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.
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.
1461
Should have threaded… missed that you mentioned projection 🙂
160
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”.
920
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.
840
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)
310
What they really mean is that we all should believe in their policy based science?
180
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]
6116
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.
620
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.
7109
YAWN! Really lame Bilb, but please explain to William Connolley how the catastrophes you mention are fabricated by us skeptics. He needs your support
441
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’ !!!
473
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.
151
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.
352
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.
130
Goddard must be wanting to destroy their credibility.
The got rid of Hansen, and then put Gavin Schmidt in charge… seriously ????
161
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. 🙁
100
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…
250
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.
200
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.
242
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.
150
Last time I looked people or organisations who scare or rhtreaten people or fabricate a story for gain were criminals.
I think the currently used term is “pillars of society.”
100
“I think the currently used term is “pillars of society.”
or “climate scientists”
91
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.
412
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.
90
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”.
161
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
220
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.
120
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
81
> The oceans are NOT heating
Yes they are. As that very post you reference shows you. They quibble about the exact amount, but the heating trend is perfectly plain, both 0-700 and 0-2000 m, in the figures that they show.
410
No they are not.
Gee, I guess I am a Wiki expert now. I can proclaim anything and it must be so.
61
You’re another one that drifted off the set of ‘Lord of the Rings’. Oscar winning stuff.
101
BilB,
You are too sensitive. This is a dummy spit:
So is this:
So is this:
And lastly, unless you would like to see some or lots more:
So harden up, precious.
602
You forgot the Indian Greenpeace guy that threatened sceptics, saying they know where we live etc… and Richard Glover that wrote we should be tied to posts to be drowned by the seas.
130
Couple of supporting links:
Greenepeace fun
http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/04/06/greenpeace-removes-blog-post-threatening-climate-change-skeptics/
Richard Glover
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/society-and-culture/boneheaded-beliefs-bound-to-end-in-death-by-drowning-20110602-1fh3g.html
I imagine David Suzuki has said some unsavoury things as well. Oh, let’s not forget 10:10.org.
We should have a web page listing all the examples of warmist tolerance to people of opposing views.
160
Odd, really, how the “peace-loving” AGWistas seem to promote such hatred, wishing so much physical harm to those who do not agree with them, yet “deniers” merely wish folk would wake up and smell the roses – and stop governments stealing money from so many and planning to starve of the poor.
140
Well, appell is not Indian, and I am not sure he is greenpeace. But he has threatened Skeptics. Stalked them as well. I think that is called obsessive compulsive.
60
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.
151
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?
210
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.
180
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?
150
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.
60
The collective noun for climate alarmists?
The Borg.
110
Climate Alarmist Collective, Clarve?
We are the Glarve, you will not be assimilated.
40
Grow up billy.
70
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.
647
“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.
221
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.
526
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.
212
Chester:
‘The Griss delivers his usual Group Think rebuke’
–
chester unbellyfeel groupthink chester bellyfeel consensus
112
You poor insignificant little worm. !
One day you will find you have something to offer society..
Your removal from it.
92
It is the goal of all Malthusians.
40
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!
161
Thanks for taking us back to that one. Every word of it true! All the dummies are at the NAS!
20
The hundreds up
30
The one and only reason is because the topic has been politicized?
70
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.
490
“It’s easier to fool the people than convince them they have been fooled?
130
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”.
110
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.
90
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
30
He’s been watching that Roy Spencer again!
70
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. 🙁
100
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.
80
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?
60
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.
430
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.
19109
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 = 7is 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.
673
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.
290
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
110
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.
80
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.
150
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.
101
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.
1231
Lol bananabender HAHAHAHA In Canada we would mock you for that Handle ;>)
71
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.
101
Seems you are of the rabid far-left, too whom EVERYTHING is to the right.
Bolt is a centralist. !
111
1 x 1 = 7 is easy the imaginary part is sqrt(+6).
70
You’re being cross for no reason at all. 😉
The imaginary part? Would that be i or j ?
50
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.
70
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.
40
Oops, inadvertent double post, sorry mods
30
bobl,
Aren’t you making it more complicated than it is? There’s no math needed to know that global warming, now called climate change was based on pure imagination. 😉
30
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.
100
That is the funniest thing I’ve read for a long time. thanks of the laugh.
213
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.
140
But 101+111 = 212 or 0011 or 12
?
20
10+10 = 01
30
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.
441
Did not know that Jaymez, thanks. I have always enjoyed his approach, generally cutting through to the crux of the debate. Perhaps it is more accurate to say the parties have moved left relative to Bolt. The Labor of Hawke and Keating is a completely different animal to that which exists today.
300
This is why I wrote “of the left”. 😉
120
Too clever for me by ‘alf Bernd.
71
Not hatred. Understanding!
90
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.
311
Hate the left? Laugh at, ridicule them, pity them, but never hate, they cannot help being stupid.
232
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.
80
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?
250
Answer to all of the above:
Targeted Consumer Marketing…
140
> 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.
355
Whoops – your wrong there…
Here is a full list of publications from that time.
241
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/138.abstract
121
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/image27.png
101
Yep. Jimminy Hansen from GISS has changed all that by throwing out all the original temp figures and inventing his own..
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/correlating-temperature-with-co2
121
I wonder how much he pocketed, and from whom, for doing that?
81
> 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?
540
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
320
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
542
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)
212
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?
180
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.
120
William Connolley says
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
70
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.
50
> denounce Lord Stern’s
I’ve written a number of things about Stern, most of them critical. See
* http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2006/11/22/nordhaus-on-stern/
* http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2006/12/19/yet-more-stern-sht/
I’d also recommend you to read James Annan’s http://julesandjames.blogspot.co.uk/2006/10/stern-review-of-stern.html
14
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.
261
Important fact, ice ages worse than warm ages for people and most animals and plants.
190
But Stuart, according to Wikipedia, these articles did not exist. The reality that you thought existed has been flushed by the great WC.
50
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
220
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.
210
William Connolley said:
Before the global warming scare the difference was much clearer. So was the difference between science and politics.
120
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.
70
Stoat (is as weasel does), even the most cursory research will highlight your wishful, is it ‘thinking’?
150
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.
543
So you’d like me to not believe the Director Climate Change at E. Anglia?
Fair enough. Your work is done here.
362
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 !!
262
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.
351
A bit like how 0.3% became 97% ?
210
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.
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:
Within the text there is sufficient information to ferret sources, if you’re thus inclined. /rhet.
250
> 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/
325
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/
100
Is your link to the Wikipedia one of the many entries that you altered to aid the cause?
160
> 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.
223
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!
331
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 🙂
160
> 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.
220
“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.
151
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.
90
> 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.
216
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.
101
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]
161
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]
60
Bull S##t, Connolley, it was taught in NSW High Schools 1st Level Science in 1973… then came the hole in the ozone layer…
242
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.
180
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.
220
” It was you, arguing from ignorance, again.”
That is what he does.
161
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.
120
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?
210
MSimon,
Nah, just execute the deniers, that should fix the problem.
90
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.
71
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.
70
Most warmists care nothing about CO2 emissions — if they did, they would be promoting nuclear power.
70
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.
120
“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)
101
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.
676
BB,
May i suggest you keep your comments to climate denial, as US politics and Australian TV personalities is obviously not your strong suit
510
Bananabender, instead of a list of insults, how about providing some reasons and explanation. It is just namecalling without an argument…
710
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
191
Monkton is a mathematician of rare talent. All science depends on maths.
And so do computer models.
80
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.
316
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?
140
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.
70
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.)
110
[SNIP]
60
Chester:
‘….Group Think….Extirminate…..Group Think….Extirminate….Group Think….Extirminate….Group Think….Extirminate….Group Think….Extirminate….
40
[snip – nil content]
50
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…
90
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.
231
Thank deity he didn’t go to Cambridge – I can’t bear the thought of Delingpole as a latter day Kim Philby.
50
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).
331
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.
