am letting you know the rest of us do not have that problem. Continuing to repeat invites ridicule and abuse. You can stop this at any time by stopping the repeating.

            You actually read what people ask you to and you actually took one subject at a time and discussed it. You just repeat yourself and get angry when no one believes your mantra. You said you came here to learn. Repeating yourself is strong evidence that you are starting to question things and must go through the “rosary of climate change” over and over to avoid actual thought. That’s why no one believes you actually want to learn. It’s obvious you just want converts to your religion at this point.

            I want a listing of the courses you have taken. You told me to take a physics class and I indicated I had done that. It was your implication that classes taken are important, so list the classes you have taken: calculus? chemistry? statistics (not the one for dummies they teach economics majors–the real calculus based one they make science majors take), physics, computer programming? It was YOUR question and your “insult”– now list them or I’m starting every response with question.

            20

  • #

    Michael–We did answer your key question, you just ignored the answer. Many times. I suppose that’s why the name-calling ensues. Just as you do, people here get angry and give up and name call. Perhaps you should cut back on the name-calling and see if it helps. Of course it won’t if you don’t “discuss science”, only preach your particular brand of scientific faith.

    NASA has been caught altering temperatures. I’d find the link, but you’d ignore it. Why bother? Fact its, the 1930′s were much hotter in the US and drought was unreal. Even if we allow that globally things were “cooler”, both the heat and the drought are “extreme” weather examples NOW used to prove climate change. Following that reasoning, the 30′s in the US was the first examples of extreme weather caused by AGW–before CO2 rose significantly. Flaw in theory, I’d say.

    You’re playing up the intensity of the storms like you have in the past and again trying to give some holy theistic value to superlatives. I covered that on my blog–read it. I’m not repeating it here.

    You should be more amazed we have the patience to tolerate your endless repetition of things and lack of ability to actually discuss science. That’s what makes skeptics different from warmists. Some skeptics will keep right on answering questions even when you drop in on very old threads and inject your comments. Some will keep on answering until you give up preaching and go elsewhere. We can be much more patient and much more willing to keep trying. I’m not here to “win” like you are–I’m here to DISCUSS science.

    50

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      Michael–We did answer your key question, you just ignored the answer.

      I am unaware of any logical, scientifically accepted answer with data that expalins the warming of the last 60 (or even the last 100) years. I ahve not preached my brand of scientific truths, I have explained the basic science as accepted by 97% of climate scientists, 97% of the peer reveiwed science and virtually 100% of internationally recognised scientific organisations globally. so there is the science, and there is the excuses and personal attacks which is what is provided above in most cases by posters here.

      NASA has been caught altering temperatures. I’d find the link, but you’d ignore it.

      Ahh the conspiracy theory, the weakest argument of all. Apart from the fact that the adjustments have been explained, adjustments as the science and methods improve and new data comes in is normal in actual science. Also every global temperature series shows the same trend so are they ALLL adjusting and colluding? Seriously such a childish argument.

      Following that reasoning, the 30′s in the US

      You keep bringing up the 30′s, globally they were .05 or so less than temperatures now and it was a purely regional event. You prove your cherry picking by continuously trying to compare global factors with regional ones. Nobody has said that extreme weather has not occurred before, the question is are they increasing (many signs and trends say they are) and why? Considering that by natural factors alone temps would not have changed much from the 50′s there is very strong evidence that it is being fueled by the extra energy provided by a planet under the influence of enhanced greenhouse gas warming. Your blog is more political than science, and you spend most of your time making excuses and minimising the clear trends arising in extreme precipitation events and heat waves.

      You should be more amazed we have the patience to tolerate your endless repetition of things and lack of ability to actually discuss science.

      Science is the majority of what I discuss, unfortuantely I do not get much in return, normally mostly personal attacks.

      05

      • #
        Jaymez

        Michael, you pretend to have scientific truths on your side but then you just parrot one of the most spurious unscientific claims ever brought to the Climate debate – the old 97% chestnut. All Cook et al (2013) proved is what probably 97% or more of the contributors to these pages believe, that CO2 can have a warming effect – the end. Not that 97% of scientists or climate science papers conclude that human CO2 emissions is responsible for causing dangerous climate change. As a more recent peer reviewed paper concluded:

        “The 97.1 % consensus claimed by Cook et al. (2013) turns out upon inspection to be not 97.1 % but 0.3 %. Their claim of 97.1 % consensus, therefore, is arguably one of the greatest items of misinformation that has been circulated on either side of the climate debate.”

        However I note you chose your words carefully and you may want to also fall back on the original genesis of the Original Claims of 97% Climate Science Consensus

        The ’Doran Survey’, which is the one of the most common references for the first claim of ‘97% of scientific consensus ’ phrase, merely cites a 2009 MSc thesis. You can read the published article here, http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf and the journal article here, http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf

        The Doran paper has been thoroughly criticised in the past. It was a survey of 10,256, with 3146 respondents whittled down to just 75 out of 77 “expert” ’active climate researchers’ (based on having recently published in the climate field), to give the 97% figure, based on just two very simplistic (shallow) questions that even the majority of climate sceptics might agree with.

        So at best this became 2.4% of the respondents which were accepted by the survey’s definition as having some climate science credentials, agreeing that humans were a significant contributor to global warming. Hardly 97% of all scientists agreeing humans are causing dangerous climate change!

        You can read a detailed background and analysis of the Doran survey here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/what-else-did-the-97-of-scientists-say/ Needless to say it was eventually consigned to the trash can of bad research and only those who didn’t know it’s provenance, or who didn’t care about honesty or accuracy continued to make the 97% consensus claim.

        Simple Assessment of Deliberately Misleading Research
        The latest incarnation of the 97% claim came in early 2013 and originated from this study by Cook, J., Nuccitelli, D., Green, S. A., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., et al. (2013). ‘Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature.’ Environmental Research Letters, 8, 024024. The paper can be accessed here: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

        The paper’s own abstract describes what the researcher’s did and their conclusions.

        “We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

        From the author’s own words it is obvious to the casual observer that the conclusions are disingenuous. The percentage being quoted isn’t even about Climate Scientists, it is about the abstracts of peer reviewed papers tagged ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’. So the same scientist could be counted multiple times while those who don’t agree are not included in the count at all. The researchers consider the abstracts supported ‘the consensus’ if they merely supported the proposition that humans were contributing to global warming, not whether they considered it was dangerous, or whether they agreed the Government needed to take significant action to dramatically reduce CO2 emissions, at considerable economic costs.

        Further the authors state that of the 11,944 abstracts they looked at, only 32.6% actually endorsed AGW. So 66.4% of abstracts either were uncertain, rejected or expressed no position on AGW. So how the hell do they arrive at this figure that 97.1% of scientists agree with AGW when they have excluded 66.4% of the abstracts from their final data?

        It is one of the worst cases of statistical manipulation I have ever seen, yet the entire Climate Change community have readily endorsed it!

        The researchers have excluded the 66.4% of abstracts which expressed no position on AGW. That is 7,931 papers which didn’t suit their purposes so they have simply excluded them from their analysis.

        That is the worst case bias sampling I have ever come across in research. The authors of the papers excluded may have expressed no opinion simply because they feel they do not have enough data to express an opinion. Which is the same as not agreeing that humans are causing dangerous climate change. But these so called researchers simply dumped them from the study. I guess it should not surprise me because this is the house of cards much of climate science is built on.

        That action left the ‘researchers’ with just 4,013 abstracts, of which they say 3,893 (32.6% of the original 11,944) “endorsed AGW’, 84 (0.7% of the original 11,944) which ‘rejected’ AGW and 36 (0.3% of the original 11,944) who were ‘uncertain’. Without the 7,931 papers the researchers have excluded, that leaves a total of just 4,013 papers. And conveniently the 3,893 abstracts which they claim agree with AGW represents 97% of the 4,013 papers they kept in the study. But any moron can see that they have simply excluded data from the study in order to boost their results.

        Can you imagine a drug company trial where they tested 11,944 patients? Some 7,931 said they felt no benefit, 3,893 had a positive response, 84 said they felt worse and 36 weren’t sure whether they were better or worse. Should the drug company report a 32.6% positive response to the drug based on the 11,944 patients, or should the drug company ditch the 7,931 who felt no benefit and claim a 97% positive response to their drug in the trials from the 3,893 who had a positive response? You know the answer – so why don’t Climate Scientists?

        What the researchers in the Cook et al study might correctly say from their unsophisticated research is that 32.6% of abstracts on Climate Science papers which were reviewed agree with anthropogenic global warming. That is it – full stop!

        What they definitely cannot say from this research is:

        • 97% of climate scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming, or
        • 97% of all scientists believe in dangerous climate change, or
        • 97% of climate scientists believe we need to take drastic measures to reduce CO2 emissions.

        They can’t even conclude that 32.6% of climate scientists, or of ‘all scientists’ believe any of the above, because the study provided no evidence to support it.

        So scientists, politicians, journalists and others should stop using the 97% reference, it is grossly inaccurate and deliberately misleading.

        Peer Reviewed Assessment of Misleading Research

        You don’t have to take my word for it. There is a peer reviewed paper analysing the Cook et al data and their results and the assessment is a lot more scathing than my superficial review. The peer reviewed paper was prepared by climate scientists who were startled to discover that abstracts of their research papers had been included in those which Cook et al had claimed supported the so called ‘consensus. So they checked Cook et al’s paper and data, and this is what they found:

        “The 97.1 % consensus claimed by Cook et al. (2013) turns out upon inspection to be not 97.1 % but 0.3 %. Their claim of 97.1 % consensus, therefore, is arguably one of the greatest items of misinformation that has been circulated on either side of the climate debate.”
        http://www.climaterealists.org.nz/sites/climaterealists.org.nz/files/Legatesetal13-Aug30-Agnotology%5B1%5D.pdf

        The following is an abbreviated version of the press release summarising the above paper. You can find the full content here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/ September 3rd, 2013
        A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.
        A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”

        The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

        The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

        Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.

        This shock result comes scant weeks before the United Nations’ climate panel, the IPCC, issues its fifth five-yearly climate assessment, claiming “95% confidence” in the imagined – and, as the new paper shows, imaginary – consensus.

        Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: a Rejoinder to ‘Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change’ decisively rejects suggestions by Cook and others that those who say few scientists explicitly support the supposedly near-unanimous climate consensus are misinforming and misleading the public.

        Dr Legates said: “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.

        “It is still more astonishing that the IPCC should claim 95% certainty about the climate consensus when so small a fraction of published papers explicitly endorse the consensus as the IPCC defines it.”

        Dr William Briggs, “Statistician to the Stars”, said: “In any survey such as Cook’s, it is essential to define the survey question very clearly. Yet Cook used three distinct definitions of climate consensus interchangeably. Also, he arbitrarily excluded about 8000 of the 12,000 papers in his sample on the unacceptable ground that they had expressed no opinion on the climate consensus. These artifices let him reach the unjustifiable conclusion that there was a 97.1% consensus when there was not.

        “In fact, Cook’s paper provides the clearest available statistical evidence that there is scarcely any explicit support among scientists for the consensus that the IPCC, politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the media have so long and so falsely proclaimed. That was not the outcome Cook had hoped for, and it was not the outcome he had stated in his paper, but it was the outcome he had really found.”

        40

      • #
        Jaymez

        Michael, you can read a good summary of the controversy about the adjustment of the satellite temperature data here: http://www.colby.edu/sts/controversy/pages/satellite_data.htm

        In summary Atmospheric Physicists and satellite measurement specialists had prepared a set of adjustments based on orbital decay and their temperature readings aligned closely with the thousands of actual atmospheric temperature measurements taken by weather balloons each day. Whereas the NOAA/NASA scientists went for a much warmer adjustment which aligned with the surface based temperature records which we know have all the issues regarding position, UHI etc.

        Certainly NASA make an academic justification for their adjustments, but it is about as rigorous as the 97% consensus claim you made!

        40

      • #

        If you cannot understand that “We don’t know enough” IS science, we cannot help you. If you can’t understand that science is not God and does not know everything, we cannot help you.

        My statement about NASA is not conspiracy theory. It’s not a conspiracy–it’s simple human nature. Try to please the source of your funding. Warmists make that claim against skeptics all the time–in fact, you did so above. If Koch brothers’ money taints skeptics, then government money must taint NASA and right now the POTUS is wild about climate change so the more change the better. Exact same argument.

        Okay, skip the 30′s. Go with whatever data set produces what you want to be true. I have made it clear that I want all the data WITHOUT adjustments for as far back as instrumental records go. You have not produced said information. Without it, every single data set used is “cherry picked”. Until you produce said data, you are “cherry picking” just as all warmists are. (That cherry picking term is the equivalent of sticking your tongue out like a 3 year old. It cannot be applied unless there is unadjusted data to compare it to–and you have refused to produce that.)

        You do not discuss science. You PREACH. Everyone here can see you have no interest in discussion. If you did, you wouldn’t repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat. If you get so precious little, why are here? Extra credit in class for harassing skeptics (SKS does that–or did)? If I got so little from an activity, I’d be smart enough to stop engaging in it.

        40

      • #
        Jaymez

        Michael with regards to the 1930′s I think you are agreeing that the late 1930′s were warm globally before the world fell into a cooling cycle during which time of course we had the next ice-age scares. You aren’t correct that current global temperatures are 0.5 degrees higher than the peaks in the 1930′s but let’s not quibble, that isn’t far off, as you can see by this graph. http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1850%20WithSatellitePeriod.gif

        But our scientists from all fields had come to a consensus before we started having this politically charged alarmist climate scare, about what climate conditions were generally good for the planet and humans in particular. They identified periods of time in our past where the climate was best for human survival which also meant it was best for plants and animals and they named these periods ‘Climate Optimum’ periods. And guess what, they were all warmer than it is now!

        It is true unfortunately for us, the more natural state of the earth is an ‘ice-age’ based on the last 450,000 years of proxy temperature records which we can gather from ice core data and other sources such as geological records. But a ‘dwindling’ polar ice cap has never before in human history been considered something to fear it has been something celebrated as this graph since the last glacial period shows: http://www.lwhancock.com/…/HoloceneOptimumTemperature.jpg

        It is no coincidence that in the last 10,000 years the warm periods (warmer than today) are referred to as ‘climate optimums’. If you read the descriptions from historical documents living during those times was bliss compared to living in the colder periods. e.g. http://www.lwhancock.com/Blog_120706.aspx

        The Roman Warm Period (RWP) – This is this period of time that Jesus lived in. It was a period of considerable agricultural expansion and cultural development. Vineyards in the south of England were plenty. Date trees grew in Greece. Olive presses were found in the Roman cities of Sagalassos in Anatolia, where it remains too cold to grow olives there today (Scheidel et al., 2007).

        The Dark Ages Cold Period (DACP) – This was a time where history documents a great retreat of agriculture and depression of human activity, punctuated with starvation and plagues in many regions. Food was more scarce and there was considerable migration of people away from former farm lands which led to reforestation in large areas of central Europe and Scandinavia. It was a period of rapid cooling associated with the first Bond event identified in the North Atlantic sediments (Bond et al., 1997).

        The Medieval Warm Period (MWP)- The Vikings established farms and grew wheat on Greenland, where today the land is covered mostly by ice and is too cold to be suited to agriculture. The industrial revolution began during the MWP. There was considerable agricultural expansion as well as expansion of warmer climate fauna. The summer of 1130 was so dry that you could wade through the river Rhine. In 1135, the Danube flow was so low that people could cross it on foot (Behringer 2008). Wineries sprang up in Germany and citrus orchards sprang up in parts of Asia where it is too cool to exist today (Lamb 1989).

        The Little Ice Age (LIA) - This was a period of great upheaval and misery in human history. Fur trappers reported that Hudson Bay remained frozen long into the spring. Eskimos were seen paddling canoes off of the coast of England, Alpine glaciers engulfed mountain villages, cold and wet weather killed farm animals and destroyed crops, the bubonic plague killed more than a third of Europeans, farms and villages in Northern Europe were deserted due to persistent crop failures, bread was made from the bark of trees because grains wouldn’t grow (Windows2Universe 2008), and the famous potato famine starved over 1 million people in Ireland and caused a mass emigration of another 1 million people out of Ireland (Kinealy 1995). It was too wet and cold for the Irish to grow their staple crop, potatoes.

        The Current Warm Period (CWP) – Rebounding from the LIA, we’re gradually warming up again. We are in a period where satellite imagery across 30 years shows a significant greening of the earth (Liu et al., 2010), Northern latitudes have seen higher productivity in agriculture, wineries exist in upper New York, Arctic ice is at a historic low, and human population has exploded along with technology and agriculture (I don’t need to cite this – just check out your cell phone and pay a visit to the grocery store).”

        Unfortunately, at some stage this current climate optimum will cease and it is likely we will revert back to the Earth’s more normal glacial period as shown in the 450,000 year ice core record here: http://www.thelivingmoon.com/…/415k-year-temp-graph.jpg

        Some scientist think that the recent low solar activity could be a sign that we are heading that way now. Let’s hope they are wrong!

        40

        • #

          Thanks for lwhancock link. I’m always looking for information on past temperature fluctuations such as the MWP and anything on uses of proxies. The writer makes a great deal of sense and explains things very clearly.

