Whatever you do, don’t let those skeptics speak:
Cartoonist accidentally captures intellectual depth of greens
Adrian Raeside ,Victoria Times Colonist on June 4, 2014
Paul McRae was not impressed. Me, meh. It’s another dying publication which just alienated the half sane readers who haven’t already left. Bravo, eh. They whittle away at their base til they will only have teenage low-self-esteem green fans and a few old hippie die-hards left. Not a good business model.
A Letter in the Times Colonist June 5 re: Adrian Raeside cartoon, June 4.
“Does anybody find it ironic that Adrian Raeside’s cartoon gleefully depicting the death of a “climate-change denier” appears on the same page as Naomi Lakritz’s column on the murder of Dr. Mehdi Ali Qamar, motivated by the fact that he was an Ahmadi Muslim, a sect not recognized by the rest of Islam.
Can there be any doubt that climate activism has become the new religion…
Terry Sturgeon
“Times Colon-ist” – talking out of their a…?
130
Who and what is a climate change denier?(climate has changed for at least 4.5 billion years!!!)
I think what they really try to say is that he is a denier of the political established UNFCCC?
20
They reveal their true nature with their every communication. To know what their nature is, read and understand the literal meaning of the communication. You know that you have nailed it when they say “I was ‘only’ joking.” No. They meant every malevolent word and implication.
180
There is a Jewish proverb that goes; “When someone says they want to kill you, believe them”.
00
Plse. 4give reposting but another how warmists see themselves cartoon belonged here.
From that Cool Climate cat Richard Branson at his Virgin site reproducing this warmist’s cartoon, depicting ‘Deniers’ as must be dense because one of them makes more sense than all of their soppsedly ‘ sciency ‘ types.
If only they could grasp how right that is 😉 , the cheap Lewandowskiesque Gravity reference notwithstanding.
All those scaredy followers flocking together on one pan. Individuals seem to be what they fear most.
http://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/climate-change-is-no-joke
100
No Eddie, what that comic really says is that just one so-called sceptic, out-weighs hundreds of brain-washed mom-thinking alarmista apologists.
132
“mom-thinking ” ???? = NON-thinking.
I need my morning coffee !!
92
The consensus weighed against the science.
140
Branson is a hypocritical left wing date like most warmist, ie Al Gore, he has a bigger carbon footprint than all the skeptics who they so despise. I suppose he’ll tell us that 747’s don’t emit CO2.
170
Just another rich guy consuming 1000 times his share of resources while telling the people below him not to consume too many resources.
And as usual, even Branson is on the take from the public purse while doing it.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jun/10/truth-richard-branson-virgin-rail-profits
140
I don’t give a toss about his CO2. It’s the Noise and other noxious emissions they spew across the country that’s the real problem.
CO2 is a great decoy for the airline industry because they can so easily claim to be offsetting it by paying lip service , feigning concern and planting a tree.
As long as Greenies keep spouting the Carbon mantra no one will takes objections to expanding airports and real pollution seriously.
70
I take that cartoon as illustrating that one person seeking the truth is worth more than all those seeking government-funded sinecures. Climastrologists, being leaves on a twig on the Progressive socialist tree, don’t do humour – and it shows.
40
I was watching the smh “debate” over Abbotts latests stance on climate and carbon pricing – I watched as CAGW proponents called sceptics “buffoons”, “ignorant” and were mocking, all the while never actually posting proper info that could be verified.
00
> don’t let those skeptics speak
No-one is stopping you speak. Unlike WUWT. As to the cartoon, meh, I think you’re going out of your way to be insulted. Although is it about you? I thought you thought you weren’t “deniers”.
450
WC, please can you define ‘climate change deniers’ for us? Is this type of cartoon would be acceptable if you replace the ‘denier’ by a gay, or a Jew? What would be the reaction? Disgusting propaganda.
311
There’s no clear definition. Its a label for an attitude, rather than a group (wiki has https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial, rather than _denier; but that page says “a set of organized attempts” which I think isn’t right). To me, its the attitude that IPCC is wrong, without any attempt to find out what the IPCC actually says, or to propose any coherent theory. Like the people that harp on about the 2035 Himalayan glaciers, for example.
345
w.c.:
‘ …or to propose any coherent theory. Like the people that harp on about the 2035 Himalayan glaciers, for example.’
–
Coherent?
–
Denier!
150
It might be just me, but your citing of a Wikipedia article as the authority seems pretty damn funny.
290
I hope he feels proud, that the ONE thing he will be remembered for is the wholesale corruption of facts on Wikipedia.
That must truly hurt his ego. But that is all he is.
242
Yes heaven forbid people would notice how poorly constructed some of the data is. The 2035 glacier prediction should have stayed in, its more accurate than a lot of the other tea leaf gazing nonsense.
Wont rain again, wont snow again, blah blah blah, its all soooooo scientific.
150
If somebody comes up with a “scientific” theory that plainly flies in the face of genuine, readily available data (as opposed to computer models, which are, themselves, mutually contradictory), why should it be incumbent on a critic of the theory to produce an alternative theory? It’s enough that the original one is demonstrably mistaken.
I’m no more an expert on glaciers than Mr Connolley is, but I know that talk of “disappearing” glaciers is ridiculous and that, even when expressed in rather less alarmist terms, any theory which extrapolates “man-made global warming” from natural fluctuation in glaciation is a logical sand-castle.
120
> talk of “disappearing” glaciers is ridiculous
Got any data? Lots of nice pics at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
213
Western Antarctic glaciers – growing so fast the ends keep falling off, causing much concern to the vapourous luvvies.
110
The cartoon at the top shows an iceberg calving on dry land. I don’t see any evidence of that kind of event in Mr Connolley’s edits of Wikipedia. Perhaps, he could share a photo with us. A conventionally calving iceberg, as he certainly knows perfectly well, is not evidence of a melting glacier, but of an advancing one.
80
Since 1850 did you say?
roflmao !!
Must have been those pre-production SUV’s I guess ! 🙂
60
As ever, you “forget” that global thing about “Global Warming”, when it becomes inconvenient. There can be a receding glacier in the same massif as an advancing one, but, somehow, the camera always jams, when you get to the advancing glacier.
20
Does a movie critic have to produce his own movie in order to be critical of another?
No, bad is bad, and wrong is wrong. I don’t need to come up with a theory of why you are wrong.
00
Most people would prefer science rather than declarations from yet another UN body. What make you think that people should accept the interpretations and selective collations of non scientists?
The whole idea is wrong.
There is a very coherent theory, one which withstands the rigors of scientific enquiry and experiment. It’s known as “natural variation”.
CAGW on the other hand relies on statistical models (statistics is NOT science). You cannot provide a scrap of experimental science to support it.
If to prefer science is to be a “denier”, then so be it…. and I will happily label YOU as an ignoramus.
141
> CAGW on the other hand…
Is a strawman you’ve made up. Since you’ve invented it, you’re responsible for it. Don’t ask me to defend it.
> coherent theory… “natural variation”.
Natural variation definitely exists, and the IPCC reports discuss it, as does the usual scientific literature. But its not a plausible theory for recent temperature change, which goes outside the likely bounds of natural variation.
311
And how are “the likely bounds of natural variation defined?” Who sets these bounds, and on what basis? Is it arbitrary or based on empirical and repeatable research?
61
They aren’t “defined”. They’re discovered. You need to actually do real work, or read actual real work, to find out. We come back to my original “without any attempt to find out what the IPCC actually says”.
