JoNova

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


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

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



Climate Rage: We absolutely cannot have… a rational conversation!

This post bumped to the top so it doesn’t get lost under the newer post: Solar Model Part IV below.

In The Rage of the Climate Central Planners, Jeffrey Tucker describes something we’ve all experienced. That moment where the social atmosphere turns suddenly poisonous. Climate Rage!

Namecalling is a tool to stop debate. It works to keep the wandering minds in the square. But the flipside is that sooner or later the smallest crack, the tiniest doubt, elicts a bizarre over-the-top response and the mismatch reveals the game. How many passionate skeptics are created in the moment a fence-sitter realizes that those who say they love the environment will risk friendships and burn relationships in order NOT to discuss it? For surely there is only one possible interpretation of Climate Rage.

“They really can’t allow a debate, because they will certainly and absolutely and rightly lose.”

“When that is certain, the only way forward is to rage.”


Jeffrey Tucker:

The conversation with a good friend — brilliant man but a head full of confidence in the planning state — was going well. We’ve agreed on so much…    Then the other day that changed. For the first time ever, the topic of climate change and policy response came up….

I’m convinced that fear over climate change (the ultimate public goods “problem”) is the last and best hope for those lustful to rule the world by force. Some people just want to run the world…

I just hinted at it vaguely. It was enough. He began to shake. He turned white and began to pace. He called me a denialist. He was horrified to discover that his good friend turns out to be some kind of extremist weirdo who disparages science. He began to accuse me of believing in things I never said, of failing to read the science (though later admitting that he hadn’t read the science).

I stood there stunned that I could have so quickly and inadvertently changed the whole dynamic of our conversation and even friendship — all for having suggested that something seemed a bit out of whack with mainstream opinion on this topic.

This is not the first time this has happened. In fact, I should have come to expect it by now. Every time this subject comes up with anyone who favors government action on climate change, the result has been the same. We seem to be unable to have a rational conversation. It’s like an article of faith for them, and I’m suddenly the dangerous heretic who believes the world is flat.

Now, in light of this, I read Paul Krugman this morning. He writes in his column: “Read or watch any extended debate over climate policy and you’ll be struck by the venom, the sheer rage, of the denialists.”

The denialists? My whole experience has been the opposite. By denialists, I’m assuming he means people who doubt the merit of his grand central plan for the world economy. Among them, I’ve found a vast range of views, an open mindedness, and curiosity about the full range of opinion, and, quite often, an attitude that seems to me — if anything — to be far too quick to defer to all main conventions of this debate.

If you want tolerance and humility, and a willingness to defer to the evidence and gradual process of scientific discovery, you will find it among those who have no desire to manage the world from the top down.

What can we say about those who want to empower a global coterie of elites to make the decision about what technologies we can use and how much under the guise of controlling something so gigantically amorphous and difficult to measure, detect, and precisely manage as earth’s surface temperature?

This is a level of chutzpah that surpasses the wildest fantasies of any socialist planner.

Read The Rage of the Climate Central Planners. His site at Liberty.me.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.0/10 (197 votes cast)
Climate Rage: We absolutely cannot have... a rational conversation!, 9.0 out of 10 based on 197 ratings

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

879 comments to Climate Rage: We absolutely cannot have… a rational conversation!

  • #
    Chris F

    Now, in light of this, I read Paul Krugman this morning. He writes in his column: “Read or watch any extended debate over climate policy and you’ll be struck by the venom, the sheer rage, of the denialists.”

    Classic projectionism. Any and all debates I’ve ever watched or read about it was the warmists who went into the rage. Krugman knows it too and thus he goes into projection mode.


    Report this

    1270

    • #
      Bulldust

      Should have threaded… missed that you mentioned projection :)


      Report this

      100

    • #
      James McCown

      Another thing the warmists do is project their lack of knowledge about science onto other people, especially skeptics. How many times have you heard them say stuff like “You don’t believe in SCIENCE?” or “I’m not a scientist, so I take their word for it. And so should you”.


      Report this

      760

      • #

        I’m not a scientist, so I take their word for it. And so should you.

        That argument is destroyed is they are induced to read a scientific paper. But there’s little danger of that because too many are awestruck by “science”, which I understand is the reason why so many use “the science” as an argument, believing that others would not be so impertinent as to question something so awesome.


        Report this

        720

        • #
          Andy (old name Andy)

          Yeah I always laugh when the the “so you don’t believe in gravity” types rubbish happens… Newton measured it but never explained why masses attract, nor how. Near 400 years later we may/may not (Higgs Bosen) have a clue on mass.
          A long way to go but some love to think it is all sorted.
          If David Evans has found an accurate model it will be up to the boffins to sort out the how and why. (That is boffin meant respectfully not the assumed meaning used today)


          Report this

          220

      • #
        Jon

        What they really mean is that we all should believe in their policy based science?


        Report this

        120

    • #
      BilB

      Climate rage? Projection mode???

      I don’t think that there are any scientists who will ever forget this JoNovian dummy spit..

      http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/pnas-witchdoctors-of-science/

      [You help prove the point of this post by using ad homs, ('projection mode', 'JoNovian dummy spit') rather than point out anything factually incorrect in the Jo Nova post you have linked. Well done! - Mod]


      Report this

      2103

      • #
        Peter Miller

        I think you will find that those who practice real science, and are not obliged to sing from the government hymn sheet, will have only contempt for those who claim to practice climate science.

        There are one helluva lot of us and we are getting increasingly fed up with the drivel peddled by the Climate Establishment about imminent Thermageddon.

        Anyhow. Let’s try this for starters. Name one instance of supposed global warming that is obviously not part of a natural climate cycle.

        Dodgy computer models do not count. So what are you left with?

        Answer: Not a lot.


        Report this

        500

        • #
          BilB

          Ummmm, the heating of the oceans, the extinction of species, desertification, habitat decimation, melting of the Arctic Tundra, the release of sea shelf methane hydrates, expansion of the tropical zone with the subsequent influx of insects into previously unaffected areas, and the migration of insect bourne deseases, as a small selection.


          Report this

          498

          • #
            Mark D.

            YAWN! Really lame Bilb, but please explain to William Connolley how the catastrophes you mention are fabricated by us skeptics. He needs your support


            Report this

            341

          • #
            the Griss

            Oceans are cooling.

            There are more know species now than ever before.. Please name 5 that have become extinct in the last 10 years.

            The deserts are actually SHINKING and REVEGETATION. thanks to CO2

            Above 80N is below its normal temp, and looks like having probably its shortest time EVER above freezing.

            etc etc

            ie.. YOU GOT NUFFIN’ !!!


            Report this

            402

            • #
              Andrew McRae

              I was surprised that you used the old HadSST2 data set instead of the new and improved HadSST3. That is very interesting because using HadSST3 shows almost no cooling in the ocean.
              As to whether “improved” means more physically correct or more politically correct is yet another Climate Science Mystery.


              Report this

              101

              • #
                the Griss

                I know. :-)

                It was done on purpose, to see if one of the alarmistas would pick up on it and use the “improved” data.

                We all know what “improved” means to Hadley or Giss ! ;-)

                It mean “put together” to show more warming.

                The surface temp record has squashed the 1940′s peak more and more at each iteration.

                The fact that even HadSST3 , with all its “corrections” still shows basically dead level, almost certainly confirms we are ALREADY in a cooling trend.


                Report this

                251

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                tG, I did a bit of digging to find out how much of what you said was hyperbole versus fact, with depressing results.
                The sordid history of the adjustments to the ICOADS raw series is summarized (presumably accurately) by a commentator on Tallbloke’s site. Numerous problems were identified with the Hadley Centre adjustments in a 2008 paper by Thomson and co-authors, a paper which Hadley couldn’t ignore for very long. According to McIntyre, the HadSST3 version is the first step on the path to undoing much of the unfounded assumptions of the HadSST2 adjustments. Indeed, HadSST3 reduces the temperature trend for 1950 to 2006 downwards 29% compared to HadSST2. The HadSST2 is much more of a hockey stick version of temperature than version 3. (Presumably you do not prefer hockeysticks.)
                In terms of medium term climate modelling, while HadSST3 still may not be the whole truth, it is clearly preferable to HadSST2.

                One graph on Judth Curry’s blog is also revealing. In the short term over the last 10 years, you appear to be correct that HadSST3 has the 2005-2010 period adjusted higher than HadSST2, which has the effect of removing the recent decline (assuming there was a decline). Your guess is as good as mine as to why there should be any adjustment after the 1980s that differs between version 2 and version 3, since the main kerfuffle about ICOADs data was about the effects of canvas buckets and engine intakes between 19th century and WW2, not about the modern fleet and modern practices. The switch between v2 and v3 would imply that modern engine room water intakes after 2005 were cooler than previously thought. Where does that belief come from??
                It’s yet another Climate Science Mystery.


                Report this

                90

              • #
                the Griss

                Goddard must be wanting to destroy their credibility.

                The got rid of Hansen, and then put Gavin Schmidt in charge… seriously ????


                Report this

                101

              • #
                Andrew McRae

                Sorry for not noticing earlier another difference between the v2 and v3 data on WoodForTrees.
                The HadSST3 runs up to present day, but the HadSST2 does not seem to have been updated since mid 2013, so the graph I showed above included more recent warm months which were not in HadSST2.

                A WfT chart of HadSST2 and HadSST3 trends between 2001 and July 2013 is here.

                The trend lines show (by my eye) about a 0.025 degree total difference between start and finish. Using the detrend function to remove this (HadSST3-HadSST2) adjustment, making it more similar to HadSST2, is actually more than enough to offset the recent warm months and produces a clearly cooling trend line even with the most recent data.

                I’m now beyond making claims of truth about this data, I’m just working with what we’re given. :(


                Report this

                50

          • #
            Bulldust

            Seems to me BilB that the following safety sheet for CO2 needs updating:

            http://docs.airliquide.com.au/msdsau/AL062.pdf

            They should add that this chemical can cause droughts, floods, heating, melting ice sheets, rising sea levels, species extinction etc, etc, etc… Clearly an egregious oversight by Air Liquide…


            Report this

            180

          • #
            Peter Crawford

            Bilb – That should be insect borne not bourne. You have been watching too many Matt Damon films.

            Interestingly, one of the worlds top chaps on vector borne diseases, Prof. Paul Reiter, does not share your view. Google him and be enlightened.


            Report this

            150

          • #
            Peter Miller

            Extraordinary, not one of your points has any merit or truth in it.

            You need to stop reading Greenpeace BS. They are there with the specific remit to scare you, while taking your cash. In such circumstances, the truth is always the first casualty.


            Report this

            141

            • #
              bobl

              Doesn’t that fit the definition of terrorist? Or maybe just fraudster? Last time I looked people or organisations who scare or rhtreaten people or fabricate a story for gain were criminals.


              Report this

              90

          • #
            Winston

            BilB,

            I have repeatedly asked you but never received a reply.

            By what mechanism does downwelling LWIR heat the oceans when it cannot penetrate beyond the first couple of microns of the ocean surface, thereby at most only acting to alter the surface propensity to evaporation?

            Temperate zone desertification is much more related to cooling rather than warming periods, as evidenced during the late Bronze Age 1000 BCE or so with the destruction of the Hittite and Assyrian empires due to severe prolonged drought conditions turned the larger part of the Levant and Anatolia to become desert-like, with loss of large tracts of arable lands in the “fertile crescent” leading to widespread crop failure- all during a period of global cooling between the Minoan and Roman warming periods. Similarly in the LIA period, this saw the prevalence of severe drought conditions which provoked the decline of the Incan civilisation.

            Malaria is not remotely confined to tropical areas (except by virtue of geopolitics and the inequality of the global distribution of wealth, industrial know-how, medicine and pesticides), and in fact some of the worst outbreaks of malaria in history have occurred in Russia and China, while interestingly it spread in the dark ages (a cold period) to as far north as Sweden and the Baltic states, the Korean peninsula, and even the marshier areas of England- these are hardly “tropical”in any sense of the word ( http://skishore.wikispaces.com/file/view/Evo-Historical+Aspects+of+Malaria.pdf ). The prevalence of malaria in modern times is entirely reliant for its epidemiology upon poverty/poor living standards, and rural locales in the developing world.

            Habitats are obviously much more likely to diminish in a glacial period (not much grows under a km of ice), while cold bleak landscapes like the far north of Scotland are far less hospitable habitats than tropical and subtropical landscapes which teem with life comparatively.

            As to melting tundra, for much of the early part of the Holocene, (the “Climate Optimum’), the Arctic was largely ice free and yet thermageddon did not eventuate. I doubt whether moving peat bogs north would make significant difference to their overall prevalence, nor any putative contribution that might be speculated to have on the “greenhouse effect”.

            There are more than enough real and present dangers in the world right now as we speak, rather than diverting our attention needlessly and recklessly to highly speculative, and quite possibly illusory, problems that are more than likely never to eventuate, and even in the unlikely event that they did are of possibly limited or negligible consequence for humanity on a comparative level.


            Report this

            302

            • #
              Anthony

              Similarly in the LIA period, this saw the prevalence of severe drought conditions which provoked the decline of the Incan civilisation.

              I had never heard this before? The Inca only ruled for around 100 years before the Spanish conquered them. But during that period built a large number of temples and cities throughout their empire. I could be wrong, but my impression has always been that they flourished during their brief time in the sun.


              Report this

              40

              • #
                Winston

                http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/08/the-medieval-warm-period-linked-to-the-success-of-machu-picchu-inca/

                The Incas thrived from about 1200 through until the 1600′s due to the latter vestiges of the MWP which allowed their “vertical agriculture” higher into the Andes mountain terrain.

                Three factors contributed to their decline- conquest of the Spanish in 1572, disease- smallpox and typhus especially- and the beginnings of the LIA, when La Nina predominance meant that the west coast of Sth. America became colder and much more drought ravaged- severely reducing the altitude in which they could farm, as well as their ability to till the land at lower altitudes effectively due to lack of rainfall. The Spanish conquest on its own would not have been sufficient to cause their civilisation to decline so dramatically, it needed the other 2, with arguably the climate of that time, and its devastating effect on their centrally planned agrarian economy being the prime cause that struck the “killer blow”.


                Report this

                101

          • #
            bobl

            Ok, so to “mitigate insect bourn diseases” from the poor the solution is to prevent them from developing advanced societies that can afford insect management and high quality treatment and burning their food in our car engines so they die from hunger instead of malaria, geniuses these greens


            Report this

            120

          • #
            sophocles

            the heating of the oceans, the extinction of species, desertification, habitat decimation, melting of the Arctic Tundra, the release of sea shelf methane hydrates, expansion of the tropical zone with the subsequent influx of insects into previously unaffected areas, and the migration of insect bourne deseases,

            Yawn. All that and more, such as lots of sea level rise, happens in every interstadial. It’s happened at least 8 times over the last 800,000 years. You need to experience the weather/climate and life during the stadials to appreciate the current interstadial.

            Homo Sapiens Sapiens made it through the last one but Homo Neandthalensis didn’t. Don’t panic. The cold will soon return.


            Report this

            30

          • #
            cohenite

            The oceans are NOT heating. This is a massive lie and is simply revealed by ARGO data:

            http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/ocean-heat-content-another-simple.html


            Report this

            21

      • #
        Manfred

        You’re another one that drifted off the set of ‘Lord of the Rings’. Oscar winning stuff.


        Report this

        51

      • #
        Sean McHugh

        BilB,

        You are too sensitive. This is a dummy spit:

        ‘Execute’ Skeptics! Shock Call To Action: ‘At what point do we jail or execute global warming deniers’ — ‘Shouldn’t we start punishing them now?’

        So is this:

        US college professor demands imprisonment for climate-change deniers

        So is this:

        Another Climate Alarmist Wants To Imprison ‘Deniers’

        And lastly, unless you would like to see some or lots more:

        In this article I am going to suggest that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers.

        So harden up, precious.


        Report this

        502

      • #
        Bob_FJ

        BilB,

        Just in case you did not twig that Sean McHugh was inviting you to click on a link on ‘dummy spits’, here it is in full:

        http://www.climatedepot.com/2009/06/03/execute-skeptics-shock-call-to-action-at-what-point-do-we-jail-or-execute-global-warming-deniers-shouldnt-we-start-punishing-them-now/

        Hover your mouse pointer over the link, and go click.

        Oh, and if Sheri (AKA Reality Check) is around I suggest she should also contemplate it.


        Report this

        101

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        To be honest, I have often pondered what happens inside a warmists mind that causes them to just lose the plot and go white hot bonkers at you….

        I’m now convinced somnething in the collectivist hive-mindset seems to program them with a “destroy or be destroyed” response.

        I am now wondering whether we shoudl treat socialism/collectivism as a destructive cult?


        Report this

        150

        • #
          Eddie

          When they have no credibility left all they can do is shout you down. Even if it only harms their cause further they cannot be seen to tolerate any suggestion of dissent. That is what marks them out as cultists.


          Report this

          130

        • #
          PeterK

          OriginalSteve:

          “I am now wondering whether we shoudl treat socialism/collectivism as a destructive cult?” should read

          I am now wondering whether we shoudl treat communism/socialism/collectivism as a destructive cult?

          Yes, yes, yes!!! Aren’t these the same idiots that were responsible for the 10′s of millions of deaths in the former Soviet Union, China, Eastern Europe, etc, etc, etc?


          Report this

          100

        • #
          Bob Cormack

          OriginalSteve:

          To be honest, I have often pondered what happens inside a warmists mind that causes them to just lose the plot and go white hot bonkers at you….

          I’m now convinced somnething in the collectivist hive-mindset seems to program them with a “destroy or be destroyed” response.

          Good grief! This is exactly the plot of the 1967 Sci-Fi film Five Million Years to Earth:

          Those under the mind-control of an alien hive’s machine go on a rampage, seeking out and killing all who are not also totally controlled. The parallels with the CAGW activists are chilling — and both contagions started in England.


          Report this

          20

        • #
          Peter Miller

          The collective noun for climate alarmists?

          The Borg.


          Report this

          50

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        Grow up billy.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        Chester

        Agreed. JoNova’s whole modus operandi for her site is based on heckling, doubt-creating, defaming abuse and contrarianism.

        The hypocrisy of this post is therefore loudly laughable.

        But we are glad to see that she and Rocket Scientist Babe are now trying to construct some real science. admirable, but we’ll wait to see what this paint-dryingly painful emerging piece of science genius brings forth before resetting the credibility ledger from zero where it has been stuck fast for years.

        The timing may just be unfortunate for them as they clearly believe they’ve constructed a model predicting cooling just as an El Niño is emerging and we’d hate to see them have to do a full WUWT in the pike position.

        Forgive my scepticism.


        Report this

        441

        • #
          the Griss

          “The hypocrisy of this post is therefore loudly laughable”

          You mean YOUR post.. I assume..

          Your whole post is one long abuse, as they always are

          That is all you ever bring to the blog, you know nothing else.

          But that is to be expected, because that’s what you are, an abuse to human intelligence, a putrid stench on the soul of humanity.


          Report this

          181

          • #
            Chester

            The Griss delivers his usual Group Think rebuke. The equivalent of “You are!”

            And then, laughably, delivers a stream of childish abuse. is it your aim to appear idiotic, Griss? I think you can retire well satisfied that you’ve achieved all there is.


            Report this

            423

            • #
              bobl

              I had to laugh, “Groupthink”, it’s so funny I am having trouble breathing…

              After I pick myself up from rolling around the floor.

              Chester, you obviously can’t read, the last five days shows you that herding sceptics is like herding cats, everyone here is an independent thinker, (well except you and Bilb and a few other warmists) every individual has come here on a different path and has different proofs why CAGW is wrong.