210
Here’s the thing about OMCG’s (Outlaw Motor Cycle Gangs) – they have a great peer support network and a solid rank structure – there is something in that for all of us I think.
120
So does Skyrim.
70
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/
131
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.
92
Bananabender is acting as “L’Agent Provacateur”, at least I hope so.
80
Exactly which side of the fence are you sitting on?
70
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.”
371
Just as long as they think your wrong it makes them feel
leftright140
Trying to reason with a warmist is futile…face to face can be dangerous.
Had an experience when a warmist took a swing at me with a beer bottle in his hand.
150
… they drink beer?
150
This one drank some kind of wanky designer beer.
150
I remember a time when all you could buy in bottles was DA and Resch’s Pilsener… uuuuuggghhhhhhh…. Resch’s Pilsener… there’d be no sissy warmies if that was still the only stuff you could buy.
100
I hope that wanky designer beer wasn’t releasing CO2 bubbles.
110
Not as much CO2 in the red stuff that was streaming out of his mouth and nose less than a second after taking a swing at me.
110
They can dish it out, but they can’t take it.
80
Why not? They are trying to take everything else.
100
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
100
Still plenty to go around, the Canadian government have put together a fund to build ice breakers for the next 30 years.
110
If the dust keeps coming in at this rate it may be land soon.
http://www.spaceweather.com/DAISY_PICS/current_daisy.png?PHPSESSID=9lhki1sqma8ht1cbrmv52o3rn3
70
National Geographic. Why am I not surprised at this?
110
No atlas I own shows Arctic Ice, it just covers land masses! Even the one from National Geographic which I found here doesn’t show Arctic ice on their atlas! So it’s just another typical beat up!
140
OMG, that is so funny.
80
Looks like we might need a new atlas every month.
You should check out the images for ‘Arctic Ice Extent’ in google search. Not as bad as the NG graph but it does look like a deliberate attempt to hype up any ice loss.
100
The only time I ever flew anywhere near the Arctic (from LHR to Calgary) I was struck by the seemingly neverending snow and ice en route. This was in late September so presumably at the time of lowest amounts for the year? So what’s up with that?
100
Ice extent is at least 15% of solid ice floating in the water, so it is going to vary a lot more than the solid ice.
70
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?
421
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.
420
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.
170
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?
130
In science, isn’t this a description of leach (host – parasite)???
110
You noticed. Good for you.
90
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.
110
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.
90
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.
120
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.
90
My theory is to overwhelm them with contributions. Keep adding value.
60
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.
80
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.
290
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.
110
> 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.
332
Pot to Kettle once again.
141
Again with the slime.. !! Can’t help yourself, can you. !!
132
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.
230
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.”
130
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.
70
Glen,
Much of the “science” of alarmism is short lived as well. You don’t here much more of global warming increasing malaria, or causing mass extinctions. Nor of increasing hurricances, or collapsing ice sheets. As William Connolley has found, Wikipedia is great for editing out the uncomfortable facts.
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/
80
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.
160
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.
200
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.
170
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).
90
First they ignore you,
Then they laugh at you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi.
80
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.
341
Great video on world economics and global warming by Matt Ridley
http://www.ideacityonline.com/video/new-perspective-climate-change-matt-ridley/
60
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.
280
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.)
130
When Blaming Bush, you should use the correct spelling – Boosh.
50
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.
120
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.
170
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.
171
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”?
90
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.
421
OMG! I have wandered into Climate Alarmist Anonymous, group meeting! How do I get out …?
120
Pot/kettle
44
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.
160
The Department of Climate Change must be shut down immediately !
What an offensive waste of scarce taxpayer funds !!!!
150
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!
200
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
61
> 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]
740
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.
341
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”.
331
> 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.
742
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.
100
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.
50
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.
72
“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 !!!
80
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?
60
“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.
140
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.
50
You have many paid subscribers, because “we like it just the way it is”!
40
Yeah William be nice to people.Why denigrate for having a dissimilar view.Any doubts?
90
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.
282
> 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]
325
> 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
429
Name even one?
101
The silence is deafening …
60
White noise… tinnitus..
That is what he does.
51
Well, this does potentially pose an interesting test. If everyone here can post freely on WC’s site, we’d improve his traffic and, in essence, generate another skeptic position website. If everyone were not allowed to post at WC’s site as freely as WC does here, he’d have his proof.
70
Come on if you think you’re hard enough. I warn you though that I spam some stuff;
[nope not a chance] ED
18
Seems like someone saw your true nature.. (which you carry front and centre wherever you go)
Get over it.
71
w.c.:
‘. I warn you though that I spam some stuff;….[snip] you for example.’
–
How very unskeptical of you!
40
Malwarebytes claims it is a malware site. I trust Malwarebytes.
30
Tu quoque?
50
William Connolley, June 21 @ 5:35am;
> There wouldn’t be a ‘warmist’ site which would deal so fairly with a ‘skeptic’
Sez you, with a total absence of evidence.
William, I posted 2 comments on your blog a couple of weeks ago (first time). Both comments were in moderation for nearly a day……..both comments have vanished, disappeared, goooooone! No one ever saw them. Apart from you.
Hypocrite.
41
No-one called “BruceC” has posted comments on my blog (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/), ever. Tell me which post you mean and I’ll double check.
> Apart from you
Nope, I’ve definitely never seen them. If your comments get stuck in moderation (these didn’t) then its best to mail me: wmconnolley (at) gmail.com.
15
I sincerely apologise William, it wasn’t you. However, it was your room-mate over at ScienceBlogs Greg Laden.
21
Because you pencil whipped them into oblivion!
What a slimy hypocrite.
30
Your father is a window dresser and your mother smells of elderberries!
00
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!”
152
“> 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.
201
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…….
200
You select this as an example:
Why?
90
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.
140
Yes, clean up your act. I am tired of your petty insults.
90
With due respect William, people are only responding to your belligerence. If you conducted yourself like Nick Stokes you may earn some respect.
90
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.
120
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.
110
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.
240
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.
110
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.
91
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!
71
Hell is the impossibility of reason.
Pointman
150
Earthlings are more than half way there!
30
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.
130
And thus proving how correct you are on the deterioration of scientific debate in this field Jo.
61
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.
🙂
60
No FijiDave; I noticed straightway but assumed it would be corrected ‘ere long.
60
“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.
130
Post normal is the same as post Rational,
120
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.
90
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.
80
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.
90
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.
120
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.
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.
124
Please show any CO2 signal, except the cooling one in the stratosphere!
91
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.
319
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.
100
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.
115
Prove that David Appell
130
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?
80
The proof is the Clausius-Claperyon equation.
15
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.
06
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
Now here you are saying:
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.
70
❝ whereas we mere humans focus on months and years. ❞
Who is this “we‘ you speak of, Kemo sabe?
71
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.
50
At the surface, the flux of internal heat from the Earth is small — its average over the entire surface area is only about 80 milliwatts per square meter.
06
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.
70
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.
118
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.
120
Where did I hint at “catastrophic” effects?
15
Just say what you think the “worst” is .
You have made it clear that you can provide no scientific basis for it, but we knew that.
Just say what the ‘worst” is , and then we can all have a little giggle. Poor David.!
40
“Worst” isn’t a scientific term — it depends on individual and societal values.
04
Challenge(Mark D.): prove that “the worst is still to come”.
–
Response(David Appell):”Where did I hint at “catastrophic” effects?”
–
–
Communicating the ‘climate change message’ continues to be a problem.
20
Where did I use the word “catastrophic?”
04
David Appell:
‘Where did I use the word “catastrophic?”’
–
26.1.4.1.1
David Appell
‘Where did I hint at “catastrophic” effects?’
–
Senior moment?
10
Except that water vapour is declining !
80
No, water vapor is increasing:
“Increase in Atmospheric Moisture Tied to Human Activities”
https://www-pls.llnl.gov/?url=science_and_technology-earth_sciences-moisture
09
The data of CO2 from Hawaii looks pretty linear to me, certainly not exponential, photosynthesis may have something to do with it.