37
No William. We come back to the sorry fact that you would rather believe the rants of a UN body with it’s own agenda rather than study the science from real scientists.
You do know that the IPCC reports are not put together by scientists, don’t you?
Do you believe that there is a 97% consensus among scientists on an impending catastrophe from AGW?
11
> Do you believe that there is a 97% consensus among scientists on an impending catastrophe from AGW?
No; but since no-one has claimed it, this is merely another strawman you’ve pointless invented. Isn’t it just dull spending your time fighting strawmen?
> You do know that the IPCC reports are not put together by scientists, don’t you?
Again, you don’t even know what you’re arguing against. The reports are indeed put together by scientists. The SPM is then argued over by pols and rewritten (though generally in the sense of being diluted, not gingered up; so that doesn’t help your argument) but the things that matter – the WG1 reports – aren’t.
[ William, you really need to be more accurate with your responses. With regards your first claim, there are hundreds of people who continue to claim 97% of scientists agree that climate change is human caused and dangerous. But it is exactly what President Obama tweeted:
“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. Read more: http://OFA.BO/gJsdFp”
As with the second part, I have shown in the previous comment how much what the scientists actually believe gets changed and ‘gingered’ up in the statement for policy makers. Mod]
25
This sounds like your favourite defense William: “It’s a strawman”.
I have yet to see anything here which you have referred to as a “strawman” which actually is a strawman.
No, they are not. Scientists contribute to the reports, however whether or not what they have to say makes the light of day is selected by whom?
How scientific!… You win William /sarc
20
Connolly 4.1.1.5.1
Well that is one of the more ridiculous responses that we have received on this thread.
Natural variation forms a normal distribution about a nominal mean. The outer extents of the distribution tend to zero, but never attain it, so it cannot be “discovered”.
So to say something is “outside of the bounds of natural variation” implies that somebody, somewhere, has arbitrarily decided those bounds. I was asking, “On what basis”
It is you, who that actually needs to do some real work. I suggest that, “Probability 101”, may be a good place to start.
10
> normal distribution about a nominal mean
No. A normal distribution is merely one possible of many. Indeed, if we’re looking at natural variation, one of the things that needs to be discovered is just what the statistics of variation is. You cannot deduce, antient Greek-physics style, the distribution; any more than you can work out the orbits of the planets for pure cognition.
I’d recommend http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter10_FINAL.pdf but you may find it hard going.
23
Oh really? Do you mean the bit where it says:
I especially like the concept of having a “process of demonstrating that climate … has changed”. If it were self evident, then a process surely would not be required, unless of course you are dealing with very small numbers, very small indeed, in fact approaching zero?
I also like the next sentence that says, “… if its likelihood of occurrence by chance due to internal variability alone is determined to be small”. I was not aware that “small”, was a valid scientific term of measurement.
I don’t find these documents “hard going” at all. I breed Angus cattle as a hobby, so I am used to wading through stuff.
40
>>> Do you believe that there is a 97% consensus among scientists on an impending catastrophe from AGW?
>> No; but since no-one has claimed it, this is merely another strawma
> climate change is human caused and dangerous. But it is exactly what President Obama tweeted:
No, that isn’t *exactly* what O tweeted. Unless you consider that “dangerous” and “impending catastrophe” are exactly the same thing, which they aren’t. You swapped words over; you “really need to be more accurate with your responses”.
30
Right ! Absolutely no reason that a catastrophe should be dangerous. And danger is not a catastrophe.
00
I think a catastrophe will almost invariably be dangerous. But something dangerous will not necessarily, or indeed even often, be a catastrophe, or an “impending catastrophe”.
But I am sure that someone chiding me that I “really need to be more accurate with your responses” really ought to be accurate in their own. And swapping one word for a different phrase is not accurate.
30
Ok William.
So, is climate change “dangerous”?
Is it human caused?
Is it because of CO2?
What is the level of the danger, if not “catastrophic”?
00
That’s half right.
Where you are wrong is that Backslider did not make up CAGW. The part you have difficulty in accepting as accurate is the ‘C’ in CAGW, the part we describe as catastrophic.
On behalf of all climate skeptics everywhere let me apologise for this long-running strawman and gross mischaracterisation of the the threat of global warming. The correct terminology is given to us by that great hero of the global warming warriors, James Hansen, when in his 2008 review of the merit of his 1988 congressional testimony he stated:
If you could reinterpret all previous references to CAGW as meaning Cataclysmic Anthropogenic Global Warming you will be accurately understanding the debated proposition.
You are right about the second half; I wouldn’t expect anyone to defend the cataclysmic projections of global warming impacts. The IPCC’s cataclysmic ECS2XCO2 of 3°C is indefensible when the more observationally-based methods, addressing aerosols and cosmic ray flux respectively, get a figure of 1.75 or 1.3 degrees. Cataclysmic impacts assuming 3+ degrees per doubling are rejected by measurement.
50
I did not make it up. Warmists continually harp on about catastrophic consequences supposedly due to AGW, thus the acronym is a more appropriate one to use rather than the deceptively (what’s new?) benign AGW.
So William, I expect now that you will confirm that there will be no catastrophic consequences from AGW and thus we need to do nothing about it. Will you? Or will you instead confirm that indeed we are headed for catastrophe?
Where do you stand exactly?
10
> Where do you stand exactly?
Roughly at http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/07/04/what-i-think-about-global-warm/
[William, against my better judgement I read your basic canon in your reference above, which is:
The main points that most would agree on as “the consensus” are:
1. The earth is getting warmer (0.6 +/- 0.2 oC in the past century; 0.1 0.17 oC/decade over the last 30 years (see update)) [ch 2]
2. People are causing this [ch 12] (see update)
3. If GHG emissions continue, the warming will continue and indeed accelerate [ch 9]
4. (This will be a problem and we ought to do something about it)
Lets look at each of these points:
1. The earth is getting warmer:and 2. People are causing this [ch 12]
The Central England Temperature record, the longest continuous set of temperature measurements began in 1659. The Temperature rise from an average of 7.8C in 1696 to 10C in 1732 is a huge rise of 2.2C over just 36 years. In modern times, the greatest temperature increase was 0.7C over the last 100 years. There was no major carbon dioxide emitting industry in the late 17th Century and early 18th centuries. After this warming , there was cooling followed by a slow temperature rise and the 10C peak in average temperature in 1732 was not reached again until 1947. Can you explain how this temperature rise was both three time as large and three times as fast as in the 20th century? Certainly it was not due to human emissions of carbon dioxide. No matter where we look this green consensus is not underpinned by evidence.
The coldest period of the Little Ice Age, the Maunder Minimum, was 300 years ago. Since then, planet earth has been warming and there is no answer to the key question. Which part of the post-Maunder Minimum warming is natural and which part is of human origin?
Until this question can be answered quantitatively, there is no measured evidence for human induced global warming, only computer speculations. There have been more than two decades of computer speculations and this has been enough time to show that the climate has not followed the climate computer models and cannot be predicted, even over a short period of time.
3. If GHG emissions continue, the warming will continue and indeed accelerate [ch 9] and 4. (This will be a problem and we ought to do something about it)
To argue that temperature and sea level are increasing depends on what is measured.If you want to show that the planet is warming, pick 1977- 1998. If you want to show that the planet is warming and that this warming is natural, pick the last 300 years because it includes periods without CO2 emissions impact.If you want to show that the planets surface temperature is not changing , pick the last 17 years. If you want to show that the planets surface is actually cooling then pick the last 6,000 years. If you want to show the climate naturally varies then look at the last 1, 10, 100, or 1,000 million years.