              There is only one groupthinking brainless herd in this debate, and it’s you, Bilb, Will and others singing from the Hymn book of big green, you know the same big green with 300 Million in income and to which a 5 Million dollar exchange trade loss is inconsequential.


              Report this

              172

            • #
              bullocky

              Chester:
              ‘The Griss delivers his usual Group Think rebuke’
              -
              chester unbellyfeel groupthink chester bellyfeel consensus


              Report this

              72

            • #
              the Griss

              You poor insignificant little worm. !

              One day you will find you have something to offer society..

              Your removal from it.


              Report this

              62

        • #
          bullocky

          Chester:
          ‘ JoNova’s whole modus operandi for her site is based on heckling, doubt-creating, defaming abuse and contrarianism.’
          -
          On no, not green victimhood again!


          Report this

          101

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        Thanks for taking us back to that one. Every word of it true! All the dummies are at the NAS!


        Report this

        10

      • #
        crakar24

        The hundreds up


        Report this

        20

    • #
      Jon

      The one and only reason is because the topic has been politicized?


      Report this

      50

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Very early on in my career, when I was a lot less cynical than I am now, I had to assist with “debriefing” some prisoners of war, who had been indoctrinated – brain-washed – into accepting their captors views of the world.

      The experience has made a lasting impression on me, because it see it mirrored in the likes of BilB, and other evangelists for consensus science, and anthropogenic climate change.

      Whether it happens at school, or university, or in the local chapter of a political party, I don’t know. But it happens. One common symptom is that they have absolutely no sense of humour, and they think people who do, are idiots. Another, is that they think it is a given, that they are always right.

      Once these people have been programmed, it is very hard to deprogram them without causing them to have a nervous breakdown, or worse.

      I think the people who would mess around in other people’s head in this way, are worse than rapists.

      This is one of the very few times I have mentioned this in public. And no, mentioning it does not help.


      Report this

      420

      • #
        Jon

        “It’s easier to fool the people than convince them they have been fooled?


        Report this

        100

      • #
        Ron Cook

        R.W.

        I went through Uni with with a friend, he then went into teaching (unions, left wing etc.)and is a AGW believer. I went into industry but had nothing to do with unions or the ‘left’ and am a skeptic.

        In this case is wasn’t the Uni it was the a) pre uni environment and/or b) post Uni work place environment.

        May be the early 1960′s was a different era.

        Who knows where they become “brain washed”.


        Report this

        70

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        No, I think it is useful to understand whats going on.

        I know people who are in certain religious denominations that could also apply to just as easily as well.

        Balance means you can see the others point of view, even if it happens to be wrong, and still acknowledge it without self-combusting.

        Warmists dont seem to be able to tolerate a differing opinion at all, which means their minds are potentially very fragile, while would fit with your comment about them having a break down if they had to change their views.

        I recall having a conversation with a warmists ( Socialist ) once int he office…I had to back away from the conversation very carefully to try and diffuse, it even though I was being overly polite and balanced. The warmist became incredibly heated and could concede an opposiong point of view , i’d have ebven used the description of him having a touch of nihlism.

        I find the doomist mindset of warmism actually incredibly desctructive. Compare it against Christianity, which has hope at its core ( for contrast purposes ), and you can see the yawning gap…

        I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest warmism is in fact border-line nihlism.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        OriginalSteve

        Sorry….typo…..

        ” The warmist became incredibly heated and could concede an opposiong point of view”

        shoudl read

        ” The warmist became incredibly heated and couldn’t concede an opposiong point of view


        Report this

        10

    • #
      graphicconception

      … the venom, the sheer rage, of the denialists.

      He’s been watching that Roy Spencer again!


      Report this

      50

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Paul Krugman must be reading something off the men’s room wall. I’ve never seen any skeptic in a rage.

      But Krugman isn’t much worth giving any attention and so I no longer read him. My local newspaper carries his column and the whole paper has become worthless for useful news. So, sorry Paul, you just don’t hack it. :-(


      Report this

      70

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      It is also one of the oldest propaganda tricks in the book. Once you have invented a label, that people can identify with, and say, “Yep, I am a … and proud of it”, you then switch labels, grab that label for your own use, and leave the previous “owners” disenfranchised and confused.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Jon

        Just when like Marxism in The USA changed their label from communism til being liberal? Now it’s progressive? The next label will be the progressive liberal tea party?


        Report this

        20

  • #
    Bulldust

    The climate faithful are often afflicted with psychological projection. I have seen this many times … I guess it is that , or a disingenuous tendancy to get in first on an argument so that ‘deniers’ can’t use it themselves, ragardless of whether the accusation has any merit whatsoever.

    The thing is, serious debaters would never make the ridiculous allegations to start with, so by staying rational you will inevitably have to wear the barbs of the faithful warmistas and trust that the independent observer can tell who is making more sense. It is certainly difficult to maintain such poise when the warmist trolls come a knocking.


    Report this

    390

    • #
      bananabender

      It goes both ways. Many ‘sceptics’ (eg Andrew Bolt and James Delingpole) are primarily driven by a hatred of the Left rather than any objective understanding of the underlying science.


      Report this

      18106

      • #

        That’s funny. Because Andrew Bolt is of “the Left”.

        It’s also wrong because the objection isn’t against people, it’s against what is obviously wrong and; in the long term; destructive.

        One does not have to understand mathematics to be able to see that
        1 + 1 = 7
        is wrong. (except for some values of “1″.)

        What is also telling is that the acolytes who appeal to false authority of the science, seldom display the appreciation of the science which they accuse the “deniers” of not understanding. As Bulldust says; it’s projection.


        Report this

        633

        • #
          Bulldust

          Apparently Bolt doesn’t identify as right wing, but of the left is a bit of a stretch I’d think. Conservative seems a better descriptor.


          Report this

          250

          • #
            scaper...

            Anyone that causes the watermelon heads to explode is good value in my opinion. Worthy of a TV show to encourage the love to hate, which is the hallmark of a leftist.

            The genesis of his show was a prearranged meeting at Alan Jones’ birthday bash a few years ago. Wonder who set that up?

            Hehehehehe


            Report this

            80

            • #
              James Bradley

              Way to go Scaper – and he does an encore on the same day – Ten would have been a much better investment if more airtime was devoted to balanced reporting.


              Report this

              50

          • #
            vic g gallus

            He was a part of Labor when young. Just grew up.

            I would say that the theoretical difference between ‘progressive’ and ‘conservative’ is that the former believes that all the worlds ills could be solved tomorrow with the right government. The latter realises its not just a case of a little spit and stick it back on (old Slavic saying). In practice, the former are used to create big fish in a putrid and small pond.


            Report this

            100

            • #
              Ted O'Brien.

              vic, those who claim to be “progressives” are in fact regressive extremists.

              “Conservatives?” We used to have a lot that was worth conserving. “Conservationists” have been doing their damnedest to destroy much of it for 40 years now.


              Report this

              61

          • #
            bananabender

            Bolt’s articles is as biased towards the right wing as you could get. To claim that he is left wing or even conservative is nonsense.


            Report this

            1029

            • #
              Lorne50

              Lol bananabender HAHAHAHA In Canada we would mock you for that Handle ;>)


              Report this

              41

              • #
                bobl

                Just for clarity it says he is from Queensland, banana capital of Australia. Everyone knows that bananas grow straight and then have to be bent into the right shape. There are hourdes of Queenslanders employed in huge facrories bending bananas, hence Queenslanders are known as Banana benders.

                Just an interesting factoid for the foreigners among us.


                Report this

                71

            • #
              the Griss

              Seems you are of the rabid far-left, too whom EVERYTHING is to the right.

              Bolt is a centralist. !


              Report this

              81

        • #

          1 x 1 = 7 is easy the imaginary part is sqrt(+6).


          Report this

          50

          • #

            You’re being cross for no reason at all. ;-)

            The imaginary part? Would that be i or j ?


            Report this

            30

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Therein lies the whole problem. Global warming is based on the imaginary part.

            This may appear sarcastic but it’s not. I simply stated the truth. But the truth unfortunately does not set some people free.


            Report this

            50

          • #
            bobl

            No ypu got it wrong, there is one three and one four ad 1 three and 1 four together you get 7 IE 1 + 1 = 7. One might also note that it may also equal 5 9, 8 or just about but not quite any other number, and oddly never two, because 1 one and 1 one is actually 2 ones, and that just 2 not 1 + 1.


            Report this

            20

        • #
          James Bradley

          I’d have said balanced and fair – qualities that also appear to be anathema to the hysterical left as well as to the foaming and frothing mouth brigades of the Carbon Zombie Army.


          Report this

          80

        • #
          Chester

          Andrew Bolt is of “the Left”.

          That is the funniest thing I’ve read for a long time. thanks of the laugh.


          Report this

          111

          • #
            bobl

            Actually it’s true, worked as an advisor for, I think it was Keating, real Labor man. Well ok, admittedly back in the days that Labor stood for the working bloke and not inner city latte sippers and failed ambulance chasing Lawyers.

            Bolt is not a conservative, he is what I would term a realist, or pragmatist. He believes in what works, and not fairy tale ideology. Michael Smith is such a pragmatist too.


            Report this

            100

        • #
          Jon

          But 101+111 = 212 or 0011 or 12

          ?


          Report this

          10

      • #
        Jaymez

        Bolt describes himself as a ‘conservative’ now. He certainly doesn’t hate the ‘left’. He was a Labor party staffer and worked for the Hawke Labor Government on two election campaigns. He has many friends on the ‘left’ side of politics.


        Report this

        401

      • #
        Joe

        Not hatred. Understanding!


        Report this

        70

      • #
        the Griss

        Its only the far left that identify Bolt as right-wing.

        Bolt seems to be a rational centralist, so would appear far-right wing to people the ABC and the Greens.


        Report this

        271

      • #
        DT

        Hate the left? Laugh at, ridicule them, pity them, but never hate, they cannot help being stupid.


        Report this

        202

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          I wouldn’t go quite so far as to say hate the left. But by all means hate what they’re doing to the world, whether they can help it or not.


          Report this

          50

      • #
        old44

        And the warmists are driven by a $1,000,000,000 per day in handouts.
        One question, I was born in 1944, how many years of global warming have there been?
        Sorry, one more question, how warm is the earth supposed to be?
        Oh what the hell, here is another one, why were the same profession preaching global cooling and an oncoming Ice Age in 1976?
        And another, why do you keep changing the name, Global Warming / AGW / CAGW / CC?


        Report this

        210

        • #
          James Bradley

          Answer to all of the above:

          Targeted Consumer Marketing…


          Report this

          110

        • #

          > the same profession preaching global cooling and an oncoming Ice Age in 1976?

          They weren’t. You’re confusing the meeja with the science. http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/03/01/1970s-cooling-again/ etc etc.

          > CAGW

          Like I keep telling you, that’s a strawman you lot invented, don’t try to blame anyone else for it.


          Report this

          252

          • #
          • #

            > your wrong there

            I’m afraid you’ve made exactly the same mistake old44 has: failing to distinguish science from the meeja. Taking the link you provided:

            * the main pic is Time.
            * the next is from Owosso Argus-Press
            * then Leonard Nimoy
            * …and so it goes.

            You do know the difference between the scientific literature and the popular press, don’t you?


            Report this

            437

            • #
              Mark D.

              You’ve made the mistake: First example I randomly selected: the link for Lewiston Evening Journal 1972 quote from Professor Hubert Lamb Director Of Claimate Research Uni East Anglia

              That’s not the MEEja talking that’s one of your Authoritai you must respect


              Report this

              280

              • #

                But its not a scientific paper. Its a newspaper. its a scientist speaking, but to the meeja. If you can’t find him saying the same in a scientific publication, you have to wonder: was perhaps peer review working well? That somewhat speculative comments that would work OK in a newspaper weren’t good enough to get into a scientific publication? (Note that if you’re going to answer that one with “aha! See – peer review was enfocring consensus even then!” that you’d be obliged to admit that it was the consensus, then). “The full impact of the new Ice Age will not be upon us for another 10,000 years…” is what he is saying. Lamb was a good observationalist; but worship of him (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/10/10/adoration-of-the-lamb/) in inappropriate; he wasn’t any good at predictions (e.g. http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/sci_env_cooling.02).

                Here’s Lamb from 1982: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/lamb-1982.html


                Report this

                439

              • #
                the Griss

                Again, anything marked Stoat or CONnelly can be taken as deliberate lies and misinformation.

                Nobody is going to bother reading them, so stop trying to make traffic.

                And you last link is from 1982, what has that got to do with DIRECT QUOTES from 1972

                Also look up Rasool. “The world could be as little as 50-60 years away from a disastrous new ice age.” (1971)


                Report this

                172

              • #
                Mark D.

                Lest your complete lack of sense cause me to call you any number of names and disrupt the tenuous peace which is the topic of this thread, William, just why isn’t the Authority Lambs’ public and terrifying quote precisely proof of what you deny? Where is your statement (ca. 1972) lambasting (good pun) him for that? Where is your blog post chastising him and all for abusing his position as a expert Authority for making those fear inducing statements?


                Report this

                140

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Now, Mr. Connolley, you go too far and are shooting the messenger. I can’t stop you if that’s what you want to do. But frankly, I think it displays your character in a very bad light.


                Report this

                80

              • #

                William Connolley says

                But its not a scientific paper. Its a newspaper. its a scientist speaking, but to the meeja. If you can’t find him saying the same in a scientific publication, you have to wonder: was perhaps peer review working well?

                Let us develop the argument. If so-called experts mouth speculative comments that they would not be able to publish in a journal, then they should be brought to task upon this. Worse still, if they claim expertise where they have none, then this should be highlighted. Given that no climatologist has an established track record in understanding climate (shown by accurate predictions) – or at least acknowledges the many past failures and that they are most probably going to be wrong on current pronouncements – then their pronouncements should be regarded nearer to those of astrologers than to those of nuclear physicists when talking about their respective subjects.
                Worse still if scaremongering pronouncements by those with no qualifications in climatology, but hold an extreme belief in climate alarmism, then the fact that they are given prominence in the media should be decried by anybody who truly understands the nature of science. For instance, will William Connolley denounce Lord Stern’s front page spread in The Guardian in February as inexpert scaremongering, or will he admit he is a partisan and dogmatist who suppresses and subverts the contrary evidence?

                http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/13/flooding-storms-uk-climate-change-lord-stern


                Report this

                40

              • #
                Radical Rodent

                Interesting to note how Prof Lamb was astonishingly correct, even if his timing was slightly off; the world DID cool for a bit longer, then heated for a couple of decades, and has since levelled off, ready to… what? Plunge? Or soar? Sadly, I suspect it may well be the former. Should that happen, Mr Connolley, will it be yet more “proof” of your pet theory? Mind you, I also suspect that WHATEVER happens will be yet more proof; you and yours, Mr Connolley, have made the theory unfalsifiable, therefore it is a false theory.


                Report this

                30

              • #
            • #
              Stuart Elliot

              The 70s were a long time ago. I was in university then studying, among other things, climatology. My earnest papers on the imminent ice age were based on peer reviewed publications, not magazines.

              If a scientist is quoted in a newspaper, does it disqualify his opinion? I don’t understand your “Meeja” exclusion, but I am willing to apply it to current events if you can show me why it’s valid.


              Report this

              221

            • #
              Pete Wilson

              William Connelly -This line of argument may convince the young, but to anyone who was around and involved in environmental activism at the time, its just bullshit. If, as you say, the real scientists were even then expecting warming, they were being damn quiet about it. It was overwhelmingly accepted as “the consensus” that scientists were predicting a new ice age, and barely a voice was raised in contradiction – that all came much later.

              Ever listen to the words of “London Calling”? “The ice age is coming….” – we all thought that then, with just as much conviction (and as much evidence) as current warmists.

              All your weaselling can’t change history, Connelly, the past isn’t Wikipedia


              Report this

              180

            • #
              Newminster

              Stop wriggling, Billy Boy.
              The received wisdom in the “climate community” insofar as there was such a thing in the 1970s, was that there was an ice age just around the corner.
              Stop blaming the media for reporting what the scientists were telling them.
              OR ALTERNATIVELY … start blaming the media for reporting what the scientists and their little eco-helpers are telling them now.
              You can’t have it both ways.


              Report this

              170

            • #
              Sean McHugh

              William Connolley said:

              You do know the difference between the scientific literature and the popular press, don’t you?

              Before the global warming scare the difference was much clearer. So was the difference between science and politics.


              Report this

              90

            • #
              Robert

              Seems to me that you are part of “the meeja” by your association with wiki, I mean it is not after all a scientific publication. Those seem to be the rules by which you work are they not? Your editing and revising there in an attempt to redefine science to suit you doesn’t seem very scientific. But then as soon as I realized who you were and said association with wiki and all that entails I stopped paying any attention to anything you had to say.

              That you haven’t grasped that ignoring you is the most common response you illicit speaks volumes of your need for attention.


              Report this

              40

          • #
            Manfred

            Stoat (is as weasel does), even the most cursory research will highlight your wishful, is it ‘thinking’?

            Kukla was the co-author of the chapter in the book “Natural Climate Variability on Decade to Century Time Scales” published by the National Research Council.

            Kukla believed that all glacial periods in earth’s history began with global warming (understood as an increase of the area-weighted average global mean surface temperature). He believed Earth’s recent warming is mostly natural and will gradually lead to the substantial increase of the surface temperature difference between the warming tropics and the cooling subpoles. Consequently this is how the next ice age will begin.

            George Kukla can be described as a truly global citizen, a person with an immense understanding of world geo-diversity and its cultures, with extensive experience stretching across the ice fields of Greenland and Antarctica to ocean-deep sea deposits, and the loess records of central Europe and China. His work on palaeoclimate was recognized in 2003 by European Geosciences Union when he was awarded the Milanković Medal.


            Report this

            110

            • #

              If you’re trying to say that there was at least one person believing in cooling in the 1970′s then I say pffft: who cares. No-one is claiming otherwise; certainly not me. If you’d followed my link you’d have found the nice easy-to-understand graph https://www.flickr.com/photos/belette/8518783241/ where we certainly found more than one paper. But “there was at least one person” wasn’t the claim old44 made: it was that “why were the same profession preaching global cooling and an oncoming Ice Age in 1976″. And its clear that wasn’t true: on the whole, scientific papers (you haven’t ref’d even one, but never mind, I’ll let you off) were clearly more in support of warming. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling has lots of nice facts and refs, if you’re able to overcome your resistance and actually read it.


              Report this

              440

              • #
                Mark D.

                So you’d like me to not believe the Director Climate Change at E. Anglia?

                Fair enough. Your work is done here.


                Report this

                322

              • #
                the Griss

                Again, the link to much-tainted Wikipedia. Nothing you link to on Wikipedia can EVER be taken as fact.

                Its all about you.. isn’t it. !! EGO !!


                Report this

                232

              • #

                In Britain students are marked down if they use Wikipedia as a reference because it is full biased opinion. There is probably no area more biased than in the area of climatology and the single most prominent editor responsible for this lack of balance is William Connolley.


                Report this

                311

              • #
                vic g gallus

                If you’d followed my link you’d have found the nice easy-to-understand graph https://www.flickr.com/photos/belette/8518783241/ where we certainly found more than one paper

                A bit like how 0.3% became 97% ?


                Report this

                170

              • #
                Manfred

                Weasel, you presume. I’m not ‘trying to say’ anything. I am in fact, writing, and while I’m doing so I’m not inclined to refer anything related to ‘climate’ on the unashamedly and manifestly biased Wiki, where you have been clearly identified as a ‘Wikibully’.

                All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity.