60
All exponential curves look linear if you focus in on a small portion of the graph — it’s the second term in the Taylor expansion.
It’s easy to verify that an exponential fit is the better one over a linear fit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve#mediaviewer/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide_Apr2013.svg
Any function that increases by some constant percentage every year is exponential. Like a savings account.
08
Another own goal by the clown that claims CO2 is not a trace gas.
40
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.
70
CO2 emissions are increasing at about 2-3%/yr. That’s exponential.
010
Currently at approx. 0.04% of atmosphere.
Increments decline in warming value logarithmically.
40
“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 🙁
91
… 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.
40
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).
40
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.
100
CO2 is NOT increasing exponentially. You have a disconnect between your models and reality.
30
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.
30
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.
327
Dave, I just love your analogy to stamp collecting. What next, will you compare AGW alarmists with with people who breed parakeets?
You warmists will first have to establish that a problem exists. You haven’t done a very good job of it so far.
280
Many national academies of science disagree with you. What do you know that they do not?
328
I know that I don’t know; they don’t. 🙂
150
They know what the science shows. That’s the whole point of doing science — to know things. It’s been extraordinarily successful at that.
321
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…….)
90
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.
217
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.
90
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 . . .? 🙂
130
What is the falsification?
113
David Appell:
‘What is the falsification?”
–
Where do you think it should be applied, in respect of farmerbraun’s generalised statement?
50
“What is the falsification?”
predictions that are wildly at odds with reality..
ie most GCM’s
100
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.
60
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.
010
‘Can you do better? Show how, and you’ll be world famous this time next year.’
–
100 yrs for climate models!
30
Parametrized = We guessed.
50
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”.
40
Mark D.
June 23, 2014 at 1:23 am
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.
50
Yes MSimon, if climate scientists were to start every proclamation with: “At our present level of ignorance…..”
we’d all be better off.
50
They know what the science shows.
Science doesn’t show anything.
Evidence Shows.
50
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.
90
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?
328
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05/21/chatting-with-a-climate-heretic-climatologist-dr-judith-curry-reverses-belief-in-agw-climategate-triggered-a-massive-re-examination-of-my-support-of-the-ipcc-and-made-me-look-at-the-science/
170
Where do you get off saying someone has a flawed theory !!
The only place you find any contrary yabber about the stadium wave is rabid alarmista places like tamino, SkS, andthereisnophysics.. etc etc
That is a pretty good indication that she could be on the right path.
162
And you whine to Jo about the ad hominem attacks of others?
Your hypocrisy knows no bounds!
81
Errm, that’s not an ad-hom. Its a criticism of her work. Admittedly, not a very informative criticism. http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/10/17/wyatt-and-curry-part-ii-not-waving-but-drowning/ if you want more details (yes yes I know: you don’t). To quote: “Where’s the meat? If you look through the paper to find the core substance, you won’t. There are layers of mush and piles of words but precious little hard matter. Figure 12 is about the closest they come to a mechanism, but its just a pile of words arranged in a picture; there’s no maths here.”
26
STILL trying to get someone , ANYONE to visit your site [snip]
41
[SNIP]
41
What you STILL don’t seem to comprehend is that the absolute stupidity of your time corrupting Wikipedia, has left you as a empty space in any debate about anything.
That is the life you have made for yourself.
62
is not a technical or scientific term. It was an ad hominem. You are very disingenuous.
41
It is a childish insult of her work, not a criticism. Better learn what you are talking about. You demonstrated your ignorance with your butchering of Wiki.
40
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.
330
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.
211
Isn’t it curious that the temperature is always *about* to start dropping? How long have we heard that now?
216
Since the start of the century.
120
How long have we heard that the temperature is rising at “unprecedented” rates? Really David you aren’t very good at this are you? Your post is useless filler.
180
Go easy on him Mark.
He has to learn somewhere, and at least he has an audience here that will point out his more glaring errors.
91
Isn’t it curious that the temperature is always *about* to fry us? (never mind no warming, for how long?)
70
If warming stopped at the turn of the century, why is ice still melting and the ocean still rising?
17
Are you really that thick? Clearly you are no Bananabender.
I encourage you to think about it.
61
I’ll ask again: if warming stopped at the turn of the century, why is ice still melting and the ocean still rising?
18
And I will ask you again to think about it. If you cannot find an answer, please let me know and I will be more than happy to show you the insignificance of your ignorance.
70
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.
70
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.
50
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.
17
“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.
60
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.
27
Please enlighten us with the experimental science which shows this, David.
62
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.
28
“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.
61
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. 🙂
83
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 ???
73
Nonsense. We would just like you to backup what you say.
50
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?
111
Who’s grumbing? And what does that prove — someone is always grumbling somewhere.
16
Possibly that some people want to abandon the scientific method. While others prefer to keep it.
70
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.
60
Well for a start I know that a system with a loop gain of 0.95 and time lags cannot be stable!
50
bobl
June 22, 2014 at 4:21 pm
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.
20
Would those be the ones that agree with you that CO2 is not a trace gas? LOL Yea, real high brow there.
40
“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.
202
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.
325
David Appell:
‘You don’t need a climate model to know CO2′s effect’
–
However, they can be very useful in overstating it!
170
That’s an unscientific statement that is not supported by the facts.
521
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.
120
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.
120
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.
320
“CO2′s heat trapping effect is, of course, immediate.”
RUBBISH !!
142
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.
122
More proof needed David! Prove that water vapor won’t “untrap” the heat, IMMEDIATELY! You are starting to annoy
121
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?
111
Bob..
he only looks at rabid alarmist sites… how can he search the literature ?
92
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.
70
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.
60
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.)
111
David Appell:
‘The hockey stick has been confirmed many times, including by different mathematical methods.’
–
It only needs to be debunked once! (Steve McIntyre)
50
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.
60
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.
50
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.
100
7 years is a very small interval that is in no way representative of climate.
It’s looking at noise, not climate.
07
.” This graph also appears in the IPCC’s ‘Climate Change 2007 – The Physical Science Basis’.”
–
Interesting!
20
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?
50
No you are making noise.. meaningless white noise
50
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.
140
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.
210
How csn you say that David when we dont know all the volcanoes and vents that exist? oh yes, that’s right, they
guessextrapolate.60
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?
70
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.
90
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.
80
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)
19
David Appell:
‘Models do give reality”
–
Here’s your reality.
–
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/73-climate-models_reality.gif
–
61
Beautiful picture bullocky. But I think this one is a dead horse.
40
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”?
70
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.
27
And the biosphere says A BIG THANK YOU to the USA, China and India, Germany, for all that luvly CO2 plant food. 🙂
61
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’!
51
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.
80
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?
40
That’s a description of all your statements.
40
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.
181
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.
214
“Inferred” David Is that the best you have? An inference?
121
Science is full of inferences.
25
As, indeed, is politics.
40
And when it comes to Climate Science they are two sides of the same coin.
40
“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/
212
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 … ????????????????
101
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.
90
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.
17
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.
50
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)
40
Ah, we have him doing the circular references trick – empirical science free zone folks 🙂
100
“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.
121
I’m guessing you have some proof that CO2 cause the Holocene Optimum, the Minoan warm , The RWP, the MWP etc etc,
131
No, the ice cores show that CO2 and temperature are in a feedback loop, and the loop goes both ways, and has.
Without CO2, the temperature change from a glacial to interglacial period would only be about half as great.
116
Higher concentrations of CO2 DO NOT maintain the temperature.
It cannot be a forcing for temperature.
What don’t you understand about feedback ?
Or are you saying that high levels of CO2 causes the temperature to drop ?
What the ice core show is that TEMPERATURE DRIVES CO2 !!
152
Hint, bozo.. feedback .. if one gets big.. it causes the other to get big.
CO2 got big.. and temperature dropped….. NOT feedback !!!