Even this 17 year figure is arguable depending upon the measurement method. With satellite measurement techniques, there has been no significant warming for the last 17 (UAH), or 24 years (RSS).For surface temperature measurements , there has been no significant warming for the last 17 years (Hadcrut2), 18 years Hadcrut4), or 19 years (Hadrcrut3).
Whatever the measurement method, carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing and temperature has not. The Green ideological model has failed the most elementary validation test.
In the last 10,500 years of current interglacial, 9,099 were warmer than now. Some 6,000 to 4,500 years ago in the Holocene Maximum, it was warmer than at present ans sea level was about 1.2 metres higher than at present.This was the peak of the interglacial which we now enjoy. It was only 8,000 years ago that there was no summer ice in the Arctic.Many solar scientists are now predicting we are on a downhill run towards the next cold cycle, glaciation or ice age. I hope not – hotter is better!
So clearly your statements that the earth is warmer and people are causing it is unproven. Your prediction that If GHG emissions continue, the warming will continue and indeed accelerate has been invalidated by the empirical evidence, All that means your fourth point in the ‘consensus’ you describe “This will be a problem and we ought to do something about it” is wrong, it is not a problem and no action is required.
Most of the above facts and figures were taken from pages 31 and 32 of Professor Ian Plimer’s book ‘Not for Greens’. Professor Plimer is Australia’s best known geologist and author on the topic of climate science. He is Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne. – Mod]
10
You missed two questions William.
00
We see nothing outside the bounds of natural variability. On a human time scale there have been several warm periods significantly warmer than today (periods which many warmists deny [who are the “deniers”?]). You are just making things up as you go (what’s new?).
10
Yes, potentially.
Yes, if you mean the recent warming.
CO2 is a significant factor. Because there are also negative forcings its difficult to give a single number. But, say, 75% due to CO2 if you like.
That’s not really simplifiable to a single phrase. You’d be best off looking at the IPCC “impacts” report if you care.
10
What are you replying to here?
00
“To me, its the attitude that IPCC is wrong, without any attempt to find out what the IPCC actually says, or to propose any coherent theory”
Ah, the old “no alternative coherent theory argument”.
Here is the old “Theory of what?” response: I see nothing in the history of the climate that demands an alternative theory, nothing that is obviously beyond natural variability. The IPCC reports are full of fake hockey sticks (such as temperature, sea-level and ice-melt), obviously contrived for advocacy purposes, with the aid of the fact that Man started to measure things at around the same time as emitting CO2. Simply splicing dodgy proxies onto instrumental data gives hockey sticks without even trying.
100
“or to propose any coherent theory”
When nothing untoward or out of the ordinary is happening, another theory IS NOT NEEDED
Natural variability rules !!!
61
Remember that “denier” has been followed by explicit comparisons with holocaust deniers on many occasions. Even without that it would be non-nonsensical as it is applied to those who don’t even question positive feed backs.
It’s insulting because it is a cheap propaganda ploy that incites unreasonable hatred upon hearing of the word in somebody who has been conditioned to react like Pavlov’s dog.
This has been explained to you William. You still persist in pretending that it is an acceptable label so you are a grub.
41
Will,
I think this is ridiculous as a definition. Science works by refutation, we hold a NULL hypothesis IE. That warming is natural, then we try to disprove that, by forming an alternate hypothesis and testing it against the facts. If the facts support the hypothesis then a new NULL hypothesis is formed. At this point the AGW isn’t even a hypothesis, it’s more of a speculation because the hypothesis as it stands isn’t falsifiable in a scientific sense. Certainly if it is in fact a hypothesis, it has been disproven many times over as being inconsistent with the observations and to fail as a hypothesis it only need be disproved once. Eg. The missing hotspot should have put and end to this nonsense.
Science requires no other alternative than the null hypothesis, and your assertion therefore that anyone refuting global warming must provide a coherent alternative explanation is grossly unscientific and plainly wrong, it in fact makes every scientist that ever disproved a hypothesis, leaving the null hypothesis in tact a d-nier. That’s ridiculous
One of my professors once said to me, “in science proving your or someone else’s hypothesis is wrong is as scientifically valuable as proving it right”. You make a mockery of that concept. You are part of the problem, part of the groupthink and confirmation bias of those who think that contributing to science means they have to be always right.
20
How about defining ‘climate change’ to start with?
80
People tend to use the IPCC defn (http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_AnnexIII_FINAL.pdf):
Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings such as modulations of the solar cycles, volcanic eruptions and persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.
Don’t forget to read on for the note re the UNFCCC defn. And note how weirdly prescient my “without any attempt to find out what the IPCC actually says” was.
426
“How about defining ‘climate change’ to start with?”
The words are clear. The english language does not need to be redefined. The climate has always changed. There are just less climate change refugees now than in the past like there were when they helped cause the French revolution, fled the Australian outback on special trains or what Woody Guthrie sings of here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWlXG74XWIw
200
Disingenuous and misleading, still .. you never change do you. It is your life.
You know that in the agenda, the term “climate change” stands for “catastrophic human-caused warming due to the release of fossil fuel CO2”
You know that natural changes are totally ignored, (until they cause cooling, of course)
Yet you try to mis-direct and slime your way around this.
You truly do live up to the first 3 letters of your last name, don’t you…….. one slimy CON-artist.
223
So they are not the hypocrites that jet all over the world bleating the new religion of CAGW, or using up the world resorces getting new beachside houses, or just extended their own large property at the drop of a hat, or causing who knows how many man-years of damage and kiloWattHours of wasted energy editing website references that try to improve the wealth of everyones’ knowledge.
If CAGW is a true scientific hypothesis (or guess), then it must stand the rigors of scientific investigation, and not just name calling. Currently it fails by its own measures.
190
w.c.:
‘.. And note how weirdly prescient my “without any attempt to find out what the IPCC actually says” was.’
–
No more ‘weirdly prescient’ than the climate models!
40
“Climate change may be due to natural internal processes”
Do, please, expand on these “natural, internal processes”. I am intrigued by this “internal” idea.
10
My point is that you are saying that the climate may vary without external stimulus. What gives the climate the ability to do that?
10
In fact, I suppose what I am really asking is this: when you [this is aimed at Pontifex Connolley] use the word “climate”, what, exactly, do you mean?
00
We’re back at not reading the basic literature again, I’m afraid. I’ve already ref’d the IPCC glossary for the meaning of the phrase “climate change”. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/glossary/ar4-wg1.pdf will also define “climate” for you.
As to climate changing due to natural internal processes: this comes down, somewhat, to what you mean, guv. If you imagine a (non-existent) earth with a completely stable sun and no change in any external forcing, then the “climate” considered as the statistics of weather is likely unchanging. But if you think of it as the 30-year average of variables of interest, then likely it is changing. Do you see?
23
A sophist of highest order;pretentious and bombastic.As Randy Newman said:”All snake and no rattle”
20
Gees, mention climate pornography… And the WC turns up.
Because THAT’S WHAT HE DOES.
172
Hi the Griss
WC is in a long congo line of warmist pornographers.
112
Wow. We see again that Jo’s favored commenters offer only abuse and Jo doesn’t batt one of her fluttering lashes. (See that you’ve made your banner pic even larger.)