                When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

                The tragedy, if one can call it that as the bathos is almost completely overwhelming, is that you would feel the need to engage in such prolonged and extensive subversion, particularly given the compelling evidence of your ‘settled science’.

                So instead of Wiki, I suggest you wander along and have a read of ‘Global Warming or The “New Ice Age”? Fear of the “Big Freeze” ‘ over at Global Research.
                The article is introduced as:

                There has been an intense debate among leading scientists, government agencies and publications over whether the bigger threat is global warming or a new ice age. As we’ve previously noted, top researchers have feared an ice age – off and on – for more than 100 years. (This post does not weigh in one way or the other. It merely presents a historical record.)

                Within the text there is sufficient information to ferret sources, if you’re thus inclined. /rhet.


                Report this

                210

              • #

                > over at Global Research.

                Its the usual mish-mash; I’ve seen it all before. Not a single scientific paper is referenced.

                > This post does not weigh in one way or the other

                And you believed them! How very “skeptical” of you. Its biases are obvious.

                > created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles

                No-one from outside wiki understands how it works. http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/01/04/a-childs-garden-of-wikipedia-p/


                Report this

                222

              • #

                Further to the comment above, to properly understand a controversial issue and see through the “mish mash” you need to compare and contrast different points of view, and do so on the basis of ground rules set in advance. We do so in the criminal justice system and in evaluating new drugs for instance.
                Wikipedia is the exact opposite. It allows activists to decide what the truth is, then to accuse anyone who disagrees of “denialism”.

                For instance compare this
                http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/14/willia-connolley-now-climate-topic-banned-at-wikipedia/
                With this
                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Connolley
                Explained by this
                http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/william-connolley-and-wikipedia-turborevisionism/


                Report this

                60

              • #

                Is your link to the Wikipedia one of the many entries that you altered to aid the cause?


                Report this

                120

              • #

                > Wikipedia is the exact opposite. It allows…

                …anyone to edit it, provided they can back up what they say with reliable sources. When talking about science – like, say, GW – then reliable sources are ultimately scientific papers, or syntheses thereof. Or, sparingly, blog postings by recognised experts. Which is why the stuff related to climate and GW looks like it does – it reflects the mainstream position; this is what wiki intends to do, on any issue, whilst giving due weight to dissenting views.

                The attitude of “skeptics” to this varies: sometimes you see yourself as brave individual voices decrying the “consensus” – but somehow unable to see that if you are decrying a “consensus”, you have no reason to complain that wiki is reporting the consensus. Sometimes you think there is no consensus – in which case, you need to invent a fairy story to explain why you can’t hack your views into wiki. The truth is that reliable sources don’t back up what you want to say; but that would be damaging to your world view, so instead you invent myths about the way wiki is run.

                But, just like writing scientific papers, you also know nothing about editing wiki because you’re never brave enough to try.


                Report this

                219

              • #
                Jaymez

                I see you have again defended Wikipedia William:

                “No-one from outside wiki understands how it works.”

                > “Wikipedia is the exact opposite. It allows……anyone to edit it, provided they can back up what they say with reliable sources. When talking about science – like, say, GW – then reliable sources are ultimately scientific papers, or syntheses thereof. Or, sparingly, blog postings by recognised experts. Which is why the stuff related to climate and GW looks like it does – it reflects the mainstream position; this is what wiki intends to do, on any issue, whilst giving due weight to dissenting views.”

                Your colleagues at Wiki understood how it works and most found you breached many standards in your work there. They are all detailed here for all to see. The following is a brief overview:

                William M. Connolley previously sanctioned and desysopped
                8.1) In the Abd-William M. Connolley arbitration case (July-September 2009), William M. Connolley was found to have misused his admin tools while involved. As a result, he lost administrator permissions, and was admonished and prohibited from interacting with User:Abd. Prior to that, he was sanctioned in Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute (2005, revert parole – which was later overturned by the Committee here) and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley (2008, restricted from administrative actions relating to Giano II). He was also the subject of RFC’s regarding his conduct: RfC 1 (2005) and RfC 2 (2008). The 2008 RFC was closed as improperly certified.

                6 Supported this text 2 abstained

                William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic
                8.2) William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic to editors within the topic area, and toward administrators enforcing the community probation. (Selection of representative examples: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17])

                This uncivil and antagonistic behaviour has included refactoring of talk page comments by other users,(examples: [18], [19], [20]) to the point that he was formally prohibited from doing so. In the notice advising him that a consensus of 7 administrators had prohibited his refactoring of talk page posts, he inserted commentary within the post of the administrator leaving the notice on his talk page. [21]] For this action, he was blocked for 48 hours; had the block extended to 4 days with talk page editing disabled due to continuing insertions into the posts of other users on his talk page; had his block reset to the original conditions; then was blocked indefinitely with talk page editing disabled when he again inserted comments into the posts of others on his talk page.[22] After extensive discussion at Administrator noticeboard/Incidents, the interpretation of consensus was that the Climate Change general sanctions did not extend to the actions of editors on their own talk pages, and the block was lifted.

                All 8 supported the above findings

                William M. Connolley BLP violations
                8.4) William M. Connolley has repeatedly violated the biography of living persons policy. Violations have included inserting personal information irrelevant to the subject’s notability, use of blogs as sources, inserting original research and opinion into articles, and removing reliably sourced positive comments about subjects. He has edited biographical articles of persons with whom he has off-wiki professional or personal disagreements. (Selection of representative examples: [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] BLPN discussion [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69])

                5 supported, 3 Opposed finding

                William M. Connolley’s edits to biographies of living persons
                8.5) William M. Connolley has focused a substantial portion of his editing in the Climate change topic area on biographical articles about living persons who hold views opposed to his own with respect to the reality and significance of anthropogenic global warming, in a fashion suggesting that he does not always approach such articles with an appropriately neutral and disinterested point of view.

                7 supported the above finding, 1 opposed on a technical wording concern.

                I definitely don’t think you are the one to be recommending wikipedia, nor criticising the work of Moderators at this site!


                Report this

                291

              • #
                farmerbraun

                William Connolley
                June 22, 2014 at 4:02 am

                ” . . .reliable sources are ultimately scientific papers, or syntheses thereof.”

                Reliable for what purpose?
                Even an unbiased synthesis could be found in time to be completely wrong.
                What you were doing was pretending that there was some “settled science”, while knowing full well that that was completely false ; predenting that there was more certitude than doubt.

                Deny that :-)


                Report this

                120

            • #

              > I definitely don’t think you are the one to be recommending wikipedia

              Why not? They dissed me, but I still think the project is worthwhile, if flawed.

              > Reliable for what purpose?

              Errrm, well, as I said: the wiki policy is that things to be included needs to be backed with reliable sources. Which means that the “purpose” is inclusion in wiki. Read the policy if you want: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS

              > Even an unbiased synthesis could be found in time to be completely wrong.

              Indeed. The most oft-used example is what should wiki have reported, had it been around just as Copernicus’s De revolutionibus orbium coelestium was published? And the answer is, it should have reported the then-prevalent geocentric theory, with a minor sidenote that some unknown bloke and a few others had different ideas. Wiki isn’t there to present wildly new science (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR); its there to present the mainstream view, whatever that might be.

              > pretending that there was some “settled science”

              “settled science” isn’t a useful phrase in this context; the GW article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming) does mention the concept, but not in the main text only in a footnote supporting the statement “Scientific understanding of the cause of global warming has been increasing. In its fourth assessment (AR4 2007) of the relevant scientific literature, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that scientists were more than 90% certain that most of global warming was being caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities.[7][8][9]“. Its footnote 9, and its sourced to http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12782

              Your assertion lacks reliable sourcing.


              Report this

              117

              • #
                farmerbraun

                “scientists were more than 90% certain ”

                But that was misleading at best. Ignoring the fact that these ‘scientist” have little scientific basis for believing that, the true statement would have been ” SOME scientists . . . ”
                A truer statement would have been that there was not , and still is not, an accepted unified theory of climate which would have allowed the CO-AGW conjecture to have been falsified.
                How did you justify proceeding as you did knowing that the null hypothesis could not be falsified?
                You seem to be saying that you did it because Wiki rules said that you could. So it was just a bit of a try-on , to see if you could get away with it.


                Report this

                120

              • #
                farmerbraun

                typo above corrected:-

                A truer statement would have been that there was not , and still is not, an accepted unified theory of climate which would have allowed the CO2 -AGW conjecture to have been falsified.
                How did you justify proceeding as you did knowing that the null hypothesis could not be falsified?
                You seem to be saying that you did it because Wiki rules said that you could. So it was just a bit of a try-on , to see if you could get away with it.


                Report this

                60

              • #

                > misleading at best

                No. The statement that “the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that scientists were more than 90% certain that…” is (a) accurate and (b) clearly and reliably sourced.

                By contrast, your statements have no sourcing at all, and you don’t seem to feel that as any lack or problem. This is a common mistake for noobs at wiki to make: you believe something so fervently, you can’t imagine any reasonable person disagreeing, so feel no need to provide sources. But that only works in walled gardens, not the wide world. (You might want to try the related https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth, which I’ve never been entirely happy with).

                > How did you justify proceeding as you did knowing that the null hypothesis could not be falsified?

                I’m not sure what you mean by that. If by “proceeding as you did” you mean reporting the science as published, errm, well that pretty well answers your question. If by “null hypothesis” you mean the idea that natural variability can explain the temperature record of the last century or so, then that too has been carefully considered and rejected; just because you’re not aware of it doesn’t make it so. You want https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change for a summary of the science.


                Report this

                113

              • #
                farmerbraun

                FB : How did you justify proceeding as you did knowing that the null hypothesis could not be falsified?

                WC; I’m not sure what you mean by that.

                FB ; Aha . The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
                I don’t believe you.


                Report this

                71

              • #
                stan stendera

                All Wm. Connollery is trying to do here is stir up hits on his nearly dead wed page. He is obviously ignorant and deserves to be ignored. [snip]


                Report this

                121

              • #
                Aaron M

                Great going. You reduced Wikipedia to a blog because you have to virtually shout over the top of everyone to be heard, by constantly inserting your comments into their posts. [snip]


                Report this

                30

          • #
            James Bradley

            Bull S##t, Connolley, it was taught in NSW High Schools 1st Level Science in 1973… then came the hole in the ozone layer…


            Report this

            202

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            A very young Stephen Schenider (with lots of hair) appeared in the final programme in the series, “The Coming Ice Age” narrated by the actor who played Dr Spock, no less, and broadcasted in the 1970′s.

            They are on YouTube and you can find them under the series title. All of the major players of the day, were on show, and all of them are now an embarrassment to the global warming establishment of today.


            Report this

            140

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              To make it easy, the reference is here And Stephen Schenider first appears at the 6.00 minute mark.

              So William, it was not us who referenced, “a strawman you lot invented, don’t try to blame anyone else for it”. It was you, arguing from ignorance, again.


              Report this

              180

          • #
            old44

            Michael Mann.

            By the way

            Global warming of the Earth’s surface has decelerated (Viewpoint)
            BY MATT ROGERS
            June 20 at 11:47 am
            The recently-released National Climate Assessment (NCA) from the U.S. government offers considerable cause for concern for climate calamity, but downplays the decelerating trend in global surface temperature in the 2000s, which I document here.
            Many climate scientists are currently working to figure out what is causing the slowdown, because if it continues, it would call into question the legitimacy of many climate model projections (and inversely offer some good news for our planet).
            An article in Nature earlier this year discusses some of the possible causes for what some have to referred to as the global warming “pause” or “hiatus”. Explanations include the quietest solar cycle in over a hundred years, increases in Asian pollution, more effective oceanic heat absorption, and even volcanic activity. Indeed, a peer-reviewed paper published in February estimates that about 15 percent of the pause can be attributed to increased volcanism. But some have questioned whether the pause or deceleration is even occurring at all.
            Verifying the pause
            You can see the pause (or deceleration in warming) yourself by simply grabbing the freely available data from NASA and NOAA. For the chart below, I took the annual global temperature difference from average (or anomaly) and calculated the change from the prior year. So the very first data point is the change from 2000 to 2001 and so on. One sign of data validation is that the trends are the same on both datasets. Both of these government sources show a slight downward slope since 2000:
            (Matt Rogers)
            (Matt Rogers)

            You can see some of the spikes associated with El Niño events (when heat was released into the atmosphere from warmer than normal ocean temperatures in the tropical Pacific) that occurred in 2004-05 and 2009-10. But the warm changes have generally been decreasing while cool changes have grown.
            To be sure, both sets of data points show an overall rise in temperature of +0.01C during the 2000s. But, if current trends continue for just a few more years, then the mean change for the 2000s will shift to negative; in other words, the warming would really stop. The current +.01C increase in temperatures is insufficient to verify the climate change projections for major warming (even the low end +1-2C) by mid-to-late century. A peer reviewed study in Nature Climate Change published in 2013 drew the same conclusion: “Recent observed global warming is significantly less than that simulated by climate models,” it says.

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/06/20/global-warming-of-the-earths-surface-has-decelerated-viewpoint/

            And yet another one,

            AGP

            Anthropogenic Global Pausing.


            Report this

            80

        • #

          Here is the show stopper of a question for warmunists.

          Should we go to war with China to prevent them from emitting so much CO2?


          Report this

          170

          • #
            Bob_FJ

            MSimon,

            Nah, just execute the deniers, that should fix the problem.


            Report this

            60

            • #
              the Griss

              Hey, I wish no harm on the alarmistas and their apologists… the REAL deniers of science and fact.

              We need to support the NDIS so they can be cared for in later life.


              Report this

              41

          • #
            Maverick

            Yes, where do not only the warmists fall on this issue, but the humanitarian lefties fall on this question? Oh wait it is the same lot. The ones flying in planes to New York for UN meetings.


            Report this

            50

          • #
            Bob Cormack

            MSimon:

            Here is the show stopper of a question for warmunists.

            Should we go to war with China to prevent them from emitting so much CO2?

            Most warmists care nothing about CO2 emissions — if they did, they would be promoting nuclear power.


            Report this

            30

        • #
          llew Jones

          The reason they have moved from using the term GW to Climate Change is that GW has not been occurring for sometime.

          The fools masquerading as scientists have forgotten that the “settled” science postulates that without human caused GW there can be no human caused climate change. Simple? Should be.

          The prime requisite then for an alarmist climate scientist and their cheer leaders is significant brain death.


          Report this

          80

          • #
            the Griss

            “term GW to Climate Change is that GW has not been occurring for sometime”

            And now that the climate is not changing… they are searching for another meme.

            disruption, extreme, hidey heat…

            I wonder what they will settle on..

            Or will they realise REALITY and change it to Global Cooling (caused by CO2, of course)


            Report this

            61

  • #
    bananabender

    I’m a proud AGW denier. I also think that Ron Paul is a dangerous lunatic, that James Delingpole is primarily driven by upward envy of privileged Tories like David Cameron and that Christopher Monckton is a pretentious (but rather amusing) old tosser.

    Don’t even get me started on my pet hates of Agenda 21 conspiracies, Gold Bugs and Libertarians.


    Report this

    573

    • #
      crakar24

      BB,

      May i suggest you keep your comments to climate denial, as US politics and Australian TV personalities is obviously not your strong suit


      Report this

      470

    • #

      Bananabender, instead of a list of insults, how about providing some reasons and explanation. It is just namecalling without an argument…


      Report this

      670

      • #
        Bob_FJ

        Jo,

        Might I add that the Bananabender has no bent …………………………………………..sheez, give me pause at that wonderful pun!

        Oh boy, I’m hyperventilating…………………………………

        Sorry, I’m back. I wanted to say that Christopher Monckton seems to have a good grasp of science and uses strong scientific arguments. I’ve not observed such from any bent banana


        Report this

        151

      • #
        Chester

        Classic Group Think : this thread is littered with abuse from Jo’s supporters, in direct contravention of her site policy but the only one she picks out is this.

        Pathetically hypocritical and cowardly. nova knows that if she clamps down on the abusers and conspiracy theorists in her camp, she’s got no following at all.


        Report this

        213

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Not true Chester, she has you following her, and you seem to be a pretty accomplished abuser and conspiracy theorist.

          Where would she be, without you mate?


          Report this

          100

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            Why do the conspiracy nuts always project? Chesty is merely one of the ladies to do so. But in this thread we are being regaled with projections from the Wiki forger and the “no trace gas” apple.


            Report this

            40

        • #
          Bob Cormack

          That sort of mindless projection doesn’t work here, Chester — all of us have been over to the warmist sites and have seen how they work. (Not to mention that that is the main topic of this post, also.)

          If I really thought you believed what you say, I would have to conclude that you have no ability to comprehend what you read. (Of course, assuming that you have read much of anything here may be rash.)


          Report this

          70

        • #
        • #
          bullocky

          Chester:
          ‘….Group Think….Extirminate…..Group Think….Extirminate….Group Think….Extirminate….Group Think….Extirminate….Group Think….Extirminate….


          Report this

          20

        • #
          the Griss

          [snip - nil content]


          Report this

          30

        • #
          James Bradley

          Hey there Ches’ old buddy,

          This post alone has nearly 700 comments – probably more than the combined yearly total for all the alarmists blogs put together.

          And as for the rest of your complaint – seems the comments are all pretty much on topic.

          You know what they say – if you can’t stand the heat find another planet…


          Report this

          30

    • #
      Jaymez

      Banana where do you get your research? Delingpole would be considered privileged himself – nothing to envy! He was born and raised in Alvechurch, Worcestershire, the son of a factory owner. That’s an OWNER not a WORKER!

      Consequently he had a very privileged education. He attended Malvern College, an independent school for boys, followed by Christ Church, Oxford, where he studied English Literature. Delingpole has claimed that while at Oxford he was “reasonably good friends” with David Cameron and Boris Johnson.

      Check out Wiki which includes the citations.


      Report this

      191

    • #
      James Bradley

      BB,

      Not sure any of your post makes sense to me at all.

      It seems to contradict itself and I would regard Christopher Monckton as perhaps one the most extraordinary thinkers of our time.

      Without Monckton the call that the ‘emperor has no clothes’ may have been too late to slow the global warming madness to a pace that gives the majority of rational people time to think about the real agenda/s and take appropriate action.

      Those pushing for one world government through wealth redistribution and the sovereignty of an authoritarian United Nations that selects upper management from a list of fawning and failed socialist politicians with documented histories of deceit (Rudd and Gillard for a start).


      Report this

      291

    • #

      I like Ron Paul. I enjoy reading James Delingpole. And Christopher Monckton? I like his attitude and way of expressing it. Nigel Farage? I’m a big fan. I’m very much an Anglophile.

      Agenda 21 is not a conspiracy – it is for real. Gold Bugs – well at least it has some intrinsic value – you can use it in circuits. https://oshpark.com/ Libertarians? Well I’m a libertarian. But I believe in power politics. Nations are motorcycle gangs. Everyone should spend enough time with a MC gang to get the power dynamics etched in their bones.

      So if possible I’d like to be added to the appropriate list or lists of yours.


      Report this

      170

    • #
      Angry

      AGENDA21 IS NOT SOME CONSPIRACY !

      Here is the united nations agenda21 own website !!

      http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&nr=23&type=400&menu=35

      What Is Agenda 21? After Watching This, You May Not Want to Know:-

      http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/11/19/what-is-agenda-21-after-watching-this-you-may-not-want-to-know/


      Report this

      91

      • #
        Tim

        I got: ‘Internet Explorer has closed this webpage to help protect your computer’

        A UN site might harm my computer? More like harm the globalist cause.


        Report this

        62

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Bananabender is acting as “L’Agent Provacateur”, at least I hope so.


      Report this

      50

    • #
      old44

      Exactly which side of the fence are you sitting on?