(using very basic language so you can understand)
101
David Appell @ 27.3.1.3.2
WOT?
50
He seems to think that Climate Science has found a feedback loop that goes both ways, but somehow does remains semi-stable – a bit like the New York Subway, would be my guess.
90
No they do not. That is just a leap of faith on your part. The ice cores show no feed back loop.
40
GISS scientists (and others) have written lots of papers on inferring climate sentivity from paleoclimate. See Hansen’s list of publications at GISS’s site.
28
Hansen, J.E., and M. Sato, 2012: Paleoclimate implications for human-made climate change. In Climate Change: Inferences from Paleoclimate and Regional Aspects. A. Berger, F. Mesinger, and D. Šijački, Eds. Springer, 21-48, doi:10.1007/978-3-7091-0973-1_2.
Rohling, E.J. et al, 2012: Making sense of palaeoclimate sensitivity. Nature, 491, 683-691, doi:10.1038/nature11574.
18
And yet the best the IPCC can do for ECS is a wide range of values, with no central estimate possible in the current state of knowledge.
51
Yep, they have written a lot of papers. That is what they are paid to do, by their political masters. And they are paid very well, because they are very good at it – writing papers, that is – conducting empirical and reproducible science, not so much.
70
The conspiracy slur reply. Well done RW.
06
What Gee, you don’t think Hansen is a political activist involved in the political world?
That would be denial.
70
no
06
No conspiracy Gee Aye. I am simply pointing out that they are just pragmatically doing their job within the mandated policy guidelines, as any public servant is required to do.
Or do you suggest that we have a public service that simply ignores political policy directives, to go off and do its own thing, as it feels like it?
60
Gee, apparently denial it is.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/a-brief-summary-of-james-e-hansens-nasa-ethics-file/
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/science/james-e-hansen-retiring-from-nasa-to-fight-global-warming.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/18/dr-james-hansens-growing-financial-scandal-now-over-a-million-dollars-of-outside-income/
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/science/earth/extreme-heat-is-covering-more-of-the-earth-a-study-says.html
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/hanson-barracking-for-lawless-destruction-and-the-end-of-civilization/
60
All of which is a way to avoid addressing the research. There is no evidence for RW’s slur in anything written above.
05
Gee, Speak with sufficient words so that you accurately frame your conclusion. What “slur” did RW make?
40
Gee Aye:
‘The conspiracy slur reply. Well done RW’
–
Consensus = Conspiracy !
–
Now THAT’S an interesting development!
00
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.
110
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.
18
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.
91
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.
80
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.
60
… and limestone is made from CO2 dissolved in the sea water …
40
Please direct us to the experimental science which demonstrates this “heat-trapping”, David.
20
Also, the continents were in much different places then, which means the Earth had a different albedo.
17
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.
50
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 …
00
Your references please.
61
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
17
Ok, so now give us your understanding of each of these papers (go boy!).
60
*crickets*
40
Yep, working off a script, by the looks of it.
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.
40
He probably uses that software that Al Gore released… designed for kiddies to go and TROLL skeptic sites.
40
That paper is highly speculative.
In their conclusions:
they sum up quite well. File thirteen material.
Did you actually read this paper?
30
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.
414
“The models do a pretty good job of projecting the long-term future”
RUBBISH !!!!!
142
“The greenhouse effect of CO2 is rock solid science.”
MORE RUBBISH !!
142
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/
315
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.
172
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.
18
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?
30
The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the “Greenhouse Effect”.
http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
30
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.
111
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.
112
“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] !!! !
71
Clearly you have never been in a desert where daytime temperatures are 30C+ and at night drop below freezing.
What happened to the CO2??
60
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.
40
I’d rather ask a geologist about the rock solid science.
80
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.
130
The Venus/Earth equi-pressure temperatures absolutely PROVE that there is NO WARMING FROM CO2 !!
91
and Mars. You forgot Mars!
With an atmosphere 95% CO2, it should be a really balmy place!
20
Bad Pun Mark!
70
Wait! you haven’t yet heard: Appellation, Appaullettes, Appell-in-My_Eye, or Appell to Authority. Frankly, it’s just an Appellication of flawed logic.
50
I’d be very interested to study the history of climate on Venus, does anyone know where to download the surface station data? How far back does it go?
100
What is ‘”scientific doubt”. Is this a special variety ?
40
Yes, in most cases it is peer reviewed, and published in the literature.
When it comes to Climate Science however, it is observed to exist in a quantum state that is determinant on the containing forum and the argumentative force applied.
50
There simply is no scientific doubt about the greenhouse effect. Sorry.
18
If you BELIEVE that.. then go ahead.
But you are WRONG.. again.
61
What it is, is actually the atmospheric pressure gradient ..
But you can call it the greenhouse effect if you want. 🙂
There ain’t nuffin up there to stop convection, like in a greenhouse, otherwise we wouldn’t be able to put satellites up into orbit.
71
I hear Mars is 95.9% CO2. Nice and warm there too I bet.
50
Paul told me that Venus and Mars are Alright Tonight.
50
Only a fool is always positive. Science always leaves room for doubt because it is not a fools game.
So yes, there is SOME doubt. However minimal. Another own goal by the king of them.
30
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.”
180
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.”
17
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?
40
“This reduces climate change to the discernment…”
Well that got that part right.
50
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.
40
Oh dear…
70
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.
90
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/
70
There isn’t much science at that link, nor would such warming prove anything except that other planets have their own climate that changes by many of the same mechanisms ours does: orbital factors, especially.
We have good measurements of solar irradiance going back decades. They show no increase averaged over a solar cycle since about 1950. (See the LASP labs data pages.)
26
“We have good measurements of solar irradiance going back decades”
Well reasonable. and the integral matches the temperature pretty darn well..
no need for hallucinogenic FABRICATIONS like the CO2 warming.
61
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hZs-bryXH5c/Uo_Qzo1q3OI/AAAAAAAAAKM/VS6yWWq1wj4/s1600/Slide1.JPG
51
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.
10
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.
130
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.
223
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.
132
OK. 17 years and eight months. Better now?
170
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?
218
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.
182
Arctic sea ice is melting 10 times faster than the Antarctic is gaining sea ice.
The Earth is now losing over a trillion tonnes of ice a year:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/05/how-fast-is-planet-losing-ice.html
315
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly.global.png
91
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly.global.png
This is a plot of area. Ice is measured by its volume.
114
cryosat-shows-arctic-sea-ice-volume-up-50-from-last-year/
121
That’s a typical misleading statement from the likes of Watts. That number refers to the September minimum.
The long-term trend of Arctic sea ice volume is clear:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png
26
David Appell:
‘That’s a typical misleading statement from the likes of Watts. That number refers to the September minimum.
The long-term trend of Arctic sea ice volume is clear:’
–
Where does Anthony Watts dispute the long term trend of Arctic sea ice volume?
–
It’s clear that David Appell is misleading!
30
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??
218
” there has been a huge amount of warming in the last 17 years. ”
RUBBISH
151
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.
131
Cherry picking datasets to support your argument … very naughty.
101
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?
130
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
41
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.
91
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!!!
81
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.
50
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
70
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.
40
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.
40
Lie for the cause. Your problem is you believe your own lies.
30
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”?
110
Property rights. Your fossil fuel pollution is damaging the property of others, including their health.
221
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
112
“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.
102
Mobile phone mistake again…down ward thumb intended
30
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.
91
We notice David that you are unable to answer.
50
“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.
60
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?
50
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?
90
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 %.
50
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.
30
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.
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
03
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?
30
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.
320
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.
162
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
70
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.
413
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.
160
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.
313
David,
And yet the pause continues.
You’d think that alarmist would be overjoyed at this, but no it is further proof that sceptics are wrong and the end of the world is more inevitably bye.
Why?
The belief that co2 is evil is strengthened by the need to be right.
