Tim Lambert (deltoidblog AT gmail.com) is a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales.
The Australian welcomes the draft Garnaut report by reprinting an error-filled article from the Wall Street Journal. Their editorial even repeats one of the most glaring errors:
In proceeding with caution, governments need to be alert to all the facts, including arguments such as those noted by the Wall Street Journal's Bret Stephens reprinted in Inquirer today. NASA, he points out, confirms that the hottest year on record was not 1998, as previously believed, but 1934, and that six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 antedate 1954.
And their columnist Janet Albrechtsen repeats it a third time
And much of the media fell dutifully into line, failing to analyse climate change as an unsettled science that must move as the data moves. As Stephens points out, NASA now admits that the hottest year on record was 1934, not the previously reported 1998, and six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 occurred prior to 1954. Accordingly, there was plenty of room for the media to keep an open mind on the science. By and large, that has not happened.
Certainly not at the Australian. It doesn't look like anyone there has ever seen a graph of global temperatures. There's one in the draft Garnaut report, but here's NASA's:
I expect that next they'll combine this with their other favourite falsehood ("global warming stopped in 1998") and start claiming that global warming stopped in 1934.
Hat tip: Nexus 6.
Environment
Comments
Before making idiotic posts like this, try doing some research: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/ataleoftwothermometers/
This will explain how NASA should not measure temperature but still does.
Posted by: Jake | July 6, 2008 2:22 PM
Hey Jake,
You might want to find a better source than The Register (the Internet's version of a supermarket tabloid). El Reg is for geeks who like cheeky and contrarian better than accurate.
Posted by: huxley | July 6, 2008 2:35 PM
Before making idiotic posts like this, try doing some research:
funny one. it turns out that the two thermometers are Hadcrut an GISS temperatures. and "the register" is stupid to notice that there isn t any significant difference. case closed.
http://tinyurl.com/54jml9
Posted by: sod | July 6, 2008 3:20 PM
funny one. it turns out that the two thermometers are Hadcrut anD GISS temperatures. and "the register" is TOO stupid to notice that there isn t any significant difference. case closed.
(sorry, typos..)
Posted by: sod | July 6, 2008 3:22 PM
So in other words... NASA retracted their earlier claim that the hottest year was 1998, and even if they didn't retract their earlier claim, GISS data are still pwnt by HadCRUT data, and even if GISS aren't pwnt by HadCRUT, we should throw out both and use UAH anyway and by the way UAH shows long-term cooling, and even if UAH doesn't show long-term cooling... argh you filthy Communists are serial murderers!
Iterative backpedalling, one of the inactivists' favourite sport.
Posted by: bi -- IJI | July 6, 2008 3:42 PM
You might want to find a better source than The Register (the Internet's version of a supermarket tabloid). El Reg is for geeks who like cheeky and contrarian better than accurate.
El Reg has been devoting a hell of a lot of time in the past few months to publishing the bullshit of such as Tim Worstall and those Living Marxism creeps - and without having any actual climate change scientists on to refute this codology, either.
Granted, they're a news 'source' which registers (heh) rather large to myself on account of my own IT-centred worldview, but some pushback on the Register's bizarre campaign of global warming denialism (pistols at dawn with Andrew Orlowski?) by the better-known Brit or US science bloggers would be welcome to a lot of people. How about it, folks?
Posted by: EWI | July 6, 2008 3:43 PM
I'm a bit busy this week, but I'll be available to lay down covering fire next week.
Posted by: guthrie | July 6, 2008 6:42 PM
For those who can't be bothered following all the links, the WSJ claim is based on data for the continental US, which is about 2 per cent of the earth's surface area.
This kind of parochialism is unsurprising in the most reactionary of US journals. But what can you say about a paper that calls itself "The Australian" and prints this kind of thing.
Posted by: John Quiggin | July 6, 2008 6:53 PM
"continental US"
Actually it is for the contiguous US. If you throw in Alaska, 1934 is not even in the top 5. (insert something about how global warming is most pronounce in the arctic and how the denialists are dumb as posts)
Posted by: elspi | July 6, 2008 7:48 PM
Michael Costa, the NSW Labor treasurer, is thinking with his mates' wallets rather than with his head, or with the heads of his Government's scientific advisors. Having moved from NSW several years ago I haven't been close enough to the action to confirm my suspicions that he is a denialist, but the 7 July edition of the ABC's "The World Today" is quite clear where Costa stands.
Media, politics - whichever way one looks at the Denialist dog, Vested Interest seems to be holding the lead.