          30

      • #
        Jaymez

        Michael you wrote:

        “Considering that by natural factors alone temps would not have changed much from the 50′s there is very strong evidence that it is being fueled by the extra energy provided by a planet under the influence of enhanced greenhouse gas warming. “

        You like to paint yourself as a person of science, but you provide no evidence to support this sweeping statement and nor has unfortunately the UN IPCC. Which is why their climate models have been so useless in predicting temperatures. But at least they had the good sense to admit that there must be some “natural cooling force” which they did not understand which was overpowering any warming impact the rising CO2 emissions were having. Thus they turned their own theory on it’s head by admitting that the climate must be more sensitive to some factor other than CO2 which they do not understand. Read the summary report of AR5.

        This is all climate sceptics like me have ever said. That there are other factors which affect climate and until we understand them we cannot go off half cocked making major decisions which will definitely harm our economy for little if any benefit.

        You definitely can’t say that temperatures would not have changed much since the 1950′s by natural factors alone when we do not fully understand the natural factors at play. I could list at least two dozen natural factors where there are major uncertainties about direct contribution, to climate or impact on feedback mechanisms. Most have no value in the climate models because climate scientists cannot estimate their role. What I can say with absolute certainty is two things about atmospheric CO2:

        1. The theory that increasing atmospheric CO2 automatically increases global temperatures has been disproved because there has been no statistically significant warming since 1998. Even if you don’t want to accept that you would have to accept that the climates sensitivity is clearly not as high to CO2 as previously predicted. This therefore should change the alarmists position.

        2. It is a scientific fact that the warming impact of atmospheric CO2 is a diminishing one, so until we determine what our ‘ideal’ global temperature is – which is more likely to be close to the ‘Climate Optimum’ temperatures, which are warmer than now rather than the Little Ice Age temperatures which we had pre industrial era, I see no benefit in taking action which might deliberately take us away from a more optimal temperature.

        20

  • #
    Jen

    Each time more evidence emerges that the World isn’t frying believers just get angry, instead of relieved and pleased!
    Future Historians will look back and try to explain the phenomenon, why otherwise intelligent people and their Governments were gripped by AGW hysteria, steadfastly refusing to even consider evidence that disproves it.
    I think we will look even more bizarre in a hundred years than we do now -but I’m not a scientist what would I know?

    40

    • #
      Joe V.

      Evidence of rapidly disappearing Boondongle is probably quite irritating for those have come to depend on it.

      40

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      You are indeed obviously not a scientist. Despite 60 years of where natural factors have produced a slight cooling effect on the planet temps have risen .06 deg c.

      [SNIP the repeat mantra. These rants are boring MTR time and time again you have refused to answer counter argument. ] ED

      04

      • #

        You ignore those of us who are scientists, too. Apparently it’s the message, not the qualifications, that you are bothered by. So why attack the qualifications????

        30

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        There has not been a counter argument to answer. I keep asking for one. I also find the inability to provide any science but to only base your arguments on childish personal attacks and taunts boring but I do not see those being stopped. Obviously ridicule trumps science as an argument here.

        14

        • #

          You use the exclusionary principle to “prove” your point. Check out how well that worked for Darwin.

          The counter argument is that we do not have sufficient data–that is science. The counter argument is the failure of the models. The counter argument is the fact that trend lines are not reality. The counter argument is the fact that the hockey stick produced by Michael Mann can be produced by basically random data. The counter argument is the constant changing of where the heat goes–now the oceans, before the atmosphere. The counter argument (which you yourself have said is true) is that nature can overcome the CO2 and we cannot know for how long or how much. The counter argument is scientists share data and all manipulations committed against it so it can be checked by other scientists. The counter argument is peer-review does not give Godlike status to studies and that ignoring those not peer reviewed is not scientific. The counter argument is the validity of mixing proxies and instrumental records. The counter argument is……..

          Now, PICK ONE and actually discuss it or leave.

          20

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            The counter argument is that we do not have sufficient data–that is science

            Gee your excuses are really getting extreme. We have more than enough data and I have provided it repeatedly. Really everything you provide is meaningless chatter and nonsense to try to fill your void of science and avoid that you do not have an answer. Please read slowly…
            ——————————–
            **The greenhouse effect comes from over 100 years of accepted proven science.
            **CO2 is a greenhouse gas with known measurable radiative properties and its concentration in the atmosphere, as well as all the other gases and their properties are also known.
            **It is measured by satelite that the energy entering the planet is more than leaving, by the first law of thermodynamics this means that energy within the planet is increasing.
            **By the laws of physics this can take on many forms and change forms but cannot diminish. It is a planet, there are many places it can go, the atmosphere is but 5%, including land, oceans and melting ice. Use some common sense and logic ppppllleeeaaasseee!
            **Measurements from satelite tells us that over time the fall in energy is coming from the same radiation bands as that utilised by CO2.
            **Measurements from the surface show an increase in energy from the same bands.
            **The lower stratosphere has cooled consistent with less upwelling radiation as measured by the previous 2 statements.
            **CO2 as a greenhouse gas absorbs and reradiates the CO2 coming up from the surface in all directions, thereby slowing down the loss of radiation, consistent with all off the above.
            **We have increased CO2 since industrialisation by 40%.
            **In the last 100 or so years temperatures have increased by about 0.8 deg c (depending on global data set, some more, some less but all around the same ballpark).
            **In the last 60 years temps have increased by about 0.6 deg c.
            —————————–
            Over that time…
            —Sea levels have risen twice as fast than the previous average
            —Minimum ice extent in the Arctic has fallen about 50%
            —Globally ice volume has fallen
            —Almost all glaciers are receding
            —Ocean warming has continued to the present
            —Ocean PH has fallen 30%, with evidence from around the world of species migration and corals and crustaceans under stress
            —Hot day records are beating cold ones by 3 to 1
            —Hot night records are beating cold ones by 5 to 1
            —Extreme precipitation events by observation are up by 7% per degree
            —2001 to 2010 was the hottest decade globally, on land, ocean, every continent and in both hemispheres in the instrumental record.
            —2010 was the wettest year since records began
            —Europes heat wave in 2003 and Russias one in 2010 were determined to be so outside natural variation statistically that they would not have occurred without the influence of AGW.
            —2012 was US hottest year
            —2013 Australia has broken hottest 12 months twice, hottest day, hottest month, warmest winter etc. Bushfires have started unusually early and ferociously.
            —2010 to 2013 have been among the worst for extreme weather events ever
            —China has already this year had 5 billion dollar weather disasters.
            —2012 was the US second worst for extreme weather
            —Typhoon haiyan fastest winds to ever hit landfall
            —On average there is now 5 times as many record breaking hot months than could be expected without AGW
            ————————————-
            On top of all of the above actual observational evidence, we know over the last 60 years that ENSO has been neutral, solar is falling and we have had some large volcanos. All other possible natural sources for the increase put forward have been discounted on the data, such as cosmic rays. This is where the vast majority of the science is at, for those honest and with an open mind. There is not much room for counter argument there, and I have answered virtually all of your excuses, but if you can come up with another source then give it a whirl.

            I will try another analogy, though always risky…Say you are a patient with cancer given 6 months to live. Does that mean the expert guarantees you will die in 6 months? Off course not, that is a best guess based on years of experience from a professional but it could be anywhere from 2 months to 2 years (I have seen both). This is because there are other factors that can influence the outcome, the patients state of mind, level of health, support from loved ones, medicines tried (even experimental), alternative medicines taken, lifestyle etc etc. Very few will die at exactly 6 months, but 95% will die within 2 years (I guess, I could be wrong, it is an analogy). So you misrepresent models repeatedly as it is the only argument you really have while ignoring all the actual real science, data and evidence and ignoring that a model is only a projection under certain scenarios, and like the patient above, have many unknown variables, such as solar, ENSO, PDO, volcanos, actual CO2 emitted and other aerosols, land use changes etc etc. They are fairly good but an average over time and we will sometimes come in higher or lower but we know for 95% we are going to increase heating to the detriment of the human race in the long run. Due to the conservative nature of the IPCC most predictions have come in worse than expected, which even if sensitivity is lower the climates response to changing global temps look to be higher.

            So do you actually have any actual science or a scientifically accepted theory with data as strong as that above to point to another source other than the avalanche of science and evidence pointing to AGW. Or are you going to continue making excuses and false claims about how little we know due to your overwhelming confirmation bias stopping you from looking at the facts.

            14

            • #
              AndyG55

              ooo your little propaganda CD has soooo much junk on it doesn’t it !

              GULLIBLE FOOL !!!!!!

              You obviously did not actually LEARN ANYTHING on your little tiny 3 day brain-washing course did you.

              roflmao !!!!

              You are seriously such a MORON !!

              12

              • #
                MemoryVault

                Meanwhile,

                More observed, measured data indicating a cooling planet.

                .
                Still, can’t let mere facts get in the way of a fanatical religious rant, can we, Master Baiter?

                30

              • #
                AndyG55

                ps.. and I’ll bet you wasted like 7 -10 hours of your worthless existence putting that list of crap together.

                GET A LIFE .. you stupid little twerp !

                Get out of your grandma’s basement……

                Get outside and have a look at REALITY for a change….. the world is DOING JUST FINE.

                It’s actually really NICE outside.. you should try it.

                It really is UNHEALTHY for even someone like you to be have this sort of bizarre fixation !

                I would seriously PITY you, if I didn’t have a life to live.

                31

              • #
                AndyG55

                Actually, Michael, someone like you DESERVES to live their life in abject fear and misery.

                I know that I am not going to worry about your well being. I actually enjoy the thought. :-)

                I am going to use electricity as I see fit. I am going to ENJOY life and not PANIC about unsubstantiated climate change hypotheses.

                I will live my life KNOWING that we leave this Earth in a FAR BETTER and MORE PRODUCTIVE state than it was when I came into this life.
                (Assuming we can overcome the regressive green socialist agenda)

                If you CHOOSE to live YOUR life in regret and despair and long for a return to the dark ages and living in caves…. GO FOR IT ! :-) :-)

                31

              • #
                AndyG55

                Until you are prepared to get rid of all trappings of modern society,: cars, computer, refrigeration, etc etc etc etc

                YOU HAVE NOTHING.. except a meaningless hypocritical propaganda rant.

                31

              • #

                AndyG55, you say this about this fool

                YOU HAVE NOTHING.. except a meaningless hypocritical propaganda rant.

                And lies, endless lies, never ending lies, followed by even more lies.

                For the life of me, I just can’t see how anyone can believe the lies he obviously accepts as part of his religious faith.

                At times. I wonder if it’s all not just a huge leg pull, aimed at getting us to respond, you know in a similar manner to Margot’s lies.

                They obviously don’t believe those things themselves. It’s just what they are told to say.

                Tony.

                40

            • #

              Again, repeating yourself is not science–it’s annoying.

              30

            • #

              Tony–I still think he gets extra credit in class for doing this. It’s a pretty standard way of infusing propaganda into internet threads. It’s actually a time tested method–in the 60′s, students had to be part of protests against the Vietnam War for classes. New century, new “protest”. It also explains his persistence and his constant repeating of a mantra. Sadly, the internet allows a longer “sign” than the student protests of the 60′s so the mantra can be much longer.

              30

            • #

              Michael the obedient one:

              The “greenhouse effect” comes from Carl Sagan who was sad that Venus wasn’t like earth. Hansen just stole the idea. Actually, it comes from before that, when people were too ignorant of science to understand terminology, so the idea of a greenhouse was used. The term is completely unscientific–the earth has a gaseous atmosphere, not a hard glass cover–but it sells well to people who are ignorant of science.

              The earth’s energy is NEVER in balance and that is why we had ice ages and tropical polar areas at various times. It’s irrational to believe that suddenly, because we can estimate the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, estimate ocean volume from minute changes in the ocean surface, and measure/estimate dozens of other variables that we suddenly can figure out why that happens and then stop it and live on a paradise where we control the weather. That’s Star Trek, not science.

              No one but you is arguing things do not take different forms. You ascribe that to us, then “disprove” it so you don’t have to answer actual questions. If it can take different forms and move around, and since you have admitted you cannot predict when or where, then you CANNOT know what will happen. These are your own words.

              Sea level: TWICE as fast–what a little propagandist you are. Use ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS.

              Yes, and the Arctic has been ice free before. What’s your point? “It’s faster”. Then if it starts building up really fast, we better call the Koch brothers and start pumping out CO2 by your logic. Any increase would also signal the end of life on the planet (actually, scientifically, that scenario is actually more threatening than warming).

              Glaciers grow and recede based on snow. So you really do want a snow covered planet like the ice age? Or at least really cold winters up North (where you have your government pay your fuel bills using money they take from working people–who won’t be working if there’s a low of snow and you get your Arctic ice and glaciers back. No trees, no fuel, just those beautiful white expanses. Might freeze a few million people, but who cares????)

              BEWARE THE SUPERLATIVE. Over use indicates a complete lack of understanding of statistics. Every currently broken record had a record set before it. Unless you are willing to go back and declare every period of records that were “the highest” signs of cataclysmic doom (which you refused to do for the “extreme weather” event of the 1930′s in the US), your statement is flat out idiotic. (Of course, climate scientists love superlatives because the average person is easily duped into believing the nonsense. It’s why CLIMATE CHANGE = WEATHER now. Extreme weather, defined by whatever measure the news media picks. The actual science was so flawed they chose to jump to propaganda.

              Wow, we could write a whole book on how to infuse propaganda based on your writings. Got to go–sounds like a really useful book. I must get to typing.

              20

              • #
                Rod Stuart

                Sheri, you have the patience of Job.
                The idiot is loaded with propaganda from snoozukiville now.
                He paid for that nonsense too, and made old Suzuki just a little bit richer.
                Once a moron has the Gaia religion, there is no use trying to save him.

                30

              • #

                I know what/whom Michael is. Answering him lets me refine my position and so forth. Unlike Michael, if I was getting nothing out of the exchanges, I’d have left. I don’t want to “save” him–not like the warmists want to “win” with their arguments. I just want an answer out there to the nonsense. Leaving it unanswered seems to be the hopes of the warmists. Their hopes need dashed. :)

                40

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                The idiot is loaded with propaganda from snoozukiville now.
                He paid for that nonsense too, and made old Suzuki just a little bit richer.
                Once a moron has the Gaia religion, there is no use trying to save him.

                I will give Sheri one kudo, at least she is actually attempting to provide some discussion and argument. It is not her fault that the science and data I have presented are basically all facts and there are no alternatives available for her other than dismissive propoganda type responses.

                The rest of you, massive fail, the more you base your arguments on a personal attack on me the more you make it evident that what I have put forward is basically correct and you have no answer for it.

                Thanks :-)

                08

              • #
                MemoryVault

                the science and data I have presented are basically all facts

                Or complete BS, depending on whether you are talking about observable fact, or computer-generated garbage.

                http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Global-temperature-vs-IPCC.gif

                20

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                You and all your no tricks zone blog links. Do you really think continuously using that source helps your (lack of) credibility.

                07

              • #
                MemoryVault

                You and all your no tricks zone blog links.

                Actually,cretin, it was a link to a graph prepared by the British MET Office, using IPCC data. I linked to the first available site I came across in a search, that had published the graph.

                But you won’t even look at it, simply because of where that particular copy happens to be sitting on the web. Then you go back to screaming nobody ever produces any “evidence”. Why should we bother, given that you won’t even look at it, simply on the basis of where it might be residing.

                .
                Can you spell “hypocrite”, Michael?
                No, I didn’t think so.

                It really is pathetic how you go on representing yourself as some kind of seeker of the truth, while at the same time you claim to be able to judge the veracity of information, merely from the name of the site where it resides.

                .
                So, despite all your claims of being a “seeker of truth”, you have now well and truly exposed yourself as a hypocritical, quasi-religious, fanatical, raving, worthless piece of sh*t, uninterested in even viewing, let alone considering, anything contrary to your cut and pasted religious mantras.

                So why should anyone even bother?

                .
                Meanwhile, it continues to get colder, Master Baiter.

                40

  • #
    Jen

    Indeed- time will reveal the money trail for all to see!

    30

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      Time is not needed Jen. There is much documented evidence of the transfer of money from fossil fuel billionaires and firms to think tanks, scientists, anti science roadshows and the like. It is also obvious that these people are the richest in the world and with the most to lose if, as has been said is necessary, that 80% of known reserves have to stay in the ground.

      [ Now there is a grand conspiracy. Why don't you bother to provide examples?] ED

      07

      • #

        Like the transfer of half a billion dollars to Al Gore by an oil rich country, right?

        40

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        [ Now there is a grand conspiracy. Why don't you bother to provide examples?] ED

        I tried but it was rejected. I will just add a couple, as there must have been to much.

        “Union of Concerned Scientists Exposes ExxonMobil Funded Organizations & Spokespeople:

        The Union of Concerned Scientists, in their expose titled: Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air – How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science (2007) show how ExxonMobil waged the most successful and sophisticated global warming denial campaign since that of Big Tobacco’s campaign against the dangers of smoking. In their 64 page document, they show that ExxonMobil:”
        http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/global_warming_denial_machine.html

        “Billionaire oilman David Koch used to joke that Koch Industries was “the biggest company you’ve never heard of.” Now the shroud of secrecy has thankfully been lifted, revealing the $61.48 million that he and his brother Charles have quietly funneled to climate-denial front groups that are working to delay policies and regulations aimed at stopping global warming, most of which are part of the State Policy Network.