132
What a load that is. You really are deluded. I can tell you firsthand as I was in a course dealing with the media at the time of the last election and we spent a great deal of time observing what was taking place.
In the US the people who voted for Obama did so more because of his skin color than for any other reason. He’s trying to reduce fossil fuel use, his concern has nothing to do with pollution it has to do with hampering out economy and appeasing the activist organizations that support him financially.
Do be advised that some of us here are from the US and will not be very appreciative of your trying to distort the real reasons that nitwit is in office and screwing up the country.
102
I expect then David that you do not drive a car, right? I bet you do…. in fact I bet you are deeply, very deeply dependent upon fossil fuels.
Hey, why don’t you go and live somewhere like Africa and see for yourself what you propose.
71
“and the end of the world is more inevitably bye.”
That would be” nigh” , I’m guessing. The “bye” would be the instant before . (if you saw it coming) 🙂
51
It was gonna be Nye as in the… well you know and then there was the auto thing and that’s how it all ended.
51
People need energy. But there’s no reason it has to come from fossil fuels.
The advanced countries are now easily rich enough to pay for clean energy.
28
Study finds wind power increases costs of electricity production and CO2 emissions
41
I know what clean energy costs — I buy 100% green offsets from my power company. It costs me an average of $1.85/month.
28
LMAO!!!
You poor, sad, FOSSIL FUEL DEPENDENT fool.
Please answer my questions.
92
I did answer your question — my electricity is green. (I also buy about twice as much as I use that goes towards the construction of clean energy plants.)
Yes, I have a car. There aren’t any other good option in our society.
Climate change won’t be solved by living in tents. Individual actions can’t solve it — in fact, they could well make it worse, by reducing demand for fossil fuels, which would drop the price so that others use more.
It will be solved by replacing carbon-based energy with carbon-free energy, at the institutional level.
29
“It will be solved by replacing carbon-based energy with carbon-free energy, at the institutional level.”
OK you lost me there. Why will doing as you suggest stop the climate from changing?
61
yep ! pretty close to 100% straight from a coal fired power plant 🙂
You are helping to green the planet. Good boy !
61
Unless of course you live in an area with lots of hydro (dams and stuff, y’know) or nuclear.
41
Just so people know, Appell is in Oregon. They use a lot of Hydro, because they can, but basically everything is either COAL, GAS OR NUCLEAR
at least 50% is coal or gas, very little wind or solar..
You have been diddled, bozo, no wonder your ‘green’ tariff is so low.. 🙂 !!!
But keep paying that “feel-good” extra. 🙂
42
“at an institutional level”
Ahhh ! providing for your later life, I see.
31
David Appell:
‘I know what clean energy costs — I buy 100% green offsets from my power company. It costs me an average of $1.85/month.’
–
Has taxpayer funding ever been used to subsidise the development and/or production of ‘green power’?
–
‘ (I also buy about twice as much as I use that goes towards the construction of clean energy plants.)’
–
A voluntary tax to subsidise green power.
20
I buy 100% green offsets from my power company.
“I by indulgences from the Green Religion Vendors.” Blessed by the Earth Mother you are.
BTW you understand that at the effects level you are paying to keep Africans poor so you can remain rich. Don’t you?
Fortunately the Chinese are smarter than that. Should we go to war with them if we can’t talk them into stopping? Is it worth a war to save the planet or not?
41
So you are telling us David that if the whole world buys “100% green offsets” we will “save the planet”. Think man, it’s a crock…. don’t tell me, it makes you feel all gooey and green.
Nonsense. You can buy yourself a mule, camel or whatever “natural” form of transport you care to…. or you can walk. Simply, you are a hypocrite.
41
@The Griss
Actually there are some. But his claim for “green” is that he buys carbon offsets. His power is actually 60% from dirty old coal. And the jets he flies around in? They are not solar. Nor is his 87 Buick.
40
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.
60
While I’m working on that, name one tax that was ever paid voluntarily. Name one bureaucrat that voluntarily resigned because there were too many bureaucrats. Name one politician that resigned voluntarily because they realized they were corrupt.
111
Your questions are irrelevant to the subject being discussed.
312
Evasion David Appell? Doesn’t look good on your resume. Which subject have you slotted this into? You were off topic (rage) yourself and you don’t get to control the subject.
Evasion is a sign of something David, what is it?
151
Show how CO2 is a pollutant.
110
while it wouldn’t be a tax if it was voluntary, there are supposedly idiots who will pay for Carbon offsets in the naive and mistaken belief that planting a tree will somehow cancel out the negative effects of their profligate use of airliners.
70
DA asks at 24.7.2.2.1
Sure, I’ll name the very first one in the history of mankind.
In days of yore, when man lived around campfires, they figured out – voluntarily – that shitting where they sat around created a pollution problem. They – voluntarily – walked some distance and shat elsewhere.
161
Yes, and in modern times this problem is solved by governments building sewer systems.
415
David Appell:
‘Yes, and in modern times this problem is solved by governments building sewer systems.’
–
Using ‘fossil fuels’. (Among other things)
60
CO2 is not a pollutant in my opinion. It increases crop yields, makes the planet very green. Has many more benefits such as better living standards resulting in lower infant mortality, etc.
110
You have been given one already. Go back and read it , and then make your point if you have one.
50
You mean voluntary actions?
I applaud the government in the US for passing laws that resulted in a cleaner environment.
Unfortunately, the EPA has outlived its usefulness and they are causing more harm than good these days. The EPA is a corrupt agency that needs to be dissolved.
Countries that tried to “go green” (e.g. Spain) have ruined their economies. Even Obama doesn’t boast about their economy as an example for the US to follow anymore.
The US exceeded its non-binding Kyoto requirements to reduce CO2 simply by allowing the market to work. Natural gas is cheaper than coal and it is abundant.
Isn’t it better to allow the “invisible hand” of the market to work and achieve a better and cleaner environment than it is to have the heavy hand of government regulation which strangles economic growth and harms the environment?
80
The market has no “invisible hand” when negative externalities aren’t priced in. There is no cost to emit carbon pollution. It’s hard to beat that price.
The US didn’t turn from coal because of its CO2 emissions; it turned to natural gas because it was cheaper. CO2 considerations had nothing to do with it.
26
Tort laws is how unpriced externalies are priced in. Class action suits if the losses are small individually but large collectively.
You seem to lack faith in our system. I’m absolutely with you there. But government as the answer? Government is coercion. And bribery. Men with guns.
Wouldn’t it be better if what you desire was done voluntarily or with the minimum of coercion? Look at how we as a nation have become recycling insane. For the sake of social cachet business is focusing on ways of making money from what once was a cost item (disposing of scrap).
You are positing a system of maximum coercion. But what happens when your enemies get a hold of it and use the system against you? The best general defense is to make government smaller.
40
We notice David that you are unable to answer.
50
But most want to simply solve this serious problem in the most judicious and efficient way possible. Now that is a projection! No evedence!
80
“David Appell”,
Use a dictionary and look up the meaning of “tolerance and humility”.
You might actually learn something as clearly at the moment you don’t have a clue !
PS by the way THERE IS NO PROBLEM TO SOLVE EXCEPT THE ONE INSIDE YOUR EMPTY HEAD !
52
Climate change activists know they are losing the argument so when the subject arises they just go quiet because they no longer have the confidence to argue their case.
100
It’s a lot of fun though; putting on one’s best organic/sustainable farmer hat and venturing onto the rabid greenie blogs. At first they just” lurv ” you ; and then suddenly they feel totally betrayed.
One only has to say this , and every friggin’ alarm in the district goes off 🙂
http://publicaddress.net/system/cafe/hard-news-fact-and-fantasy/?p=276670#post276670
80
That made me smile! I had a very ‘interesting’ time on the ‘Earth Garden Path’ forum when I dared to question the great CAGW religion. I had always been under the impression that a forum was for grown up discussion reflecting different viewpoints. Well, I discovered otherwise when I was attacked by a really rabid character and also by other people I had thought were reasonable types. You live and learn. I’ve been ‘green’ for years longer than most of them but temper it with commonsense I hope. When is commonsense so called when it seems to be rather uncommon?