Posted by: Bernard J. | July 7, 2008 12:09 AM
BTW, that link probably won't be up for another day or so. Until then, start with the front page for TWT and go from there to find 7 July 08.
Posted by: Bernard J. | July 7, 2008 12:13 AM
Gaaawd, Timmyboy lives here so what about replying to my post on OLO to you about your "science"?
Timmyboy, the IPCC may have been set up initially with the best of intentions but unremarkably it has mutated into a religious faith. It simply operates mechanically with belief in belief alone where it can only always be a fact free zone/playpen. When one sees obviously dodgy assumptions, biased data manipulations, absurdly selective modeling schemes, etc all coupled with an aggressively enforced consensus group mindset with inhouse peer review processes ....... then it deserves the utmost skepticism. For myself, i'd describe it more accurately as top shelf insanity indicating a complete lack of imagination ........... but certainly not a lack of insecurity nor a lack of self-interest.
Your very own comments about Dr Vincent Gray are aimed to demonstrate this unimaginative belief/need for total consensus within the IPCC playpen. If this is the priority then it speaks of insecurity and a need to arrogantly fudge the data/evidence to fit some perceived moral high ground. Whilst this may be observed as a perfectly fitting product on the surface its underbelly is phony. My point is that your "science" is exposed as simply belief in belief for its own sake rather than belief derived from some factual information which is where intelligence evolves. Applying consensus to science means there is no thought of reason, humility, free inquiry, dignity, participatory democracy or the true achievement of human potential, because it is this systematic manipulation free of discovery.
Timmyboy, care to enlighten all how you became so infected and why you cannot progress from the notion that you only do what's right because someone bigger than you will slap you around if you don't?
Posted by: Keiran | July 7, 2008 12:32 AM
Oh goody, another troll.
Keiran, you might try reading this, and then have a look in the mirror.
Posted by: Bernard J. | July 7, 2008 12:42 AM
so, keiran, why so negative? why not give us the benefit of the truth, as you see it. there is no reason somebody who has a mindless belief in AGW might not switch to a mindful (or even mindless) opposition to it.
with that in mind, it would be polite to introduce yourself here: to make it simple for you, rather than needing to go type up what you believe, here's a bingo card; feel free to tick off more than one, of course.
do you believe that
there is no warming
the warming has stopped
the warming is caused by the sun
the warming is caused by cosmic ray fluctuations as we pass through the galactic plane
the warming is an artifact of sloppy measurement practices
there was warming but it's stopped
the arctic is melting due to undersea volcanoes
the arctic is no longer melting
carbon dioxide is rising due to natural processes
carbon dioxide is not rising
carbon dioxide is rising because it is warming, not the other way around
water vapor is more important than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas
warming and more carbon dioxide will improve agriculture
scientists are inflating the risk of AGW to get grant money
more research is needed
we can't afford to do anything about AGW anyway
we could afford it but it would be cheaper to fix the results
we shouldn't have to do anything until china and india do
it's a socialist attack
i'm serious; just posting negative stuff is boring. give us something positive you believe in. feel free to add anything i missed, of course.
Posted by: z | July 7, 2008 1:06 AM
I'm a big troll and your worst nightmare ... you may like to go to OLO and find out Z. Actually i'm really just a NOBODY. If NOBODY is perfect then that makes me perfect.
As far as alarmist AGW is concerned then i view it as a paradox. A paradox can only be found in the human mind because it is based on faulty initial assumptions. Alarmist AGW is a particularly nasty mind virus ... anti life and arrogantly ignorant ... existing in a fantasy realm that is separate from our biology and seeing humanity more like a parasite living on a host.
However my post here is to Timmyboy and about his "science". Feel free to put in your thoughts on the matter.
Posted by: Keiran | July 7, 2008 1:37 AM
You forgot the most important of all:
Al Gore is fat.
Posted by: dhogaza | July 7, 2008 1:39 AM
Keirannyboy at#15.
So, one out of three. That ain't great.
You're definitely a troll, but hardly a big one, and you're certainly not in my nightmares at all, let alone having a place in the top ten.
Either show us some intelligent discussion to support your claims, or admit that you're just in it for the contrariness or because you're incapable of dispassionate, objective analyses.
Posted by: Bernard J. | July 7, 2008 2:18 AM
"Actually i'm really just a NOBODY."
what a perfect proof of the Stopped clock principle.
Masochists like me who read past the first line of Keiran's twaddle will note that the claims that the IPCC is based on pure belief and ignores factual evidence - are presented are pure assertion totally lacking in supporting evidence.