        Today, the Kochs are being watched as a prime example of the corporate takeover of government. Their funding and co-opting of the Tea Party movement is now well documented.”
        http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/

        http://www.exxonsecrets.org/maps.php

        “Bob Carter (Robert M. Carter) is a retired Australian marine geologist and a paid AGW denier. He is also an adjunct (unpaid[1]) Research Fellow at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University” in Australia,[2] and on the academic advisory council of the denialist front group, the Global Warming Policy Foundation.[3] Carter is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries (Exxon, Scaife Foundations and Koch Family Foundations, etc).[4]”
        http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter

        —————–
        Despite the overwhelming consensus among climate experts that human activity is contributing to rising global temperatures, 66 percent of Americans incorrectly believe there is “a lot of disagreement among scientists about whether or not global warming is happening.” The conservative media has fueled this confusion by distorting scientific research, hyping faux-scandals, and giving voice to groups funded by industries that have a financial interest in blocking action on climate change. Meanwhile, mainstream media outlets have shied away from the “controversy” over climate change and have failed to press U.S. policymakers on how they will address this global threat. When climate change is discussed, mainstream outlets sometimes strive for a false balance that elevates marginal voices and enables them to sow doubt about the science even in the face of mounting evidence.
        http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/11/28/meet-the-climate-denial-machine/191545

        05

        • #

          Where is the listing of funding for the climate advocates? Where do warmists get their money? You have to provide that information or you’re just spouting propaganda.

          It is fascinating that climate skeptics, with very little income compared to what governments dump into climate change propaganda, can be having such influence. Seems to me, the warmists’ problem is the message, not the money. Sure, they try to claim conspiracy, but billions and billions have gone into climate change research, conferences, etc. Every a yearly conference in a warm place with hundreds flying in on the skeptic side? Ever see the skeptics demanding the poor countries stay poor and third world so the skeptics can stay rich? Funny, it’s the skeptics that want to make life better for everyone. Skeptics are willing to debate, look for ways to improve the environment and so forth. Not just shut down fossil fuels and leave everyone freezing and starving. They also want sufficient proof warming before jumping to any conclusions. Maybe that’s why they don’t need money–they make sense.

          40

          • #
            Heywood

            Interesting that he let this particular question slide…

            This is the AAD M.O. Spout activist rhetoric repeatedly then when someone points out his hypocrisy, all quiet on the western front.

            30

        • #
          Jaymez

          Oh dear Michael you are desperate if you are including a few thousand dollars Bob Carter gets paid by Heartland in your list of Billionaire Fossil fuel conspiracies!

          And how do you explain the Koch Foundation funding known warmists Richard Muller and his daughter from the University of California Berkeley, to do the BEST research to ‘prove’ global warming is happening?

          And how do you explain fossil fuel companies being some of the biggest funders of renewable energy, particularly solar?

          I am sure there is a transfer of money from individuals and organisations to sceptical think tanks and organisations, but it pales when compared to the official taxpayer funding of climate alarmist think tanks and propaganda organisations. For instance until recently the Australian Government was funding the Climate Commission headed by Tim Flannery which was nothing more than a propaganda vehicle for the warmist message. When the incoming government closed them down as promised, they immediately received a swag of funding from left wing local government councils. Can you imagine the furore if local councils had given a cent to the IPA?

          The federal Labor Government and taxpayer funded Universities gave $6m to set of ‘The Conversation’ website and continue to fund it on an ongoing basis and that continues to publish strong climate warmist material. Virtually every ‘green’ and ‘conservation’ NGO receives government grants, but name a right win think tank which does.

          You only have to look the the list of Australian Research Grants to see the funding given to pro ‘warmists’ including for embarrassing ‘researchers’ like Professor Stephan Lewandowsky who uses the veil of cognitive research to push his agenda against climate skeptics.

          You have your funding model arse about!

          50

          • #
            AndyG55

            Michael the ditz did a 6 day course or something. They gave him a new CD of climate mis-informations which he is busy cutting and pasting from.

            He doesn’t understand any of it, but that doesn’t stop him pasting his clap-trap.
            He actually thinks some of it is related to science, ignorant twerp that he is.

            We will just have to get used to his parroting on old threads for a few weeks until he has used it all up, several times over.

            31

          • #
            Heywood

            Like a typical leftard activist, AAD is blind to his hypocrisy.

            He completely misses the fact that his ‘evidence’ of big oil funding is from Greenpeace, funded by ‘big green’.

            51

          • #
            AndyG55

            And links to rants by Scott Mandia .. seriously.. !

            Straight from the list of links on his little propaganda CD, I’ll bet.

            31

        • #
          Mark D.

          Michael, I see you trust Sourcewatch. WHO FUNDS SOURCEWATCH?

          30

        • #
          Mark D.

          Michael, I see you trust Sourcewatch. WHO FUNDS SOURCEWATCH?

          No response…….. Avoiding the truth Michael?

          30

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            Never said I trust Sourcewatch. It was one of many sources of information on funding of denialist think tanks, scientists, facebook pages, opinion bloggers and commentators, roadshows etc.

            I suppose the more important question to me is…is it right? If not, what part of the quote is incorrect?

            Please point out the incorrect bits…
            “Bob Carter (Robert M. Carter) is a retired Australian marine geologist and a paid AGW denier. He is also an adjunct (unpaid[1]) Research Fellow at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University” in Australia,[2] and on the academic advisory council of the denialist front group, the Global Warming Policy Foundation.[3] Carter is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries (Exxon, Scaife Foundations and Koch Family Foundations, etc).[4]”
            http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter

            06

            • #
              Heywood

              Why provide a reference you don’t trust? So activist rhetoric it is then? Do you trust Greenpeace to be impartial because you linked to their site too?

              The other links are opinion blogs.

              You have been whacked on these points before, but like a true activist, you can’t help yourself.

              In fact, in your honour, I will make sure I leave the lights on at work tomorrow night, as a beacon to your activist tenacity. Only 3000 odd high wattage globes. Should undo the emissions savings from your solar just nicely.

              10

            • #
              Mark D.

              ANSWER THE QUESTION!

              WHO FUNDS SOURCEWATCH?

              20

            • #
              Eddie Sharpe

              Could Sourcewatch be little more than a laundering operating ?

              20

  • #
    Jen

    Not surprising that so many Actors and Show Biz people are forever espousing the AGW theory – aspects of the Global warming movement (if it can be called that) seem to be more related to fantasy than science, plenty of drama there, if not rational thinking,
    Seeing as the power of imagination usually beats common sense, the warmers use this to the max-
    Remember the exploding Children, starving Polar Bears, boiling Oceans, acidic Oceans ect- Al Gore and co know which buttons to push, its made them rich.
    By now, unfortunately, Governments have buckled to the hysteria-we are advised by people with straight faces that the latest Bushfire/Flood/Cyclone/Tsunami are all about AGW,( because us wicked people selfishly insist on using electricity,) but more tax money will make the nasty warm climate go away, and the Grandkiddies will be safe.

    30

  • #
    Michael the Realist

    Yep
    Just as I expected. No science, no answers, just meaningless personal attacks to try to hide the shallowness and lack of actual argument. Mere bullies.

    If you ever think of an answer to http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/david-suzuki-bombs-on-qa-knows-nothing-about-the-climate/#comment-1344056 then let me know.

    06

    • #

      Just typed it.

      Now, where’s your answer to my question about physics, calculus, statistics and chemistry that I asked you? (77.1.1)

      40

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        Sorry Sheri, but massive fail on your part. I posted a comprehensive, complete rundown of the science, supporting data and trends with recent consistent observations. You posted excuses and propoganda. There was no science in there at all, just more of your ‘we don’t know anything’ mantra. Please rephrase that to ‘Sheri does not know anything’ because scientists, as I have outlined, know more than enough to be deeply concerned and request action, as does every thinking, caring human being out there. If you know so little why do you not go out there and learn? Thats what I did, thats what true skeptics do. Your comments are all out of the anti science propoganda book based on misinformation and personal attacks. For instance…

        The greenhouse effect goes back over 150 years to Tyndall describing CO2′s blocking effect, then Arrhenius calculations for a doubling of CO2, Callendar that proposed that warming was already occurring back in the 1930′s to Gilbert Plass book on ‘the carbon dioxide theory of climate change’ in the 1950′s. It was not invented by Sagan or Hansen, your extreme bias and lack of actual scientific rigour in your research is evident right there.

        Again, I never said ENERGY IS EVER ACTUALLY IN BALANCE. Simple physics and the laws of thermodynamics tells us that energy is always moving towards balance. On a planetary scale these things normally happen quite slowly as it reacts to natural events including orbital changes, suns power and changes in atmospheric composition. One of those things, atmospheric composition we are changing, the Earth will react to it, it is not scientific to ignore that, the Earth is a planet, it will not automatically adjust in our favor just for your benefit, also not scientific, more a religion and giving the planet intelligence.

        The rest is the old, ‘its happened before’ kinds of arguments, also no science in that. Studies have shown that the current period has not happened for a long time and is faster than normal, also as I have shown above it is in the opposite direction to natural factors. Earth has been uninhabitable for 7 billion humans in our current configuration for the vast majority of its 4 billion plus year history. It is pleasant (was pleasant) for us now, why do we want to jeopardise that, just out of greed and selfishness and politics?

        There is no other explanation, and you guys have been woefully inadequate in even trying, for all the ACTUAL DATA and OBSERVATIONS ACTUALLY OCCURRING than AGW. YOU HAVE NO EXPLANATION, YOU cannot answer my question with science and data. Excuses and its happened before type arguments are not science or reasoned actual arguments. None of what you have said cast any doubt whatsoever on the science, data and observations I have presented. So sad that you can’t, So sad that you cannot accept it and do some real actual research.

        I have not provided any propoganda, I have put forward the actual science and measurements that match the fingerprints of warming by AGW. I have put forward the ACTUAL data and observations consistent with warming by AGW. YOU make vague references to ice ages and we do not want cold when there is no evidence of it. Please desist in making up stuff without evidence and in dismissing what you cannot answer and either come up with some science or data to support your position.

        28

        • #
          MemoryVault

          I have not provided any propoganda

          True. It it has all been pure, unadulterated fanatical religious dogma.
          Master Baiter, you don’t even understand the very basics of the “science” you think you are espousing. For instance:

          the laws of thermodynamics tells us that energy is always moving towards balance.

          No they don’t, Master Baiter, they demonstrate that energy is always devolving to entropy, a term completely beyond your level of understanding, as demonstrated by your continued support for the idea that “missing heat” is “hiding” in the oceans, and will return sometime to cause trouble.

          .
          You keep coming here, posting the same old repeatedly refuted quasi-religious dogma, like a monk chanting a mantra to a long-discredited God, and wonder why the rest of us are sick to the back teeth with you, and wish you would just quietly F*** Off.

          You don’t even have the balls to comment on current threads, but choose to lurk around two month old dead ones, like this, like the smell that lingers over a rotting carcass.

          62

          • #

            You keep coming here, posting the same old repeatedly refuted quasi-religious dogma, like a monk chanting a mantra to a long-discredited God, and wonder why the rest of us are sick to the back teeth with you, and wish you would just quietly F*** Off.

            What he said, minus the word quietly.

            Tony.

            52

          • #
            AndyG55

            “wish you would just quietly F*** Off.’

            gees MV, then where would I get my daily laughs :-(

            Every court needs a FOOL, and he does such an admirable job at it. :-)

            42

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            they demonstrate that energy is always devolving to entropy

            Feel free to explain to me the concept of entropy and how it applies to the current discussion. Also there is no missing heat, energy in the oceans is increasing as shown by measurement, no mystery.

            05

            • #
              MemoryVault

              Feel free to explain to me the concept of entropy and how it applies to the current discussion.

              Why would I bother?

              Quite apart from the fact that you allegedly have degrees in physics and maths (ho ho) and should be fully conversant with entropy, I explained it only a few days ago – in response to a similar request from you – and you completely ignored it.

              I did find a very good university website that explained entropy very simply, and I did consider posting a link. However, a bit of digging revealed that the son of a cousin of an aunt of a guy who mowed Rockefeller’s lawns for a while, once donated a dollar to the uni cafeteria to help buy a milk saucer for the stray cat that hung around the kitchen, thereby forever tainting the university and everything it did with the corruption of “Big Oil” money. So I didn’t bother.

              Also there is no missing heat

              The entire “theory” of CAGW is based on the cult religious belief that man-made CO2 is heating the ATMOSPHERE. The atmosphere isn’t heating. Ergo, there IS “missing heat” – at least according to your fanatical religious dogma.

              Babbling on about warmer or warming ocean deeps is irrelevant, Master Baiter. Even if the ocean deeps were warming – which they aren’t – you would have to explain how the atmosphere accumulated the “missing” energy in the first place without the atmospheric temperature going up, THEN explain how this “invisible” atmospheric heat got into the oceans, in defiance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, not to mention the observed and measured Water Cycle, THEN explain how this magical heat energy made its way down through the various layers of the ocean, to the deeps, WITHOUT being detected.

              And even if you could do all that, Master Baiter – which you can’t – it only takes us back to where we started – entropy. That heat (energy) is no longer available as sensible heat (energy capable of doing work) until such times as the rest of the planet above it cools down to a temperature below that of the ocean deeps – currently between one and three degrees C.

              .
              Somehow I think if we ever get to the point where the average temperature of the atmosphere and the sea surface is below three degrees C, “global warming” will not be high on our list of things to worry about.

              20

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                You do not understand the theory. The theory says that the earth is retaining energy, this energy can go into the atmosphere (about 5%), ocean, land, melting ice etc. It is doing all those things, as outlined repeatedly. Also as outlined repeatedly there are natural factors that also affect the climate (or do you think the only influence on the climate is CO2?). So there will be fluctuations as can be seen in the long term record within the fairly obvious upward trend, where 2001 to 2010 was the hottest decade on the instrumental record globally, on every continent, both hemispheres and over land and ocean. So sad that your knowledge is so limited that you cannot take in the whole picture.

                02

              • #

                Michael. You do not understand the theory. So sad your knowledge is so limited you cannot take in the whole picture.

                10

        • #
          AndyG55

          “massive fail on your part’

          No Michael.. it is YOU that is the MASSIVE FAIL.

          Your continued quoting of things you obviously know absolutely nothing about is HILARIOUS.

          It is people just like you, Flannery, Mann, Gore that have DESTROYED the CAGW mantra with your idiocy.

          Anyone with even the slightest science in their background can tell immediately that you are doing a cut and paste from the propaganda manual.

          Its sooooo freaking OBVIOUS !!!!!

          Are you sure you aren’t a major skeptic, just taking the p*** out of CAGW priests ????

          That is my only conclusion.

          Anyway…PLEASE CONTINUE….. People like you assure the demise of the CAGW meme.

          Nice to have you on OUR side. :-) :-)

          32

    • #
      AndyG55

      “No science”

      You said it.. you produce NO SCIENCE.

      So why should anyone be bothered with answers. :-)
      .
      .

      Y’know M, I’m really starting to like you :-)

      You are so …. funny, yet sooooooo stupid.. sort of like a 2 month old Labrador puppy.

      32

  • #
    AndyG55

    There was no science in there at all

    That is YOU to a tee., Yyou worthless little twerp.

    All you quote is pathetic Suzuki mantra.

    NO SCIENCE,

    LIES MISTHRUTHS and CORRUPTED, MUTILATED DATA

    -
    Enjoy your pointless little existence.. until the SUN comes up , little anaemic little brain-washed troll

    And you know what..

    EVERYBODY KNOW THIS.

    Every post you make on this forum REINFORCES that lying ineptitude of the ACGW mantra.

    Thank you.. for showing everyone just how LOW and DISGUSTING the climate brethren are prepared to go :-) :-)

    You are a number one exhibit for the real realist side.

    We thank you very much. :-)

    52

  • #
    Michael the Realist

    So only dismissive personal attacks and claims how all my science and data are propoganda. But apart from Sheri, nobody willing to debate my science and data.

    (Where are the DATA and published science papers sources in this comment?) CTS

    Please outline specifically which statements are incorrect…
    —————————-
    **The greenhouse effect comes from over 100 years of accepted proven science.
    **CO2 is a greenhouse gas with known measurable radiative properties and its concentration in the atmosphere, as well as all the other gases and their properties are also known.
    **It is measured by satelite that the energy entering the planet is more than leaving, by the first law of thermodynamics this means that energy within the planet is increasing.
    **By the laws of physics this can take on many forms and change forms but cannot diminish. It is a planet, there are many places it can go, the atmosphere is but 5%, including land, oceans and melting ice. Use some common sense and logic ppppllleeeaaasseee!
    **Measurements from satelite tells us that over time the fall in energy is coming from the same radiation bands as that utilised by CO2.
    **Measurements from the surface show an increase in energy from the same bands.
    **The lower stratosphere has cooled consistent with less upwelling radiation as measured by the previous 2 statements.
    **CO2 as a greenhouse gas absorbs and reradiates the CO2 coming up from the surface in all directions, thereby slowing down the loss of radiation, consistent with all off the above.
    **We have increased CO2 since industrialisation by 40%.
    **In the last 100 or so years temperatures have increased by about 0.8 deg c (depending on global data set, some more, some less but all around the same ballpark).
    **In the last 60 years temps have increased by about 0.6 deg c.
    —————————–
    Over that time…
    —Sea levels have risen twice as fast than the previous average
    —Minimum ice extent in the Arctic has fallen about 50%
    —Globally ice volume has fallen
    —Almost all glaciers are receding
    —Ocean warming has continued to the present
    —Ocean PH has fallen 30%, with evidence from around the world of species migration and corals and crustaceans under stress
    —Hot day records are beating cold ones by 3 to 1
    —Hot night records are beating cold ones by 5 to 1
    —Extreme precipitation events by observation are up by 7% per degree
    —2001 to 2010 was the hottest decade globally, on land, ocean, every continent and in both hemispheres in the instrumental record.
    —2010 was the wettest year since records began
    —Europes heat wave in 2003 and Russias one in 2010 were determined to be so outside natural variation statistically that they would not have occurred without the influence of AGW.
    —2012 was US hottest year
    —2013 Australia has broken hottest 12 months twice, hottest day, hottest month, warmest winter etc. Bushfires have started unusually early and ferociously.
    —2010 to 2013 have been among the worst for extreme weather events ever
    —China has already this year had 5 billion dollar weather disasters.
    —2012 was the US second worst for extreme weather
    —Typhoon haiyan fastest winds to ever hit landfall
    —On average there is now 5 times as many record breaking hot months than could be expected without AGW
    ————————————-
    On top of all of the above actual observational evidence, we know over the last 60 years that ENSO has been neutral, solar is falling and we have had some large volcanos. All other possible natural sources for the increase put forward have been discounted on the data, such as cosmic rays. This is where the vast majority of the science is at, for those honest and with an open mind. There is not much room for counter argument there, and I have answered virtually all of your excuses, but if you can come up with another source then give it a whirl.