      Report this

      40

  • #
    James McCown

    I got into a discussion with a warmist on facebook the other day. He tried to shut me up by saying “Just stop. For the love of science stop.”

    And he learned that I am an atheist so he said “Devout Atheist, are you? That seems to me to be as single-minded as blindly obeying a religion.”


    Report this

    341

  • #
    warcroft

    We’ve now lost so much Arctic ice that we have to change our atlases!
    Oh the horror!

    http://io9.com/weve-now-lost-so-much-arctic-ice-that-we-have-to-change-1593339092


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Ian

    I have had similar experiences with both my younger son and a Professor who I regard as a very good friend indeed. Both are scientists and both unquestioningly accept that human generated CO2 is the sole factor driving climate change. I think if you look at warmist blogs such as Skeptical Science and Open Mind it is plain that anyone who posts there with an opinion different from those held by the bloggists are vilified, scorned, ridiculed and treated with contempt. This is contrast to blogs such as this one and WUWT which are more balanced than SkS and Open Mind and where the views of those across the spectrum of climate change are published and treated with respect. I have no idea why the warmists are so belligerent and so prone to denigrating those who are a little less sure “the science is settled”. .. Are they terrified that sooner rather than later the whole edifice of large grants and conferences in pleasant places overseas and travel and international prestige and publications in international journals and all the other perks that are essentially due to government funding, will crumble and they will be left with nothing? I can’t think of any other reasons. Can you?


    Report this

    401

    • #

      Bullies, physical or intellectual, don’t like to be hit back. It is fundamentally about power and control. They must have only one way that things go: they win and everyone else loses – they play and others pay. Ultimately, they know they can’t make it on their own and have nothing of value to offer to others. So everything they have, even their ideas and values, must be taken from others. They are second hand creatures to the core. To exist, they must feed on others.

      All we need to do to stop them is to stop feeding them.


      Report this

      380

      • #
        Leonard Lane

        Lionell, would it fit within your view to add lust for money, lust for power, and lust for fame? If they are involved in “saving the planet”, it is easy to bully others because their work is for everyone and superior to any other work. It is an old, old story.


        Report this

        140

        • #
          Lionell Griffith

          It is not the lust for something that is the problem, it is how one satisfies that lust.

          Do you create values that make money worth something and trade with others who create values or do you just take values by force or fraud?

          Is the power you have the ability to create value and persuade others of the right path or to destroy the makers of values and lead others to their doom?

          Is the fame you achieve because you have accomplished something that others value highly or is it that you are famous simply because you are famous for being famous?


          Report this

          90

      • #
        PeterK

        In science, isn’t this a description of leach (host – parasite)???


        Report this

        80

      • #
        michael hammer

        For all her failings, Ayn Rand had a good deal to say on this issue. People who cannot come up with significant discoveries on their own, but want the prestige that it should bring, attach themselves to and big note themselves over other peoples work to steal glory. Of course they react strongly to their source of power and prestige being eroded or challenged.


        Report this

        80

      • #
        michael hammer

        I meant to add that Ayn Rand voiced the same solution – stop feeding them. The trouble is that this usually results in a lose lose scenario – the parasite loses but so also does the genuine contributor and untimately the world at large.


        Report this

        60

        • #
          Lionell Griffith

          If everything I am and have is being consumed without so much as a “by your leave” why should I care about the world at large? I care about those with whom I trade value for value. All the others can go suck rocks for all I care. I am not theirs to feed upon nor are they feed for me. I am not guilty for their inability to care for themselves. I am free to chose my path and they theirs.

          Since I and others like me can provide for ourselves, why does not feeding the parasites mean that we must stop feeding ourselves? It doesn’t. We simply must stop feeling guilty for our abilities and productivity. We must never demand or give the unearned in either material or spirit.


          Report this

          80

          • #
            PeterK

            So true but in todays world we need to share and care and give to those less fortunate than us (sarc). I say hogwash…in ages past there was no social welfare as we know it today and the less fortunate were looked after via other means. I don’t mind giving a helping hand to someone that is down, and this should be my decision, not big government taking from me and giving it to you.


            Report this

            60

        • #

          My theory is to overwhelm them with contributions. Keep adding value.


          Report this

          30

          • #

            Yes, there are different ways to “skin a cat”.

            Just make sure your contributed value is such that they must stay in touch with reality and use their minds to use it. You would then be trading the value of your rationality for theirs. This too is part of the stopping feeding them. The point is that they MUST contribute something beyond eating, breathing, and excreting.


            Report this

            60

    • #
      Jaymez

      Ian, in my experience the only posts from Skeptics which they publish on warmist sites are those they feel safe denigrating. If you write well argued take downs of their posts or other’s comments, or you write something they can’t deny, they just don’t publish it. I have even had the experience where I have made a statement and then listed the justification for that statement with citations. They have then simply printed my statement sans my supporting material so that they could write their ‘standard [flawed] debunk’ comment making it seem like they have ‘shot down’ a skeptic.

      That doesn’t just happen on climate sites, it pretty much applies to any left wing site. ‘The Conversation’ for instance wont print comments which refute the content of their guest writer. I recently had a funny experience at the Conservation Council of WA blog site where their president’s statement was the lead comment getting lots of positive support. Something about “There is absolutely no scientific evidence that killing endangered sharks makes our beaches safer for swimming.” The argument was against baited drum lines which were used for the first time in Western Australia last summer.

      I posted half a dozen references showing the scientific evidence that beaches where baited drum lines have been used in Queensland and South Africa have indeed dramatically reduced the number of shark attacks. I also pointed out that the three categories of sharks which are authorised to be destroyed if over 3m long are not listed as ‘endangered’! That is the Bull, Tiger and Great White sharks. The latter is listed as ‘vulnerable’ only.

      My comment stayed up for about 10 minutes before it was deleted. :) So mainly I just resist the urge to even write comments at such sites because they are rarely published. Which of course proves the point made by Jo with this post.


      Report this

      260

    • #

      Ian,
      There are many who support climate alarmism who are not dependent on it for a living. The reason for the intolerance I would suggest is far more basic, and a very human one. None of us like our basic beliefs to be challenged. Climatology is promoted as “belief in the science” and belief in the necessity of “saving the world for future generations, with the politics indivisible from that “science”. This is backed up by evidence from a surprising source.
      Stephan Lewandowsky’s infamous “NASA faked the Moon Landings” survey might be the worst climate-related paper (among extremely strong competition), but it does achieve something very pertinent to the current topic. It was conducted on alarmist blogs, and asked questions both on belief in “climate science” and belief in “free markets”.
      I graphed the frequency of the “free market” scores (from minimum score of 5 to maximum 20) and support for climate science (dark green for strong support to red for strong rejection). It clearly shows that believers in climate science also have strong socialist-environmentalist political views.

      http://manicbeancounter.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/042114_1802_extremesoci6.jpg?w=600
      Contrast this with a follow-up survey of the US population.

      http://manicbeancounter.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/042114_1802_extremesoci6.jpg?w=600
      This shows a normal distribution of both political opinions and “climate science”, with the vast majority of opinion in both areas occupying the middle ground. The slight skew to the left and on climate can be easily accounted for by the bias in the questions.
      The question is then of causation. Does belief in climate catastrophism lead to belief in the need for left-authoritarian solutions, or is climate catastrophism a new way of justifying dogmatic political beliefs that the vast majority view with distaste? From the evidence of many believers, including Lewandowsky, it is political belief that is the driver.
      Full analysis is here.


      Report this

      90

      • #

        > None of us like our basic beliefs to be challenged

        This is true. But what’s astonishing is your (and others here) lack of introspection. Somehow, you think your comment only applies ot people you disagree with.


        Report this

        330

        • #
          James Bradley

          Pot to Kettle once again.


          Report this

          121

        • #
          the Griss

          Again with the slime.. !! Can’t help yourself, can you. !!


          Report this

          112

        • #

          Somehow, you think your comment only applies ot people you disagree with.

          I have analysed a couple of opinion surveys by Lewandowsky, Oberauer and Gignac. The results clearly show that those who frequent alarmist blogs mostly have a strong belief in climate alarmism. 69% of responses on the climate questions had an average score of 4. They also have strong anti-”free market” views. The average score of these 795 strong believers was 1.54, with 1 total rejection.
          I think that it is a far stronger conclusion than that of the title.
          NASA faked the moon landing|Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science
          Only 10 responses out of 1145 supported the moon hoax. Of these just 3 rejected climate “science”. Given that these 3 responses also averaged strong belief in the other 12 conspiracies there is reason to believe that they are scam responses.
          As I believe my view is not based on a lack of introspection but on the evidence, I offer three alternative and related hypotheses for your false accusation.
          First, that you are certain of the truth of your views, so anybody who disagrees with is a liar or mentally deranged. This is behind Lew’s false conspiracist ideation hypothesis, and a generation ago, behind the STASI and the KGB consigning “dissidents” to mental institutions. This might be the case, as you call people who disagree with you dogmatic opinions “denialists“. You view non-believers as lesser beings.
          Second, my lack of introspection is an implied threat. By standing up for truth and science against the false prophets of climatology I could attacked with lies, or at least lose friends as the article implies.
          Third, as a member of the Green Party I have directly attacked your core beliefs. You are one of those people with left-authoritarian views who also believe in the alarmist cult. I realize I may upset your feelings, but I put the wider good before that. The wider political and moral problem is like that of the medical profession. It is not just sufficient to identify the cause of an ailment, but to offer a treatment that will at least have a reasonable expectation of the patient being in a better state than after treatment than without. This duty of care I find totally lacking in the UK. Britain has less than 2% of global climate emissions, and any emissions reductions are being achieved at huge net harm to the poor and future generations, even if the CAGW hypothesis were true.


          Report this

          210

          • #
            James Bradley

            And therein lay the fabric of the global warming propagand machine:

            “It is far easier for the dishionest to fight the truth than for the honest to fight a lie.”


            Report this

            110

        • #
          Glen Michel

          What is astonishing is that a twit such as yourself could wield so much influence,albeit a short-lived one in the wiki pages.As you have little of substance to put up here- not even a hint that ther are matters that deserve consideration I will regard you as an invidious pest.


          Report this

          50

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    I have to wonder why he read Krugman. Krugman has not gotten anything right since Enron. And I am sure all those Enronees are so happy with his “take the money and run” advice.


    Report this

    140

  • #
    PeterS

    I’ll say it again as I’ve said it many times before. Do not blame so much the leaders of the AGW scam, although they should still be held accountable for the scam they have perpetrated and continue to do so. Blame more so the people who continue to refuse to use their brains to figure out the truth, and instead label skeptics as Liberal fools just because some in the LNP have the gall to doubt the AGW story, and instead prefer to follow the ALP line that AGW is fact and the debate is settled. Of course any true scientists knows that the debate is far from steeled, and any person with even an ounce of brain matter and uses it also knows the AGW is a scam. If people were not so gullible, the AGW leaders would have nothing to say and no one would listen. So, I have my doubts that we will see the end of the scam, and it may even grow to the point that the AGW scam artists will end up winning the war. I hope not but worse things have happened in the past due to the stupidity and gullibility of the people.


    Report this

    170

    • #
      James McCown

      Peter, you have some excellent points. But I am seeing more people in the USA who are growing skeptical of AGW. There are those like me who have looked at the evidence and found it unconvincing. And there are many more who haven’t looked at the evidence, but can recognize BS when they hear it.

      What we need to do is get out and mix with people who believe in AGW and also those who are uncertain. When you hear someone mention AGW, ask them “Why hasn’t there been any warming for the last 16 years?”. Show them the evidence.


      Report this

      160

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Living in a semi-rural area I notice that all the ex-farmers over 70 are quite dismissive of AGW. They mightn’t have great knowledge of statistics or radiation physics but years of watching the weather and they all describe AGW in agricultural terms (think by-product of raising cattle).


      Report this

      80

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      First they ignore you,
      Then they laugh at you,
      Then they fight you,
      Then you win.

      Mahatma Gandhi.


      Report this

      70

  • #

    A combination of quite reasonable political and enviromental beliefs seem to have conflagulated into a facist dogma which apparently reasonable people see as an excuse to alienate and attack non-believers.

    If one has socialist leanings and believes free market forces are the devils instruments.
    If one feels that human population or consumerism is the greatest threat to the planet.
    If one actually does NOT trust science and democracy to be able to deal with these threats.
    If one wants to protect the rain forest or thinks oil is evil.

    Then Global Warming and alarmism allows you to put all these eggs in your basket of political correctness and santimony -
    and smite the unbelievers down – and feel good about yourself.

    Unfortunately every single assumption is in fact WRONG.


    Report this

    311

  • #

    Steve McIntyre, the single most dedicated opponent of climate alarmism on the planet, the guy who owned Mann’s Hockey Stick by showing Mann’s math produces hockey sticks from random numbers, is a SOCIALIST.

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100055793/steve-mcintyre-total-bloody-hero/

    Climate isn’t a left / right thing.


    Report this

    260

    • #
      gai

      No it is not a Left/Right thing but the warmists want to make it Left/Right to remove focus from the actual science.

      In the USA it was BUSH (in office January 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993) who signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992 and it was BUSH who intervened to help Maurice Strong stay in charge of the Rio conference. (Strong gave political contributions to both parties in the USA.)


      Report this

      110

    • #
      Jaymez

      While we might consider that we live in a capitalist society – and certainly The Greens claim we do, any society where there is a compulsory transfer of wealth from the more wealthy to the less wealthy is a socialist society. It’s just a matter of to what degree.

      In the US about 15% of GDP is spent on welfare. In Australia it is closer to 20%. Technically Australia’s level is higher because there is employer rather than public provision of sick leave, maternity leave and some other benefits which are Government provided in other OECD countries. Denmark is the most ‘socialist’ OECD country with 30% of GDP spent on welfare.

      Australia has the highest proportion of public transfers flowing to the quintile of the population with the lowest private incomes. It also has the lowest rate of direct taxation on this quintile of the 19 countries that provide these data. This reflects the highly targeted nature of the Australian tax‑transfer (socialist welfare)system.


      Report this

      100

  • #
    Sean

    I think we worry too much about this. As a father of a daughter that had a mind of her own, I realized that when my daughter was just 2 years old, I would never win an argument with her. She’s certainly not an irrational person, its just that defenses go up when she gets pushed. When we did argue, I never expected or got the last word but I always made my point. Eventually, things sink in.

    The climate debate will likely evolve the same way. The people behind the consensus position KNOW they are right but they also know that things aren’t going as planned so they rationalize or they cut off debate so they don’t have to confront the inconsistencies. They get the last word this way. But a discussion usually has a handful of principles arguing and a much large group of people lurking and judging. They understand rational arguments and they understand people who bully and name call. The lurkers are making judgements even if they are not participating and when a politician comes along and says they are going to save the planet by restricting the availability of cheap fossil fueled energy, they start doing the math in their head of how much this might hit their pocket book. Then they’ll remember the discussion and asses the arguments between the antagonists to determine if the costs are worth the alleged benefits. If I’m not mistaken, Australia just did that.


    Report this

    150

  • #
    Tim

    The PR merchants behind this massive propaganda exercise know that fear is a potent motivator. Rising tides, heat, destructive weather events-and even the word ‘catastrophic’ engenders fear and alarm. Adding an urgency to action heightens that fear.

    Behind anger always lies fear, even if the angry person appears to be strong and in control, fear will always be the reason behind their anger.


    Report this

    151

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      If you are going to play the irrational fear card, you need to understand that you only get one shot, on any topic, and it could easily be in your own foot.

      The wider the range of topics that the warmists try to create fear over, the more holes they get in their feet. The good thing is that the more they limp along, the worse their aim becomes.

      Now, do I get the Nova prize for “Mangled Metaphors”?


      Report this

      70

  • #
    klem

    Back when I was still a climate alarmist myself, I used to respond with the same rage. I know exactly what the author refers to here. I could not understand why climate denialists enraged me so, until I took the time to reflect on it. I came to the realization that I believed in man-made climate catastrophe like it was a faith, almost a religion. I often used the term ‘believe’.

    When someone disparages another person’s faith, it will enrage almost anyone.

    That’s when I began to question the underlying science of climate, and that’s when I began down the lonely road to climate skepticism. Thank God for that.


    Report this

    391

  • #
  • #
    Yonniestone

    I have a sister of whom I will probably never talk to again due to this warmist climate of fear that seems to afflict some and not others, after a long time apart due to a family separation we had no malice towards one another until the subject of climate change arose and discovered part of her government work was in the Department of Climate Change.
    She is a true believer but knows me well enough not to bother trying to argue or pick a fight, but I’ll never forget that first realization we both had of being on opposite sides of this insane situation, it was almost a Lecter and Graham moment such was the tension.

    All I can humbly add is that one person will have different strengths, weaknesses and morals compared to another, if people discovered and accepted this of themselves sooner a lot of unnecessary crap could be bypassed.


    Report this

    140

  • #
    Carbon500

    When I first started looking into the whole AGW affair a few years ago, I was struck by the vehemence of the responses to any suggestion that the CO2 idea could be wrong. These days the nasty comments and arrogance don’t bother me, but at the time it came as quite a surprise.
    Recently, I wrote to my Member of Parliament over here in the UK, and also my (at that time) Member of the European Parliament. Neither commented on the figures I’d given them showing the lack of warming despite a near 25% increase in CO2 since 1959, instead both simply reaffirmed their belief in ‘reducing carbon emissions’ and the need to erect as many wind turbines as possible.
    This refusal to look at or comment on actual figures is something which seems to me to be commonplace. Readers I’ve met of the UK ‘Guardian’ and ‘Independent’ newspapers are very staunch supporters of the AGW idea.
    What interests me is that it’s acceptable to go for a second opinion about a medical condition (i.e. question your doctor’s diagnosis), yet we must trust ‘the science’ and the scientists.
    ‘Go figure’ is I believe the American expression to use!


    Report this

    180

    • #
      Peter Yates

      Quote: “This refusal to look at or comment on actual figures is something which seems to me to be commonplace.”

      Yes, this is one of the characteristics of a destructive cult. Sometimes called a ‘mind-control’ cult.
      “Is reading any literature critical of the group discouraged? Many cults will warn members not to read anything critical of the group, especially if written by ex-members (who are called names by the cult such as “apostate”, “hardened”, or “of the devil” etc.). This is a well known information control technique to stop the member from discovering the clear and documented errors of the cult. Member’s abilities to think for themselves are effectively disarmed in this way. Instead, they will think more and more as the rest of the group thinks.”
      link here


      Report this

      41

  • #

    > Namecalling is a tool to stop debate. It works to keep the wandering minds in the square.

    > often afflicted with psychological projection

    Mmm, well, lets see, shall we?

    > You moronic troll
    > Why would anyone in their right mind ever take your advice ? The road to abject failure in life.
    > Really, should we be worried about a rapid depressurization of the corpse?
    > You know what a WC smells like ! More than a “whiff”, more like a “stench”

    And so on. If you want to lecture others, you ought to clean out your own stables. You have mods, no?

    [We do try to moderate all offensive name-calling, it is not helpful in any debate. But unlike many sites, comments don't sit in moderation awaiting approval, and the volunteer moderators may not pick it up straight away. Personally, if it has got past me and it is of the milder type like the examples you have given above, I would tend to simply add a cautionary note like "keep it clean" or "play nice". If there has been tit-for-tat, I might let it go. More serious name-calling and offensive comments are snipped. Some obvious words will automatically cause a comment to be suspended for moderation. The system isn't perfect, but I haven't come across a fairer site. Of course we don't approach 'moderation' in the way you did at Wikipedia! - Mod]


    Report this

    738

    • #
      Yonniestone

      WC I believe those comments were made out of frustration with your failure to complete the scientific debate discussed at the time, which BTW was allowed to occur by the mods and Joanne in the expectation that you could continue to provide evidence of any claims at the time, resorting to a link to a site where others agree with you is not explaining yourself, even I know that.