Great that you’re saving science like this, Jo. Your Group Think is so much better. Can I contribute to buying your next computer upgrade?
314
Hmm…
Recent banner pick
compared to Banner pick from wayback in April
April 22
No, Definitely not bigger. There have even been complaints about Jo’s banner pick is fading away, as the evidence shows.
That last comment is all froth.
30
“Can I contribute to buying your next computer upgrade”
Gees, I dunno.. can you afford it on the dole, after buying all your alcohol and hallucinogenic drugs ?
61
Chester,
Can name for me at least 25 negative impacts on the climate from CO2?
30
Chester:
‘Great that you’re saving science like this, Jo. Your Group Think is so much better.’
–
The Power of One!
30
One individual being worth more than any number of sheep.
20
My brother and his family have a friendly mongrel dog called Chester. Chester is cheerful and very affectionate, but he really isn’t very bright. His barking does irritate the neighbours a bit, but I don’t think it changes the way they vote.
10
I am not insulted. But I am analytical, and so I ask why the propaganda continues. Especially since we have been repeatedly told that “the Science is Settled”, and that only three percent of climate scientists are too stupid to agree with everybody else.
And so I look at the timeline, and note that this “problem” first emerged into the mainstream in the 1970’s, with the series of television programs about, “The Coming Ice Age”, and has continued, in one form or another, and with one climate scare after another, through to today. That is roughly 40 years of funding and grants for those involved. A whole career. Not a bad gig.
So now is the time for the next generation to take up the story. But unfortunately, this bunch does not have the same degree of skills, when it comes to creative mathematics. So they have to resort to less subtle ways of getting their message across. That wouldn’t be so bad if they were good at it. But they are not.
So I am not insulted. But I am offended by the lack of imagination and the low level of skill in execution. It is not of a standard that I would rate as professional.
370
Rereke
You’ve done a little bit of modelling in your time (and I don’t mean the Elle McPherson type). Has anyone taken the climate models and used them to “hindcast” the earths climate back a few hundred years? I do a little modelling (OK, I’ve written a spreadsheet) but hindcasting is a critical step in the validation process.
It’s just that the climate (or GCM) models don’t seem to be kicking too many goals in the forecasting area, either…
Cheers,
Speedy
110
They tried that.. then adjusted the past data to fit the hindcast.
The result is called Giss or HadCrut.
152
Really Mr Griss – let’s see your evidence of this. I’m surprised Jo hasn’t asked for it herself given how she’s all about evidence based science. But then, maybe you’re a contributor.
112
There is ample evidence of the massive manipulation of Giss and HadCrut.
If you were capable to actually follow links that have been posted hundreds of time, you would know that.
Here’s one that you might comprehend
That’s what the REAL temperature looked like BEFORE Hansen et.al. got at it.
The red is RSS attached..
Do you see how 1940 is about the same as the ElNino peak in 1998.
Now go and look at what the alarmistas have done to Giss.
That 1940’s peak has been adjusted down nearly 0.4C
THE WARMING TREND IS FABRICATED BY ADJUSTMENTS.
Again.. FFS start looking at reality and the data and think for yourself…,
…… just for once in your worthless little life !!
72
The story of Chester the chicken in those Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers. Chicken to Cat:I’m destined to become a member of the clergy;Cat:why is that?chicken:people say I would make a very fine Friar.
00
I really wonder why you bother visiting and making puerile pre-pubescent moronic comments.
You obviously have absolutely nothing to offer of any consequence….a very shallow existence….
But I’m guessing that is just your basic persona……. its who you are.
62
Chester:
‘let’s see your evidence of this. I’m surprised Jo hasn’t asked for it herself given how she’s all about evidence based science’
–
Poorly informed visitors from skepticalscience are the responsibility of John Cook!
10
Is Chester the replacement cartoonist at SkS?
The other one was pretty ordinary !
I expect they chose Chester because he can do primary school age cartoons to maybe help raise the intelligence of the members at SkS.
10
Sorry Speedy, I didn’t notice your question before.
With research models, you take a whole time series of observations, and apply some theoretical calculation techniques to them, to see if you get a meaningful pattern. If you don’t, you adjust the theoretical calculation techniques, and try again. Eventually, you end up with some theoretical calculation techniques that seem to model reality quite well.
But you can’t validate those calculations by going back to the original raw data, because that raw data is what underpins your calculations. So, you need to find another whole time series of observations, and use that to validate the model. That is what is called “hindcasting”. But, if that validation fails, then you are back to stage one, and have to adjust your calculation techniques, in order to account for the new data.
To validate that, you need a third time series of observations, and so on. Eventually, you run out of data. That is the point where it gets tempting to assume that the observations are wrong, thereby justifying modifications to the data, as the Griss points out.
60
Hind casting? Just a simply assessment of what a positive feed back means. The last glacial period was 6°C cooler. If we take the middle value of the climate sensitivity of 3°C per doubling of CO2, then it must have been 100 ppm 12-15 000 years ago. Too low to support plant life.
10
That is the other interpretation, but I wasn’t going to go there.
00
I can’t deny something that doesn’t exist, as far as I can see.
Maybe you mean I am an unbeliever in the greenhouse effect, which seems to have nothing to do with greenhouses, and only seems to warm things when the Sun shines on them. A mysterious and subtle effect indeed.
It seems to be the effect that has no effect. It certainly doesn’t seem to work in the presence of unbelievers such as myself. That obviously explains the lack of global warming ver the past few years.
Where’s your faith? Rally the believers! Concentrate really, really hard on getting those temperatures to rise! Chant the sacred Manntra whilst running in ever diminishing circles!
Oh well, it gives me a good laugh. Keep it up.
51
Connolley, who said I was insulted? It’s all your own fantasy. I am quite happy mocking the “intellectual” depth of arguments put out by a green cartoonist.
And obviously we are not deniers of anything, but that doesn’t stop you using the term all the time, even though you admit you can’t define it in accurate English. Do you apply it me? I assumed you did, because you apply it to WUWT, you talk of “denier blogs” and allow its use all over your comments. But hey, correct me if I’m wrong. Do you think I’m a denier?
214
He won’t give a direct answer to you Jo. He knows he hasn’t the proverbial leg to stand on. His minions have done the same to me on his blog /shrug. It is an excuse to use a Holocaust-related slur for anyone who disagrees with his view of the science and he knows it. But it was never about the science for WC. It is trolling, but hardly in the old fashioned meaning of the word … trolls should be witty, he is merely snarky.
20
> Do you apply it me?
As far as I’m aware, I haven’t.
> you apply it to WUWT
Yeah, but they’re nutters, barely coherent enough to even apply a label like “denial” to. If we’re in a questioning mood, permit me to ask you if you’re happy with the censorship at WUWT (http://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/wuwt-why-climate-change-doesnt-scare-me.html)?
> you talk of “denier blogs” and allow its use all over your comments
Yes, that’s true. I don’t censor my comments, except for extremes of rudeness (neither do you). I appreciate that you, and yours here, don’t like the D-word, so I don’t use it here.
29
OK, so by what definition am I not a “denier”, but Anthony Watts is? Do tell…
—
PS: I don’t censor much here, but I do censor the use of words that deliberately abuse English. Anyone is free to use “denier” here, in context, as long as they can define it. I’m waiting to find out what your definition is.