Posted by: Ian Gould | July 7, 2008 2:46 AM
Yep, i'm NOBODY and this NOBODY is perfect.
Bernardo wants "dispassionate, objective analyses" which is fair enough but from my point of view it's unscientific and quite impossible to prove a negative. You can't. I do not need to prove anything against AGW because it is the AGW bandwagon that NEED to constructively/positively prove it correct or abandon this perception as false.
This IPCC can only operate as a belief in belief system where the WILL to believe is easy and the exacto opposite to the WILL to find out. Belief addicts are easy pickings for big business because there simply is an endless supply of deadheads that can only be sold the thizzle and not the sausage.
My question to Timmyboy is about seeking "dispassionate, objective analyses" not this IPCC pseudo science trying to force/fudge raw data to conform to something that is expected to be seen. All that can be expected as a result of enforced consensus is the fiction that they find themselves as the weather maker. Honest science is all about discovery. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
Now where is your Timmyboy?
Posted by: Keiran | July 7, 2008 3:48 AM
I reckon Keiran doesn't pass the Turing test.
Posted by: Joe | July 7, 2008 4:24 AM
Reading about Keiran here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=24717&show=history
Well, he is one deluded "stooopid" cone-head (apologies to the real cosmic ray scientists).
Posted by: OzDoc | July 7, 2008 6:22 AM
Keiran,
"...from my point of view it's unscientific and quite impossible to prove a negative."
Absolute tripe. It is entirely possible to prove a negative e.g. "I am not a snake". By definition snakes do not have limbs - I have limbs - therefore I am not a snake.
The myth of not being able to prove a negative is often trotted out by the scientifically illiterate...
Posted by: Dave Petley | July 7, 2008 6:23 AM
Re: The Register
I've just posted the first of two articles on the weirdness going on over there - Climate Denial at The Register.
Posted by: Martin Robbins | July 7, 2008 6:59 AM
From
http://tinyurl.com/6o96to
comes the following truly bizarre comment from NewTroll Kieran:
I just find it beyond belief that an entirely beneficial gas, the very reason for life itself, is now being blamed for catastrophic climate with projections of death and destruction. This belief in Algorean science is quite simply the basis of all religious pathology. It can only truly register as madness on a global scale.
[snip]
I say, if you really want to save life on earth with all the long-term environmental benefits then burn fossil fuel. Keiran, Sunday, 6 July 2008 1:28:08 PM
Wow. Tiny little domain of belief you have there.
Posted by: WotWot | July 7, 2008 7:02 AM
Amongst much other tripe, Irekan (well, he is a little confused it seems) said:
Consensus breaking as a metric of scientific greatness? Utter bollocks!
Consensus breaking is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for measuring greatness in scientists.
Are the likes of DH Kenyon and R Milton, the would-be consensus breakers of that father of all consensus breakers, to be considered great scientists?
Becquerel, Boyle, Curie, Dalton, Ohm, Schrodinger, Volta, ... hardly consensus breakers, though still excellent and, some would say (some), great scientists.
And if breaking the consensus is the metric by which scientific greatness and credibility are to be measured, then this must make the likes of Hansen, Wigley and Jones amongst the best scientists who have ever lived, since they were amongst the few who "broke with the consensus" in the 1970s and 1980s. Their siren whispers have reached a consensus crescendo amongst their peers, and it is only their peers that really matter.
Another killfile-room resident looms I think. Bye-bye Areink.
[PS. Now in the right thread!]
Posted by: P. Lewis | July 7, 2008 8:00 AM
When I was a young teen, I used to love to read tales of US Submariners in the Pacific War, who, when lying low preserving power and maintaining silence, often on the bottom of shallow areas within the China Sea towards the end of the war, found that this "entirely beneficial gas" limited the amount of time they could stay underwater. Chemical scrubbers were only of limited effectiveness. They wrote of wandering about trying to do their duty in an intellectual fog, fatigued, battling the ever-increasing concentration of this "entirely beneficial gas, the very reason for life itself" ...
Just think ... if only Kieran had been there to educate them, to help them break the chains of science through his creative redefinition of physiology, just as he is doing us such a great favor today by overturning basic physics ...
Nobel is in the mail, Kieran.