      Also consider if a CAGW skeptic would even get a start on a warmist blog let alone a chance to show and explain evidence to back their claims, I agree insults don’t help debate but if the debate just deteriorates to contradictions then nerves will be frayed and frustration will be vented in it’s many forms.

      Think of it like this, these insults you complain of would be far worse and given almost instantly to a skeptic before any science was even suggested on say Desmog or Crikey, compared to them the people here are bloody saints.


      Report this

      321

    • #

      William, given that you call us deniers, admit it’s a political label, and not a scientific one, you are your own recursive pot-kettle-black. You allow people to use it like a carpet in comments on your blog. Touche?

      FWIW though, I agree Moronic troll etc is namecalling, and would prefer if commenters here did less. I promise moderation here will be comprehensive and 100% perfect when we get our first paid subscriber. Perhaps you’d like to?

      Despite your propensity to allow namecalling on your site, I’ve snipped and withheld quite a lot of the worst unsubstantiated comments aimed at you, and asked commenters to give reasons for insults rather than just doing “drive by namecalling”.


      Report this

      301

      • #

        > you call us deniers

        You’ve angled for me to do that, but I’ve resisted. See our previous conversation. So no, I haven’t.

        > recursive pot-kettle-black

        You’re the one writing blog posts decrying “Namecalling is a tool to stop debate”. If you want to be non-hypocritical, you need to moderate those who do it on your site. You know exactly who they are; they’re the same ones every time.

        > your propensity to allow namecalling on your site

        There’s nothing on my site even vaguely as bad as the worst stuff here.

        > would prefer if commenters here did less

        Yeah, but are you actually going to call them out? Those comments are still there. If preferences were horses then beggars would ride.


        Report this

        740

        • #
          mike

          If I may be so bold, I recommend we should at least consider the differences between “good-guy” name-calling and “bad-guy” name-calling. Not that name-calling can ever be justified, of course.

          Name-calling has always been an agit-prop specialty of the hive, as we all know, used to promote its various and incessant plots, intrigues, and cull-crazy dystopias, albeit with limited effectiveness due to a lack of imagination and panache in hive-practice. That last, attributable to the top-down, collectivist, brutally enforced conformity the hive ham-handedly imposes on its apparatchik-grade, Gaia-fodder good-comrades–a conformity that regards the slightest show of intellectual originality as a grave insult and threat to the hive’s “narrative”-compliant, brainwashed-dork “normative-ideal” of lefty, useful-tool comportment. In other words, the hive’s name-calling is invariably just the sort of trite, party-line, conditioned-reflex gas-baggery you’d expect from a hive-bot dullard on auto-pilot.

          In contrast, name-calling by freedom-lovers promotes honest, transparent, disinterested, democratic, principled governance of our nations by laws, not men; with justice dispensed even-handedly without fear or favor; and with a public servant ethic that grants employment and advancement exclusively to the meritorious, not well-connected hive-parasites, and that regards the general welfare of our nations as the proper end-product of government service. And since freedom-lovers are free from the hive’s P.C.-policed cant-templates, their name-calling is, consequentially, open to flourishes of color, wit, novelty, and individuality of the sort that entertains and engages the listener, even as it kicks hive-butt!

          Again, I’d never advocate or condone name-calling, by anyone, most especially by me, myself, moi, and I, but the differences in good-guys’ and bad-guys’ name-calling are noted.


          Report this

          80

        • #
          bullocky

          w.c.:
          ‘There’s nothing on my site even vaguely as bad as the worst stuff here’
          -
          Evidence that the very worst ad-hommers are stoat-friendly.


          Report this

          30

          • #
            the Griss

            When you have a load of sycophantic wannabe followers sucking-up to each other on same site, of course the language between them is moderate.


            Report this

            52

        • #
          Angry

          “William Connolley”,
          Here is the latest from your god al gore……..

          Gore blames Syria on global warming:-
          http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gore_blames_syria_on_global_warming/

          Any individual who follows this global warming religion is mentally retarded !!!


          Report this

          60

        • #
          Bob_FJ

          WC,

          You wrote:

          “There’s nothing on my site even vaguely as bad as the worst stuff here.”

          Do you have a list of the worst stuff here for us to lament?

          Could your claimed comparative purity be because the Mods here are less stringent than I guess just you alone on your low traffic site?


          Report this

          40

        • #

          “There’s nothing on my site even vaguely as bad as the worst stuff here.”

          Actually there isn’t much on your site that interests very many people at all. This is evidenced by your site’s low volume of traffick.

          You come here because you can get your message read as it isn’t happening at your site. At least Jo allows you to post here.

          Others, aren’t so kind, are they? In fact, you’re comments were left in moderation by another regular commenter at this site who also has his own site. How did it feel to be treated as you have treated others?

          Tolkien’s character Grima Wormtongue can’t hold a candle to you.

          “…anyone to edit it, provided they can back up what they say with reliable sources.”

          You didn’t “edit.” You altered and censored in a propaganda campaign that would have made the Soviets blush!

          Have you no shame?

          You are someone that has demonstrated an unethical and unflinching belief that the end justifies the means.


          Report this

          120

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          William,

          I feel bound to point out that you have some notoriety on the web, gained in part by forcing your personal views on others, contrary to what they honestly and professionally believed to be true. Not only that, you did it in a way that brooked no discussion or argument. In short you acted in a boorish, arrogant and insulting way, and in so doing, brought all of Wikipedia into disrepute, changing it from being seen as a useful source of information, to one of dubious quality.

          People were offended by that. People remember. And people no longer trust you, or what you say. Some people go so far as to think that you pollute whatever forum you happen to visit.

          So when you come here, being arrogant, boorish, insulting, and failing to respect others, they remember, and treat you accordingly.

          The Web does not forget. You have a stigma that you will carry for the rest of your life. The only hope you have, is to show some humility, but nobody is placing bets that you will succeed.


          Report this

          20

      • #

        You have many paid subscribers, because “we like it just the way it is”!


        Report this

        30

    • #
      Glen Michel

      Yeah William be nice to people.Why denigrate for having a dissimilar view.Any doubts?


      Report this

      70

    • #
      Backslider

      You moronic troll

      Learn to read William, that was directed at Mattb.

      You do not come here for rational debate, but as a TROLL. Expect to be treated as one.

      That’s the difference.


      Report this

      262

      • #

        > that was directed at

        I made no assertion that it was directed at me. I was pointing out that our hostess permits, and does not redact, comments here that manifestly violate the principles she asserts she believes in.

        > as a TROLL. Expect to be treated as one

        And that, too, is a comment of the type “Namecalling is a tool to stop debate”. But our hostess gives some of her commentators a free pass for rudeness, it appears.

        [I didn't assume your examples were directed at you William. We understand your point, do not claim our moderating is perfect, but given the volume of comments if your examples are the worst you can come up with, even if admittedly undesirable, we aren't doing too bad. You and all readers are welcome to hit the 'report this' tag if you are keen to highlight site rule contraventions. You aren't aware of the number of comments which have been moderated so your comment "our hostess gives some of her commentators a free pass for rudeness" has no basis - though I note you wisely added "it appears" at the end. - Mod]

        [I would also add that since 20 Jan 2014 there are well over 200 comments posted by you so you have certainly been given a fair go. There wouldn't be a 'warmist' site which would deal so fairly with a 'skeptic'. So pointing out some minor inadequacies in moderation seems fairly petty. - Mod]


        Report this

        323

        • #

          > I didn’t assume your examples were directed at you William

          My comment was addressed to B, who clearly had made that mistake.

          > the worst you can come up wit

          Oh, there’s far more. But I think the point is made now.

          > There wouldn’t be a ‘warmist’ site which would deal so fairly with a ‘skeptic’

          Sez you, with a total absence of evidence.

          > minor inadequacies in moderation

          Nemo iudex in causa sua.

          (Do you have a counterpoint to make against the post itself?) CTS


          Report this

          427

        • #
          Liv

          But WC you are a troll. You’ve come on here to disrupt, to make unfounded and unsupported allegations, and to promote your own blog and narrow world views. If you’ve got scientific evidence to refute anyone’s arguments on here, or if you’ve actaully got anything to add to the general debate, then please post it. Otherwise I’d merely say to everyone, “Don’t feed the troll!”


          Report this

          132

    • #
      the Griss

      “> Why would anyone in their right mind ever take your advice ? The road to abject failure in life.”

      Hey, you were the one trying to lord it over others with your egotistical arrogance.

      And please, stop the “butter wouldn’t melt in my mouth”, façade….

      …….You know you are constantly trying to get up people’s noses, that’s your whole reason for being here.


      Report this

      181

    • #
      Mark D.

      Connolley wants to be a Mod?

      His proven method would eliminate all skeptical comments.

      Really funny to see the fauxrage William. Ha ha I sense your pain I weep for you…….


      Report this

      180

    • #
      Mark D.

      You select this as an example:

      Really, should we be worried about a rapid depressurization of the corpse?

      Why?


      Report this

      80

    • #
      Kevin Hilde

      Well William, while “Billy did it first” is unlikely to be an adequate defense when a mother sees her son punch his younger sibling ……

      I foolishly followed a link to your recent post about David’s work here. Pot/kettle is an insufficient comparison. William, after reading your post and the comment thread, I would almost describe it as a wrought iron factory.


      Report this

      120

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      Yes, clean up your act. I am tired of your petty insults.


      Report this

      80

    • #
      richo

      With due respect William, people are only responding to your belligerence. If you conducted yourself like Nick Stokes you may earn some respect.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        PeterK

        How can you earn something when you do not have a clue of how social graces work. When you look down on others and think that you are infallible, then you see the problem…it’s everybody else by WC standards.


        Report this

        100

    • #
      James Bradley

      Yes, William,

      Moderation is to be admired, censorship to be abhored.

      You could learn a lot from this site if your goal wasn’t merely to attract attention to your own.


      Report this

      90

  • #

    Many warmist commentators simply cannot imagine that they may be wrong on the science. Therefore they think it must be a communication problem. Moreover in spite of the fact that the MSM and late- night entertainers in the US are almost all propagandists for the alarmist viewpoint the true believers even blame the media for sowing uncertainty if they very occasionally allow any sort of opposing view to be heard.
    However even the Guardian’s Monbiot is wrestling with problem – he thinks a different psychological approach will help his cause.
    Here is my comment on his recent piece headed
    “Saving the world should be based on promise, not fear
    For 30 years I banged on about threats. But research shows we must to be true to ourselves – and to the wonder in nature”
    Does this portend a gentler, kinder tone to the discussion.?
    My comment:
    “George For years you have been motivated by the IPCCs predictions of climate catastrophe and the feeling of self righteousness created by feeling that you are trying to save nature from the evil oil companies etc.
    You have difficulty in even imagining that you might be wrong in your basic assumption that the IPCC science is correct so that obviously the problem must be in how you are communicating your message to the benighted or that they are only motivated by economic self interest as against your virtuous concern for the general good.
    You should at least entertain the possibility that those who disagree with you have as much concern for the environment as you do but simply have come to the conclusion that the IPCC science is flawed to the point of fraudulence and provides no basis for future policy. Do your self a favour and read carefully through the post at
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/10/commonsense-climate-science-and.html
    and then several of the other posts at
    http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
    Doesn’t the fact that there has now been no net warming for 16 years at least give you some slight concern re your basic beliefs ? Enough to go back to the basic data for another look?”

    I do commend George for at least not moderating out my comment- is this a sign of the possibility of rational discussion at the Guardian? Probably not- his Nutticelli friend almost always deletes any comments which I or others post referring to the actual data.


    Report this

    220

    • #
      observa

      To be fair to George he was the only one among his philosophical and political peers to be deeply disturbed by the implications of the Climategate emails at the time.


      Report this

      90

    • #
      GregS

      We had a similar problem with the previous Labor Governments (Rudd/Gillard/Rudd), they fretted and worried that their message on almost any topic was not getting through, that they were slipping in the polls and people were obviously not getting the message. The conclusion they kept drawing was that the message had not been properly sold or that the public were not sophisticated enough (meaning stupid) to understand the value in the message.

      At no time did they ever consider that people did not like the message or policy, it was always the sales pitch or the people who were at fault.

      Sometimes it takes a while but eventually when the hype is seen through by Joe Average then these movements just have to fail.


      Report this

      80

    • #
      mike

      Dr. Page, I am intrigued by your comment and thinking about it prompted me to devise a rival, half-baked theory of my very own, for what it’s worth.

      In that regard, let me offer an “Einstein” knock-off thought experiment with you in the leading role (presumptuous, I know):

      -Suppose you were in a conversation with some do-gooder, anti-smoking hive-zealot and, while in the course of agreeing with your interlocutor on the health hazards of second-hand smoke, you were to pull out an evil-smelling stogie, fire that booger up, and begin to blow smoke rings into your fellow conversationalist’s face?

      -Can we not reasonably think that the good-comrade tobacco-phobe, on the receiving end of your smoke rings, would then erupt in “Second-Hand Smoke Rage”, demanding you extinguish your Havana-wannabe while denouncing you as a hypocrite and fool for smoking while spouting anti-smoking sentiments? I think we can, because when it comes to smoking your standard-issue hive-flake truly believes in the health risks of smoking and so practices the anti-smoking message he preaches and sets the anti-smoking example.

      Contrast the above thought-experiment, then, with a similar one, again starring yourself. But, this time, the thought-experiment involves so-called carbon-”pollution” as opposed to smoking:

      -In the thought-scape of this second experiment, you have magically become Al Gore or the heir to a certain throne or a certain money-bags big-shot who outranks a certain leader of a certain free world (I’ll pause for a moment so you can get into character) and you are addressing the same guy, above, who was so dead-set, in word and deed, against smoking. And you both are at some boondoggle eco-confab, to which the event’s attendees have all traveled in CO2-spewing jet airplanes, even though the gab-fest could have been easily held as a carbon-free video-conference. And so there’s the two of you, now, marinating in soul-mate good-vibes as your pheromone exchange finds common ground in the evils of demon-carbon and the absolute necessity of reducing humanity’s carbon foot-print, here and now, for the sake of the kids and the polar bears and all that good stuff.

      -You, then, liking the cut of this Gaia-freak’s jib, offer the lucky stiff a chance to “join the team” and enjoy unfettered use of your high-carbon mansions and castles; your numerous, bullet-proof limousines; your private-jet fleet; and a jet-set life style filled with wondrous, carbon-piggie troughs, perks, and gravy-trains. So does this invitation provoke “Climate Rage” in our anti-carbon crusader? Does it prompt a denunciation of you as a brazen hypocrite and a carbon-addict despoiler of our precious planet’s fragile, delicate atmosphere? Not likely. Rather, your proto-flunky’s response is most likely to be such, that it leaves your scary-dude body guards struggling to fend off his repeated, frantic attempts to kiss your rump in obsequious gratitude for your invite. Right?

      -So why the difference in the responses to tobacco and carbon? Well, here’s how my well-stropped razor, left to me in Mr. Occam’s will, slices and dices the matter. The “greens”, in their hearts of hearts know this whole climate-change, scare-mongering business is a crock and their in-your-face, two-faced carbon-”sins” do no real harm. And that’s also why our “betters”, who preach the carbon-tax true-faith, don’t employ the one “communication strategy” that would truly realize the success of their enviro-scams–LEADERSHIP FROM THE FRONT AND BY PERSONAL EXAMPLE!!!PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH!!!!

      Voila! That’s my little theory! And you were just great, Dr. Page, in your roles–thanks and congratulations! And, oh by the way, our Philosopher Kings’ and Queens’ swinish trough-manners suck!


      Report this

      41

  • #

    Hell is the impossibility of reason.

    Pointman


    Report this

    130

  • #

    Just to confuse everyone I’ve posted the new post under this one. I was afraid the New Part IV would push this little thread way down.


    Report this

    110

    • #
      Yonniestone

      And thus proving how correct you are on the deterioration of scientific debate in this field Jo.


      Report this

      41

    • #

      This post bumped to the top so it doesn’t get lost under the newer post: Solar Model Part IV below.

      Just to confuse everyone I’ve posted the new post under this one. I was afraid the New Part IV would push this little thread way down.

      Jo? Am I the only paying attention here? Isn’t it Part VI below? Just sayin’.

      You’re all probably too distracted by the wee-Willy-rhymes-with-banker to notice.

      :)


      Report this

      40

  • #
    observa

    “In 1987, the Cold War was starting to warm up, but so was the Earth. The Berlin Wall was starting to come down, but nascent political and ideological threats were emerging. Traditional academic disciplines were searching for new language, tools, and answers to interdisciplinary problems. The concept of sustainability was just being introduced, but there was a growing appreciation that problems of the environment, economy, and society were intricately linked.
    This idea drove us to create the Pacific Institute. We believed that global problems and effective solutions in the 21st century would require innovative ways of thinking, seeing, and doing. “

    Ask yourself what “nascent political and ideological threats were emerging” and why indeed “Traditional academic disciplines were searching for new language, tools, and answers to interdisciplinary problems.” Just what were these “ new languages, tools and answers” and I’ll suggest most strongly to you they were all the beginnings of post-normal science and its challenge to “traditional academic disciplines.” I’ll leave you to ponder why and just who that speaker is.


    Report this

    110

  • #
    Glen Michel

    I too have found that a sure way to upset some is to propose doubt about the issue.Normal people suddenly go red and start frothing at the mouth;others take on a catatonic stare.It’s a no-go area for some people.If some folk can barely contain their rage it bodes no good for further discussion even if the topic is changed.Very strange and never before encountered.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    jim2

    When this happened to me, the person in question got mad. He said his mind is made up and that no data or anything else could change his mind. Our relationship is in tact, but probaly only because this person is part of the family and was my guest. I didn’t push it further.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Gary

    Read Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow to understand what’s going on in the minds of enraged warmists. System I kicks in fast and furiously so they don’t get eaten by the tiger lurking in the bush. There is no time for rational evaluation when you’re scared. And don’t ignore the impact of framing. When you’ve been indoctrinated with the CAGW meme for so long, it’s very difficult to see anything else as possible.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Ted Swart

    ouberva:
    Perhaps you would be kind enough to tell us all what “post-normal science” is supposed to mean. Most of us skeptics regard tbeing hose who support CAGW as hooked on what can only be described as abnormal science. Being as I am an engineer/scientist/mathmatician my feeing is that science — when properly ursued – does not need anthing “post-normal” and abnormal science should be avoided like the plague that it is.


    Report this

    100

  • #
    Robert O

    I would just like to see a significant correlation, say about r squared = o.9+, for global temperature and levels of atmospheric CO2; without this any scientist would have to be a denier, and any carbon tax a lot of hot air.


    Report this

    40

    • #

      Why 0.9? CO2 isn’t the only influence on temperature. It isn’t even the only manmade influence.

      There will never be a linear or 1-1 correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature, especially in the beginning of climate change, like now, where the CO2 signal is still relatively small. This is a problem that’s going to last for millennia, whereas we mere humans focus on months and years.


      Report this

      122

      • #

        Please show any CO2 signal, except the cooling one in the stratosphere!


        Report this

        81

        • #

          There are several indications of CO2′s influence, like a cooler stratosphere, more warming at night than in the daytime, measurements that show less outgoing IR at the top of the atmosphere at the wavelengths where CO2 absorbs, and more.

          If you don’t know these, you clearly aren’t interested in knowing them, because they have been written about extensively for decades.