51
I’ve already given you the defn I use. Which is
“There’s no clear definition. Its a label for an attitude, rather than a group (wiki has https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial, rather than _denier; but that page says “a set of organized attempts” which I think isn’t right). To me, its the attitude that IPCC is wrong, without any attempt to find out what the IPCC actually says, or to propose any coherent theory. Like the people that harp on about the 2035 Himalayan glaciers, for example.”
Whether or not that applies to you, we could argue about, if you like. I think that “IPCC is wrong, without any attempt to find out what the IPCC actually says” is common to many of the commentators here.
I note your evasion re censorship at WUWT, BTW. I wouldn’t mention it, but “don’t let those skeptics speak” was one of your original (incorrect) points, so it is on-topic.
15
Oh. That’s your definition? I didn’t think you were serious.
1. Do you think it is a scientific term? (Please give us the details).
2. So you think Anthony Watts has not made any attempt to find out what the IPCC says?
(You don’t think that I could find 300 IPCC quotes on his blog?)
3. Censorship? Your transparent attempt to divert is a bore. I’m interested to find out if you can write adequate English, and use reason.
52
Yes, its my defn.
1. I’m not quite sure what you mean by that. Doing my best to interpret your question, I’d say probably no. They are terms appropriate to the meta-discourse around the global warming controversy, not part of science itself.
2. I judge him by his posts. For which the answer is: no. Or rather, he’s browsed it, looking only for things to disagree with; his knowledge of what it actually says in important areas is too shallow. Judged by his posts.
3. OK, you’re not interested in censorship at WUWT; fair enough, you don’t have to be. FWIW, I have a number of comments still in moderation here.
14
1. Bravo. You recognise Denier is not a scientific term.
I’ll help you, it’s a cheap political tool, it has no accurate definition — and is used broadly against anyone who opposes particular “approved” political outcomes. It’s effectively a tribal label but used deceptively in a science debate as if it were a quasi scientific term — and as if deniers denied something scientific — which you obviously can’t name. See your reply to 2.
42
Well, yes, its a label. Your people here tend to use “warmist”; again, its a label. It “is not a scientific term” either, but I don’t see you objecting to it.
> deniers denied something scientific
Well, they do: the contents of the IPCC reports. That’s what I said earlier. I realise that you don’t think the contents of the IPCC reports are science, but you can’t expect me to agree on that.
[William, many of the IPCC authors don’t believe the IPCC report is scientific especially comparing the chapter contents to the Summary for Policy Makers. For example:
The Final Draft IPCC WGII AR% report states:
It is difficult to establish a causal relationship between environmental degradation and migration…..Many authors argue that migration will increase during times of environmental stress…..and will lead to an increase in the abandonment of settlements….Another body of literature argues that migration rates are no higher under conditions of environmental or climate stress.
This was fraudulently changed into the IPCC’s Working Group II Summary for Policymakers, which states: “Climate change over the 21st century is projected to increase displacements of people (medium evidence, High Agreement)” This drove a media frenzy, yet doesn’t agree with what the scientists said. Mod]
03
Define “science” William…. I think we may quickly get to the bottom of why we disagree.
00
Compare the labels:
“Warmist” describes someone who favours the theory of accelerated warming.
“Denier” describes someone who is incapable of rational thought and who denies scientific evidence.
One of these is loosely accurate, and one is deceptive bluster (and a case of projection). What is unforgivable is that the people on the side of big-money and coercive force are the ones being deceptive and resorting to lies to win an argument.
Then there are the dumb patsies who volunteer to defend the namecalling cheats, and who make up excuses to pretend their bullying and evasion from an honest debate is OK.
I do not deny the IPCC reports. I discuss them. The largest feedback in them is water vapor in the upper troposphere, but the observations don’t match the predictions – even the IPCC admits that “the cause of this bias is elusive”.
Despite having observational evidence that suggests the largest single feedback driving the models is actually negative, not positive, the IPCC says it is “95% certain” and those who don’t accept their certainty are “deniers”.
Thus, it is unscientific namecalling to use the term denier, and those who use it have political, not scientific goals.
50
So no reply from Connolley. Is that a concession that he’s got no intellectual argument for his use of the term denier – that it really is just namecalling in a science debate for a political aim.
The namecalling is all over his blog… and he calls himself a scientist.
21
> no reply
Because I thought we were going round in circles. Its your blog, so I was happy to let you have the last word (so many internet fora are full of two sides each determined to say the last thing, although they’ve run out of things to say). But you summon me back; it would be impolite not to reply. I’ve given you my definition of the term denier. I’ve told you that people like AW clearly deserve that appellation, in my opinion; and I’ve been polite enough to avoid applying it to you. But its been pretty clear from the comments here than many people really have no clue about what’s in the IPCC reports. You point me to a post of your “discussing” the report; well, you do at least quote the report. But its more of an attack focused on one particular point than a discussion, and your response in the comments doesn’t look like someone with an open mind interested in discussion; it looks like someone defending a fixed viewpoint. The “tropical hotspot” stuff has been elevated by the “skeptics” into the “key fingerprint” but it isn’t that at all. Its just the about the only thing you have left, so naturally you focus on it. Remember when all the excitement about the satellite record was over them showing *negative* global trends, and how this falsified (a) models and (b) the surface record. All that fell apart, and “skeptics” don’t talk about it any more.
> he calls himself a scientist
No. I’m a software engineer.
22
William, thanks for replying.
Dare I suggest your ‘politeness’ in not calling me a denier to my face is more intellectual cowardice rather than being based on any principle?
You call Watts a denier, and Dr David Evans too. Since you can’t define denier in any rational way, and nor can you explain why you would differentiate me from Watts or Evans, it appears you would probably call me a denier behind my back, but you don’t have the courage to do it to my face, because you know it’s cheap political namecalling and you can’t justify it.
PS: regarding the hot spot, I see you post no evidence or reason to suggest water vapor it is not THE major feedback in models, nor do you have evidence that it is long term net positive and the hot spot was confirmed. Strawmen and bluster eh?
32
I followed the link out of morbid curiosity and could find no Evans or Connelley. Is it some sort of implied thing? Pseudonyms?
I wish I had not been reminded of Fielding though. He was a difficult character.
10
> and Dr David Evans too
Your link is to Deltoid, ie Tim Lambert, not me. AFAIK, DE means nothing to me.
> Dare I suggest… intellectual cowardice
Pfft, meaningless lawyers language. Suggest what you like, its your blog.
> you would probably call me a denier behind my back
You can make up imaginary insults that might be used if you like, but it seems rather pointless.
> water vapor it is not THE major feedback in models
But I agree that WV *is* a major feedback. I disagree that you understand the mechanism for the hotspot, and (as I said before) I disagree with the way the “skeptics” have elevated it to a key fingerprint; it isn’t. I note also you decline the chance to talk about how interested the “skeptics” used to be in the negative trends from the satellite record. What I wrote then (for example, http://mustelid.blogspot.co.uk/2005/06/causes-of-differing-temperature-trends.html) survives rather well, don’t you think?
10
The link is to Deltoid. You are right. My mistake, I used your blog’s search box to look for “deniers” and mistakenly thought you must have put up a guest post by Deltoid. Sorry.
Though it doesn’t make any difference to my point — you use the term deniers and denier blogs, and allow it in comments all the time. You call Watts a denier because he doesn’t discuss the IPCC, except of course he does. You write about ” denialist chatter “ the first example in that post is … Jo Nova? You refer to me as a “skeptic” – which means, not a skeptic. Then you come here and pretend you have some higher moral ground than mere namecalling?