120
Doesn’t common sense help to keep and see things in proportion.
Sense comes from experience, and lots of idealists without real world experience struggle to grasp the significance of facts they are confronted with daily. Well some of them might struggle while many of them just haven’t a clue.
30
Some people don’t like the truth. They build their life security on a big lie which involves a lot of energy to perpetuate it. When truth exposes the lie these people lash out in anger. It’s a Jekyl and Hyde character transformation with ugly physiognomy and ugly words.
70
My experience is that most people who I know that are warmists haven’t even bothered to read the science, don’t understand the science and are accepting of CAWG as a matter of faith.
100
Because that is what it is … a new socially acceptable religion, in an age of agnosticism.
80
The name calling must stop. Although I do enjoy it despite having been called a number of names over the years (I blog – I’m a very small fish).
So how about we stop next week? And do it recursively.
My theory about comments? No worse than USENET when it was a force in the universe. But it does get old after a while. I guess I prefer the current relative civility. Mostly.
50
The same thing happened with me and my son-in-law, with whom I have always had a good relationship and who I think is a very fine young man. We were standing working on a Christmas Eve barbecue, when I happened to mention how terrible it was that Greenpeace were worrying young children about climate change with their ridiculous YouTube film on how Santa could not get his sleigh going because all the snow had melted (the bastards!). He tensed up and said “well someone has to tell them about pollution”. I looked at him and said “what pollution? CO2 is not a pollutant”. He virtually screamed at me, his father-in-law, “I DON’T WANT TO DISCUSS IT!” Naturally I dropped the subject as their was no chance of having a rational discussion on it. And that’s the problem. A rational discussion with someone with quasi-religious beliefs is just not possible.
242
I feel for you, Peter. My younger sister and I came to verbal blows over AGW not too long ago. We have not spoken in weeks now. She considers nothing short of a Gaia rapist for my temerity to question the motives of the eco-freaks and argue that CO2 is far less powerful a GHG than has been portrayed. I fear we will never speak again.
100
I happen to think we need to challenge them on it. I’d rather b yelled at for 5 mins than have them have a lifetime of decpetion.
The other problem is that this is how any murderous movements start – rabid ideology breeds violence.
It needs to be challenged – because by rolling over we give them the power to control our thoughts and opinions.
Unless its checked, based on what I know of historty, it wont end well. we are at a cross roads.
What we do now – matters.
20
Take heart. You will. Worse things than that have separated me from a sister or 2 over the years. But blood is thicker than CO2, so you will speak again.
20
“PeterPetrum”,
I would have nothing more to do with the poor deluded fool.
You have to wonder when individuals are so mentally challenged how they even remember when and how to breathe!!
60
He’s in advertising, Angry. Does that explain it?!
80
“He’s in advertising,”
Dodgy Bros.. used cars !!
40
CO2 is a pollutant — a substance that, in excess quantity, is undesirable due to its potential for harm.
In the US, the Supreme Court has ruled that CO2 is a pollutant, and that the law requires the EPA to take action to curtail it.
(They have been very wrong before,examples abound such as Plessy vs.Ferguson in 1896 and the Dredd Scott ruling in 1857) CTS
423
Then the US supreme court is an ass !!
CO2 is the primary building block of all life on Earth, and is still at dangerously low atmospheric levels.
Plant life functions much better at above 700=800 ppm, which would make absolutely zero difference to atmospheric temperature.
191
Lifted this from Bolt.
The EPA is an ass!
60
Assuredly, I won’t “sass” the Supreme Court and EPA with crass, asinine aspersions or assail these unsurpassed eco-assets with embarrassing character assassinations, but will ask: as the Supreme Court’s classification of CO2 also encompasses “vegan flatulence”, may we assume, as well, it tasks the EPA to assiduously harass and hassle David Appell’s own ****?
30
Oops! I’ve belatedly found, in a blog post by David Appell, that while he tried vegetarianism once, he is now a regular-guy carnivore, who is, nevertheless, still possibly subject to regulation by the EPA. So please read “methane gas”, in the above comment, where “vegan flatulance” appears.
My apologies, David, for the misunderstanding.
30
Another smack down.
50
The Supreme Court, of course, just listened to and acted on the science.
There is no CO2 deficit on Earth. More CO2 alters the climate. More CO2 harms the nutritional value of crops like wheat and rice, it creates droughts and other changes to the hydrological cycle that plants depend on, and plant growth is limited by nitrogen availability anyway. More CO2 creates more weeds, which compete with crops.
323
David we are all well aware of the mistruths, half-truths and outright nonsense that you have just quoted.
It’s just your opinion ; you are entitled to express it.
140
I notice you didn’t counter my points with any science….
214
You’re right. The points you made were not arrived at by a scientific process. How could I then counter them with corrections to your science? You had none.
130
You’re being ridiculous — all of those are the findings of science.
215
“all of those are the findings of science.”
RUBBISH !!
100
“I notice you didn’t counter my points with any science’
There was no science to counter.
100
David, true science is empirical, and based on physical evidence. Models are not empirical, they are anthropogenic artifacts and constructions. I know, because I worked for a number of years as a modeller.
A lot of people on this site have been modellers, and we generally agree that they are great tools for finding out what it is that you can’t explain, but almost useless at simulating anything to do with the real world. Garbage in always equals garbage out, and using a supercomputer just produces garbage faster.
The problem with the current set of models is that the Garbage going in, is CO2. Not because that is the right, or even a rational, input, but because that is the first thing somebody thought of eons ago. All of the models are bottom-up, and based on theoretical relationships.
David Evans is building and presenting a top-down construct of the way the climate actually appears to work, and there seems little room for CO2 in that model. Should it prove to be more robust than the existing models, then the CO2 based theory will have to go by the wayside.
And that, my friend, is why you have suddenly turned up here, and tried to … do what exactly?
170
“I notice you didn’t counter my points with any science.”
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur – What is asserted without reason may be denied without reason.
100
David Appell:
‘You’re being ridiculous — all of those are the findings of science.’
–
Repeating your opinion ad infinitum (nauseum?) does not elevate it to any exalted position. If you want to advance your claims above personal opinion status, then you have to SHOW that “all of those are the findings of science”.
Should you accomplish this, it will become clear to readers here, that the US Supreme Court has not acted on unsubstantiated advice.
80
David,
Who decided the optimum CO2 concentration for the atmosphere and the perfect climate for the planet occurred about 100 years ago?
100
Your points are unscientific.
20
What a load of unmitigated rubbish you are coming out with today. !! Its called brain-washed ignorance.
Darn you are going to have egg on your face as the temperature starts to drop further 🙂
110
“There is no CO2 deficit on Earth. More CO2 alters the climate. More CO2 harms the nutritional value of crops like wheat and rice”
1. Yes there is. Plants grow best around 800-1000 ppm.. There is therefore a deficit.
2. No it doesn’t. CO2 has basically zero effect on the climate.
3. Only if you starve them of other nutrients like nitrogen. Farmers already know to rotate with leguminous crops, the researchers obviously didn’t.
151
You’re talking about plants in a GREENHOUSE, not the real world. It’s not at all comparable.
Even at 559 ppm, and even considering CO2 fertilization, the nutritional value of wheat is reduced. Here’s a link to that study:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/04/wheats-nutritive-value-decreases-under.html
216
David, you should perhaps read some criticisms of that article. Exactly the same thing occurs on cloudy days -plants fail to convert the nitrate that has been taken up from the soil into complete protein. It can happen at any time that growth conditions in the soil and atmosphere are conducive to accelerated growth but sunlight is weak.
There is nothing new in this link. Pastoral farmers are very familiar with nitrate poisoning , and the conditions under which it occurs.