          Report this

          317

          • #

            more warming at night than in the daytime

            Do you think that other greenhouse gas in the form of water vapor might have something to do with that?

            measurements that show less outgoing IR at the top of the atmosphere at the wavelengths where CO2 absorbs

            So CO2 absorbs but doesn’t emit? Or emits selectively? Could you explain how that is done? I see a money making opportunity here.


            Report this

            80

            • #

              Of course all GHGs create the enhanced greenhouse effect. But water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing — it’s only increasing because the lower atmosphere is getting warmer.

              CO2 absorbs, and it emits. But some of the emission is down, instead of up.


              Report this

              113

              • #
                Mark D.

                But water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing

                Prove that David Appell


                Report this

                110

              • #
                Bob_FJ

                David Appell,

                So the predominant water vapour GHG effect is you say a feedback and not a forcing. Putting aside the semantics, would you care to confirm whether H2O feedback is positive or negative?
                The great prophet Kevin Trenberth claims (within his IPCC collegiate) that the greatest HEAT loss from the surface is via evapotranspiration. Do you dispute that?


                Report this

                60

              • #

                The proof is the Clausius-Claperyon equation.


                Report this

                13

              • #

                So the predominant water vapour GHG effect is you say a feedback and not a forcing.

                Atmospheric water vapor, of course, is a climate forcing. But the amount of water vapor only changes when the temperature changes — the air can only hold so much water vapor, per the Clausius-Claperyon equation. Unlike CO2, we could never pump more water vapor into the atmosphere, because it would rain out.


                Report this

                04

              • #
                Mark D.

                David Appell (here after DA standing for DumbAss) why didn’t you apologize for stating at this post: http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/climate-rage-we-absolutely-cannot-have-a-rational-conversation/#comment-1491421

                But water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing

                Now here you are saying:

                Atmospheric water vapor, of course, is a climate forcing.

                Majorly confused aren’t you?

                Say you’re sorry! Realize that you are among people that have been around this subject for awhile and won’t be fooled by lightweight comments.


                Report this

                50

      • #
        handjive

        whereas we mere humans focus on months and years. ❞

        Who is this “we‘ you speak of, Kemo sabe?


        Report this

        61

      • #
        Robert O

        I’ll settle for a significant non-linear regression as well which includes other parameters, but could one please explain what these other drivers are, and perhaps we can design a tax for these as well. I would have thought that solar output was pretty important in heating the earth, but we do have an internal heat source as well which reminds us from time to time as Krakatoa did.


        Report this

        40

      • #

        Well David if you believe in science – you do believe don’t you – the response is logarithmic. Which is to say the worst has already been done. Unless the Chinese keep going at it at the current rate.

        Say don’t you think a war with them is advisable – assuming they don’t intend to stop their industrialization plans.


        Report this

        50

        • #

          Our emissions are increasing exponentially, so the forcing is increasing linearly. And the warming allows more water vapor in the air, which also absorbs. So by no means has the worst already happened.


          Report this

          116

          • #
            Mark D.

            so the forcing is increasing linearly. And the warming allows more water vapor in the air, which also absorbs. So by no means has the worst already happened.

            Funny David Appell, prove that “the worst is still to come”. Meanwhile, explain to William Connolley why your hint of catastrophic effects are a skeptical invention.


            Report this

            100

          • #
          • #
            Robert O

            The data of CO2 from Hawaii looks pretty linear to me, certainly not exponential, photosynthesis may have something to do with it.


            Report this

            40

          • #
            J Martin

            Emissions are increasing linearly, and since the effect of co2 decreases logarithmically and we have reached the essentially flat part of that graph then it is hardly surprising temperatures are not going anywhere. Even if co2 had a significant effect before, clearly it is no longer a player and so the cooling we can expect in the coming years from the low current solar cycle and the next (expected to be) much lower solar cycle is likely to be the dominant factor. Add in the PDO went negative about 6 years ago and AMO going negative in about 6 years, also the reduced UV and reduced magnetic fields of both the Sun and the Earth.

            In the face of this if Davvid Appell is so confident of warming in the coming years tghen perhps he should invest in that and place a long term bet at his local bookies.


            Report this

            50

            • #

              CO2 emissions are increasing at about 2-3%/yr. That’s exponential.


              Report this

              08

              • #
                bullocky

                Currently at approx. 0.04% of atmosphere.
                Increments decline in warming value logarithmically.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                the Griss

                “CO2 emissions are increasing at about 2-3%/yr. That’s exponential.”

                GOOD, the more the better.

                800+ is a good aiming point..

                Unfortunately it is unlikely to ever get there :-(


                Report this

                71

              • #
                sophocles

                … and the plants are just loving it!

                Don’t worry, the satellites show the concentrations of CO2 are NOT over the human industrial and built up areas but over places such as the Amazon rain forest and even over the southern Indian ocean. Hmmm. Must be being emitted from the ocean. Well, there goes the myth of ocean acidification. If the oceans are emitting, they can’t be absorbing.

                Have you ever been to the natural history museums?
                Looked at those huge dinosaur skeletons?
                Thought about how or why they evolved to grow so large?

                Answer: CO2 at 2000 – 4000 ppm!

                Biggest land animal now is the mere smear pygmy of the elephant.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                No, that is linear. So you do not know that CO2 is a trace gas, and now admit you have no clue what exponential is (hint: think EXPONENT).


                Report this

                20

          • #
            bobl

            Our emissions are increasing roughly linearly, or actually according to a very shallow quadratic, not exponentially at all. One must also take into account that biological uptake is proportional to emission but lagged by a year or so. Please David don’t make stuff up.


            Report this

            80

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            CO2 is NOT increasing exponentially. You have a disconnect between your models and reality.


            Report this

            10

            • #
              sophocles

              With mankind’s emissions of CO2 forming about 4% of the total emissions of CO2 per year, then increases of our emissions of 2-3% per year are going to have an effect we can’t even measure.

              3% of 4% = 0.0012%. Like it’s … microscopic. Wow. What enormous-run-round-in-circles-flapping-arms-squawking-like-a-chicken-in-a-panic amounts. Sheesh.

              That’s one thing I do find irritating: a complete lack of the concept of orders of magnitude.


              Report this

              10

  • #

    If you want tolerance and humility, and a willingness to defer to the evidence and gradual process of scientific discovery, you will find it among those who have no desire to manage the world from the top down.

    You’re projecting. Some people who accept AGW science want to manage the world “from the top down,” just as some stamp collectors do. But most want to simply solve this serious problem in the most judicious and efficient way possible, because they too value freedom and are wary of government power.

    If the proposed solutions don’t jive with your ideology, then propose solutions that do, instead of denying the problem exists. By declining to be part of the solution, you will get stuck with the solutions of those who have a different ideology, and they may not be solutions you agree with politically.


    Report this

    325

    • #
      James McCown

      Dave, I just love your analogy to stamp collecting. What next, will you compare AGW alarmists with with people who breed parakeets?

      If the proposed solutions don’t jive with your ideology, then propose solutions that do, instead of denying the problem exists.

      You warmists will first have to establish that a problem exists. You haven’t done a very good job of it so far.


      Report this

      250

    • #

      Many national academies of science disagree with you. What do you know that they do not?


      Report this

      326

      • #
        farmerbraun

        I know that I don’t know; they don’t. :-)


        Report this

        120

        • #

          They know what the science shows. That’s the whole point of doing science — to know things. It’s been extraordinarily successful at that.


          Report this

          319

          • #
            bullocky

            David Appell:
            “That’s the whole point of doing science — to know things. It’s been extraordinarily successful at that.’
            -
            Does this mean that the GCMs are not science?
            -
            (…..it’s consensus/evasion/obfuscation time again…….)


            Report this

            70

            • #

              Does this mean that the GCMs are not science?

              They’re science, just like any calculation is science — solutions to the PDEs that describe the underlying physics.


              Report this

              215

              • #
                bullocky

                David Appell:
                ‘They’re science, just like any calculation is science…’
                -
                Wrong. An incorrect calculation may not contribute to science unless it is acknowledged as such.


                Report this

                70

              • #
                farmerbraun

                Yep that’s the only useful thing about wrong science ; the fact that it can be falsified. And that the falsification is acknowledged.
                Now , where were we . . .? :-)


                Report this

                110

              • #
              • #
                bullocky

                David Appell:
                ‘What is the falsification?”
                -
                Where do you think it should be applied, in respect of farmerbraun’s generalised statement?


                Report this

                30

              • #
                the Griss

                “What is the falsification?”

                predictions that are wildly at odds with reality..

                ie most GCM’s


                Report this

                80

              • #

                They’re science, just like any calculation is science — solutions to the PDEs that describe the underlying physics.

                Only if all the coefficients are know to sufficient accuracy.

                Things like – what is the sign of the cloud parameter – and why are clouds parametrized and not modeled?

                Such faith in something where there are known holes. Many known (and probably some unknown) holes.


                Report this

                40

              • #

                There isn’t sufficient computing power to model clouds directly — too many length scales involved. So they’re parametrized.

                Can you do better? Show how, and you’ll be world famous this time next year.


                Report this

                08

              • #
                bullocky

                ‘Can you do better? Show how, and you’ll be world famous this time next year.’
                -
                100 yrs for climate models!


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Mark D.

                There isn’t sufficient computing power to model clouds directly — too many length scales involved. So they’re parametrized.

                Parametrized = We guessed.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Backslider

                They’re science, just like any calculation is science — solutions to the PDEs that describe the underlying physics.

                Which only reveals that you do not know the meaning of “science”.

                Let me give you a hint: They are heavily manipulated, guesswork statistics (not science).

                Now, be a good boy and please take the time to Google “Feynman” who will very quickly teach you the meaning of “science”.


                Report this

                20

          • #

            Mark D.
            June 23, 2014 at 1:23 am

            Parametrized = We guessed.

            That was exactly my point. I was hoping he knew the company line (which happens to be true) on that question. And it is not just computing power. We don’t know what all the details are to a sufficient degree of accuracy. And sometimes we are ignorant of our ignorance.


            Report this

            30

            • #
              Mark D.

              Yes MSimon, if climate scientists were to start every proclamation with: “At our present level of ignorance…..”

              we’d all be better off.


              Report this

              30

          • #

            They know what the science shows.

            Science doesn’t show anything.

            Evidence Shows.


            Report this

            30

      • #
        James McCown

        Many national academies of science disagree with you. What do you know that they do not?

        What do I know that they do not? Probably nothing. The difference is that I am willing to recognize the facts, and the warmists have a strong incentive to keep up their charade. Many of them such as Lonnie Thompson at Ohio State and Michael Mann at Penn State have brought in millions in research funding. If they came clean and admitted there is little or no evidence that burning fossil fuels is affecting the climate, that gravy train would dry up very quickly. And some of these gentlemen might even find themselves under criminal prosecution for fraud. With the notable exception of Judith Curry, I expect very few of the warmists will ever admit their theories are flawed.


        Report this

        70

        • #

          Curry has quite a number of flawed theories, the most obvious being her silly stadium wave. But I can’t recall her ever admitting that any of her theories are flawed. Could you provide a reference?


          Report this

          326

        • #

          But there isn’t “little or no evidence that burning fossil fuels is affecting the climate” — there is a lot of evidence. That is, after all, why so many scientists and their academies accept AGW — the evidence leads them to that conclusion.


          Report this

          328

          • #
            the Griss

            Arguments from authority will get you nowhere here. Many members of these so-called academies do not agree with the statement the paid invested top-brass put out.

            One large society recently had to recant its position due to member pressure..

            I suspect many others will start to follow, once the global temperature starts dropping over the next several years.

            The DIVERGENCE between the models that the whole scam is built around, and reality will become untenable.


            Report this

            191

          • #
            Glen Michel

            Yes but we have got rid of a lot of that yucky particulate carbon-at least in the west so prove to me that this recently proscribed odourless trace gas is going to make this planet fry.


            Report this

            50

          • #
            farmerbraun

            You don’t get it eh?
            There are a lot of other things , both known and possible unknowns, that could be causing what you claim is a deviation from “normal’ climate.

            Unless and until ALL of those possible other causes have been firmly ruled out, we are left with mere conjecture that CO2 from fossil fuel-burning is the cause.

            Of course , to be even bothered , in the first place you need to have shown that there was or is a deviation from “normal” climate. But for the sake of argument only , let us say that you shown that (quite how you would do it is another topic).

            Surely you must acknowledge this ; this is how we gain scientific knowledge.


            Report this

            30

            • #

              What other things could be causing the warming, that haven’t been eliminated.

              CO2′s warming is basic physics. The Earth gives off infared radiation, and CO2 absorbs some of it. Then it emits IR in a random direction, and some of that goes downward or sideways.

              That’s your global warming. All based on very basic science. It would be surprising if CO2 DIDN’T cause warming.


              Report this

              15

            • #
              farmerbraun

              “What other things could be causing the warming, that haven’t been eliminated.?”

              Hey you’re getting it ; the scientific method.
              The answer to your question is ; we don’t know. There is no unified theory of climate which explains how it all works.
              That is why it is currently impossible to show what fraction of any putative warming can be attributed to any single factor ; because we don’t know all the factors , so we cannot carry out the process of elimination.

              Stick around David . You are making great progress.


              Report this

              40

              • #

                Baloney. Science knows what the natural factors are, and there is no evidence of some big natural factor that hasn’t been detected. Mysticism won’t serve here.

                Science also knows the CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that more of it will cause warming.

                These are all known from, of course, the scientic method.


                Report this

                25

              • #
                Backslider

                Science also knows the CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that more of it will cause warming.

                These are all known from, of course, the scientic method.

                Please enlighten us with the experimental science which shows this, David.


                Report this

                42

              • #

                If you don’t know the experimental evidence by now, which has been written about widely, you clearly haven’t been interested in trying to find out.

                That’s why “Where’s the evidence” games about basic science are meaningless.


                Report this

                26

              • #
                farmerbraun

                “Science knows what the natural factors are, ” (that control climate)
                OK , leaving aside the fact that science is a method , not a person, where is this model of climate which is known to accurately describe everything that we observe?
                It’s puzzling that I have never seen it.


                Report this

                41

              • #
                the Griss

                Yes, science does know.. and those without blinkers can see what’s coming.

                If the real scientists prove to be correct, and we are heading into a significantly cooler period.

                Will you put up your hand and apologise for the decimation of power supply systems world wide.

                As millions of people die from the cold, will you be stand up to counted as one of the ones to blame?

                Or will you run and hide?

                ‘Warm’ would mean PROSPERITY.

                ‘COLD’ would mean DESPERATION.

                We so-called sceptics have not caused any harm, except to maybe slow down the rampant implementation of ineffective, inefficient, unreliable non-alternative energy supplies, and if the climate pseudo-scientists are right, and the CO2 does force the temperature up a fraction of a degree, I would certainly be more pleased at that, than the alternative.

                The alarmista, on the other harm have caused immense harm, and waste of funds that SHOULD have been spent elsewhere on helping under developed countries.

                A despicable tragedy. !

                I would actually prefer the climate to warm slightly, especially as China, India etc are not going to curtail their burning of fossil fuels, so the CO2 supply for world agriculture is guaranteed.

                The only effect of carbon taxes etc in developed countries will be to destroy their own economies. If that is the aim, then so be it.

                I’m in Sydney, so its not going to get too cold, and Australia is linked to China, India as a raw materials supplier. Australia will survive.

                If you are in the UK or Europe, north part of USA, or other northern areas of the world….. good luck to you. :-)


                Report this

                63

              • #
                the Griss

                Energy poverty, old age, freezing winters, unstable irregular power (lucky you are on coal power, hey, David).

                This is a recipe for major increases in death rates in UK, northern Europe, northern USA…

                Is this REALLY what they want ???

                Is this the ultimate aim ???


                Report this

                53

              • #
                Backslider

                If you don’t know the experimental evidence by now, which has been written about widely, you clearly haven’t been interested in trying to find out.

                Nonsense. We would just like you to backup what you say.


                Report this

                30

      • #
        Bob_FJ

        David Appell,

        It is not clear to me but I guess you were replying to James McCown when you asserted:

        “Many national academies of science disagree with you. What do you know that they do not?”

        Did you Mr Appell know that there have been strong grumblings in the ranks of such academies that members were misrepresented of their opinions by their boards?


        Report this

        91

        • #

          Who’s grumbing? And what does that prove — someone is always grumbling somewhere.


          Report this

          05

          • #
            farmerbraun

            Possibly that some people want to abandon the scientific method. While others prefer to keep it.


            Report this

            50

            • #
              Greg Cavanagh

              Too subtle I think farmerbraun.

              Bob_FJ is hinting at the fact that many of the science and geological societies who have put out statements of faith in Global Warming, did not do so with the consent of agreement of the society members. The members disagree with these statements, and I know of at least one geological society who has rescinded their CAGW faith statement.

              A statement of society is simply a statement of the management. It doesn’t really say much about the science, but it does say a lot about the management.


              Report this

              40

      • #
        bobl

        Well for a start I know that a system with a loop gain of 0.95 and time lags cannot be stable!


        Report this

        30

        • #

          bobl
          June 22, 2014 at 4:21 pm

          Well for a start I know that a system with a loop gain of 0.95 and time lags cannot be stable!

          Um. I was under the impression that you needed a system gain of >1 for instability. I do admit that without sufficient damping (what is the Bode plot?) the system will tend to ring in response to disturbances.


          Report this

          10

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        Would those be the ones that agree with you that CO2 is not a trace gas? LOL Yea, real high brow there.


        Report this

        20

    • #
      the Griss

      “But most want to simply solve this serious problem”

      The only thing with a serious problem are the models predicting a serious problem.

      Without the models.. there is no problem to be solved. It does not exist in reality.

      The most efficient way of solving the problem would be to dump all the predictions of the climate models… before reality invalidates them even further.


      Report this

      172

      • #

        You don’t need a climate model to know CO2′s effect — studies of past occurrences of climate change show it, with the climate sensitivity as models get.

        And if you have a way to calculate the world’s future climate without a model, I (and many others) would love to see it.


        Report this

        323

        • #
          bullocky

          David Appell:
          ‘You don’t need a climate model to know CO2′s effect’
          -
          However, they can be very useful in overstating it!


          Report this

          150

          • #

            That’s an unscientific statement that is not supported by the facts.


            Report this

            519

            • #
              bullocky

              David Appell:
              ‘That’s an unscientific statement that is not supported by the facts’
              -
              Perhaps, but it will remain uncontested until you can show HOW it is unscientific and what these ‘facts’ are.


              Report this

              100

            • #
              Manfred

              You don’t need a climate model to know CO2′s effect — studies of past occurrences of climate change show it

              Blindingly true.
              Climate models do not help your case or cause, save perhaps the funding one.

              Wonderful. Finally a warmist devotee who admits to the existence of The Roman and Mayan Warm Periods and of course, your favourite that many of you tried to write out of the record, The Medieval Warm Period. In point of fact, the Earth’s historical temperature record bears no convenient relationship to CO2, at least lagging it by up to a 1000 of years.


              Report this

              100

              • #

                I admitted nothing about those periods. The PAGES 2k paper in Nature found no evidence of a global MWP. Nor did Marcott et al, not any other reconstructions.

                And even if the MWP *was* global, it would make our current situation worse, not better. Because in addition to greenhouse warming we’d have to worry about an apparently larger chance of warming from natural causes.

                CO2′s heat trapping effect is, of course, immediate.


                Report this

                318

              • #
                the Griss

                “CO2′s heat trapping effect is, of course, immediate.”

                RUBBISH !!


                Report this

                122

              • #
                the Griss

                Marcott,Mann etc have been shown to be not very elaborate statistical FABRICATIONS..

                WORTHLESS !!!