As for the fingerprint. The CCSP with many of your favourite authors called it a fingerprint 74 times in 2006, yet you blame skeptics for elevating it?
As for the issue of negative trends in satellites – I believed in AGW at the time that came out. I paid no attention to the issue. Christy and Spencer corrected it and said thanks. What is there left to discuss? You are merely bringing it up as a distraction. You have to go back nearly a decade to find a point you think was a “win” for you? Bit desperate as a strawman.
01
> Christy and Spencer corrected it
S+C defended their record to the death, until RSS found their error. Grudgingly, S+C accepted the correction.
> CCSP with many of your favourite authors called it a fingerprint 74 times in 2006
I presume you mean http://data.globalchange.gov/assets/51/56/6d7da49e1f93bef673d56ff6aa6a/sap1-1-final-all.pdf
This is a perfect example of your lack of skepticism. All you’ve done is search for the word “fingerprint” in that document, or a similar one. But you haven’t read it, or you’d realise that most/all of those instances of “fingerprint” are talking about something else.
There are a whole pile of “fingerprint” studies: as the doc says: “Fingerprint detection studies rely on patterns of temperature change (Box 5.5)… Most fingerprint detection studies have focused on ***surface temperature*** changes” (my bold). See? *surface* changes. You can’t count 74 uses of the word “fingerprint” as evidence that they cared about the tropical hotspot then. They did care about tropospheric amplification of sfc warming – the “hot spot” stuff – but not hugely. Its p 115 and thereabouts.
> “skeptic” – which means, not a skeptic
The word “skeptic” has (at least) two meanings; I think you and yours deliberately blur them. “skeptic” in the olde-style sense means someone who doesn’t accept claims without testing them, and all that stuff. “skeptic” in the newe-style is merely a label for a certain set of views in the GW debate. Olde-skeptic is a label that any scientist is happy to have but it has genuine content and is not to be given lightly; Newe-skeptic is a label you’re welcome to. I don’t think you and yours are Olde-skeptics: see your use of “fingerprint” just above for example.
20
I actually thought it was quite funny…
….but then, I initially thought the black thing in the second pane was a turkey. 🙂
Such a logical mistake to make, hey 😉
41
Brought to you by the same twisted mindset that conceived the 10:10 snuff movies, and “the poor drowning puppy-dog” advert.
The people who thought that this was “a great idea” are engaged in a form of jihad; a “holy war”. But, for them, there is no connection with a prophet. For them, the only connection of importance is in regard to generating a profit.
Fortunately, they are appallingly inept. Unfortunately, they might start to learn from their mistakes.
230
But there again, if Mr Connolley is any indicator, they might not.
240
A psychopath will remain a psychopath until their last breath.
150
There’s only one group recently who was in danger from ice.. and it wasn’t the so-called deniers. 🙂
272
Yes this cartoon should be displayed beside a picture of the ship of fools stuck in ice. The title underneath could then read “Savage fantasy vs savage reality”
200
The only ice putting people in danger I’ve seen recently is a methamphetamine that isn’t affected by location, climate or CO2.
30
It had to happen didn’t it. Escalation is the game everyone plays. It goes on in entertainment, politics, science…and here it is. We should ignore such things as this. Better that not a word had been spoken about it.
It’s a need to get more attention, pathological in every way and truly unworthy of a response except to haul them off to their psychiatrists.
50
‘cheer for the deaths of the heretics!’ and which web site has had a serious humour bypass operation? Here is a clue, its based in OZ!
316
“and which web site has had a serious humour bypass operation? Here is a clue, its based in OZ”
I’m guessing you are referring to SkS. ! 🙂
The guy never was much of a cartoonist, anyway.
172
The Colonel Klink costume was funny though.
70
He managed to make it look like a clown outfit, though. 🙂
10
There’s a good reason you don’t find many comedians on the conservative side. Not much humour to be found in conceited, insular, self-centred NIMBYism.
00
There is plenty of humour on the conservative side.
The Greens, Labor and NUMBIES, like you, give us HEAPS to laugh at.
00
Mind you, the leftist “comedians” that think they are funny, are not.
Its only the “serious” lefty that is hilarious.
Milne, S-H-Y, Brand, Laudanum, The Pleb, etc , etc… Always good for a laugh. 🙂
00
I see that the claim is that
the glacier is losing 5 metres a year and
it could be gone in a generation.
Since its length is 6 km. that works out at 1200 years. Even Methuselah didn’t last that long.
Oh, I see another claim that the average loss over 123 years (since 1890) is 12 metres per year. Good grief! It will all go in 500 years unless there is a climate change.
201
Yep, “since 1890”
It seems the current glacial recession has been going on way longer than CO2 could have been having any effect.
I found a brief note about one of the adjacent glaciers that said the peak recession was between 1930-1940.. and it nearly stationary from 1950-1970
(Darn, there’s Tom Wigley’s ‘must-get-rid-of’ 1940’s inconvenient peak again!)
122
The Griss:
The length of the Mont Blanc glacier (or the Mer de Glace ) has been recorded since about 1570 when it was expanding.
In 1685 it crushed 2 houses on the outskirts of Chamonix, and the frightened inhabitants called on the local Bishop to send a priest to carry out an exorcism on the glacier. The situation was so desperate that no taxes were levied.
In 1716 the glacier having retreated about 800m the Bishop declared a fair in Chamonix to restore trade (not entirely altruistically as he owned the town).
About 1730 the glacier was almost back to where it was in 1685, but by 1745 was reported as having retreated by 2 musket shots ~ 400m
Another advance occurred in 1780’s before retreating in 1800.
It advanced again around 1820 and remained near maximum extent until about 1855.
From 1855 to 1875 lost 1200m in length, and by 1970 had lost another 800m.
It advanced again about 200m to ~1998 and has dropped about 150m since 1970.
(Sarc on). Can you see the effect of CO2? (Sarc off).
261
Astonishing. We MUST do something, quick!!! Another tax?
40
That is the trouble with glaciers – when it comes to length, they are so fashion conscious.
20
Ah the old Mer de Glace, highway to some of the best Mont Blanc has to offer . My French speaking GF is horrified whenever I mention it for some reason. Something about my Anglicised pronunciation apparently.
20
What is so hard to pronounce about
Glad you have a French GF, even if she is a bit precious about your pronunciation.
20
It’s not the ‘Mont Blanc’ but the ‘Mer de Glace’ which she tells me always comes out like something else. Apparently aficionados of Toyota’s MR2 have a similar problem in French. So much so that Toyota were moved to drop the ‘Deux’ in France. Much worse than Vauxhall’s Nova in Spain apparently.
20
Heheh. For anyone who hasn’t gotten the joke yet, look up ‘merde’ in a French-English dictionary.
I think the pronunciation of the ‘e’ in ‘de’ is going to be very important for avoiding glaring.
00
An idiotic and ignorant cartoonist – ice falling off the end of a glacier is not due to melting but massive ice production upstream from continuous snow fall. The process is called ‘calving’ and is a sign of ice increase, not decrease.
Glacial melting does not cause calving but rather slow melting backwards to the snow source in the uplands.
But it’s a sign of another millennial-madness episode, the expectation of another catastrophe that will afflict sinful humanity. The last one was the LIA event,
262
Quite right. The supposed “melting” of Antarctica is exactly the same. They measure ice calving and scream “My god!! We are losing so much ice!!!”