110
It is the elevated carbon dioxide that inhibits the conversion of nitrate into protein in these crops, not clouds or a weaker sun or something else.
116
Prove it.
100
You have never done any study of horticulture, have you.!
You know NOTHING !!!
It also applies in the open atmosphere, the world is becoming GREENER.. more plants, more FOOD !!!!
Nearly $3.2B worth in boosted yields at this stage. !!!!
100
“It is the elevated carbon dioxide that inhibits the conversion of nitrate into protein in these crops”
BULLS**T !!
80
David,
The nutritional value of a low protein crop high carbohydrate crop (rice)is decreased by a fraction of a percent in protein while the entire crop yield increases exponentially.
Big whoop.
It’s why we have incisors and why sheep and cattle graze.
100
David,
You drivel with a fear campaign, you claim facts and evidence and direct readers to davidappells blog spot, you use this site to promote your own…
If you are that fearful of every waking breath then do what you know you should:
1 Make paper from papyrus.
2 Make paint from ochre.
3 Make ‘end of the world is nye’ placards.
4 Make a real difference – walk the walk.
In short, David, you, like most alarmists, are a thorough Bull S### Artist.
110
David Appell:
‘It is the elevated carbon dioxide that inhibits the conversion of nitrate into protein in these crops, not clouds or a weaker sun or something else.’
–
Again, this is supposition. You haven’t proposed a mechanism by which ‘It is the elevated carbon dioxide that inhibits the conversion of nitrate into protein in these crops’ As farmerbraun suggests; you have to ‘prove it’.
–
Your opinion is not science, but not surprisingly, it supports the AGW cause.
30
Orders of magnitude again. A tiny reduction in a protein across at least an order of magnitude increase in the harvest and it’s something to panic about.
Here’s a bit of common-sense Mr. Appell: eat an extra mouthful of bread so you get at least the same nourishment from the CO2 `impaired’ wheat it is made from.’
20
David you have personified the point of this thread almost perfectly, reading down to here and actually taking the time to consider your points I am still yet to be convinced by your scientific claims on CO2.
As a layman on this subject all I can predict is when the general public see CO2 going up and temperature going down there will be a consensus on calling out this CAGW scare for what it is, a scare.
This will be the only relevant (and correct) consensus on the CAGW debate and I hope that believers like yourself are prepared for this, it would be tragic to live the rest of your days wringing your hands and obsessing over the coming apocalypse that will never happen.
140
Except the temperature is not going down.
215
Yes it is.
And about to accelerate.
120
@ David Appell, most trends are down over the last 18 years odd, though pick your start point carefully and you can get an upwards trend. But no trend is currently significant and so the continued increase of co2 over the last 18 years has produced no statistically significant change in temperatures. But most trends (such as they are) point down. With a low current solar cycle 24 and an expected even lower next solar cycle 25, you are more likely to see the current downwards trend steepen.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend
I find it interesting that the temperatures seem to achieve deeper lows more readily than higher highs. This suggests to me that the potential for dropping quite quickly into a colder regime is there once conditions favouring cooling intensify over the coming 20+ years of reducing solar cycles and Solar / Earth magnetic fields.
130
David Appell:
‘Except the temperature is not going down’
–
‘Not going down’ is not the same as ‘going up’.
CO2 is going up.
Could it be that there is little relationship between the two?
80
David,
See this is the thing you rely on – you can fight the truth, but they can’t fight a lie.
Alarmists propaganda actively fights the truth with misdirection, misinformation, fear campaigns, censorship, threat, intimidation and hate speach.
But you live a lie – have a look at your scary face icon – behind that you’re just another fat, white, middle aged guy living at home with his cat.
Get out once in a while, take a walk, say hi to the neighbours, steel those nerves of yours, take a great big deep breath, and just see what the real world is like.
Now, after all that, if you are still concerned that CO2 is destroying the planet – just don’t exhale.
81
I didn’t realize that the “US supreme court” was a scientific organization……
01
What is “excess quantity David Appalling? I declare that your unsupported claims and comments have a high potential for harm.
140
CO2 is a pollutant — a substance that, in excess quantity, is undesirable due to its potential for harm.
H2O has similar properties in this regard. 🙂 (shouldn’t give the money grabbers too many ideas should we!)
100
Yes, and in some circumstances water is a pollutant — it causes undesirable effects — floods, heavy rains, storm surges, etc.
416
I see – a pollutant is anything which is in a place where you don’t want it to be. So is there anything on this planet which can never be a pollutant? Or can absolutely anything be a pollutant?
131
“pol·lut·ant noun \pə-ˈlü-tənt\: a substance that makes land, water, air, etc., dirty and not safe or suitable to use : something that causes pollution.”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pollutant
215
So, NOT CO2.. Thanks. 🙂
122
CO2 at any level that it will ever likely to be in the atmosphere is PURELY BENFICIAL !
122
The definition you quoted states that it is what is added that causes pollution, not that which it pollutes (i.e. water). Your quote therefore contradicts what you are stating.
Think before pressing the post comment button.
Or, better yet, just think!
60
So water causes water to be dirty and co2 causes air to be dirty… hmmmmmmm
50
Just think, David, every time you open your mouth…..
Out comes a massive amount of pollution…..
40
David,
STOP what you are doing immediately… or you’ll go blind.
21
Wonder if David realises he is sitting in a room or office that has anywhere between 600-1000ppm of this so-called pollutant. Quick David, you better go outside…….oops, no good there either as there is ~400ppm of this so-called pollutant out there.
Looks to me you’re up the creek without a paddle and nowhere to hide from this substance that, in excess quantity, is undesirable due to its potential for harm. You’re doomed David…….doomed I tell ya!
Ohhhh, the pain…….
20
David, by your definition then all substances, all matter in fact, are pollutants. This is a ridiculous and unsupportable position. REAL pollutants are inherently harmful to the environment and cause no harm if removed from the environment. Labeling CO2 as a pollutant is a bastardisation of language in an effort to assert control. Control the language and you control the argument.
132
Floods don’t harm the environment?
CO2, in excess quantities, certainly harms the environment. That’s why the US Supreme Court ruled it a “pollutant.”
218
Good thing that CO2 is nowhere near nor ever likely to be in EXCESS !
It is currently deeply in deficit for the real needs of plant life.
In the distance past it has been 3000ppm+ and the world THRIVED. !!!
Unfortunately it has been in parlous short supply for 100’s of thousands of years, but thanks to mankind, a small amount of that trapped carbon is now being returned to the atmosphere where it belongs.
111
What an incredibly stupid question. David, you are truly a lightweight.
*Mods, This is not an Ad-Hom because it is well supported by evidence.
[Noted – Just keep the discussion polite -Fly]
112
Circular argument alert
60
David Appell:
‘CO2, in excess quantities, certainly harms the environment. That’s why the US Supreme Court ruled it a “pollutant.”
–
No mention of ‘climate change’ then?
50
Appell said “CO2, in excess quantities, certainly harms the environment. That’s why the US Supreme Court ruled it a “pollutant.”
Just because 3 politically appointed judges adhered to their political masters wishes on the subject does not mean they had the faintest idea of what they were ruling on. Were they even aware that without a goodly amount of co2 there would be no plants or life on this planet ?
CO2 is an asphyxiant gas and not classified as toxic or harmful in accordance with Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals standards of United Nations Economic Commission for Europe by using the OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. In concentrations up to 1% (10,000 ppm), it will make some people feel drowsy.[83]
Tody we have levels of 400 ppm. The ideal level for food plants is thought to be over 1000ppm.
80
David,
Floods do not harm the environment the changes to the environment are harmed by floods.
40
David,
Your ignorance is astounding.
A supreme court ruling does not alter the physical world.
A supreme court ruling benefits those with the money and the power to hire lawyers prepered to wring as many permutaions from a single word as is finacially possible.
50
No, they do not. They are beneficial. Floods are a perfectly natural part of the cycle of life on this planet. Imagine for a moment just how barren Australia would be without it’s regular, cyclic floods (which the alarmists jump up and down about as though they are something new).