                Just like Wigley said they had to get rid of the 1940′s peak, someone thought they needed to get rid of the RWP and MWP, because of the reams of evidence that they were both warmer than now.

                The fact that there was no possible CO2 causality and the climate models could not be fudged to reproduce them, made the MWP and RWP very inconvenient for the alarmistas.. so they hired some hacks to get rid of them.


                Report this

                102

              • #
                Mark D.

                CO2′s heat trapping effect is, of course, immediate.

                More proof needed David! Prove that water vapor won’t “untrap” the heat, IMMEDIATELY! You are starting to annoy


                Report this

                101

              • #
                Bob_FJ

                David Appell,

                I see that above you astonishingly support the discredited Marcott et al paper!
                Might I suggest that you research the literature on this?


                Report this

                91

              • #
                the Griss

                Bob..

                he only looks at rabid alarmist sites… how can he search the literature ?


                Report this

                72

              • #
                bullocky

                David Appell:
                ‘ Because in addition to greenhouse warming we’d have to worry about an apparently larger chance of warming from natural causes.’
                -
                Stop Press: Warming from natural causes can be subject to quantitative chance.


                Report this

                50

              • #
                bullocky

                David Appell:
                ‘The PAGES 2k paper in Nature found no evidence of a global MWP. Nor did Marcott et al, not any other reconstructions.’
                -
                What are the names of the reviewers?
                Without knowing their identities, we cannot know whether the papers were ‘peer reviewed’ or ‘pal reviewed’ or both.


                Report this

                40

              • #

                The hockey stick has been confirmed many times, including by different mathematical methods.

                It’s not really a surprising result, either, given the superexponential increase in CO2, CH4, N2O etc since the middle ages. (The log of a superexponential is exponential.)


                Report this

                19

              • #
                bullocky

                David Appell:
                ‘The hockey stick has been confirmed many times, including by different mathematical methods.’
                -
                It only needs to be debunked once! (Steve McIntyre)


                Report this

                30

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                That is the nice thing about garbage – you put it in, and you get it out – works the same way every time. I love consistency.


                Report this

                40

              • #
                BruceC

                David Appell, June 21 @ 12:42pm;
                CO2′s heat trapping effect is, of course, immediate.

                Bollocks WC.
                http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh154/crocko05/GISP2plusCO2_zpsadd1043d.jpg

                There is little (if any) past temperature changes in relation to the past atmospheric CO2 content. Now before you go off saying, “GISP2 is regional, not global”, neither was the Hockey Stick ‘global’.

                David Appell, June 22 @ 1:25pm;
                It’s not really a surprising result, either, given the super exponential increase in CO2, CH4, N2O etc since the middle ages. (The log of a super exponential is exponential.)

                Then please explain to us why Global temperatures have not increased at all this century (14+ years).

                David Appell, June 22 @ 1:25pm;
                7 years is a very small interval that is in no way representative of climate.

                But the warming period between ~1975-1998 (23 years) is certainly long enough to represent man-made climate change via CO2 (according to the experts [sic])…..totally disregarding the ~1910-1945 (35 years) warming period.

                Is 133 years long enough? https://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/image69.png

                P.S. Funny how my spell-checker has Appell flagged as an error. Also David, it is super exponential, not superexponential.


                Report this

                30

            • #
              Carbon500

              David Appell: On page 120 of Professor M. Carter’s book ‘Climate – the Counter Consensus’ (pub 2010) fig 23 compares an IPCC computer projection with the 2001-2008 cooling trend superimposed. The IPCC graph is from IPCC AR4 report figure 10.26 on p803 of chapter 10 of the working group 1. This graph also appears in the IPCC’s ‘Climate Change 2007 – The Physical Science Basis’.
              Lest you question them, I’ve checked Professor Carter’s stated sources. The disparity between the computer fantasy and the real world is striking, to say the least.
              Where in the temperature record – say for example the Central England Temperature Record (CET) – do you see any evidence whatsoever that a dangerous warming is occurring? There are no temperatures in the CET which exceed 11 degrees C since the record began in 1659, and there’s nothing here to justify the EU spending a suggested 186 billion Euros until 2020 on ‘combating climate change’. Fiddling about with claimed fraction of a degree changes isn’t a cause for panic.


              Report this

              90

              • #

                7 years is a very small interval that is in no way representative of climate.

                It’s looking at noise, not climate.


                Report this

                06

              • #
                bullocky

                .” This graph also appears in the IPCC’s ‘Climate Change 2007 – The Physical Science Basis’.”
                -
                Interesting!


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Carbon500

                David Appell: Re. your comment that ’7 years is a very small interval that is in no way representative of climate’ – I was referring to temperatures, not the climate.
                Since 1959, CO2 has increased from just over 313 ppm to 391 in 2012. That’s an increase of just over 25%.
                Here in the UK, 1959 (when the Mauna Loa readings began) was a hot summer, and the Central England Temperature record (CET) gives the average for that year as 10.48 degrees Centigrade. This is not an unusual temperature in the record – values over ten degrees are seen in the as far back as 1686, the 1700s,the 1800s, and the 1900s, with a cluster of 10 degree readings in the 1990s and early 2000s, which helped to fuel the fears we’ve all heard so much about.
                However, in 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 values were below 10 degrees. This ties in with the oft commented lack of warming over the last 17 years as seen in data from for example GISS in a graph on their website entitled ‘Monthly Mean Global Surface Temperature’,which shows average temperatures (anomalies) relative to the period 1951 to 1980. A series of oscillating temperature spikes, all falling within a range of 1 degree are all that is seen.
                In summary: CO2 has increased by 25% since 1959. The CET average temperature in 1959 was 10.48 degrees C, and at the end of last year it was 9.56 degrees C.
                Where is the dangerous warming we’ve heard so much about?


                Report this

                30

              • #
                the Griss

                It’s looking at noise,

                No you are making noise.. meaningless white noise


                Report this

                30

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              So how do the climate models account for the tens of thousands of submarine vents in the Pacific Ocean, alone? They produce CO2, as well as other gasses. So why is the ocean not becoming acidic from that CO2?

              Let’s face it. Climate change is a solution trying to find a problem, and one that can hopefully be sheeted back to the activities of mankind.

              You, and a number of other “establishment supporters”, have quite suddenly discovered this blog because we are investigating at top-down approach to Atmospheric Physics, rather than the bottom up approach, centred around carbon dioxide, much beloved by Climate Scientists.


              Report this

              120

              • #

                Man produces about 100-200 times more CO2 than do volcanoes (and that includes undersea volcanoes).

                See the article in EOS by T. Gerlach, about 2-3 years ago, on exactly this subject.


                Report this

                28

              • #
                bobl

                How csn you say that David when we dont know all the volcanoes and vents that exist? oh yes, that’s right, they guess extrapolate.


                Report this

                40

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Man produces about 100-200 times more CO2 than do volcanoes (and that includes undersea volcanoes)

                I call bullshit to that statement.

                It is accepted by Oceanographic Volcanologists that they can only definitively identify “the major” volcanos, within the range of sonar mapping, and they can only analyse the output at shallower depths than that.

                Anything below that point is unknown, but it is reasonably assumed that the intensity of thermal vents will increase, both in number and output, the lower one goes, especially in the Western Pacific.

                Now, if you don’t know how many vents might exist, and you don’t know what the mean output of each vent might be, then how can you possibly claim that the total volcanic output is only 0.01 to 0.02 of that put out by man?


                Report this

                50

            • #
              farmerbraun

              But totally supported by reality. You are not getting this. A model which cannot model reality is almost useless. It just tells you that you are wrong.


              Report this

              70

              • #
                farmerbraun

                Sorry . Should have included the Appell statement.

                David Appell:
                ‘You don’t need a climate model to know CO2′s effect’
                -
                Bullocky :- “However, they can be very useful in overstating it!”

                Appell: “That’s an unscientific statement that is not supported by the facts.”

                FB “But totally supported by reality. You are not getting this. A model which cannot model reality is almost useless. It just tells you that you are wrong.


                Report this

                60

              • #

                Models do give reality. They have since Manabe’s early models predicted the right surface temperature and the annual amount of rainfall.

                They aren’t perfect — their results have uncertainties. But they don’t need to predict every short-term 0.1 C up or down in order to be useful — not at the rate we’re emitting.

                Besides, there look to be problems with the temperature data. (See Cowtan & Way)


                Report this

                17

              • #
                bullocky

                David Appell:
                ‘Models do give reality”
                -
                Here’s your reality.
                -
                http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/73-climate-models_reality.gif
                -


                Report this

                41

              • #
                Greg Cavanagh

                Beautiful picture bullocky. But I think this one is a dead horse.


                Report this

                20

            • #

              David A.,

              I was wondering if you could tell me what the correct amount of CO2 in the atmosphere should be?

              Would it be worth a war to get the Chinese, Indians, etc. to stop them from emitting more CO2? After all those people are attacking us by putting a dangerous gas in the air. Which is to say “how serious are you”?


              Report this

              50

              • #

                There is no “correct” amount.

                The US emits far more per capita than the Chinese (2.5 times) or the Indians (11 times).

                And the US has put about 28% of the extra CO2 into today’s atmosphere. China only about 10%. India just a few percent.


                Report this

                16

              • #
                the Griss

                And the biosphere says A BIG THANK YOU to the USA, China and India, Germany, for all that luvly CO2 plant food. :-)


                Report this

                41

              • #
                bullocky

                David Appell:
                ‘There is no “correct” amount.’
                -
                If there is an ‘incorrect amount’, you should indicate what it is, with proof. Otherwise it’s ‘much ado about nothing’!


                Report this

                31

              • #
                Mark D.

                I was wondering if you could tell me what the correct amount of CO2 in the atmosphere should be?

                Bullocky and MSimon, you’ll never get them to answer that question. It reminds me of my favorite trap for tax and spend leftists. simply draw a horizontal line with 0% tax on one end and 100% tax on the other. Slide your finger slowly increasing from zero and ask them to tell you to stop when they think the percentage of tax is high enough. Try it some time. Makes their head explode. They hate to argue on exact terms. Beyond that it is a great lesson for bystanders.

                I doubt David Appell has ever contemplated such a figure.


                Report this

                60

              • #

                David Appell
                June 22, 2014 at 1:31 pm

                There is no “correct” amount.

                The US emits far more per capita than the Chinese (2.5 times) or the Indians (11 times).

                If there is no correct amount how can you say the that CO2 emissions are excessive?

                I was unaware that climate responded to per capita CO2. The current theory says it is the absolute amount that matters. And in absolute terms Chinese emissions are well above those of the US.

                Is it worth a war to fix that?


                Report this

                20

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              That’s a description of all your statements.


              Report this

              20

        • #
          the Griss

          Certainly the current crop of models have been pretty woeful at it.

          In any other branch of science or engineering, they would have been dumped years ago. !!

          Also there is zero proof that CO2 causes warming in an open atmosphere.

          If you know of a paper that does that, please link to it.

          Papers based on climate models, need not apply.


          Report this

          161

          • #

            Harries, J. E., H. E. Brindley, P. J. Sagoo, and R. J. Bantges, 2001: Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997.
            Nature, 410, 355-357.


            Report this

            212

          • #

            “Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present,” J.A. Griggs et al, Proc SPIE 164, 5543 (2004).

            “Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006,” Chen et al, (2007)

            “Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty,” N.G. Loeb, et al, Nature Geosciences 1/22/12

            These papers, and more on this subject, are listed here:

            http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/


            Report this

            210

            • #
              the Griss

              Chen, Griggs.. did you read this ??

              based on a model assumptions and massive data manipulation.

              and notice the last word in the third link… Uncertainty !..

              ie … ????????????????


              Report this

              81

              • #
                Robert

                I have noticed a fairly dominant trend with people like David who love to provide us with links to papers they have either never read or did not understand as they try to use them to “prove” whatever argument they are trying to make. Part of that problem may be that the sites they frequent provide them with this material and a ginned up explanation of how to use it to put us in our place which those who then attempt to use said material never bother to verify.

                At least you guys are being nicer to him than what he’s used to.


                Report this

                70

              • #

                People like you always cry “data manipulation” when you can’t counter the facts.

                Conspiracy theories are always safe, aren’t they — they can’t be disproven. It’s the excuse of last resort.


                Report this

                15

              • #
                Robert

                Have a reading disorder David? You must since I haven’t mentioned data or manipulation anywhere here. But carry on, every comment you post further establishes what is being said about you as fact. You really are your own worst enemy.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                bullocky

                David Appell:
                ‘Conspiracy theories are always safe, aren’t they — they can’t be disproven. It’s the excuse of last resort.’
                -
                Accusation = Expiation (a la David Appell)
                -
                (Be careful not to link to Lewandowsky and Cook’s ‘Recursive Fury’ paper)


                Report this

                20

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Ah, we have him doing the circular references trick – empirical science free zone folks :-)


            Report this

            80

        • #
          the Griss

          “studies of past occurrences of climate change show it,”

          really? Link please.

          The ice cores show that CO2 lags temperature, and even when the CO2 concentration is very high, it is not able to maintain that temperature.


          Report this

          101

        • #
          J Martin

          Appell said You don’t need a climate model to know CO2′s effect — studies of past occurrences of climate change show it, with the climate sensitivity as models get.

          Nonsense. Earth underwent a glaciation at the end of the Ordovicin period which lasted through the subsequent Silurian perriod, during which time co2 never fell below 4000 ppm.

          The IPCC style climate models are clearly wrong.


          Report this

          90

          • #

            1) That ice age occurred when the Sun was 4% weaker.

            2) There are not good numbers on CO2 from back then. Proxy data are about 10 M yrs apart, and the curve is filled in with a carbon model. Huge uncertainties in CO2 levels.

            Nothing about the O-S ice age disproves the heat-trapping ability of CO2.


            Report this

            16

            • #
              bobl

              Ok, so 4% weaker sun gives about 2 degree of cooling, but according to the IPCC’s last known central estimate of 3.3 degrees per doubling 4000 PPM aught to give 3.3 x 3.5 doublings or 11.1 degrees increase over today. Therefore that ice age was 9.1 degrees above todays temperature was it David?

              I am really amazed by warmists complete inability to use simple math to check their statements.


              Report this

              71

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                I am really amazed by warmists complete inability to use simple math to check their statements.

                They are like to old Soviet KGB.

                They used to go around in threes – One could read, and one could write, and the other one was there to watch the intellectuals.


                Report this

                60

            • #
              sophocles

              Ah hah! So the `strength of the sun’ has more to do with it than CO2? Limestone formations show CO2 was pretty high in the Ordovician. Limestone formations from the Silurian period show it was high. Limestone formation corresponds with lots of little lifeforms in the sea, so the seas were warm.

              Temperature plummeted in a short sharp drop at the Ordovician/Silurian boundary before rising again with CO2 staying around 3000ppm.
              That clearly shows CO2 was not then responsible for temperature. If it wasn’t then, it isn’t now.

              It must be something else. That short sharp cold period corresponds pretty well with a short sharp ice age. There were two strong extinctions then, about a Mega-year apart. The rest of the Silurian was very warm.
              It was about then (Ordovician-Silurian boundary about 425-421 MYa) the Solar System exited the Perseus spiral arm and began to head for the Norma arm. The ice age then wasn’t particularly large or long but appeared intense.

              Cosmic rays run in intense streams along the leading edges of spiral arms. Our solar system is orbiting the galactic centre somewhat faster than the arms, so we keep on catching up to them. At present we are passing into the Orion spur, through Gould’s Bottle which is an area of higher levels of GCR flux, starting about 2.6 MYa ago. That was when the current Quaternary Ice Age started. Funny that.


              Report this

              40

            • #
              Backslider

              the heat-trapping ability of CO2

              Please direct us to the experimental science which demonstrates this “heat-trapping”, David.


              Report this

              00

          • #

            Also, the continents were in much different places then, which means the Earth had a different albedo.


            Report this

            15

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Say what? Were some of the continents on a different planet?

              Or perhaps it is you who is on a different planet? I seriously recommend a change in supplier.


              Report this

              30

            • #
              sophocles

              Also, the continents were in much different places then, which means the Earth had a different albedo.

              The oceanic surface area (OSA) and land surface area (LSA) have maintained a pretty constant ratio over the last 500 million years. You can see the continental arrangement here. All which seems to be missing is Guatemala, Nicaragua, Sarawak and the Kamchatka Peninsula. But then, they don’t even make up 1% of the LSA and they were formed from volcanic action.

              The planet surface area is over 70% ocean and less than 30% land. The only thing affecting albedo to any greater extent is ice coverage. And there was very little of that back then.

              So I would be interested to find out how different rearrangements of the continents affect albedo …


              Report this

              00

        • #
          Backslider

          studies of past occurrences of climate change show it

          Your references please.


          Report this

          41

          • #

            E.J. Rohling, et al, “Making sense of palaeoclimate sensitivity”, Nature, vol. 491, pp. 683-691, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11574
            J.C. Hargreaves, J.D. Annan, M. Yoshimori, and A. Abe-Ouchi, “Can the Last Glacial Maximum constrain climate sensitivity?”, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 39, pp. n/a-n/a, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2012GL053872

            P. Köhler, R. Bintanja, H. Fischer, F. Joos, R. Knutti, G. Lohmann, and V. Masson-Delmotte, “What caused Earth’s temperature variations during the last 800,000 years? Data-based evidence on radiative forcing and constraints on climate sensitivity”, Quaternary Science Reviews, vol. 29, pp. 129-145, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2009.09.026

            J.D. Annan, and J.C. Hargreaves, “A new global reconstruction of temperature changes at the Last Glacial Maximum”, Climate of the Past Discussions, vol. 8, pp. 5029-5051, 2012. http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/cpd-8-5029-2012

            A. Schmittner, N.M. Urban, J.D. Shakun, N.M. Mahowald, P.U. Clark, P.J. Bartlein, A.C. Mix, and A. Rosell-Mele, “Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum”, Science, vol. 334, pp. 1385-1388, 2011. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1203513


            Report this

            15

            • #
              Backslider

              Ok, so now give us your understanding of each of these papers (go boy!).


              Report this

              40

            • #

              Rereke Whakaaro
              June 23, 2014 at 9:00 am

              Yep, working off a script, by the looks of it.

              There are bots that do that fairly well these days.


              Report this

              20

            • #
              sophocles

              P. Köhler, R. Bintanja, H. Fischer, F. Joos, R. Knutti, G. Lohmann, and V. Masson-Delmotte, “What caused Earth’s temperature variations during the last 800,000 years? Data-based evidence on radiative forcing and constraints on climate sensitivity”, Quaternary Science Reviews, vol. 29, pp. 129-145, 2010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2009.09.026

              That paper is highly speculative.

              Natural climate variations during the Pleistocene are still not fully understood. Neither do we know how much the Earth’s annual mean surface temperature changed in detail, nor which processes were responsible for how much of these temperature variations.

              In their conclusions:

              In its global and annual mean view our approach has certainly its limitations. Especially spatially highly heterogeneous processes such as cloud cover, mineral dust loading in the atmosphere, and vegetation-albedo forcing can only be roughly estimated and seasonal variability cannot be addressed at all (Braconnot et al., 2007b). The state dependence of feedbacks is poorly understood (Hargreaves et al., 2007) and the problem of efficacy of different forcings (e.g. Hansen et al., 2005) is neglected.

              they sum up quite well. File thirteen material.

              Did you actually read this paper?


              Report this

              10

      • #

        The models do a pretty good job of projecting the long-term future. But they’re not perfect, and never will be. But you don’t need models to know our CO2 emissions will cause a lot of climate change, you just need to study the history of climate and climate on other planets.

        The greenhouse effect of CO2 is rock solid science.