40
Warmists are the climate change deniers!
192
Record cold and record snow in Canada near that glacier so a nasty cartoon leaning on past effects of the now ended warming instead.
http://iceagenow.info/2014/06/snow-canadian-prairies-30-cm-12-inches/
and
http://iceagenow.info/2014/06/record-cold-morning-canadian-prairies/
and
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/cold-weather-breaks-records-in-saskatchewan-communities-1.2556285
100
This is why they HAD to change from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”.
To cover their agenda’s ass for the cooling trend that they could see coming.
We need to continually use the “global warming” terminology, to rub their noses in it. !
It is going to be hilarious watching them trying to defend their precious climate models as the temperatures start to ease down, and the divergence between the models and reality becomes even more pronounced.
141
I think that the political agenda that gave birth to the IPCC gave themselves a little breathing space. Would they be taken seriously today if they had originally set up an IPGW
20
They will just modify the models … again.
00
I prefer to call them deceivers.
40
The cartoonist is an idiot. That glacier has been melting for 125 years, according to Wikipedia (I would guess it’s more like 200 years).
90
About Summer 1971 (or ’72) we visited the Athabasca Glacier. A morning arrival in the parking area at the snout then required a short walk and crossing of a small bridge to get to the snout. The ice was dark with a covering of small rocks and grit. Without the dark cover it would have been difficult to walk up the slope of the ice front. We have many 35mm colored slides. We were out there for perhaps 2 hours in bright sun. On the short walk back to the car we had to, again, cross the small bridge. It then had about 8 cm (>3 inches) of cold water flowing across. My unprecedented advice: Take an extra pair of dry socks with you.
I’ve been told about, but did not see, a sign stating that when first observed by explorers the ice extended across the valley and pushed up against the mountain wall of Wilcox Peak. It seems to have been melting ever since. Likely, there has been a pause or two. Still looks now much like it did in the early ’70s. Then we had an average car but now folks have SUVs. There’s your problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Athabasca_Glacier.jpg
50
The Athabasca Glacier is better seen from Wilcox Pass, across the valley, rather than taking the monstrous tour buses that pound it daily with tourists.
http://climbwild.net/MP_Columbia_Icefield_page_three.html
10
The cartoonist is simply trying to buff his impeccable Green credentials among the people who matter to him; his friends and a few sappy halfwits who share similar views.
He has no insight into the vast majority of ordinary citizens who are sick to death of Green wailing.
100
I would have thought it wouldn’t matter to them who it fell on as long as a human died.
70
The globe is apparently not warming. How the heck can I be accused of denying something that doesn’t exist?
Maybe I should just deny that Warmists are maniacal, fanatical, proselytising delusionalists. I doubt that many would believe me, being a denier and all. Maybe they are.
Somebody has already pointed out that glaciers calve from having too much, rather than too little. Never let truth interfere with a good scary piece of nonsense.
80
Nor does the climate appear to be changing.
Maybe getting a tiny bit more benign; reduced hurricanes, etc….. but that’s about it.
Still the same ups and downs, hot and cold places, wet and dry… that its always been.
Actually, its a tad on the cool side if one considers the previous 12,000 odd years that comprise the Holocene.
Nothing untoward happening, that anyone can show using un-tampered-with data.
90
The demise of one “denier” is to be mourned as little as the genocide of all the poor in the world through energy poverty. For the left, the sight of those who are impoverished is unbearable. They (the impoverished) must therefore be removed – not by being enriched (raised out of their impoverishment) – but by being eliminated – and if that means starving them – and using inhumane means – then so be it.
81
Just some more looniness from our beloved left coast of Canada. I swear, they must all be smoking some insane stuff…
40
My wife and I spent four wonderful months sailing the coast of BC. It truly is one of the most beautiful places on earth. Came across a few weirdos on some of the islands we anchored off. Seemed harmless enough in their self imposed exile though I had more meaningful conversations with the Orcas than some of them.
10
let’s face it, the MSM is in decline. how could anyone even publish a phrase as ridiculous as “climate change denier”, given the climate has always changed?
oh i forgot, they often shortend it to worse – “climate denier”…or, in the following case, “CLIMATE PROTESTERS”???
8 June: SBS: PM Abbott heads to Canada
CLIMATE PROTESTERS who gathered outside the parliament in Ottawa on Saturday were well aware of the Abbott government’s policy of scrapping the carbon tax and other climate programs…
The protesters sang a song by Australian composer Glyn Lehmann called “I am the earth”…
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/06/08/pm-abbott-heads-canada
abc’s Glenday goes with the “change” variety:
9 June: ABC: Prime Minister Tony Abbott arrives in Canada for talks with Stephen Harper to boost trade, investment
By James Glenday in Ottawa
Ahead of the talks, CLIMATE CHANGE PROTESTERS rallied outside the Canadian parliament, which is close to where Mr Abbott is staying…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-09/tony-abbott-arrives-canada-for-talks-with-pm-stephen-harper/5509008
taxpayers’ money goes to the above broadcasters? tell me it ain’t so.
how anti-nature are the CAGW crowd anyway?
60
a week after China emphatically denied the following, ANU’s Jotzo – in Beijing no less – hasn’t heard! so much for our CAGW academics, & their selective hearing:
9 June: ABC The Drum: Australia left behind on climate action
By Frank Jotzo
In the past week both the US and China have revealed ambitious schemes to tackle climate change, putting Australia on the outer when it comes to taking action…
The world’s superpowers look like they are getting it together on climate change.
US president Barack Obama has announced a program to cut carbon emissions from the US power sector and China is set to take on an absolute cap on emissions, with policies to make it happen…
(Frank Jotzo is Associate Professor at the ANU Crawford School of Public Policy where he works on climate and energy economics and policy. He is currently in Beijing.)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-09/jotzo-australia-left-behind-on-climate-action/5509062
20
Everybody knows what a WC is don’t they, and we all know what goes into a WC so we should expect the same stuff to come out you know what they say garbage in garbage out.
41
Chad is a perfect example of why the MSM is dying.
8 June: Chicago Sun-Times: Chad Merda: Obama says he’d like to ‘go off’ on those who deny climate change
Photo Caption: President Barack Obama is fed up with people who deny climate change exists.
How frustrated is President Barack Obama with those people who deny climate change is a real thing? So frustrated, he’d like to “just go off” on them.
His comments came in an interview with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman.
Friedman bluntly asked Obama if he wants to “just go off on the climate deniers in Congress.”
Obama’s answer?
“Yeah, absolutely,” the president said…
http://politics.suntimes.com/article/washington/obama-says-hed-go-those-who-deny-climate-change/sun-06082014-235pm
at NYT, the following two sentences are the full extent of the exchange (in a lengthy piece) that inspired Chad to write the rubbish at the Sun-Times. of course, Obama didn’t say what Chad’s headline claimed he said, but hey, whatever.
how could Friedman be so stupid as to utter the phrase “CLIMATE DENIERS” to the President? oh, he works for what Gerald Celente calls “The Toilet Paper of Record”:
7 June: NYT: Thomas L. Friedman: Obama on Obama on Climate
Do you ever want to just go off on the CLIMATE DENIERS in Congress?
“Yeah, absolutely,” the president said with a laugh…
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/08/opinion/sunday/friedman-obama-on-obama-on-climate.html?ref=opinion&_r=3&referrer=
given it’s the CAGW followers who are protesting “climate” & “climate change”, if Obama does want to “go off” on deniers, he should be going off at them because they are denying climate change happened before they discovered CAGW!