Floods are simply a pain in the ass for people who were silly enough to settle in a flood plain… a flood plain that has been there for millenia.
120
Five green thumbs if I could. 🙂
50
The reason that I farm in a flood plain is because it is some of the best soil in Godzone, and it gets replenished to some extent at regular intervals. Give me a Karapoti silt loam anyday. Good shirt!
70
http://atlasv.massey.ac.nz/soils/profiles/profile.html?P17
40
One of the most noblest of trees on this planet cannot survive without fire. Nature has adapted to fire, floods, even hurricanes and tornadoes. They are not pollution or detrimental. They are required for nature to continue. http://www.ehow.com/about_6643082_do-sequoia-trees-reproduce_.html
20
Actually, the Supreme Court didn’t rule as to whether or not CO2 was a pollutant. It ruled that the EPA had the authority to determine what was a pollutant and to regulate it.
60
“The majority opinion commented that ‘greenhouse gases fit well within the CAA’s capacious definition of air pollutant.'”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_v._Environmental_Protection_Agency#Opinion_of_the_Court
CAA = Clean Air Act
08
So what. Any definition can be capacious enough if you design it that way. Circularity fascinates you doesn’t it?
60
Congress wrote the Clean Air Act, not the EPA. The Supreme Court ruled that CO2 falls under the definition of “pollutant,” and so therefore the EPA *had* to take action to control it.
The EPA was the *defendant* in Mass vs. EPA, not the plaintiff.
06
And that is supposed to inspire us with confidence? Nothing whatsoever coming from the US government, or any of its instrumentalities, can be trusted as all are without exception completely and entirely corrupt and self-serving. Any definition of the Clean Air Act is politically motivated, with supreme court appointees beholden to their political masters. The ideas of separation of powers and an independent judiciary in the United States are an ‘antiquated’ concept without any connection to the status of the US legal system as it is currently manifest.
70
[snip]
10
“David Appell”,
Obviously you use “Animal Farm” as your (political) science reference…..
11
And the director of the EPA when asked what the current level of co2 in the atmosphere was repsonded by saying that she didn’t have that information. In other words she had absolutely no idea. It seems fair to assume therefore that she also had no idea that a significant amount of co2 is essential for life to exist on this planet.
The EPA should not have the power to regulate co2. The US executive has driven a coach and horses through the US constitution and bypassed the right of Congress to legislate. A dangerous precedent, a step towards dictatorship.
40
Floods are a PART of the environment! You are constructing a mythical place that has never existed, nor will it.
40
All of this talk of moving goal posts reminds me of the history behind Royal Tennis (Real Tennis) where the rules were changed by the most powerful aristocrat playing at the time to greatly advantage their strengths to ensure victory every time.
80
A 16th century French book on How To Win at Chess seriously advocated playing outdoors and seating one’s opponent with the sun in his eyes 🙂
And a number of regional civil wars were started when one chess player, apprehending that he was sliding into a losing position, left the game vowing to return on the “morrow”, but never did
You’ll notice that Appellations refuses to define “excess”, and continuously whines that the US Supreme Court ruled CO2 as a pollutant – that was one single Judge in closed court, quite a few years ago (one may also wonder how one particular Judge managed to be chosen in camera for the Decision of the Millenium). That was discussed at length on CA at the time. My advice is not to feed Appellations as he will ruin the thread with bombarding flak … ask Judith Curry. On my count, Appellations MMXVIII was reached there. Very tedious and utterly humourless, devoid of any self-irony or self-awareness
The floor of a dense tropical forest contains 1000+ppm CO2. Modern submarines, submerged for months, engineer an atmosphere for crews at 2000ppm. The Cretaceous Period globally reached 10000+ppm, based on peer-reviewed proxies. We are at 400ppm … and I’m terrified 🙂
181
Just a slight correction.
The high level of CO2 in a submarine is not for the benefit of the crew, but because it is an extremely good fire retardant. Fire, onboard a submarine, is one of the worst possible scenarios.
30
Ah, so because the Supreme Court ruled on it, using the EPA’s evidence, which has been shown to be thoroughly flawed, that makes it so?
Let’s see, I have an organization, such as the EPA, whose existence and growth depends on expanding their reach via powers that were not granted to them by congress. So I get my scientists to cook up some studies and reports that support the need for my organization to be able to exceed the power granted to it by congress via a judicial system that only looked at the studies and reports that I provided.
You’ll believe anything won’t you?
90
“David Appell”,
Just saying something does not make it so!
Everybody is entitled to their own opinions BUT…..
NOBODY IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN FACTS !
21
OK, then Apell, then we should remove it from the biosphere, all of it, now tell me bright-spark, what will happen then?
So since too little CO2 is very very armaggeddon bad, and too much CO2 is maybe, kinda, a little teeny weeny bit bad which side aught we err, on what level of CO2 is perfect for you? Hmmm?, how high is high enough that a natural decline in CO2 emission wouldn’t result in an extinction event? My guess is we need to be well over 1000 PPM to guard against a low CO2 extinction event which we’ve been living on the cusp of for a few thousand years, a natural cooling event which would result in marked Oceaninic CO2 uptake could just do it.
The EPA finding is unconstitutional it seeks to drive CO2 down, it puts the USA population at risk of an extreme low CO2 related event. It attempts by it’s own admission to reduce temperature to the level of the Little Ice Age, it therefore attempts to make alaska uninhabitable and create glacial conditions in the great lakes area. It attempts to reduce food availability and increase human mortality. It IS unconstitutional, because it fails to recognise the harm that LOW CO2 will do to the people. The EPA attempt will FAIL.
60
CO2 is not a pollutant. It is an essential gas for life on earth. Unless you are claiming that life (not just homo sapiens) is a pollution as well.
Your logic is astoundingly ——. I will refrain from adding the last word.
30
“David Appell”,
Obviously you failed LOGIC at school…..
11
“David Appell”,
AGU says CO2 is plant food:-
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/31/agu-says-co2-is-plant-food/
By the way you learn that carbon DIOXIDE IS PLANT FOOD in primary school science !
I guess that you also want to ban that dangerous substance DIHYDROGEN MONOXIDE also !!!
[snip]
21
What is so delicious is that the vast majority will become disillusioned with their god as the cold sets in.
“Nothing is settled” will mean everything has to be investigated. We will get a tad smarter.
Good times coming if we can limit the immediate damage. Ozzies are showing the way.
60
My June 21, 2014 at 10:57 pm
is a response to:
PeterPetrum
June 21, 2014 at 9:55 am
40
MSimon:
‘What is so delicious is that the vast majority will become disillusioned with their god as the cold sets in.’
–
I’m not sure that many homo sapiens will appreciate a colder world, least of all myself.
However, if you are right and temperatures begin to plunge, then we will surely find out just how adaptive alarmists can be!
50
No doubt they will try and resurrect the ICE AGE SCAM from the 1970’s again………
11
❝ Just when you thought this tripe was dead, it comes round again.
Well, its winter at least in this hemisphere, and a bit chilly, so perhaps it seems plausible –
the septics usually have trouble telling weather from climate.❞
~ ~ ~
Mr. Connolley. “… septics usually have trouble telling weather from climate.”
This is a claim you continuously make. (Most recently @ notrickszone)
This would seem an opportune moment in “the debate (that) is over” for you to help define “weather from climate”.
The ‘settled science’, for some reason, seems to conflict with these recent expert examples:
Climate change a key factor in extreme weather, experts say
❝ A few years ago, talking about weather and climate change in the same breath was a cardinal sin for scientists.
Now it has become impossible to have a conversation about the weather without discussing wider climate trends, according to Professor Will Steffen, the report’s lead author and director of the Australian National University’s Climate Change Institute.
It might even be the case that the mantra chanted after every catastrophic weather event – that it can’t be said to be caused by climate change, but it shows what climate change will do – has become a thing of the pas