    I will try another analogy, though always risky…Say you are a patient with cancer given 6 months to live. Does that mean the expert guarantees you will die in 6 months? Off course not, that is a best guess based on years of experience from a professional but it could be anywhere from 2 months to 2 years (I have seen both). This is because there are other factors that can influence the outcome, the patients state of mind, level of health, support from loved ones, medicines tried (even experimental), alternative medicines taken, lifestyle etc etc. Very few will die at exactly 6 months, but 95% will die within 2 years (I guess, I could be wrong, it is an analogy). So you misrepresent models repeatedly as it is the only argument you really have while ignoring all the actual real science, data and evidence and ignoring that a model is only a projection under certain scenarios, and like the patient above, have many unknown variables, such as solar, ENSO, PDO, volcanos, actual CO2 emitted and other aerosols, land use changes etc etc. They are fairly good but an average over time and we will sometimes come in higher or lower but we know for 95% we are going to increase heating to the detriment of the human race in the long run. Due to the conservative nature of the IPCC most predictions have come in worse than expected, which even if sensitivity is lower the climates response to changing global temps look to be higher.

    So do you actually have any actual science or a scientifically accepted theory with data as strong as that above to point to another source other than the avalanche of science and evidence pointing to AGW.

    (Where are the observational evidence you talk about a lot,but never post the links to them?) CTS

    25

    • #
      • #
        AndyG55

        parrots, galahs.?

        hard to tell the difference in this case.

        maybe a Chihuahua ?

        32

        • #
          Brett

          Speaking of chihuahuas. Small, half dog, half rodent type animal. Runs up and down the front window yapping at anything that threatens its little castle. Quite a lot of yapping on here. This direct assault on Suzuki must have really upset the fruit fly gods.

          10

          • #
            Heywood

            I still find AAD amusing.

            His wife must be gasping for some action given the amount of time he spends on this blog pushing his agenda on two month old threads.

            What is funny, and a little sad, is that he honestly believes that the regular members of this blog, which make up some poofteenth of three fifths of five eighths of the population, are the ones causing the world to fry.

            He is nothing but a hypocrite activist, who plugs his own agenda and instantly dismisses any evidence that does not 100% conform to his view. He preaches that ‘we need to take action’ then brags about flying around the world. He also acts like a stuck up w@naker “I have three degrees so you must be wrong” attitude. All those years in uni probably explains his leftard watermelon world view though.

            All in all I am torn, do I ignore the tosser or keep commenting and attempt to reduce his time away from other things? I so know he can’t help himself and must comment.

            31

            • #
              Brett

              Just think, the more you keep them occupied, the less real damage they can do. Like the other one, Imagine if it actually attempted farming? It’s safer this way.
              At least he isn’t out playing with matches.

              20

            • #
              MemoryVault

              It’s like slowly drip-feeding heroin to an addict.

              It’s cruel, it’s mean, it’s heartless, and it’s largely meaningless.

              .
              But what the hell, it’s fun.

              31

    • #
      AndyG55

      Copy, paste, copy, paste, copy, paste.

      roflmao !!!!

      You are soooooooo helping the skeptic cause !

      THANKS. !!!

      22

    • #
      MaxL

      Ok, Michael,
      I’d like to concentrate on your third point:
      “**It is measured by satelite that the energy entering the planet is more than leaving, by the first law of thermodynamics this means that energy within the planet is increasing.”

      Are you saying that’s a good thing or that it’s a bad thing for life on earth?

      41

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        Hi Max
        Depends on the effect and the cause. Due to the frequencies where the energy loss is coming from it is known that it is due to an enhanced greenhouse effect. So due to us as we have increased CO2 by 40%. The next question becomes what will be the effect for the planet. As energy is increasing it can go into various areas, heating the atmosphere, land, oceans and into melting our cryosphere. This is all occurring. As the climate is dependent on the interactions between all of these areas, and they heat at different rates, our climate is changing, sea levels are increasing, etc etc as outlined above (I will save the repeat).

        There are some positives but overwhelmingly the consensus and observation is that it will be bad for us in the main. It increases moisture in the air which increases extreme precipitation, it feeds droughts and heat waves, it increases the sea level to the detriment of coastal areas, low lying islands and enhances the damage due to storm surges. The warmer ocean feeds storms and causes coral bleaching, the falling ph affects corals as well as shell building sea creatures etc etc.

        So basically it will decrease the habitability of the planet for human being and is likely having a detrimental affect on other land and fish species as is outlined in many studies.

        What do you think?

        15

        • #
          MaxL

          Thankyou for replying.
          What do I think?
          Well, I’m no scientist, but I would suspect that if all the energy which enters the earth were to leave the earth then there would be no life on earth.
          Thus the fact that more energy enters than leaves, is a good thing for life on earth.
          Do you know how much biomass is created by the conversion of energy into matter, every every day?

          52

        • #

          Michael,

          I bet you don’t know what just happened then.

          Tony.

          50

          • #
            Heywood

            I bet he heard the wooshing sound as it went over his head.

            40

          • #
            MemoryVault

            .
            The interesting thing will be how long it takes for him to get some guidance from Ecoloon Central on this.
            I’m betting we won’t see anything representing a coherent answer to MaxL for at least a day or two.

            Although I wouldn’t be half surprised if the Master Baiter doesn’t post his list of “irrefutable proofs” (again), to cover his inability to answer MaxL in any way meaningful.

            .
            Whoosh – love it, Heywood.

            41

            • #
              MaxL

              Oh no, MV. Surely you are being too harsh on Michael. I’m sure he will get back to me. I have so many other questions that I think his understanding of science would help me immensely.

              20

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          Sorry Max, but you misunderstand the implications. Probably due to your lack of knowledge of physics, you seem to have the impression that energy gets used up?

          Energy is entering our system continuously from the sun 24/7 in the form of radiation (the only way energy come come in through the vacuum of space). The only way energy can leave is similarly through radiation from the top of the atmosphere. So energy should enter and leave continuously in a rough balance, as within the system energy moves around and is constantly transformed but never extinguished. Therefore if less energy energy leaves then enters the total energy in the system increases, meaning temps rise, oceans warm, ice melts etc. If more energy leaves than enters then the total energy is reduced and temps fall, oceans cool etc. When energy increases the total energy that leaves is slowly increased until a rough balance is found and you reach equilibrium again, but with the planet at a higher temperature than previously. This does not mean the process ever stops as the planet is constantly rebalancing itself to changes in solar, greenhouse gases, orbital variations etc.

          It may be difficult to understand this concept without some basic physics education, the comments below suggest that training is not common among the majority of posters here and is the source of confusion such as ‘climate change defies the second law of thermodynamics’ and other common misunderstandings.

          Hopefully you are a true skeptic and wish to learn rather than just trying to trick me into a word game war, as is common when these kinds of topics come up. As if that proves anything except that you guys are still bereft of science.

          You may find the booklet here useful as a brief rundown of the science and the issues.
          http://www.globalchange.gov/resources/educators/climate-literacy

          You may also find this booklet has more information in it.
          http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/more-resources-on-climate-change/climate-change-lines-of-evidence-booklet/

          This site is also good
          http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html

          I better leave it there because I don’t want to overwhelm you, but they are simple enough for most people.

          25

          • #
            AndyG55

            “It may be difficult to understand this concept without some basic physics education,”

            Which why you are so obviously struggling.

            You really do need to go back and finish your high school education.

            22

          • #
            AndyG55

            “I better leave it there because I don’t want to overwhelm you”

            We remain totally underwhelmed. :-)

            Even as a court jester, you are falling flat.

            22

          • #

            What courses have you taken in physics, chemistry, calculus and statics, MIchael???? Answer please.

            I count at least 15 readers of this blog who have degrees, some with PhDs, in physics. So telling someone they need to take a physics course is really, really a bad idea. Unless you mean to say you are the God of physics, omniscient, and you determine who actually understands physics. That would, of course mean, that a PhD in physics is only valid if Michael stamps his approval–wow, what an ego you have. How can you walk around carrying that ego and still function? Must be suffocating. I suppose from now on we could note whether or not “Michael the realist” has deigned a physics concept to real–want to give you credit where credit is due. Michael the God of Physics.

            Could you repeat yourself more often???? It’s becoming amusing marking down how many times you repeat yourself. That’s just for research on warmists, of course. It’s interesting to see if they can ever just freelance and actually answer questions. So far, you’re in the “repeats the mantra” column.

            20

            • #
              AndyG55

              I gave up trying to get past his brain-washing block ages ago.

              Now I just laugh at him and his puerile attempts.

              He’s sort of a cross between a parrot and yapping Chihuahua.

              22

            • #
              AndyG55

              And Sheri.. you needed to put that first question in big bold letters..

              Lots of arm-waving ! You know, the 5 second sound grab effect :-)

              22

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Just for your information, Michael is currently working on his thesis. The working title is “The Conservation of Nutter”, but I am sure he can regress from that.

              42

            • #
              Brett

              Where can I get hold of one of his CD’s? I want to know what it says when you play it backwards.

              20

            • #
              AndyG55

              Sheri, I assume you meant “statistics” ?

              “Statics” is rather different.

              20

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                But at least they are consistent.

                20

              • #

                Yes, cursed spell-check strikes again. Must proof read better. My bad.

                20

              • #
                AndyG55

                Its Ok Sheri, No-one types quite as badly as I do.

                And if I forget to size the screen to 150%,

                And even when I size the screen to 150%, my proof reading is pretty ordinary too.

                If an spelling error doesn’t get underlined in squiggly red, I will probably miss it, too.

                30

              • #
                Rod Stuart

                Michael doesn’t need to type.
                Cut and paste is much faster.

                40

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                I have a spelling checker.
                It came width my PC
                It plainly marks for my revue mistakes eye cannot sea.
                I’ve run this poem threw it, as I’m sure pleased to no.
                It’s letter perfect in it’s weigh.
                My checker tolled me sew.

                20

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                I have a longer version that I will put up on the next Unthread post.

                20

            • #
              Heywood

              Michael the Activist (aka AAD) is just that, an activist.

              Have a look at some of the emotional propaganda he has spouted on this thread.

              “What will it take for you people to put people ahead of your greed, ideology, apathy or fear and do something before it is to late?”
              ________________________________________
              “Play word games, delay action while the planet feels the increasing effects.
              Please examine your motives and look at the damage your delays are already causing.”
              ________________________________________
              “Instead the warming has caused changes that have started causing unnecessary pain and suffering already, let alone what the future will involve as we completely ignore the science. Don’t come across with your fake worries, you only care about yourself.”
              ________________________________________
              “If your actions were not so damaging it would be funny that you fall for this stuff.”
              ________________________________________
              “Those that have contributed the least to the problem and future generations that have not contributed anything will suffer the most.”

              Oh the suffering. Won’t somebody ppppllllleeeeeeeeeaaaaasssssseeee think of the children! Typical rant from an Activist. Also note the use of the term ‘you people’. He uses this regularly and demonstrates his arrogant superior attitude, and he wonders why cops abuse.

              Actually on one hand, Jo should be honoured that her blog is considered so important in the debate and has such an influence that it needs to be the target of his activism, but on the other hand, he is just one insignificant high school teacher who thinks that lowering his personal emissions involves flying to 30 odd countries in CO2 spewing jets for his own personal gratification.

              Many people tried to engage him in meaningful polite debate when he first arrived at this blog, but his arrogance and refusal to acknowledge ANY evidence that wasn’t a source that he considered appropriate meant that the regulars here lost patience with him quickly. When he is proven wrong on a particular point, he just ignores it and moves onto another response elsewhere. I personally proved to him with his own source that renewable electricity generation is subsidised at five times the rate of coal fired electricity generation. He denied, then ignored. As I stated earlier, AAD modus operandi.

              Eventually he ended up in the moderation bin but in true activist form, he was so desperate to post here, that he petitioned Jo to be allowed back. Unfortunately Jo caved and we now continue to put up with his oft cut and pasted rhetoric, albeit in two month old threads.

              I do ask him one question though. Michael, since you have been posting here, how many people do you think have changed their opinion because of your posts?

              31

              • #
                AndyG55

                I strong suspect that seeing the kid’s postings has actually converted quite a few fence sitters into skeptics.

                People are not stupid, they can see and smell propaganda a mile away in most cases.

                And seriously, is he educated enough to be a high school teacher?

                That is a real worry for his students !!!!!!!!!!

                Social science, English, art….. something like that ?

                21

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            What a load of meaningless pratter. I explain a simple concept of physics that was clearly misunderstood by Max, as shown by his comments (unless nobody agrees with the first law of thermodynamics, but please show your evidence for that). The response, absolute rubbish all based around personal attacks.

            Please provide just a tiny weenie bit of practical science in your response to a scientific answer to a question. So precisely where is my explanation wrong and what is the correct explanation and feel free to provide some scientific sources for your explanation.

            16

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              I explain a simple concept of physics that was clearly misunderstood by Max, as shown by his comments

              Perhaps you should give Max an explanation of what matter is? That may be the piece of the puzzle he is missing?

              31

          • #
            MaxL

            Michael,
            Thankyou for your insulting reply.

            You have no idea what my understanding of physics is.

            However, your reply shows me that:
            You have no understanding of the term energy.
            You have no understanding of the conservation of energy.
            You have no understanding of photosynthesis.
            Your reply shows me that I was wrong to hope that you have some basic understanding of science.

            Obviously your knowledge of physics and your english comprehension is inferior, given that you make no attempt even discuss my simple question.
            Thankyou for demonstrating that you are indeed an ignorant dogmatist.

            40

            • #
              AndyG55

              “Thankyou for demonstrating that you are indeed an ignorant dogmatist”

              Could have told you that ages ago. !

              He basically understands NOTHING.

              Its all off his little cd that he can cut an paste from.

              He makes “stupidest home videos” look intelligent !

              31

            • #
              Michael the Realist

              However, your reply shows me that:
              You have no understanding of the term energy.
              You have no understanding of the conservation of energy.
              You have no understanding of photosynthesis.
              Your reply shows me that I was wrong to hope that you have some basic understanding of science.

              …and yet not one person has provided the answers I ask. Again, even you, use meaningless words and personal attack instead of actually explaining where I am wrong and providing scientific corrections with sources.

              My mistake was actually thinking you were serious and giving a reasoned thought out answer with resources. I continue to try to debate politely and with science and data and I get shown how little you actually care or know in return. I thought this was a science site but, like most opinion blog sites that are against the science, all that is really here is a lot of bullies with a religious dogma attitude to ignoring any reasoned argument, science or data that threatens your confirmation bias. Nobody even tries to argue the science, data or observations I have presented honestly, just people who believe insults are effective alternatives to actual knowledge. So sad, I have met people like this that when having a discussion shout at the top of their voices to intimidate and drown out any serious debate from anyone else, obviously because they know they are wrong. I am very disappointed at your pathetic attempt to find a way to ridicule me by pretending to ask a question seriously. Must have annoyed you when I knew what i was talking about.

              15

              • #
                Brett

                So only the activists are allowed to do that?
                I’m sure if you explained the rules better, everyone would have played nicer.
                Okay it’s your ball, your rules.
                Anything else?

                30

              • #
                Heywood

                “I continue to try to debate politely”

                Mmmm. Must be lunch hour at you school hu? I am sure they are happy for you to be using their computer network to push your agenda. Must be a government school then.

                The problem is AAD is that it isn’t a debate with you. You throw your cut and paste rhetoric around and whenever someone attempts to counter or explain their position, the response is NEVER good enough for you.

                Why even bother trying?

                I asked you before, How many people here do you think have changed their minds on AGW because of your posts??

                31

              • #
                MemoryVault

                .
                Oh boo hoo, Master Baiter, please stop, you’re making me cry.
                Well, not really.

                Seriously though, Master Baiter, if us ignorant swine refusing to accept and believe your quasi-cultist, dogmatic, many-times refuted BS is so upsetting to you, why don’t you just give it a rest and POQ to some other blog, like SKS, where your fanatical religious views might be more acceptable?

                41

              • #
                AndyG55

                “obviously because they know they are wrong”

                Only your arrogant ignorance could conclude that.

                We are just fed up trying to explain REALITY to a brainless parrot.