        Report this

        412

        • #
          the Griss

          “The models do a pretty good job of projecting the long-term future”

          RUBBISH !!!!!


          Report this

          122

        • #
          the Griss

          “The greenhouse effect of CO2 is rock solid science.”

          MORE RUBBISH !!


          Report this

          122

          • #

            Not a very thoughtful reply. Even people like Spencer, Christy, Lindzen, Curry, Singer, etc know there is a greenhouse effect.

            It’s silly to deny it, because the evidence of it is easily measured:

            http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/


            Report this

            313

            • #
              the Griss

              Yes we know CO2 absorbs and re-emits.

              There is no proof that this causes any warming that is not immediately compensated for by atmospheric convection etc.

              The FACT that CO2 has continues to rise steeply while temperatures have stagnated and started to drop , destroys any coincidence between CO2 and temperature.

              How are you going to reconcile this as the temperatures continue to drop.

              The slightly raise CO2 levels (to just above plant subsistence level) do not have any effect on the temperature, and unfortunately will not help maintain the slightly warmer temperatures we are currently enjoying.


              Report this

              152

              • #

                All you have to do is measure the Earth’s outgoing longwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere, and see the big gouges CO2 takes out of the Planck curve.

                Harries et al, Nature (2001) showed the gouges are increasing, at least for clear-sky conditions.


                Report this

                16

              • #
                Radical Rodent

                I am sure that minds as great as Lindzen et al could accept that what they believe to be true could actually be false. There is also the theory that CO2 does NOT act as a serious “greenhouse gas”, and even that the entire “greenhouse effect” theory is a load of baloney. But – hey! – to accept that is to lose an awful lot of subsidies; truth be damned, let’s stick with the more profitable ideas, shall we?


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Angry

                The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the “Greenhouse Effect”.

                http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/


                Report this

                10

            • #
              Tel

              I liked the article where Dr Roy Spencer demonstrated (with very cheap equipment) that back-radiation is real and can be measured. Just buy an infra-red pyrometer and point it at the night sky same time every evening (solar-time not daylight saving time).

              However, when Dr Spencer tried this, he noted that clouds were the largest influencing factor. Most of the back-radiation comes from the underside of clouds, and next to nothing comes from a clear night sky. Doesn’t quite fit the “greenhouse effect” narrative does it?

              Other people have come to the same conclusion with more expensive equipment, if that makes a difference.


              Report this

              91

              • #

                The clear night sky obviously radiates — otherwise the surface temperature would quickly and sharply drop at night.

                Earth’s surface actually gets about twice as much energy from the radiation of the atmosphere as it does from the sun.


                Report this

                110

              • #
                the Griss

                “otherwise the surface temperature would quickly and sharply drop at night.’

                Which is EXACTLY what it does do on a clear night.

                Thanks for the confirmation, [snip] !!! !


                Report this

                51

              • #
                Backslider

                The clear night sky obviously radiates — otherwise the surface temperature would quickly and sharply drop at night.

                Clearly you have never been in a desert where daytime temperatures are 30C+ and at night drop below freezing.

                What happened to the CO2??


                Report this

                40

              • #

                David Appell:
                “Earth’s surface actually gets about twice as much energy from the radiation of the atmosphere as it does from the sun.”

                Not according to NASA it doesn’t.
                “The amount of heat radiated from the atmosphere to the surface (sometimes called “back radiation”) is equivalent to 100 percent of the incoming solar energy.”
                http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php

                Mind you, they don’t explain how they arrived at that figure. Where energy that didn’t even get to the surface is magically “created” to be emitted by the surface.


                Report this

                20

          • #
            Eddie

            I’d rather ask a geologist about the rock solid science.


            Report this

            60

        • #
          Mark D.

          But you don’t need models to know our CO2 emissions will cause a lot of climate change, you just need to study the history of climate and climate on other planets.

          The greenhouse effect of CO2 is rock solid science.

          Got no proof AND by your own admission, Got a crappy model. Then you want me to draw conclusions from other planets. David, are those planets covered with 70% water?

          Not rock solid David Appell. Your lack of reasoning is rather Appelling.


          Report this

          110

        • #
          handjive

          United Nations – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001

          Third Assessment Report
          page 774

          Section 14.2.2.2 Balancing the need for finer scales and the need for ensembles

          Quote:
          “In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”


          Report this

          150

          • #

            You didn’t quote the rest of that paragraph:

            “The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles.”


            Report this

            15

            • #

              Uh. the generation of ensembles of model solutions.

              There is no chance of a correct solution so average the solutions and say the average is the most likely. That only helps if the errors are independent. Without that averaging just averages the bias from incorrect numbers and parameters.

              This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles

              Assuming the parameters in the model are good enough. So is the sign of the cloud parameter positive or negative? And then what is the correct number for that parameter derived from observation? (provide links).

              And what should the atmospheric concentration of CO2 be?

              Should we go to war with countries who emit “too much” CO2?


              Report this

              20

            • #

              And BTW David A.,

              The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions

              There is a little problem there. The probability distribution of a chaotic system is very dependent on initial starting points. And the accuracy of the starting points is not good. Nor are the knows well distributed.

              And of course if the model is incorrect in its major assumptions it is worse.

              What we really need to figure out is how to avoid the next ice age.


              Report this

              20

        • #
          Glen Michel

          Oh dear…


          Report this

          50

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          … you just need to study the history of climate and climate on other planets.

          Very impressive bombast.

          It might even work, if you were trying to impress a bunch of ten year old kids.

          But it doesn’t work so well with scientists who are used to doing empirical science (you do know what that is, of course?), and a bunch of Applied Scientists and Engineers, who are usually pretty good at distinguishing between what works, in nature, and what is just fanciful flights of imagination.

          David Appell, to put it politely, you appear to be existing in a science-free zone.


          Report this

          70

        • #
          J Martin

          In fact it is known that temperatures have risen on the other planets as measured by NASA, it is difficult therefore to avoid the conclusion that the Sun does indeed play a role and that the role of co2 has been overstated.

          http://wakeup-world.com/2011/05/13/solar-system-climate-change/


          Report this

          50

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          Actually that is ridiculous. Since they do a lousy job projecting the present and the past, opining they do anything about the future is wishful thinking that goes against the established evidence.


          Report this

          10

    • #
      Kevin Hilde

      Any government action at all is inherently top down.

      I actually believe in the competence and motivated self-interest of my fellow man, and see no need for a group of elites with their coercive powers dictating our decisions to us.

      Seeing as we’re at 17 years now with no discernible warming, I’m quite comfortable leaving it all to the market.


      Report this

      110

      • #

        So then the solution that fits your value system is what?

        PS: You’re very wrong about the 17 years,
        but this isn’t the place to get into it.


        Report this

        221

        • #
          bullocky

          David Appell:
          ‘PS: You’re very wrong about the 17 years,
          but this isn’t the place to get into it.’
          -
          Your opinion is respected but not final.


          Report this

          112

        • #

          OK. 17 years and eight months. Better now?


          Report this

          150

          • #

            It’s absolutely false there has been no warming for 17 years or whatever. Repeating it endlessly makes it look like you have no factual answers.

            If there’s been no warming, why is sea level still rising and why is ice still melting?


            Report this

            216

            • #
              the Griss

              It is absolutely TRUE that there has been no warming for 17 or so years.

              This is TRUE no matter how much try to deny it.

              It is also absolutely TRUE that since 2001 there has been a cooling trend in the RSS satellite record as well in the hadsst database

              Ice is only melting in summer, like always, and in fact the above 80N Arctic temp will probably have its shortest season above freezing for a long time. Antarctic sea ice is expanding.

              Sea level has been rising since the LIA, and is now decelerating.


              Report this

              162

            • #

              Totally false — there has been a huge amount of warming in the last 17 years.

              RSS is only one dataset. UAH shows a very different result for the last decade and a half. It’s not clear which of them is right, if either.

              You are ignoring UAH because it doens’t give the result you want. And neither of them measures surface temperatures.

              Sea level rise is not decelerating; just the opposite. And it doens’t rise without a reason. So what’s causing it to rise??


              Report this

              117

              • #
                the Griss

                ” there has been a huge amount of warming in the last 17 years. ”

                RUBBISH


                Report this

                141

              • #
                Glen Michel

                We won’t mention homogenisation ahem divers adjustments.I can send you raw temperature data here in Australia going back 150years.Unfortunately our BoM deigns to use post 1910 measurements(adjusted for reasons known only to themselves as they won’t release how they go about it) Could be they have good excuses, but as they are so evasive on the matter, I doubt their intentions.


                Report this

                121

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                RSS is only one dataset. UAH shows a very different result

                Cherry picking datasets to support your argument … very naughty.


                Report this

                91

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                And it doens’t rise without a reason. So what’s causing it to rise

                Coastal subsidence.

                A question for you David, since you are a legend in your own lunchtime, What volume of sea ice would have to melt, in order to raise the mean surface level of all the oceans and seas in the world, by one centimeter?


                Report this

                120

              • #
                James McCown

                RSS and UAH do not give very different results. If you compute an OLS trend for each from 1998 to the present, they both essentially give a flat line. Their slopes are statistically indifferent from zero.

                https://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/09-comparison-1998-start.png


                Report this

                31

              • #
                bullocky

                David Appell:
                ‘Sea level rise is not decelerating; just the opposite”
                -
                This is a claim: you should SHOW that is so. Otherwise it’s merely your opinion.
                You must realise that science is independent of your opinion.


                Report this

                81

              • #

                Totally false — there has been a huge amount of warming in the last 17 years.

                If there has been no “pause” in warming then why are there so many proponents of the CAGW theory trying to explain a pause in warming that you say is “totally false?” Are you saying that Trenberth and the rest of his merry band of climate Cassandras are wrong? Are you committing heresy by challenging the consensus? Does this means that the science isn’t “settled?”

                AAAHHHH!!!


                Report this

                71

              • #
                J Martin

                UAH uses data from the same satellite that RSS uses, as I understand it. RSS data is the raw data and UAH is an adjusted version of the data by Roy Spencer and his team who work at a University. No doubt Roy Spencer experiences the same pressures to perform a balancing act within a University that many scientists have run into and so it is hardly surprising that a slight upwards trend has been mysteriously engineered into the UAH data set.

                Even so, the upwards trend, such as it is, remains statistically inconsequential with no warming over the last 12 years and some cooling in recent years.

                What gives the pause unique validity is the fact that all the climate alarmists loudly proclaimed that natural variability could not overwhelm the effects of co2, but much to their chagrin it has done so. And so they have had to change their tune and now admit that natural variability was greater than they thought. In other words they are effectively admitting that their models are wrong.

                Nonetheless they retain their religious blinkers (blinders) and cling pathetically to the notion that the next El Nino will save them, atmospheric moisture content will reverse its long term trend and global temperatures will climb at a rate that has never been seen before. As the recent trend is down it seems unlikely that moisture content will increase in the forseeable future and since their models are predicated on climbing moisture content the models will continue to diverge from reality.

                Their response will be to bleat ever more loudly in the ears of the worthless Greenpeace, MSM and politicians that they must act urgently to save the World from a harmless trace gas.

                The biggest influences on the climate are clouds and oceans both of which are not sufficiently well understood to be effectively included in climate models, the underlying driving force is also poorly understood and so solar influences are largely excluded from climate models even though evidence increasingly suggests that the Sun plays a role via TSI, UV, and magnetic field.

                My money is on the steadily reducing magnetic fields of the both the Sun and the Earth to produce ever steepening cooling, though I secretly hold out hope for a warming spike just in time for my summer holidays, well, perhaps next year.


                Report this

                40

            • #
              Tel

              The daily global sea ice anomaly has been on the high side for the last two years, all things considered though, over the past 40 years it hasn’t changed by much. I guess we can argue about what is significant exactly, but let’s just say that the trend change over 40 years is less than one tenth as large as the annual change that happens every year, so you have to ask yourself why is anyone worried about ice melting?

              http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg


              Report this

              60

            • #
              James Bradley

              David (and cat),

              The pause is not repeated endlessly, but rather seems to be commented frequently as the time frame increases.

              This could go on for a while.

              How long should you give this thing in order to make some admission that CO2 is not a factor.


              Report this

              30

            • #

              David Appell
              June 21, 2014 at 11:37 am

              If there’s been no warming, why is sea level still rising and why is ice still melting?

              Lags.

              BTW the rate of sea level rise is currently declining. Ice melts when it gets above 0 C. (depending some on included impurities). Even in ices ages ice melts when it gets above 0 C.


              Report this

              30

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              Lie for the cause. Your problem is you believe your own lies.


              Report this

              20

        • #
          Mark D.

          So then the solution that fits your value system is what?

          This is really big. Undoubtedly David Appell, you have no clue as to how big this question is. What basis in law provides you the right to interfere with my “value system”?


          Report this

          100

          • #

            Property rights. Your fossil fuel pollution is damaging the property of others, including their health.


            Report this

            220

            • #
              Mark D.

              You don’t make “fossil fuel pollution”? Please explain in great detail*. Otherwise I’ll stuff that stupid argument right down your……….

              *by great detail I mean I want you to disclose the type of clothing you wear, the material they are made from, What space you sleep in, the food you eat, the glasses you use to correct your myopia – EVERYTHING C’mon you can do it

              You are wrong about the claim of property rights and health as well but that for later


              Report this

              102

            • #
              the Griss

              “Your fossil fuel pollution is damaging the property of others”

              RUBBISH !!

              CO2 is only helping the environment, and technology is gradually reducing all other real pollutants.


              Report this

              92

            • #
              Annie

              Mobile phone mistake again…down ward thumb intended


              Report this

              30

            • #
              Backslider

              Property rights. Your fossil fuel pollution is damaging the property of others, including their health.

              Ok David, so just how exactly is the computer you are using powered? Are you pedaling madly away like the old School Of The Air?

              You are telling us the you DO NOT USE fossil fuels WHATSOEVER.


              Report this

              81

            • #
              farmerbraun

              “Your fossil fuel pollution is damaging the property of others, including their health.”

              What does your’s do?

              Don’t bother to answer, because you have yet to show that CO2=pollution. When you have done that , you can move on to the Tort of Nuisance.


              Report this

              50

            • #

              David Appell
              June 21, 2014 at 2:05 pm · Reply

              Property rights. Your fossil fuel pollution is damaging the property of others, including their health.

              Are these property rights worth a war with China and India?


              Report this

              40

            • #

              Your fossil fuel pollution is damaging the property of others, including their health.

              Quit using a computer, stop using fossil fuels and adopt a hunter gatherer lifestyle or else consider yourself to be exposed as a hypocrite.

              In the US the air is getting cleaner, the water is getting cleaner and people are living longer thanks to fossil fuels. People in Africa live a short brutish life because the misanthropic greens do all in their power to impede the use of fossil fuels by them. People there live to 45 and many die of respiratory diseases cause by burning dung to cook.

              How many people should be sacrificed to fight a non-existent threat in order to maintain the status quo for a bunch of rent seeking taxpayer funded gravy train riding parasites?


              Report this

              80

            • #
              bobl

              Excuse me, my emission of plant food is doing what? You poor deluded child.

              You do realise that Australia sinks 20 times what it emits and that the increase in plant productivity alone has in the last 15 years completely cancelled out our emissions? Put another way we are at Nett zero emission relative to 2000 because our emissions have not risen but our sinks are up by 6 %.


              Report this

              40

            • #

              David Appell
              June 21, 2014 at 2:05 pm

              Property rights. Your fossil fuel pollution is damaging the property of others, including their health.

              What you have provided here is a causus belli. Is that what you intended?

              China should go to war with us for making too much CO2 per capita and we should go to war with China because their absolute emissions are above ours and rising rapidly.


              Report this

              20

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                What he has is a case of erroneous tense. As in he claims that it will cause damages (none have been documented so far). So he wants you to pay him “today” for his hamburger tomorrow.


                Report this

                10

              • #

                “Environmental Accounting for Pollution in the United States Economy,” Nicholas Z. Muller, Robert Mendelsohn, and William Nordhaus, American Economic Review, 101(5): 1649–75 (2011).
                http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.5.1649

                The National Academy of Sciences estimates that fossil fuel use causes damages of at least $120 B/yr (2007 dollars) to health and the environment:

                “Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use”
                National Research Council, 2010
                http://books.nap.edu/catalog/12794.html


                Report this

                02

              • #
                Backslider

                The National Academy of Sciences estimates that fossil fuel use causes damages of at least $120 B/yr (2007 dollars) to health and the environment

                And of course they balance that with an estimate of health and environment costs of not using fossil fuels. Not.

                Tell me David, have you ever seen that city in China where they manufacture the rare earth magnets for wind turbines?


                Report this

                20

      • #

        I’m quite comfortable leaving it all to the market.

        But the market doesn’t price in negative externalities. That’s the whole point, and why Stern called climate change the greatest failure of the free market in history.


        Report this

        319

        • #
          bullocky

          David Appell:
          ‘ That’s the whole point, and why Stern called climate change the greatest failure of the free market in history.”
          -
          Perhaps this is because the free market tracks reality, unlike the GCMs.


          Report this

          152

        • #
          Kevin Hilde

          I’d be interested in seeing your measurement methodology or model for pricing negative externalities…. and its justifications.

          Nothing happens at the macro scale ….. macro is just the sum of all the micros. The fact that some theorists can’t measure individual actions reliably doesn’t mean it’s not happening, or that individuals don’t take these perceived costs into consideration.

          I see people taking costs outside themselves into consideration constantly, from backyard composting, to tossing their trash in a bin rather than on the ground to (if you really want to get technical)simple table manners and other etiquette. If you are convinced their choice of vehicles is that important, make your pitch …. their response IS then part of their cost/benefit analysis whether they do what you want or not.

          And if any damage to third parties is actually reliably measurable/calculable, that’s what tort action is for.

          Anyway ….
          http://mises.org/daily/1360


          Report this

          60

          • #

            Name one pollution problem that was solved through voluntarily actions. Just one.

            In the US, it took laws, fines, and a lot of marketing to curtail littering. It took a lot more to get lead out of gasoline, reduce SO2 and NO2 pollution, protect the ozone layer, and clean up the air and water. None of these happened voluntarily, they happened because governments passed laws to protect common interests.


            Report this

            412

            • #
              Kevin Hilde

              Just one? Okay then.
              The problem of horse manure in the streets was solved by the automobile.

              Bonus.
              Problems with invasive weed species in many farming areas were solved by farmers taking concerted action without government coercion and at their own expense.

              Bonus II.
              A few weeks ago in this little town I’m presently in, signs appeared. “Clean up the patch” or something like that …. a week long drive that resulted in businesses paying their employees to go out and collect roadside litter.

              Economists can explain …. it’s all about the value people place on one condition versus another …. even when the original purpose of the automobile was not about ridding New York of flies and stench.

              Remember, just because the elite push government to take particular actions does not necessarily mean that the citizenry actually values the result enough to justify the cost. Meaning that in the peoples opinion goods have been misallocated.

              Also remember that when people do value a condition enough, the coercive power of government is unnecessary.

              It appears you believe these decisions should all be left to the valuation mechanisms of the elites …. our betters.

              But then lets look at all this again.
              You’re talking about pollution.
              Most of us here are talking about a trace gas on which our lives depend.


              Report this

              150

              • #

                Nice try, but the automobile wasn’t intentionally invented to clean up horse manure; that was a (positive) side effect. Meanwhile, it created a lot of negative side effects as well.

                In the US, the people spoke through their election of Obama. He’s doing what he said he’d do — reducing fossil fuel pollution.

                Labeling CO2 a “trace gas” means nothing. It’s concentration is small, but its effect is big. The dose makes the poison.


                Report this

                312

              • #