Posted by: dhogaza | July 7, 2008 8:13 AM
Clive Hamilton has anounced his withdrawal from OLO The sad demise of 'On Line Opinion' by Clive Hamilton, posted Wednesday, 2 July 2008 over the "balance" there and the outrage is palpable. I guess Keiren is inviting Tim over to a warm welcome. Graham Young who earlier said Tim and John Quiggin were "web activists who practice brown-shirt tactics" responded very negatively to the withdrawal in Silencing dissent, by Graham Young - posted Friday, 4 July 2008
Posted by: P | July 7, 2008 8:29 AM
Tim,
Sure there are some real knobs at The Australian, but there have been some quite reasonable articles on climate change lately as well.
Posted by: Craig | July 7, 2008 8:45 AM
Kieran.
The IPCC is one tiny part of a global scientific consensus on climate change. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of independent individuals, groups/laboratories, and organisations that all turn their seriously sharp scientific acumen to the issue of climate change. And there is sufficient rivalry and one-up-man-ship within this community that any chink in the body of knowledge would be exploited and publicised widely - that's how the process works and how it is built upon.
That the effort of denialists makes not a dent in the consensus is not a reflection of some scientific conspiracy (they're intelligent people and would not stay aboard a sinking ship) but simply that the denialist evidence does not stand serious scientific scrutiny.
You have not provided one whit of evidence, not one iota of contradiction, nor a single skerrick of data to support your sanctimoniously venomous harangue. Is there any point to your vituperous rant, aside from the obvious fact that you have an emotional issue with the science that is telling you that our species isn't exactly God's gift to the sustainability of the environment?
Before you open your mouth again you would be well advised to garner for yourself a basic understanding of the fundamentals.
One woefully glaring problem in your world-view is your fawning admiration of CO2. Yes, it is a substrate for photosynthesis, but its utility is not as wonderfully concentration-independent as you unquestioningly believe it to be. By your logic, a 40% oxygen atmosphere would be better than the current atmospheric concentration, but I think that you would find it doesn't work like that in practise. I invite you to try it for yourself - you may learn something...
And your feeble game of pretensions to perfection just goes to show how firmly you have your hand on both the thizzle and the sausage. You're a very sad little troll indeed, and you really need to get a much better grip.
Do yourself a favour and grow up little troll. Really.
Posted by: Bernard J. | July 7, 2008 9:09 AM
Keiran posts:
How is AGW in a "fantasy realm," Keiran? Care to give any specifics?
Which of the following do you think is non-factual:
You see, if all three of those propositions are true, then AGW is true. For it to be a "fantasy" would require one or more of those propositions to be false. Which one or more do you disagree with?
Posted by: Barton Paul Levenson | July 7, 2008 9:32 AM
Gaawd, i've wandered into some yellow submarine bubble full of consensus loving, anti life infected anthropocentrics that don't know the difference between themselves and a snake nor a negative from a positive nor the thizzle from the sausage.
One sees a need here to spray some liberal doses of disinfectant on all these poor sods with their wealth of funny stuff and subroutines that I get to play with that otherwise would never be tried. Love it but where is their cheerleader, Timmyboy?
Posted by: Keiran | July 7, 2008 9:35 AM
Put your science on the table, Kieran.
Can you do that, little troll?
Posted by: Bernard J. | July 7, 2008 9:43 AM
Definitely a troll, and a particularly vicious loony-tunes one at that.
Bye bye troll.
[KillFile]
Posted by: WotWot | July 7, 2008 9:48 AM
Keiren has made an amazingly fact-free contribution so far.
I wonder how many posts he can manage just on invective?
Posted by: Michael | July 7, 2008 10:24 AM
For those of you with Firefox you may obtain Greasemonkey here and a killfile script here. Don't worry, it's so intuitive even Reekin can use it! Not that he ever would, being drawn to controversy like shit to a shoe.
Posted by: chrisD | July 7, 2008 10:37 AM
Keiran,
"Gaawd, i've wandered into some yellow submarine bubble full of consensus loving, anti life infected anthropocentrics that don't know the difference between themselves and a snake nor a negative from a positive nor the thizzle from the sausage."
But we can tell the difference between a troll and a scientist...
Posted by: Dave Petley | July 7, 2008 10:38 AM
"I just find it beyond belief that an entirely beneficial gas..."
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/safework/cis/products/icsc/dtasht/_icsc00/icsc0021.htm
http://www.osha.gov/dts/chemicalsampling/data/CH_225400.html
"Health Factors
SYMPTOM(s): Headaches, dizziness, restlessness, paresthesis; dyspnea; sweating; malaise; increased heart rate, elevated blood pressure, pulse pressure; coma; asphyxia; convulsions; ..."
Posted by: Ian Gould | July 7, 2008 11:47 AM
"Gaawd, i've wandered into some yellow submarine bubble full of consensus loving, anti life infected anthropocentrics that don't know the difference between themselves and a snake nor a negative from a positive nor the thizzle from the sausage.