                Your continued posting of repetitive manipulated propaganda, when it has pointed out to you many many times its REAL zero value, is just plane MORONIC!!!

                You refuse to learn, or are totally incapable of learning.

                I can only conclude you wish to remain the ignorant twit that you so obviously are.

                31

              • #
                Heywood

                Andy,

                “You refuse to learn, or are totally incapable of learning. “

                Let’s be fair. AAD is capable of learning, it’s just that he only learns things that align to his pre-determined opinion.

                He is another of the warmists that would rather see the world get hotter just so he can stand up and say ‘see, I was RIGHT’. Most people who truly worry about CAGW would seize on any evidence that may prove the warmist mantra wrong and show some disappointment if it doesn’t come to pass. Not AAD though. He truly WANTS a disaster to happen, because winning the debate is more important than there being no catastrophe.

                41

              • #
                MaxL

                Must have annoyed you when I knew what i was talking about.

                Annoyed? Me?
                Oh no Michael, in many ways I feel sorry for you.
                Any similarity between what you talk about and science, is purely co-incidental.

                I asked a simple question and you asked for my opinion. You couldn’t answer my final question so you started chanting your mantra which had nothing to do with my question.
                Then to cap it off, I use words like energy, conservation of energy and photosynthesis and you suggest those words are meaningless. Well, maybe they are to you.

                To paraphrase TonyfromOz, you still don’t get it. Do you?
                I even handed you a stick to defend yourself, and you still don’t know what to do with it because you can’t see it. Rereke gave you another hint, but still you are oblivious to what’s going on around you.

                You remind me of a little dog I once knew. It would start a fight with another dog. Bigger dogs would join in until there was a serious brawl. The little dog would then slink away and sit back and watch.
                Like a naughty little boy, you just like to start fights.

                Annoyed? Hardly.

                31

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Must have annoyed you when I knew what i was talking about.”

                ROFLMAO !!

                Now there is a statement that is devoid of any evidence at all …..

                Must be ‘climate science’ speak ! :-)

                30

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Michael says:

                I continue to try to debate politely and with science and data and I get shown how little you actually care or know in return. I thought this was a science site but, like most opinion blog sites that are against the science, all that is really here is a lot of bullies with a religious dogma attitude to ignoring any reasoned argument, science or data that threatens your confirmation bias.

                That is projection (and you might care to look up what that means, in a tutorial on psychology). You refer to “the science”, as if it is bounded, and singular, and finalised (it is none of these). You accuse us of religious dogma, but you kept coming back to a concept of “for or against”; “true or false”; “holy or evil”, where you, and only you have access to The One Truth, as delivered to Hansen on the Mount. And then you revert to your original point about the first law of thermodynamics, when we tried to gently expose you to the wider considerations, that cannot be ignored.

                Whomever provided the information you use for a reference has sold you short, and may actually have set you up to fail. The idea may not be as preposterous as it seems. We have seen worse behaviour from Alarmist Central, in the past.

                Atmospheric Physics and Climatology (which is what we are really talking about) are actually very complex subjects, but what you have been presenting to the scientists here, is the Climate Change for Dummy’s ™ version. I hope that distinction is not too subtle for you, because it is very important. There is a whole lot of stuff that the Atmospheric Physists do not fully understand. Similarly with other related disciplines. What the Climate Change crew has done, is to paper over the unknown stuff, by making it up in the Computer Models.

                It isn’t real, but it is absorbing billions of dollars that could probably be better spent elsewhere in relieving famine or fighting disease.

                I personally find that repugnant. You will have to make up your own mind.

                30

              • #
                Brett

                Well he does keep linking to ‘Windows to the universe’ which has this on their site:
                “Students and teachers may find the site especially helpful in their studying (and teaching!) Earth and Space sciences. Because we have users of all ages, the site is written in three reading levels approximating elementary, middle school and high school reading levels. These levels may be chosen by using the upper button bar of each page of the main site. “

                20

  • #

    For Michael, who never looks anything up:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/08/alarmist-climate-science-and-the-principle-of-exclusion/

    In 1837, Charles Darwin presented a paper to the British Geological Society arguing that coral atolls were formed not on submerged volcanic craters, as argued by pioneering geologist Charles Lyell, but on the subsidence of mountain chains.
    The problem, as Darwin saw it, was that corals can not live more than about 30 feet below the surface and therefore they could not have formed of themselves from the ocean floor. They needed a raised platform to build upon.
    However, the volcanic crater hypothesis didn’t satisfy Darwin; he thought the atoll shape was too regular to have been the craters of old volcanos. There were no atoll formations on land, Darwin reasoned; why would there be such in the ocean? Therefore, Darwin proposed that corals were building upon eroded mountains, an hypothesis that, he wrote happily, “solves every difficulty.”
    Darwin also argued, in 1839, that curious geological formations—what appeared to be parallel tracks—in the Glen Roy valley of Scotland were the result of an uplifted sea bed.
    Darwin didn’t have any actual physical evidence to support these two hypotheses: he arrived at them deductively, through the principle of exclusion. A deductive conclusion is reached through theory—if X, then logically Y must be so—as opposed to induction, which builds a theory out of empirical data. The principle of exclusion works from the premise that “there is no other way of accounting for the phenomenon.”[1]
    As it turned out, Darwin was wrong on both hypotheses. Later physical evidence showed that Lyell’s volcano theory was closer to the mark, and the Glen Roy tracks were caused by glaciers, which were still a mystery in Darwin’s time.
    Darwin later wrote of his Glen Roy hypothesis: “Because no other explanation was possible under our then state of knowledge, I argued in favour of sea-action; and my error has been a good lesson to me never to trust in science to the principle of exclusion.”[2]

    Saying we don’t know rather than going with a theory because “there is no other way of accounting for the phenomenon” can and has lead to very, very wrong theories. I have read the exact statement “because no other theory explains this phenomena, it must be due to anthropomorphic climate change” in research papers on climate. So, Michael, please go tell Darwin that because Sheri cannot provide another explanation, she’s unscientific for saying that. You clearly stated that Darwin was guilty of not being scientific and that we should not worry about theories being wrong if they are the only theory out there.

    50

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The implications might be a little deep for Michael?

      40

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      So, Michael, please go tell Darwin that because Sheri cannot provide another explanation, she’s unscientific for saying that.

      I can and do because there is ample physical evidence to support the theory of AGW. You are just ignoring it because you do not like it, that is what is unscientific.

      As amply explained above multiple times and consistent with the theory, the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere has been measured to have reduced in the energy bands matching CO2. Measurements on the surface match an increase in the energy bands realted to CO2. The stratosphere has cooled as is consistent with the theory. Scientists know from measurements in the lab and physics the realtive concentration and components of the atmosphere and there properties. They know what the greenhouse gases do and it matches calculations. As expected this has increased energy in the system.

      Temps have risen, oceans warm, ice melts, ph falls etc etc (see above). As is consistent with the scientific method they look for other alternatives, these would be natural factors which have produced a net cooling over the time the planet has warmed. So consistent with the science, the data, the observations and other factors have been ruled out.

      So what part of the scientific method, the science, the data and observations don’t you understand? So you do not throw out a working, successful theory for ‘anything else’ just because you do not like it. Or don’t you understand that part of science?

      05

      • #

        WHAT CLASSES HAVE YOU TAKEN IN PHYSICS, CALCULUS, CHEMISTRY, STATISTICS, ETC. LIST THEM.

        Try again: Because no other explanation was possible under our then state of knowledge, I argued in favour of sea-action; and my error has been a good lesson to me never to trust in science to the principle of exclusion.”

        Read: Because there is no other explanation possible under our current state of knowledge, Michael argues in favor of AGW. He has learned nothing from Darwin.

        Try again: Therefore, Darwin proposed that corals were building upon eroded mountains, an hypothesis that, he wrote happily, “solves every difficulty.”

        Read: Michael states that AGW “happily solves every difficulty” and forges on blindly believing he cannot be wrong. Darwin was wrong, so is Michael.

        30

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          Read: Because there is no other explanation possible under our current state of knowledge, Michael argues in favor of AGW. He has learned nothing from Darwin.

          Sheri please read slowly, OUR CURRENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE IS GOOD AND CONSISTENT WITH AGW, THIS IS WHY VIRTUALLY EVERY INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNISED ORGANISATION IN THE WORLD AND 97% OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE SCIENCE SUPPORT THE THEORY OF AGW.

          Wow, it is NOT THAT HARD. CO2 IS A GREENHOUSE GAS, greenhouse gases cause energy to be retained in the system by reradiating the IR from the surface in all directions and slowing down its loss from the atmosphere. THIS HAS BEEN MEASURED, in the laboratories, in the top of the atmosphere by an imbalance in energy specifically from the radiation bands effected by CO2, from the ground as increased backwelling IR due to the increased greenhouse effect from the extra CO2 and in the lower stratosphere as cooling due to less IR coming up from the surface. This energy has gone into the atmosphere, oceans and in melting the ice. The effects are increasing sea level, falling ocean ph, melting ice, etc etc (see above).

          Please try to understand the basic physics: http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html

          AGAIN, how about sticking to the actual science and answer the actual points relevent to AGW that I continually put forward but everybody goes out of there way to avoid. It is you that is ignoring the science, the data and the observations because you cannot accept what the facts are telling you, and running around in circles trying to think of how many different ways possible you can try and imply that science is ignorant and knows nothing. Hope you stop using your computer because it is liable to explode under the faulty physics it is based on plus virtually every other electronic gadget more powerful than a desk calculator.

          Again science works by putting forward hypothesis, these are then developed into theories and then these are tested repeatedly and ways are investigated to find alternatives to break the theory. The basic theory has over 150 years of science behind it and is not even close to threatened. It has been the subject of constant examination, debate and attack for about 40 years and it is not even slightly dented. The theory is logical and reasoned, matches experimentation, the data and observations and has been entirely consistent with the world around us within the bounds of a planetary system with many variables. This is why the IPCC has increased its probability to 95%, no serious impartial climate scientist questions the basic science.

          So I accept what mainstream science, the data, the observations and what my research has been telling me. What qualifications, peer reviewed papers published and research do you have to question the 800 researchers that worked on the latest IPCC report and what the the hundreds of scientific organisations on every continent, under every type of government is telling us? It must be pretty good to think you know more than all the experts. I put my qualifications above where you asked, but even then it is fairly irrelevent as I back all the scientists and organisations that have done actual research and published in peer reveiw, so you need to beat all of them as well. How about you list every subject you have ever done, where and what score you got for starters…

          So know more silly excuses, attacks on me, science, scientific organisations, individual scientists (like Hansen and Sagan who you wrongly think invented AGW), and stick to actually attempting to argue the points I outlined in my comprehensive rundown.

          16

          • #
            Heywood

            Geez you are like a dog at a gate aren’t you?

            Woof Woof Woof Woof Woof.

            Can someone shut that bloody dog up?

            21

          • #
            MemoryVault

            science works by putting forward hypothesis

            CO2-CAGW HYPOTHESIS
            CO2 => UP = atmospheric temperature UP.

            OBSERVATION
            CO2 => UP = atmospheric temperature UP, and DOWN, and UP, and DOWN . . .

            CONCLUSION
            CO2-CAGW falsified.

            QED

            41

          • #
            AndyG55

            You continue to post junk propaganda.

            We know that because you cling to junk like the 97% meme.

            The so-called science you keep pointing to is NOT SCIENCE

            It is blatant corrupted propaganda, you are just tooooo dumb to see the difference. !

            The AGW hypothesis has been tested.. AND FOUND WANTING !!!!!!

            Even the wannabee gurus can’t make a single viable prediction using the hypothesis.

            They are soooo far out that they have to resort to all sorts of data manipulation and distortion to get anywhere near.

            The AGW hypothesis HAS FAILED !!!!! Do……… You………. UNDER………STAND. !! ………… DOLT !!!

            It should now be tossed into the BIN where it belongs.

            Now how about you answer Sheri’s question which she has posted in capitals and bolded !!

            31

            • #
              Michael the Realist

              Is there any actual science or argument in there somewhere…

              05

              • #
                MemoryVault

                Is there any actual science . . .

                Yeah – it’s called the Scientific Method.

                CO2-CAGW HYPOTHESIS
                CO2 => UP = atmospheric temperature UP.

                OBSERVATION
                CO2 => UP = atmospheric temperature UP, and DOWN, and UP, and DOWN . . .

                CONCLUSION
                CO2-CAGW falsified.

                QED

                31

            • #
              AndyG55

              Yes M, Science you will NEVER understand, the VERY BASIS of REAL SCIENCE actually.

              Hypothesis => Trial by prediction => Prediction FAILS => Junk the Hypothesis !

              Every prediction based on models using the CO2 hypothesis has FAILED and FAILED MISERABLY and TOTALLY !

              Hansen’s little predictions.. the ONLY one that came even close was the one that has a total cessation of CO2 production.

              The IPCC keeps reducing the CO2 sensitivity, but STILL keep over-predicting temperatures.

              The CAGW meme is all JUST A JOKE when it comes to science, it can’t even pass the most basic of tests.

              The CO2 hypothesis should have been JUNKED ages ago.

              20

          • #
            Brett

            So you have all the answers, the Authority to go with it, the consensus.
            So you really are just looking for a fight. So don’t give the woe is me attitude with how you are treated by others. If you were seriously looking for discussion on matters, you would likely not be here in the first place. Looks purely like esteem issues. Try not to be so condescending, whilst asking others to be polite.

            40

            • #
              Heywood

              Paraphrased from The Parable of the Pizza Parlor and the Taco Stand.

              “Does it make any sense?” he said.

              Everyone scratched their heads and replied, “Does what make sense?”

              “That a professed AGW advocate would bother to waste his time coming into an blog whose opinions he claims to despise, to hurl insults at everyone? If he is merely an AGW advocate, why isn’t he spending his time posting on a warmist blog? Why is he here at all? Is his life so totally empty and devoid of all meaning that he can only find purpose screaming at people whose lives are not equally pontless and lacking substance?”

              40

          • #
            Michael the Realist

            CO2-CAGW HYPOTHESIS
            CO2 => UP = atmospheric temperature UP.

            OBSERVATION
            CO2 => UP = atmospheric temperature UP, and DOWN, and UP, and DOWN . . .

            CONCLUSION
            CO2-CAGW falsified.

            QED

            I guess that is about the best i can expect as a reasoned argument from you. maybe one day you can attempt to inject some actual science or learn to read a graph…
            http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

            ————————–

            REPLY: MTR – MV’s point that the models don’t predict those turning points is correct. The models are broken. You appear to be still in denial that skeptics have a dozen reasons to trash the idea that humans can change the weather by not burning coal. MTR still hasnt got any evidence that upper Tropospheric warming has occurred as models predicted and their main assumptions are correct. MTR still can’t find the missing heat. Moreso he has known he has no answer since August. Nothing can shake his religious faith. – Jo

            13

            • #

              Michael has admitted elsewhere that it is impossible to add in natural factors to the models, which is why the models and temperatures don’t come out right. However, since Michael fully believes no models are involved (how completely irrational does one have to be to make that claim???) and that trend lines going up are reality, he cares nothing about models, predictions, or trend lines that go downward. This is his reality: Trend lines that go up. That’s it.

              20

              • #
                Michael the Realist

                What I said is that the science is not based on the models, the models are the laboratory for a system that experiments cannot be performed upon, it is used for ‘what if’ projections.

                It includes a whole slew of natural factors, but as I have explained before some things are not going to follow the script and some things cannot be exactly quantified until they occur. We do not know how the sun is going to go at any given point, we do not know when an el nino or la nina will occur, we cannot predict volcanos, for gods sake its a planet, be realistic. Though in the long term we can estimate close many of these things going on past experience, but they will cause short term variations in the long term trend. This is the part you do not accpet in absolutism.

                So stop trying to put words in my mouth and show some integrity, it is pretty desperate of you.

                So my tactic due to the inability of you guys to see these things realistically and rationally is to show that the real life data and observations over the last 60 years (minimum and go back further if you want) are consistent with AGW. So going on what we know for sure where we can see what the natural factors actually did, it is apparent that they cannot explain the warming and only AGW provides a consistent answer that fits the data and observations and is entirely consistent with the science. So what are your qualifications?

                03

              • #

                What classes have you taken in physics, calculus, statistics and chemistry. List them.

                What I said was you have admitted that models are not accurate because we cannot account for natural factors. You said some things are not going to follow the script and some things cannot be exactly quantified. So show some integrity and admit you just said the models will fail.

                You have not produced the unadjusted data from 1900 on. Without it, we cannot tell if your data is accurate or not. Produce the data.

                Listed the classes I took. Learn to read.

                20

            • #
              AndyG55

              Linking to a pre-1979 GISS temperature farce.. seriously ??? roflmao !!

              I thought you said you understood science.?

              This is what I mean. You laden every one of your posts with that sort of JUNK and expect to be taken seriously.. Not going to happen !!

              20

          • #

            WHAT CLASSES HAVE YOU TAKEN IN PHYSICS, CALCULUS, CHEMISTRY, STATISTICS, ETC? LIST THEM.
            WHAT CLASSES HAVE YOU TAKEN IN PHYSICS, CALCULUS, CHEMISTRY, STATISTICS, ETC? LIST THEM.

            It is Michael who refuses to answer questions.