20
The “denier” attack, reminds of a problem my mate Gallileo had a few years back. He had a similar problem. He was not a “believer” and did not accept the orthodoxy of the day.
The AGW lobby give the game away with designations like “denier”. If you are not a “believer”, then you are a “denier”.
Religious adherence to beliefs is demanded. Empirical evidence is heresy.
101
(I have too many comments; I’ll try to back off for a bit. Just one last one for now that isn’t even about climate).
> Gallileo [sic]
Most people’s view of the church-vs-Galileo is wrong. See for example:
http://thonyc.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/galileo-the-church-and-heliocentricity-a-rough-guide/
15
Hi William
Jo has politely asked you for your definition of a ‘denier’ – perhaps you would be courteous enough to answer just that one question by the owner of the blog, where you are commenting as a guest.
51
I think you’re responding to the wrong comment.
I’ve already given my defn, twice. See 4.5.2.1.1 for me repeating myself.
13
Although that comment is still “mysteriously” stuck in moderation, so you can be excused for not seeing it (but not for failing to see the first one, which was published some time ago). You’ll need to inquire of our host if you want to see it.
—-
It’s not a mystery. I have other commitments. I did not think the unscientific wiki definition was your serious answer (which is why I asked). – Jo
11
William.. Well i don’t fit that wiki decinition of denial. Thus i guess that does not make me a denier either. Thanks for clarifying that.
I explained my position to Paul Erhlich once. And he thought i was not a denier.
nor does it fit Anthony Watts..
do you think Prof Judith Curry fits the definition of denial or denier you gave?
01
JC has said some odd things (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/08/20/curry-jumps-the-shark/) but lacks the invincible ignorance required by my defn. Indeed her most recent (http://judithcurry.com/2014/06/08/state-of-the-blog-discussion-thread/) is quite promising: she quotes PP at length.
11
poor sensitive petals. Who’d a thunk it? 🙂
Reminds me of the old joke that has been doing the rounds again.
Two ALP members see a bus load of Liberal MP’s and RWNuttjobbies plummet off a high cliff onto rocks and shark infested waters. (i suspect Alan Jones was driving).
One of them collapses, sobbing uncontrollably.
“Why” says his mate? “Its horrific, but not your fault?”
“Oh the humanity and lost opportunity!! There were two empty seats on that bus!!!”
214
That was absolutely hilarious.
You’ve missed your calling. You’re a comic genius.
50
Hey? !
I thought he was already the blog clown,
(as opposed to BA4, who is the blog fool)..
there are subtle differences, y’know. 😉
81
“There were two empty seats on that bus!!!””
If the two ALP guys had been in them…… The sharks would have welcomed them as kin.
81
Griss, you really are a pathetic little fwarkwit aren’t you?
” If two Lawyers had been in them…… The sharks would have welcomed them as kin. ”
Would have been am appropriate.
And somewhat true. A few years ago a couple of lawyers on a surf ski got a chunk taken out of the ski off south Cott, and then the rather large white shark left them alone. Instance of intra professional courtesy apparently.
04
Catamon:
‘Griss, you really are a pathetic little fwarkwit aren’t you?’
–
The Griss claims another victim!
30
Yes they have buses on the Athabasca Glacier too.
That’s truly great for the handicapped and disabled persons, but the rest of the lazy lard arsed tourists would do much better on an proper hike. It’s truly invigorating hiking in this area, not quite knowing what might be eyeing you up for lunch. I’m not much of a sketcher but still have a drawing made years ago of an enormous paw print in the mud on Wilcox Pass.
20
Great. A generic hate joke.
Ever wondered why Warren Mundine (Former National President of the ALP) likes our Prime Minister? It’s because he is a good bloke who volunteered to really help indigenous communities rather than bleat about doing it.
10
I saw this in my local paper on Friday. I was not too pleased.
http://garymount.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/my-local-paper-tri-city-news-with-d-word/
10
Jo. Totally OT. i thought you might like to take a look at this:
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/09/wildfires-were-much-worse-in-past/
00
Not that it will matter to the fanatics at the Times-Colonist but I would like to point out that we do not need to use the Athabaska glacier as a pseudo-thermometer since there are actual thermometer records for Athabaska dating back to 1918. Since people are curious about that region I have added an Athabaska page to my website yourenvironment.ca, where I have posted a complete and easy-to-use historical archive of air pollution records and monthly average daytime high temperatures for hundreds of communities across Canada. I have also added a file on the Sources page listing the linear trends by month with autocorrelation-robust confidence intervals for all the same locations.
Visual inspection of the data will show that daytime highs at Athabaska now are not radically different than they were at earlier times in the century. The trends range from a low of -0.0036 C/year (September) to a high of 0.0407 C/year (March). March is the only month in which the trend is significant at 5%. The remaining months have small trends that are not significantly different from zero.
Anyone who wants can see the graphs, download the numbers and follow the links back to the original source records at Environment Canada. Just beware that, should you draw your own conclusions from doing so, the editors at the Times-Colonist will fantasize about killing you.
20
Jo has been graced by the golden arches… or half of them at least.
Jo’s next article regarding the practical meaning of statistical significance tests of “p<0.05" would also have to be right inside Ross's subject area, and a comment there would be equally enlightening for the crowds.
00
Well, Climate is and Climate does its climate thing, and we have thermometers to measure the facts – and as Meinong tells us: “Truth is a purely human construct, but facts are eternal.” So I thought well, temperatures arise from the zeroeth law of thermodynamics and all the rest is nothing but energy shovelling around. What happens, therefore, if I try measuring ‘Climate’ in energy terms, like kWh or joule? I tried, with the result at http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/eating-sun-fourth-estatelondon-2009.html . I think we simply should take King Canute more seriously.
On the way there, I thought I have a look at how best to keep level-headed after realising that one can’t get Clean Energy withouth getting Clean Politics, which might be worth a look, at http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/brainology-101-midwives-hold-thenewborn.html
01
For some reason, I can’t reply to this nonsense from William Connolley in the ordinary way:
“We’re back at not reading the basic literature again, I’m afraid. I’ve already ref’d the IPCC glossary for the meaning of the phrase “climate change”. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/glossary/ar4-wg1.pdf will also define “climate” for you.
As to climate changing due to natural internal processes: this comes down, somewhat, to what you mean, guv. If you imagine a (non-existent) earth with a completely stable sun and no change in any external forcing, then the “climate” considered as the statistics of weather is likely unchanging. But if you think of it as the 30-year average of variables of interest, then likely it is changing. Do you see?”
The first argument is so circular that it insults the intelligence: the IPCC (a pretty discredited organisation – see Laframboise, Donna, passim), which exists precisely to peddle the notion of “climate change” (it’s in the title, for heaven’s sake), cannot be entitled to proclaim the definition of “climate” according to its own whim.
As for Connolley’s argument re. “internal processes”, we really are in Lewis Carroll territory:
“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty-Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.'”
What’s the significance of thirty years? Why not thirty-one, or four hundred and seventy-two? He doesn’t even begin to answer my question.
10
It’s a cartoon FFS. Grow a skin.
00
My cartoon comments on these cartoons:
http://182.160.156.173/~itsnotcl/0037.html
http://182.160.156.173/~itsnotcl/Index.html
(Excuse the numbers – I’ve got to fix the website!)
00