            Glen Roy tracks were caused by glaciers, which were still a mystery in Darwin’s time.–Means our knowledge may not be complete even if you keep arrogantly keep repeating that it is.

            he (Darwin) wrote happily, “solves every difficulty.” Fully coherent, self contained theory that was WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

            Michael insists Darwin was BEING A GOOD SCIENTIST WHEN DARWIN WAS 100% WRONG. IE Michael’s definition of a GOOD scientist is one that is WRONG. Which explains his complete allegiance to AGW.

            30

            • #
              Michael the Realist

              I never insisted Darwin was being a good scientist. Do you have to resort to lies now because you cannot answer the science. You deal in absolutes, rather than seeing there is ample evidence and considering the consequences of being wrong we cannot ignore the conclusions.

              I don’t think anything is 100%, but it is a long way from zero and close to the 95% that the IPCC have concluded. Please desist in saying I have said things that I have not, I would say it is beneath you, but I am quickly losing respect for your integrity.

              03

              • #

                Wow–I can write an entire psych paper on your behaviour. Projection, denial, accusations of lies while lying yourself, evasiveness, lack of ability to follow arguments, narcissism. So much material it may take two or three papers.

                You have clearly stated we must go with the theory we have no matter how wrong it fits the information you have at hand and there is no other theory. That is precisely what Darwin said–we have a theory that fits all the known data so it must be true. If Darwin was being a bad scientist, that would make you one too. So you are now saying you are a bad scientist????

                (Thank you losing respect for my integrity. Please lose any little bit you may be clinging too. Your respect goes to idiots who parrot the cause–If I have somehow failed to make it clear, I think you are a woefully inadequate human being, devoid of scientific understanding out trying to peddle a religion to those who threaten your little fantasy. Now, lose all respect. Thank you. Have a nice day.)

                20

            • #
              Gee Aye

              What was Darwin wrong about?

              01

              • #

                Coral atolls were not formed on were not formed on underground mountain remnants, but rather on undersea volcanic craters, an hypothesis Darwin rejected. He felt the mountains were a better explanation. Later, the undersea volcano theory proved to fit the data better.

                Glen Roy tracks (undersea near Scotland) were formed by “uplifted sea beds” according to Darwin. Now we believe they were formed by glaciers.

                See comment #85

                10

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Sheri,

      This is great!

      Another loud whooshing sound as the meaning of your example just flew over his head!

      You really couldn’t pay for this sort of farce.

      40

      • #
        Dave

        Rereke

        I just printed off from Comment 82 down to here, and gave to my next door neighbour, a year 12 physics and maths teacher (Queensland) and he’s on his balcony reading now, laughing his head off.

        He can’t believe this Michael The Realist is serious, reckons he’s a goose that’s impersonating a CAGW lunatic to give them a bad name. He’s still laughing and reckons he might take to school next year for the start of the 2014 physics students.

        Update: he keeps on repeating WHOOOOSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHH, and laughing!

        It’s been a great read for an end of thread finish. As you said:

        You really couldn’t pay for this sort of farce.

        Michael the ………………….WHOOOOOOSSSSHHHH. :)

        31

        • #
          AndyG55

          ” reckons he’s a goose that’s impersonating a CAGW lunatic to give them a bad name’

          Hey, I came to that conclusion a few days ago.. Its the ONLY assumption that makes any sense.

          Therefore it MUST BE TRUE.. …………….

          Occam’s etc

          32

        • #
          Heywood

          That’s quite a few names for Michael now.

          Micheal the….

          * Activist
          * Arrogant Annoying Di&%ead or AAD (Which he stated he was happy to be called thanks mods)
          * Taco Boy
          * Surrealist
          * Master Baiter
          * Whhhhhooooosssshhhh
          *

          Did I miss any? Help me out.

          32

        • #
          Michael the Realist

          Well my science still stands as nobody has been able to (only one has even tried) fault the actual science and logic, data and observations with any of the same of your own.

          17

          • #
            Heywood

            Woof Woof Woof Woof.

            22

          • #
            Heywood

            “only one has even tried”
            BS Many have. You just DON’T LISTEN. If what you are told doesn’t conform to your world view, you dismiss it.

            20

          • #
            Truthseeker

            Well my science still stands as nobody has been able to (only one has even no matter how hard I tried) fault the actual science and logic, data and observations with any of the same of your own propaganda I have used.

            There, fixed it for you.

            51

          • #
            MemoryVault

            SCIENCE, LOGIC and DATA

            CO2-CAGW HYPOTHESIS
            CO2 => UP = atmospheric temperature UP.

            OBSERVATION
            CO2 => UP = atmospheric temperature UP, and DOWN, and UP, and DOWN . . .

            CONCLUSION
            CO2-CAGW falsified.

            QED

            22

          • #
            AndyG55

            You wouldn’t know REAL SCIENCE if it crawled ** **** **** and bit you.

            All you ever post is propaganda JUNK SCIENCE.

            I will repeat Sheri’s question, with a slight modification.

            WHAT CLASSES HAVE YOU EVER TAKEN IN PHYSICS, CALCULUS, CHEMISTRY, STATISTICS, ETC. LIST THEM.

            22

            • #
              AndyG55

              WHAT CLASSES HAVE YOU EVER TAKEN IN PHYSICS, CALCULUS, CHEMISTRY, STATISTICS, ETC. LIST THEM.?

              and the sound of crickets chirping…

              no.. not even that !

              20

          • #
            AndyG55

            ps.. Your continued refusal to answer this question leads to the answer that is OBVIOUS to all to see.

            You have basically ZERO grounding in any REAL SCIENCE.

            You live your whole miserable life in a world of propaganda filled non-science.

            22

          • #
            AndyG55

            What you don’t get is that nobody could be bothered to refute you blatant propaganda junk science.

            That’s been done here sooooo soooo0 many times before.

            You are just not worth explaining the SCIENTIFIC REALITY to, any more.

            Your walls of ignorance and arrogance are just not worth the effort.

            4 or 5 lines telling you over and over again, that you are a misguided fool might eventually wake you up to REALITY !

            21

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            … my science still stands as nobody has been able to (only one has even tried) fault the actual science and logic, data and observations

            It is pretty hard to find fault with something that does not exist.

            You have presented no science, actual or otherwise, you have only made assertions. I doubt if you actually know what Logic (capital “L”) is, and how it should be formally presented.

            Where is your data? I have seen no data. I have seen a graph of temperature records, over a short period of time, but no evidence of cause (or effect for that matter). And where are these observations of which you speak? Where were the observations made, and when, and by whom, and to what accuracy?

            You really should stop pontificating on a blog. It may work in a classroom, but you look like an idiot when you do it on a blog, and especially in front of this audience. Come to think of it, you will continue to look like an idiot for as long as this blog survives on the way-back machine. “Granddad, why were you so silly?”

            Final point. It is not your science unless you made it up, in which case it is still not science, it is lies. Get it through your skull, science is not a contest, it is a process of learning, and interpreting, and understanding, and realising that there is still more to learn. As soon as you say it is your science, you have stopped doing science.

            40

            • #
              Heywood

              ” science is not a contest”

              But science activism is. That’s what AAD is all about. He WANTS it to get warmer, because being right is the goal.

              20

          • #

            What classes have you taken in physics, chemistry, statistics and calculus? List them.

            It’s not that anyone can fault the science–even if Mann himself confessed to lying and making the whole thing up, along with Hansen, Michael would not listen. Unless someone presents the exact same “science” that Michael pastes, he refuses to discuss it. Michael does not understand the idea of science as “learning and growing”. His definition is: You agree with me and it’s science. You don’t and you’re wrong. So there really is not point to this. Really, Michael, you should go to SKS or another warmest site where everyone will agree with you. Evangelizing here is obviously not working and you seem sure we are all hopeless heathens. There’e no hope of you actually discussing anything, so why waste your time? Too much time wasted on useless blogging can ruin many things.

            11

            • #
              Michael the Realist

              Please list your qualifications.

              02

              • #

                What classes have you taken in physics, chemistry, statistics and calculus? List them.

                77.1.1 When you first told me to take a physics class and I stated clearly that I had done so along with other real math and science class. You seriously cannot read.

                11

  • #
    Jen

    As an outsider watvhing the Weather debate over the Years, it seems we have so much yet to learn about these massive interconnected awesome Weather systems- and then people like Gore and Suzuki and Flannery come along and hijack it all, massive amounts of money that could have paid for so much research has been sidetracked, and wasted, and for what?

    30

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      Jen
      You may find this useful as a peer reviewed report from the actual world Meteorological Organisation.

      “The world experienced unprecedented high-impact climate extremes during the 2001-2010 decade, which was the warmest since the start of modern measurements in 1850 and continued an extended period of pronounced global warming.

      Precipitation and floods: The 2001-2010 decade was the second wettest since 1901. Globally, 2010 was the wettest year since the start of instrumental records.
      Most parts of the globe had above-normal precipitation during the decade. The eastern USA, northern and eastern Canada, and many parts of Europe and central Asia were particularly wet.
      According to the WMO survey, floods were the most frequently experienced extreme events over the course of the decade. Eastern Europe was particularly affected in 2001 and 2005, India in 2005, Africa in 2008, Asia (notably Pakistan, where 2 000 people died and 20 million were affected) in 2010, and Australia, also in 2010.”
      http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_976_en.html

      15

      • #
        Heywood

        Woof Woof Woof Woof..

        21

        • #
          AndyG55

          more like..

          Yap, Yap, Yap, Yap, Yap, Yap, Yap, Yap, Yap, Yap, Yap, Yap, Yap, Yap, Yap, Yap, ………………………………………………

          30

      • #
        Heywood

        Jen talks of wasted money, and you supply warmist rhetoric. You can’t help yourself.

        31

      • #
        MemoryVault

        You may find this useful as a peer reviewed report from the actual world Meteorological Organisation.

        Actually, Master Baiter, it’s a link TO the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) website, TO a press release BY the WMO, quoting a “Report” BY the WMO, TO the WMO, FOR the WMO.

        Throw in the fact that the WMO is NOT a scientific organisation, but rather is an organ of the United Nations, and you just know it’s going to be a completely unbiased report. sarc/OFF

        .
        Oh, by the way, Master Baiter, it’s not “peer-reviewed” either – which is hardly surprising for a departmental in-house report.

        41

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        Jen,

        Michael has referred you to a report on weather patterns, which is useful information to know, if you just happen to be interested in that stuff.

        But please note that the WMO makes no assertion that the said weather patterns are actually caused by the activities of mankind. They, and the rest of us, (excluding Michael) actually know that there has never been a time in the history of the world where climate, and the associated weather patterns, have been static. They have always changed, in complex ways, driven by a whole bunch of interrelated cyclic factors. Any influence that mankind might have in that mix is too small to be qualitatively measured, within the wider scheme of variation.

        So yes, the massive amounts of money that could have paid for so much research has been sidetracked. But it has not been wasted. A number of prominent (I won’t say eminent) people have managed to personally participate in the action of sidetracking that money, and have grown rich in the process. They would not call that waste.

        30

      • #

        What classes have you taken in physics, statistics, calculus and chemistry? List them.

        Press Release No. 976
        For use of the information media
        Not an official record

        Really, Michael, sending Jen to an unofficial record??????

        20

  • #
    AndyG55

    Oh and M, Jo should thank for pushing up her visitation numbers.

    Its people like you that give her the numbers to be a HIGHLY RECOGNISED AND RESPECTED SCIENCE BLOG

    You keep posting junk-science propaganda, and that count will just keep going up and up, …

    …….because you are never going to get the last word your ego soooooo desires.

    You will continue to be exposed as the base level fanatical propagandist that you are.

    21

    • #
      Dave

      Absolutely agree,

      This has to be the most entertaining end portion of any thread so far. Especially Heywoods Whoosh.

      Michael the Whoosh, don’t forget to nominate http://www.jonnenova.com.au for the 2014 Weblog Awards – The 2014 Bloggies. It opens New Years Day, so Master Baiter, let’s get together and nominate Jo again.

      Categories as follows for Jo:
      1. Australian
      2. Science
      3. Education
      4. Politics
      5. Weblog of the year, this year it’s going to happen.

      21

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        What, no categories for “Whoosh”? Shame on them.

        20

      • #
        Gee Aye

        If you want to nominate Michael, he has a public blog http://travellingcoeliac.blogspot.com.au/

        61

        • #
          Heywood

          Bwaaaaaaahahahahaha.

          Made my day Gee. Thanks.

          20

        • #

          Please do not tell me that is Michael’s blog. If so, no wonder he hasn’t ever linked to it.

          It sure sounds like him.

          If so, then he doesn’t mention his 3 Degrees, or his Doctorate in Science from the University of (Insert name of religious church here) and he’s only an EX teacher.

          If so he has a monstrously humungous carbon footprint. following his 130,721Km world flying holiday. Almost ten times a bigger footprint than I will ever approach in my lifetime.

          If this is in fact Michael The Surrrealist, I’m calling here and now to have this absolute hypocrite of the highest order not heard of again at this blog.

          This guy even says this at that site:

          Having lots of time to think, look, discuss and read during the year, I have also learned that the world is in a lot of trouble. The world is a lot poorer than I thought. Over 3 billion people live on $2.50 per day or less, something you rarely consider or can even comprehend when living in a country like Australia but while travelling through South America and Africa you come up against the type of poverty that makes you despair and wonder what you can do about it.

          Well for starters, you could do what China has done and is still doing to drag their billions out of extreme poverty, and that’s by giving them access to large scale and cheap electrical power.

          If this is indeed Michael the Surrealist, then I’m offended, and frankly, you all should be offended.

          So then Michael, is this you, and if it is, then can you tell us the crying need to hide this for so long.

          Tony.

          31

          • #
            MemoryVault

            .
            Tony, we have no absolute proof that Michael Fab is the Master Baiter.
            Mind you, the tab at the top labeled “Why I know I am right”, would seem to narrow the odds down.

            I can’t wait for him to show up again so we can ask him how many frequent flyer points he clocked up.
            I’d also like to discuss the carbon footprint of a night in a Cairo 5 star hotel.

            30

            • #

              He even says he umm, borrowed some frequent flyer points from his daughter as well, so despite his attempts at claiming the moral high ground in his mind, he proves his immorality with his written word.

              It seems other people’s money applies even to his own family, so I guess it’s so much bluster to him.

              Like I said, please don’t let this be Michael the Surrealist. If it is, he gets another name from us here ….. Hypocrite of the Century!

              Tony.

              21

              • #
                MemoryVault

                .
                I’m also interested in discussing his “education”.
                Turns out he was a “computer teacher”.

                I have a relative about the same age as him (and just as obnoxious), who also was a “computer teacher”.
                He graduated from Murdoch University with a “Science” degree, with a major in “Eco-Feminism”.

                I kid you not.

                20

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                @MemoryVault – Eco-Feminism? What the hell is that????

                10

            • #
              AndyG55

              So… not in his grandma’s basement..

              MV, everything on that page is a replica of his propaganda that he post here.

              SURELY… there cannot be two people so ARROGANT, IGNORANT, SHALLOW and CRASS..

              22

            • #
              Heywood

              “we have no absolute proof that Michael Fab is the Master Baiter.”

              Michael the Activist has admitted to creating a blog entitled “Mr Fab’s Blog” with his students. It was discovered by Manicbeancounter some time ago. Too much of a coincidence??

              20

              • #
                MemoryVault

                See above to Andy.

                30

              • #
                Heywood

                Roger.

                Missed it.

                Woosh for me. ;)

                20

              • #
                gee Aye

                OK I found some evidence but I am concerned it might get stuck in moderation so this post is an alert of the pending evidence in case it does

                21

              • #
                gee Aye

                here is the evidence that might get stuck in mod but at least you can access it. Sorry if it offends some. Click on the name (duh)…

                http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2013/10/21/ice-sea-ice-sea-and-repeat/#comments

                01

              • #
                gee Aye

                gee Aye
                Your comment is awaiting moderation.
                November 26, 2013 at 7:10 pm

                ah well I could construct a clever construct to circumvent this but the link is to the latest (and not very recent) post on a blog site constructed by a former regular and now rare visitor to this site who targets Jo’s site specifically. Michael’s comments contain a link.

                11

              • #
                Dave

                GeeAye,

                Mine is in Moderation also,
                Dave
                Your comment is awaiting moderation.

                November 26, 2013 at 7:08 pm · Reply
                These are comments from Master Baiter and then from his Michael Fab site:
                1. MB Fyi I have a sister in law who lives off the grid on power and water, and I myself have only paid one electricity bill for over 3 years.
                2. MF “Farrants Hill, New South Wales, home of Elizabeth’s sister Angelique and where we spent some family time. Angelique lives in the bush and mostly off the grid (not connected to a power company at all)”
                3. MB “Future generations to me mean my kids, my grandson and granddaughter on the way.”
                4. MF “I must have the best kids in the world, and now time to get to know my one year old grandson Sam.”
                5. MB “I am a teacher, that blog was a practice one from ages ago. ” referring to Mr. Fabs Blog
                6. MF “I am an ex teacher with 2 children and 1 grandson off to cause chaos and mayhem around the world.”
                Then also is the following coincidence 33 countries?
                But what I want to know is how in the Pharque did GeeAye peg this above? Thumbs up from me GeeAye.
                Hillarys Boat Harbour in Perth (my hometown) is Master Baiter is from.

                Oh well here it is without links.

                10

              • #
                MemoryVault

                Don’t sweat it, Gee Aye – it’s not personal.

                The spam policeman (auto filter) has been on overdrive lately, largely as a result of some recent additions in the trigger barrel. Had the same problem myself, yesterday.

                Email support and somebody will dig it out for you – I for one await with baited breath.

                .
                While I am here, I’m dying to know, how did you twig to the Master Baiter’s jet-setting alter-ego? I crave more details of this masterful bit of detective work.

                10

              • #
                gee Aye

                MV. I didn’t sweat it as I understood its parameters (or at least guessed them and pretended understand them).

                Here is your opportunity to be human.

                02

              • #
                gee Aye

                I also don’t think that identifying any extended family is appropriate :{

                12

              • #
                MemoryVault

                Here is your opportunity to be human.

                Sorry Gee Aye, you’ve lost me.
                I mean, I will give anything new a go at least once – even being human.
                But if I’m to try “being human”, I’ll need a clue of just where and how you want me to try it.

                10

              • #
                Heywood

                “don’t think that identifying any extended family is appropriate”

                I agree in principle, but it isn’t anyone here that did that. Michael put it in the public domain himself.

                20

              • #
                Dave

                GeeAye,

                “I also don’t think that identifying any extended family is appropriate”

                Don’t go blooody ABC on me, you provided the link for everyone to view, then get all shiity about cut and paste from a bloke that cuts and pastes all the time.

                You have to realise that it’s open slather GeeAye, yourself included.
                You provided the data, I just published it, as Mark Scott said. Grow some ballls. This is a raving blooody CAGW fanatic spreading garbage all over the intranet and annoying shiit out of me, so who cares. If Joanne wants to give my details to Michael the Realist, I wouldn’t complain. I’d love to meet him in person.

                12

              • #
                gee Aye

                well Dave, you could cut off yours and give them to me.

                I think I was more disturbed by Andy’s direct invective to Michael. What is the point of that? I agree my other comments were reactionary and the direct and stupid insults of Andy were the reason. Apologies but be aware that if you are targeting a specific person rather than an anonymous leaf – you are more likely subject to the law.

                The lesson… abuse me. You know I love it.

                02

              • #
                Dave

                GeeAye,

                I think I was more disturbed by Andy’s direct invective to Michael.

                What a load of Cow Poo, GeeAye the following happened:
                1. Andy was saying to Jo that she should thank MB for pushing up site visits.
                2. I bought up the Bloggies 2014 and MB should vote for http://www.joannenova.com.au
                3. Rereke suggested a Whoosh category for the Bloggies.
                4. You suggested we vote for Michael at his real blog site (and gave the link).

                How in the world can you now throw your little teddy bear at Andy and say it’s all his fault. Shiit, GeeAye, get a grip and apologise to Andy. Your link to MB’s blogsite was your contribution, and NO NONE else is responsible.

                Is it a mistake, NO.

                Build a great big bridge and get over it. Plus read MV’s comment below. He travels (with others) around the world for nearly a year, and comes here and tells me to change my Pharquen light bulb to reduce the increase in KW usage, because he’s taken a course in Climate science and that’s what we need to do.

                I don’t care who he is, but his little carbon intensive trip is being printed off now, and will be distributed tomorrow to all and sundry.

                Do you think you, Tim Flannery, Al Gore, Will Steffan, Ross Garnaut, Master Baiter, et al are the best examples to educate the Population on how we should live now. BLOOODY HYPOCRITES, The Pharquen lot of you.

                12

              • #
                Gee Aye

                Dave I don’t think you’ve understood me – probably my fault. The only thing I had a problem with was the directed abusive language. All the rest of what you wrote there I agree with and I never wrote anything to suggest otherwise.

                00

          • #
            AndyG55

            If even a small percentage of the funds WASTED on alternative non-energy were funnelled to South Africa and South America and other poor nations, by-passing the politicians and other money scammers… imagine the GOOD it COULD have been done. !

            Decent COAL fired power, from small-scale stations, decent water, decent cooking without dung..

            But look what they got

            ABSOLUTELY F******* NOTHING !

            Gees the CAGW scammers taken it all… and have LOT to answer for !!!

            .
            Think about it , Michael. How much have your cult stopped the world from real humanitarian progress.!!!!!

            I serious hope that you and your kind rot in H**L !!!

            22

          • #
            Dave

            These are comments from Master Baiter and then from his Michael Fab site:

            1. MB Fyi I have a sister in law who lives off the grid on power and water, and I myself have only paid one electricity bill for over 3 years.
            2. MF “Farrants Hill, New South Wales, home of Elizabeth’s sister Angelique and where we spent some family time. Angelique lives in the bush and mostly off the grid (not connected to a power company at all)”
            3. MB “Future generations to me mean my kids, my grandson and granddaughter on the way.”
            4. MF “I must have the best kids in the world, and now time to get to know my one year old grandson Sam.”
            5. MB “I am a teacher, that blog was a practice one from ages ago. ” referring to Mr. Fabs Blog
            6. MF “I am an ex teacher with 2 children and 1 grandson off to cause chaos and mayhem around the world.”

            Then also is the following coincidence 33 countries?

            But what I want to know is how in the Pharque did GeeAye peg this above? Thumbs up from me GeeAye.

            Hillarys Boat Harbour in Perth (my hometown) is Master Baiter is from.

            00

        • #

          Seriously? This is the same guy who on my blog gave a story about his partner saying he was on the computer too much and he would have to cut back on answers. He’s writing a blog, has enough money to travel far and wide, teaches school (over the internet???) and goes to classes? No wonder he’s confused about physics–he obviously lives outside of the real world.

          I do hope you are wrong on this or Michael is in a seriously deceptive mode.

          10

    • #
      AndyG55

      Oh and m, (going to use a lower case for you from now on. more suitable.)

      You really OUGHT to go to this thread: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/10-million-pageviews-1-6-million-visitors-new-media-reaches-an-influential-audience/

      and add your congratulation to Jo on a job well done.

      It would only be polite since she allows you to still post here. :-)

      22

  • #
    Michael the Realist

    Wow, well I just scrolled through 22 emails of responses and still found zero science. Very sad really for a supposedly science blog.

    I thought I would respond in one go rather than individually as obviously the 90% or so of insults I can safely ignore as irrelevent and meaning you have no answer for the science, and data I have presented.

    My qualifications I have answered above when it was first asked. Even though it is irrelevent as you have not provided any science for me to debate. Now kindly one by one please present your own qualifications to question the mainstream science as accepted by all internationally recognised scientific organisations in the world due to the strength of the science.

    MaxL please actually answer where my response to your question is wrong and provide the actual science and resurces of your own that proves me wrong. Insults are not an argument, no matter how expert you guys are at it. Must come from a lifetimes of bullying experience. Being a teacher I have zero respect for bullies. ps, just quoting words is not understanding, use some explanation to give them meaning.

    MemoryVault, focussing on a cherry picked portion of a temperature trend is not science, it is graphics. What is missing is the fact that 2001 to 2010 was the hottest on the instrumental record, that this only represents 5% of where the energy can go and that the oceans have heated to the end of the record and that the crosphere is melting faster than expected. Some short term variations in a cherry picked trend due to well explained natural factors is fairly weak and non scientific argument. Look at the whole trend, many ups and down are normal within the strong upward trend. You misunderstand and misuse the scientific method. Looking for other factors shows that by nature we should have cooled.

    Rereke, yes it is complicated, much more complicated than reducing the science to a cherry picked temp trend of 5% of the destination of the extra energy on the earth. I try to keep it simple until I can find someone who can actually answer my queries.

    16

    • #
      Heywood

      Woof Woof Yap Yap Woof Woof.

      Translation – You have presented an argument that I don’t agree with, and as I think I run this blog, I can also demand answers to my queries. Please ensure any answers conform to my confirmation bias, or I will denounce them as unscientific, opinion or witchcraft.

      42

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      OK Michael,

      I will accept the inevitability of your Attention Deficit Disorder, and admit that you are a Legend in your own Lunchtime.

      30

    • #
      Brett

      and still found zero science.

      Seems to be a recurring theme there, m bopper.

      20

    • #
      MaxL

      Ok Michael,
      In your argument you refer to the First Law of Thermodynamics.
      I presume therefore that you are familiar with this equation:
      dU = (delta)Q – (delta)W

      I rest my case.

      Oh, ps. If you don’t understand the words used, please ask.

      31

      • #
        Michael the Realist

        You rest your case? Don’t be ridiculous. You are doing the same thing as you did with the quoting of scientific words and thinking you have explained something. Show me where I was wrong, explain your reasoning and provide sources. Listing an equation does not prove understanding or how it applies to the topic at hand.

        26

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Michael,

          You may never have been told this, but mathematics is the language of science. If you don’t speak the language, MaxL cannot explain. For example, if you go on a tour of the Winter Palace, and you do not speak Russian, then it is hard to understand what is going on.

          But since you want somebody to supply you with sources (being unable, as you are, to find your own), here is a nice Wikipedia reference to the math.

          41

    • #
      AndyG55

      Repeat.. again..

      WHAT CLASSES HAVE YOU EVER TAKEN IN PHYSICS, CALCULUS, CHEMISTRY, STATISTICS, ETC. LIST THEM.?

      21

    • #
      AndyG55

      “as you have not provided any science for me to debate.”

      Neither have you.. just post-normal pseudo-science propaganda junk.

      33

      • #
        AndyG55

        Gees found it.
        “I have a science, commerce and education degree and I am also taking specific science education courses on Climate Change science.”

        So Science/commerce/teaching. Not much time for physics, chemistry or maths in that then, and probably taught by lectures in business, who themselves have very little REAL science.
        And a propaganda course on climate science. As I assumed.

        Pretty light-weight on the science, as is obvious.

        And I’ll bet you only use it for brain-washing the poor unfortunate students.

        22

        • #
          AndyG55

          Your limited science really does explain your gullibility.

          You know the saying “A little knowledge is dangerous”….. and you walk into the climate propaganda course totally unprepared to recognise when you are being CONNED !

          And you swallow it hook, line and sinker. :-)

          23

        • #
        • #
          Brett

          “I have a science, commerce and education degree and I am also taking specific science education courses on Climate Change science.”

          00

        • #
          AndyG55

          “And I’ll bet you only use it for brain-washing the poor unfortunate students.”

          Correction..

          And I’ll bet you only use it for brain-washing the poor unfortunate 12-16 year old students.

          Good thing we can re-educate them if they take up real science or engineering at Uni. :-)

          13

        • #

          Actually, that’s not an answer–it’s an evasion. Michael keeps demanding we “take a physics course” but will not answer if he has. “Science” is not an answer. And yes, if he even walked near a physics classroom, it would have been physics for non-scientists, just like the statistics for psych majors is. No real math or science involved–which may explain Michael’s inability to actually identify real science.

          31

          • #
            AndyG55

            Yep, Its becoming more and more obvious just why he is so open to this climate science brain-washing and cultism.

            Rudimentary scientific knowledge and a pusillanimous, arrogant ego that can’t cash its own chips.

            23

          • #
            AndyG55

            TAFE maybe ? or whatever his local variety is called.

            12

    • #
      AndyG55

      While you continue to load all your post with propaganda soaked crap,

      you will continue to be treated as a worthless non-entity.

      Either learn to recognise your own propaganda,

      or put up with being told the truth about your limited mental acuity.

      23

    • #

      WHAT CLASSES HAVE YOU TAKEN IN PHYSICS, CALCULUS, CHEMISTRY, STATISTICS, ETC? LIST THEM.

      No, you did not answer about your qualifications. Answer the question. If you keep telling people to take a physics class, you better have taken one yourself. Yet you refuse to answer. Which can only mean have NOT taken a physics course and may be telling people with PhD’s in physics to “go take a physics course”. You don’t seem to understand that makes you look like an idiot, do you?

      I would hope no one presents their qualifications before you do. If you won’t answer, why should anyone else. I already clearly indicated my qualifications in math and science. NOW IT’S YOUR TURN.

      It is frightening that you’re a “teacher”. We are doomed-by bad science taught by arrogant individuals who refuse to list their qualifications. Did you even present an accurate resume when hired??? Maybe they don’t require those where you teach?
      Seriously–c
      herry-picking accusations from a guy who has yet to produce all the unadjusted instrumental data from at least 1900 forward? We are still waiting for that, you know.

      21

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      You just learned how to scroll? Congratulations! See, you can learn something new!

      10

  • #
    MemoryVault

    MemoryVault, focussing on a cherry picked portion of a temperature trend is not science, it is graphics. What is missing is the fact that 2001 to 2010 was the hottest on the instrumental record,

    You just gotta love the the pig-headedness and the persistence.

    I provide a link to a graph, prepared by the MeT Office, from IPCC figures, spanning a hundred years, and that’s “cherry-picking a temperature trend”. (Not that the Master Baiter actually deigned to look at it, such activity is beneath him.)

    Meanwhile, a heavily manipulated, much adjusted and widely disputed land temperature record of only ten years, that disagrees with the satellite record, and is only what one expect coming out of the LIA anyway, is to be accepted without question as proof positive of CO2 induced, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    .
    Who can possibly question such infallible wisdom?

    61

    • #
      MemoryVault

      .
      Oh sorry, Master Baiter, I forgot to present my qualifications to comment on climastrology, as demanded.

      I can think, I can read, and I can do basic math.
      So far, those three skills have been enough to follow and discount your religion’s fanatical dogma.

      81

  • #

    Just took a quick glance at the UBC degree listing. Was this what Michael meant by “science” degree?

    The interdisciplinary Minor in Science Studies is designed for students in the Faculty of Arts who would like to examine the history, philosophy, sociology, and discourse practices of the scientific disciplines. The purpose of this program is to promote the study of scientific work and thought from a variety of perspectives usually associated with the humanities and social sciences. You will explore issues surrounding the production and representation of scientific knowledge, the creation and maintenance of intellectual authority in the practices of the sciences, and the relations between nature and culture. A background in science is not required, although curiosity about scientific matters is an asset.

    50

  • #
    Michael the Realist

    So still waiting for a list of qualifications, courses and grades from every poster here. Don’t be hypocritical, if you ask for something, you should be able to provide it yourselves. You are making it all about me because your science is so weak. The only argument you have is that cherry picked portion of the temp record while you ignore the fact that it is the highest in the instrumental record, that it follows 60 years where natural factors have produced a net cooling and that energy also goes into many other areas of the system. Shame on you guys for being unable to answer those basic facts and using insults and attacks instead.

    05

    • #
      Mark D.

      It’s kinda like Argument from Authority isn’t it Michael? Annoying isn’t it Michael?

      Almost as annoying as someone that doesn’t answer questions.

      show some integrity, it is pretty desperate of you.

      Right on man!

      SO WHERE DOES SOURCEWATCH GET ITS FUNDING?

      30

      • #
        Mark D.

        What’s the matter Michael? can’t you deal with the truth of where Sourcewatch get’s it’s funding?

        Or did you search it out for the first time and were so shocked as to be mute?

        You might as well answer because I’m not going to let this go.

        20

    • #

      What classes have you taken in physics, calculus, chemistry and statistics? List them.

      Michael doesn’t appear to have any qualifications and is an expert at deflection. We, on the other hand, are experts at recognizing deflection and understand it is only used to cover up a lack of knowledge and in Michael’s case, any qualifications. Face it, he wouldn’t have a clue as to why a trend line is drawn in a certain direction, what the only allowable reason for omitting data is (clue: it’s not so you get the answer you want) nor can he why say a Monte Carlo statistical method is appropriate (well, maybe not for Michael since it actually applies to modeling in many cases)at times and at times not, what are Bayesian statistics, what a confidence interval is (the IPCC has no idea what that one is either so we will cut Michael some slack on that one), regression to the mean, metadata analysis, and so many other really important concepts that allow those here to actually understand the science and how poor the theory really is. He’s stuck with coloring book physics. So sad.

      31

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      Yes we are waiting. Are you reading impaired? The challenge has been given after your first challenge was answered.

      20

    • #
      AndyG55

      Many here would WALK ALL OVER you when it comes to qualifications.

      Drop your slimy propaganda attitude if you want to communicate, and be prepared to listen and learn.

      While you stick with your “I know everything and I’m right” attitude, you will be treated like the low level twerp that you are.

      23

  • #
    Steve R W

    Hi Jo.

    It’s just my opinion, but surely it would be wise in having such old threads bumped back up to the front page every now and then for new visitors to engage?

    “Michael the Realist” has posted this.

    “So still waiting for a list of qualifications, courses and grades from every poster here.”

    I stand corrected, but this smells and stinks of David Appell and his standard modus operandi. It’s a classic case of deflection. Logic and reason gets lost with such crap. Suggesting people lack the brain power to engage simply based on academic qualifications, when yet anyone that has done basic research can come to the conclusion that those in the ivory towers have shown themselves to be total failures …ie those never ending failures of the high priests authors of global computer models.

    If it’s not David, Michael is just another moron not willing to engage in honest debate and wishes to shield himself from scrutiny simply because he is “educated” whilst ignoring the massive and monumental failures of the GIGO climate modellers.

    Just my thoughts.

    ——————
    Thanks Steve, noted. Hmmm. MTR does have a repeat pattern of commenting on old threads. His compulsion to follow the pack appears innate. I’m not sure about putting old posts up front again, unless MTR was raising actual evidence and promoting a scientific discussion. — Jo

    21

    • #
      gee Aye

      not David Appell. See my earlier post. He really is Michael and he lives in WA

      21

      • #
        Dave

        GeeAye,

        A quote from our friend below,

        “Over 3 billion people live on $2.50 per day or less, something you rarely consider or can even comprehend when living in a country like Australia but while travelling through South America and Africa you come up against the type of poverty that makes you despair and wonder what you can do about it.”

        With 1,517,375,000 people today living in South America and Africa today, do you think EV Cars, windmills, solar panels, geothermal energy, wave energy and socialism is the way forward for these countries?

        GeeAye, I don’t know how you did the connection above (right by the way) but interested to know how.

        Oh Michael, when you stayed in the expensive hotel in Athens, why didn’t you mention this on your comment 3 months ago. Oh, I also forgot Egypt 5 star visit.

        20

        • #
          gee Aye

          hmm not good use of block quotes

          02

        • #
          gee Aye

          the answer is no. Those things are not going to help this region, or any others for that matter. Anyone who says they know the “way forward ” for these countries is ignorant of the socio political climate of the region. They can’t know the economic and energy needs options of the region as the poor data of this region means an informed analysis is not possible.

          I also have no interest in commenting on whether Michael does or does not ascribe to your suggested solutions, but I think in terms of how you argue your case you should be careful.

          22

    • #

      Steve R W: A long ways back up the thread, Michael told me that I needed to take a course in physics. #77.1.1 I answered that I had taken courses in math and science. Later, he did it again to another commenter and I started demanding he list his courses taken. He refused and used the psychological/con artist method where you refuse to answer the question but demand everyone else answer it. I don’t know if that answer was from some play book or other activist, but it’s actually quite common. Now, he keeps avoiding answering the question, while demanding everyone here answer it, which I take to mean he has a degree in pottery or something and doesn’t want to admit it. He hung himself on this one–mouthing off and then someone called him on it.

      01

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      Steve,

      David Appell was put on a ban on another blog for stalking the owner (he literally was publishing false addresses and threatening him) the way Spike Lee terrorized the older couple in Florida.

      he is a nasty character.

      00

  • #
    MemoryVault

    ATTENTION YOU LOT

    Back at comment 87.1.2 Gee Aye gave us the biggest scoop any of us have seen in a long time, when he disclosed the lair of the odious, and, as it turns out, totally hypocritical, Master Baiter, aka Michael the Realist. You’ve all been commenting on little else since.

    But a quick check reveals Gee Aye has been awarded only two thumbs up for this bit of genius detective work, and one of them was from me. Now come on boys and girls (and host and MODS), for all his faults, Gee Aye deserves much better credit than this.

    I reckon you all owe to it to the guy to give him a thumbs up for his sterling effort.
    (I understand if you access the blog via a G3 phone, you can even give more than one.)

    30

    • #
      gee Aye

      thanks but no thanks. No detective work required. I knew it ages ago and so would you all if you weren’t such a blinkered bunch of curmudgeons. I inserted my comment as part joke and part wake up call. Stop looking inward and start thinking about the wider world.

      Think about Michael. He actually didn’t hide himself and he has a life to lead and, from his blog, commit his life to causes with more genuine concern than most of the population. This fact, rather than the fact that you disagree with him should be paramount.

      Also the hypocrite charge is a terrible line of argument – one of the worst when it comes to fallacies. His arguments should be completely unaffected by the fact that he gallavanted around the world. If they are not suggest how they are not. My god he ate meat and didn’t check the work practices of the farms that produced his coffee either. So?

      22

      • #
        Dave

        GeeAye,

        “I inserted my comment as part joke and part wake up call.”

        Why would you provide such a blinkered bunch of curmudgeons as us, with food for the shark pond? You’ve made a mistake, and didn’t think Mark D, Heywwod, AndyG55, Tony and MV would jump on it like a tonne of bricks.

        Look inward GeeAye, you find more truth than looking outward. Don’t poooo in your own nest, as the Wedge Tailed Eagle said to the Tasmanian wind mill erector before the big flush.

        00

      • #
        MemoryVault

        .
        Sorry Gee Aye, but I’m not buying. If you don’t find anything hypocritical about a little turd coming here, day in, day out, for three months, lecturing on the “need” for all of “us” to mend our ways, forsake fossil fuels, clothe ourselves in sackcloth and live in caves, when he spent the past entire year clocking up a bigger carbon footprint than most readers here will ever even get to dream about, globetrotting and staying in five star hotels, then so be it. You’re entitled to an opinion,such as it is.

        And yes, he DID eat meat and didn’t check the work practices of the farms that produced his coffee, and neither would most of us. But then, most of us would not spend a goodly portion of our days bemoaning the lot of poor people and exhorting everyone else to “consider the poor” – just maybe by not eating meat and checking the work practices of the farms that produce our coffee. No he doesn’t directly say that, but he espouses and promotes the writings and viewpoints of people with EXACTLY those views.

        And I’m not sure how setting up a blog bragging about an extended world trip, and tacking on a page labeled “how I know I am right”, filled with cut and pasted crap from SKS, actually translates into “commit(ting) his life to causes with more genuine concern than most of the population”.

        As near as I can tell, the only things the Master Baiter is currently committed to is thread-bombing old posts on this site, and planning his next carbon extravaganza world trip.

        33

      • #

        Gee aye: No, he is not committing his life to causes greater than himself and not hiding it. Some commenters on here have links to their blogs (the names in red link to their blogs). I have a conservation blog and a wind blog in addition to a climate change one. A blog owner once said I loved wind turbines based on the title of my wind blog (whynotwind). That didn’t stop me from putting the information in. I believe one of the objects of blogging is to get the word out. The fact that Michael did not link speaks volumes. True commitment would mean he proudly speaks of all of his work. That’s not what we saw in Michael.

        21

    • #
      Heywood

      Hear Hear MV.

      11

  • #
    Michael the Realist

    Sorry Gee Aye, but I’m not buying. If you don’t find anything hypocritical about a little turd coming here, day in, day out, for three months, lecturing on the “need” for all of “us” to mend our ways, forsake fossil fuels, clothe ourselves in sackcloth and live in caves, when he spent the past entire year clocking up a bigger carbon footprint than most readers here will ever even get to dream about, globetrotting and staying in five star hotels, then so be it.

    Again total lies. I have NEVER told anyone clothe ourselves in sackclothe, live in caves or even to forsake fossil fuels immediately. And anytime anyone has asked I have always said I love technology, love computers and wish everybody to live their lives fully. You always have pigeon holed me as a greenie cave dweller when I have never been that. What I am is a realist, that has spent a long time looking at the science, the data and the evidence, and blog sites like this one continuously prove to me that I am on the right track. I am hoping for action that would make a practical difference, this can only come from governments and eventually needs to be global and coordinated to actually have any chance of protecting our childrens futures.

    Unable to actually fault the science and the data as presented you guys have totally focussed (almost exclusively) on personal attack, and now to the point of outing me. As I told Jo once in our emails, I don’s use my real name because I have been threatened before, to the point of a guy on face book threatening to bash me up and contacting my work trying to rubbish my reputation and lose my livelihood. I don’t do these things, I don’t even try to find our who anybody really is, to me it is only the debate that is important. At least now you know that everything I have ever said about myself is true. I am a teacher, I have travelled extensively, I do have grankids etc. I would request that you leave my family out of this, though I am not confident, you have shown yourselves to be of questionable morals and ethics in many more ways than one. This is what happens to climate scientists like Michael Mann, threats, intimidation, attacks professionally etc. A way to shut down legitimate debate because your actual science and argument is so weak.

    Please have a read of when I walked on a glacier, I point out how much it has receded in 30 years, and in the Patagonias nearly 90% (at the time) of the glaciers were receding. http://travellingcoeliac.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/not-another-f-glacier_04.html

    If even a small percentage of the funds WASTED on alternative non-energy were funnelled to South Africa and South America and other poor nations, by-passing the politicians and other money scammers… imagine the GOOD it COULD have been done. !

    People in Africa are suffering and dying due to climate change, that could have been mitigated if action started in the 80′s when the scientists started requesting it and when the IPCC was first started.

    An interesting video showing how the same people denied the link between tobacco and cancer are doing the same thing with climate change. http://climatecrocks.com/2013/11/25/new-video-links-between-big-tobacco-and-climate-denial-rhymes-with-smoky-joe/

    So, why do I travel? Well I do try to travel with as low a carbon footprint as possible, 3/4 of the trip was a lot of trains, buses, walking, staying in hostels and backpackers and with people who had put us up (please leave them alone). But frankly I have nearly given up that the country and global action necessary to make a difference will eventuate in time. Consequently I am not leaving anything in the tank for retirement and trying to see all the world now, and see all the bits that are disappearing before it is to late. Not that I think the planet will disappear or anything, but that glaciers are melting, extreme weather is increasing and by the time the worl wakes up they will then need to implement extreme measures (because they will have left it to late. Also politically things will get more unstable as food supplies dwindle and the large amount of climate refugees look for new homes. The military are already planning for that eventuality. So travel will become more expensive, dangerous and difficult.

    So to finish, if this post is printed in full I will not post again. The risks to my family are to high, so you have won. I hope sooner rather than later you will actually look at the science, data and observations with a more skeptical eye and reduce your confirmation bias and look at ALL THE DATA (not just the small bits that fit your argument), AND SCIENCE AND OBSERVATIONS IN THEIR ENTIRETY.

    25

    • #
      Michael the Realist

      Woops I had meant to post this link to a report on the already extensive human impact after the Africa comment, but forgot. So will post one more time… :-)

      http://www.ghf-ge.org/human-impact-report.pdf

      25

    • #
      Mark D.

      So to finish, if this post is printed in full I will not post again. The risks to my family are to high, so you have won.

      Strawman. No poster here has made threats, there is no “risks to[o] high. Now it’s just a cop out.

      You really couldn’t deal with the truth about SourceWatch could you.

      30

    • #
      AndyG55

      Good bye Michael..

      I hope sooner rather than later you will actually look at the science, data and observations with a more skeptical eye and reduce your confirmation bias and look at ALL THE DATA (not just the small bits that fit your argument), and learn the true meaning of science.

      Getting a proper science education would be a really good start for you, but like an alcoholic, the first step is to admit that you have a problem.

      44

    • #
      AndyG55

      “due to climate change, that could have been mitigated if action started in the 80′s when the scientists started requesting it and when the IPCC was first started”

      ROFLMAO

      That is probably THE MOST RIDICULOUS comment even you have posted..

      IT basically defines your UTTER CLUELESSNESS !!!

      44

  • #
    Mark D.

    Again total lies. I have NEVER told anyone clothe ourselves in sackclothe, live in caves or even to forsake fossil fuels immediately. And anytime anyone has asked I have always said I love technology, love computers and wish everybody to live their lives fully. You always have pigeon holed me as a greenie cave dweller when I have never been that. What I am is a realist, that has spent a long time looking at the science, the data and the evidence, and blog sites like this one continuously prove to me that I am on the right track. I am hoping for action that would make a practical difference, this can only come from governments and eventually needs to be global and coordinated to actually have any chance of protecting our childrens futures.

    That would be your denial. The reality is that what you claim is necessary to mitigate the effects of co2 would in fact require us to live in austerity. Sack-cloth is a metaphor for that austerity. That is and has been OUR POINT. You refuse to see or admit that.

    Unable to actually fault the science and the data as presented you guys have totally focussed (almost exclusively) on personal attack, and now to the point of outing me. As I told Jo once in our emails, I don’s use my real name because I have been threatened before, to the point of a guy on face book threatening to bash me up and contacting my work trying to rubbish my reputation and lose my livelihood.

    I do not believe any of the posters you have sparred with here at Jo’s site would make threats to you. You make this veiled connection as a last ditch effort to malign the site and the regulars here. Shame on you. If you’ve been threatened, I encourage you to follow all law enforcement channels available to you.

    I don’t do these things,

    Good for you.

    I don’t even try to find our who anybody really is, to me it is only the debate that is important. At least now you know that everything I have ever said about myself is true. I am a teacher, I have travelled extensively, I do have grankids etc. I would request that you leave my family out of this,

    And I’m telling you with several years of experience hanging out here at Jo’s site I do not believe any regular poster here would do such a thing.

    though I am not confident, you have shown yourselves to be of questionable morals and ethics in many more ways than one. This is what happens to climate scientists like Michael Mann, threats, intimidation, attacks professionally etc. A way to shut down legitimate debate because your actual science and argument is so weak.

    Strawman, and a insidious and pernicious attempt to malign us with absolutely no evidence. You have the gall to question our “morals and ethics”?

    Please have a read of when I walked on a glacier, I point out how much it has receded in 30 years, and in the Patagonias nearly 90% (at the time) of the glaciers were receding. http://travellingcoeliac.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/not-another-f-glacier_04.html

    Big deal. One Glacier.

    If even a small percentage of the funds WASTED on alternative non-energy were funnelled to South Africa and South America and other poor nations, by-passing the politicians and other money scammers… imagine the GOOD it COULD have been done. !

    That’s been OUR POINT!

    People in Africa are suffering and dying due to climate change, that could have been mitigated if action started in the 80′s when the scientists started requesting it and when the IPCC was first started.

    A complete falsehood, a complete nonsense.

    An interesting video showing how the same people denied the link between tobacco and cancer are doing the same thing with climate change. http://climatecrocks.com/2013/11/25/new-video-links-between-big-tobacco-and-climate-denial-rhymes-with-smoky-joe/

    Another of YOUR conspiracies.

    So, why do I travel? Well I do try to travel with as low a carbon footprint as possible, 3/4 of the trip was a lot of trains, buses, walking, staying in hostels and backpackers and with people who had put us up (please leave them alone). But frankly I have nearly given up that the country and global action necessary to make a difference will eventuate in time. Consequently I am not leaving anything in the tank for retirement and trying to see all the world now, and see all the bits that are disappearing before it is to late. Not that I think the planet will disappear or anything, but that glaciers are melting, extreme weather is increasing and by the time the worl wakes up they will then need to implement extreme measures (because they will have left it to late. Also politically things will get more unstable as food supplies dwindle and the large amount of climate refugees look for new homes. The military are already planning for that eventuality. So travel will become more expensive, dangerous and difficult.

    And you are a selfish, self indulgent hypocrite. The money you spent traveling could have saved several people from starvation. Provided life saving medicine to many more. Hypocrite.

    So to finish, if this post is printed in full I will not post again. The risks to my family are to high, so you have won. I hope sooner rather than later you will actually look at the science, data and observations with a more skeptical eye and reduce your confirmation bias and look at ALL THE DATA (not just the small bits that fit your argument), AND SCIENCE AND OBSERVATIONS IN THEIR ENTIRETY.

    It is you Michael that refuse to look at ALL the data. You embody every fault that you ascribe to us. I think I pity your grand children.

    54

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      I pity his students.

      43

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        I suppose at least we can be thankful that he has retired from teaching. I wonder how many other pure nutters are out there teaching the children?
        Note that he recognises that “politically things will get more unstable as food supplies dwindle and the large amount of climate refugees look for new homes. The military are already planning for that eventuality. So travel will become more expensive, dangerous and difficult.”
        Ironically, if this is the case, it will be the result his cult.

        41

  • #

    So he finds an out that leaves him the hero. So no unexpected. I suppose he never noticed that some of us use photos of ourselves (never me, of course–I hate being photographed), pictures of where we live, have blogs with our full names on them, etc. Doesn’t sound like anyone here is in fear of being “outed” or tracked down.

    This is a common complaint by “activists” who mistake the message they preach as the reason people get angry at them. Trust me, if Michael preached the same message concerning the need for vaccinations, better school lunches, etc, he’s still going be disliked and possibly threatened. It’s not the message–it’s the insulting, angry intolerant behaviour demanding everyone agree with their viewpoints. I have had blog commenter that would be ran out of town if he argued for saving homeless animals because he is so belligerent and demanding. Sadly, they will never understand that no matter what their cause, they will be disliked because it’s their presentation, not their message.

    22

    • #
      AndyG55

      “that leaves him the hero”

      Only in his own feeble little mind !

      12

      • #

        Of course it’s just in his mind. However, he would not leave without some rationalization that he had to because he was unfairly treated (by his definition) or whatever. If he left the discussion because he grew tired of it, then he would fail in his mind. Which he would find unacceptable. He found the “out” needed for him to leave.

        13

  • #

    Since my other comment was snagged by the moderator (and this one may well be also), I will add that now that Michael’s blog is out there, I would hope no one from here would start commenting on his blog. I don’t see many of us caring, but commenting anything but very nicely will only fuel Michael’s ideation. He may now take the blog down since there are many thousands of readers here that know the blog exists. While he is a very bothersome person, he’s not someone who will learn and is best left alone if he remains off this blog.

    11

    • #
      AndyG55

      Had a quick look, the travel parts are actually quite interesting.

      He should just remove the page or so of JUNK about climate science, and he might have a worthwhile blog. That irrational climate claptrap massively devalues the blog’s existence.

      30

  • #

    [...] suzuki is a fool..for a supposed leader of the green movement to be so out of touch shows ignorance and a closed minded stance..here is some more evidence of his stupidity: http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/david-suzuki-bombs-on-qa-knows-nothing-about-the-climate/ [...]

    00

  • #
  • #
    out west

    Tis folly not to believe we are raping this planet. He might not have the knowledge some fools believe he should have but just jump in a plane and travel the world if you think what we are doing is sustainable. And crack open another cold beer and chuck another plastic bag in the bin and enjoy, we WILL be known as the destroyers of our planet.

    01

  • #
  • #

    [...] cooperation. At the time, there was a bit of criticism of Dr Suzuki after his appearance on the ABC show Q&A but despite this criticism I still enjoyed his talk and believe in some of the points he made. You [...]

    00