One sees a need here to spray some liberal doses of disinfectant on all these poor sods with their wealth of funny stuff and subroutines that I get to play with that otherwise would never be tried. Love it but where is their cheerleader, Timmyboy?"
Translation:
"I dummy."
Posted by: Lurker | July 7, 2008 12:27 PM
I thought Marion was posting excerpts of the Unabomber's manifesto again.
Posted by: Boris | July 7, 2008 8:00 PM
Boris,
I think that I just broke a rib.
Posted by: Bernard J. | July 7, 2008 9:10 PM
"I reckon Keiran doesn't pass the Turing test."
too true. high marks on the Wagstaff test: "I don't know what they have to say, It makes no difference anyway -- Whatever it is, I'm against it! No matter what it is or who commenced it, I'm against it.
Your proposition may be good But let's have one thing understood -- Whatever it is, I'm against it! And even when you've changed it or condensed it, I'm against it.
I'm opposed to it -- On general principles I'm opposed to it!
Chorus: He's opposed to it! In fact, in word, in deed, He's opposed to it!
For months before my son was born, I used to yell from night till morn, Whatever it is, I'm against it! And I've kept yelling since I first commenced it, I'm against it! "
Posted by: z | July 7, 2008 10:36 PM
The song here at the Deltoid playpen may well be "we all live on a yellow submarine, yellow submarine" and my "nowhere man" appearance be seen as a threat to the colourless worship of consensus but i come with the message of "All You Need Is Love". i.e. the love to find out or in other words discovery.
Love is not related to a need for worship so what is this complete acceptance and promotion of worship that i see here at Deltoid? Isn't worship how people learn to be stooopid and get proselytised by being relieved of their commonsense? Isn't it all about shutting the eye of reason and forgetting the only and the right thing to do which is using our intelligence to break from this consensus cocoon so that we may discover something?
Lesson no1 don't become a worshipper because worship can only misinterpret or ignore or deliberately distort evidence.
Now for the funny stuff that i'm so fond of playing with where there is a need to spray liberal doses of disinfectant hoping for rehabilitation.
PLewis. When a person discovers something new it always breaks with the consensus that previously existed. ALWAYS ... even from Warnie's leg spin technique to Picasso's cubism, to James Cook's voyages, to Halton Arp's discovery of the intrinsic redshift of galaxies as quantized which spells the end of the big bang nonsense. A discovery always overcomes the inertia of consensus to expand our consciousness. Scientists must believe in causality else they are NOT scientists and if they can make no discovery to expand our consciousness in this respect then they can hardly be referred to as a great scientist. When you mention diminished integrity Hansen, we find he hasn't made any discovery of significance which clearly means he hasn't broken with consensus.
Lesson no2 Discovery always breaks with the inertia of consensus.
PB Levenson offers 3 points he considers factual to prove alarmist AGW as true. 1. CO2 is a relatively minor greenhouse gas getting all the early work of earth's temperature to 0 degrees C. It then defines itself as of the present as a non-event greenhouse gas. 2. CO2 increases and decreases over historical time. 3. CO2 increases in minuscule amounts from "artificial sources" if you regard humanity as artificial or as parasitic which i do not.
Alarmist AGW can only exist in some people's minds, usually due to faulty data and modeling but also due to successful climateering propagandists.
Lesson no3 Alarmist AGW is but another mind virus.
DPetley i presume you exist and know a snake exists. If the snake did not exist you would need to prove nothing at all. When something obviously doesn't exist it's pointless/impossible trying to prove a negative.
Lesson no4 The material universe has no negatives ... no credit card facility.
IGould is about the best example here of an alarmist AGWer. Congratulations. but how maladaptive, inconsiderate because it seems your mind is separate from your biology. lol However, I must confess that I just LOVE CO2 because it grows better roses, bigger tomatoes, greens the environment and even leads to stronger, healthy people. As long as plants have three basic things, water, energy and CO2, and enough of the nutrients they need, they will keep growing, and pumping out oxygen. Boy, am i appreciative that plants discovered the trick of turning water, energy and CO2 from the environment long ago, into complex carbohydates and with that extra special spare bit of oxygen. Alternatively, if i was even some "obnoxious little weed" with this neat little trick to offer, i'd be appreciative of any extra free CO2 fertilizer that would allow me to grow healthier, bigger, stronger and greeener.
Lesson no5 So far every last scrap of existing scientific evidence confirms overwhelmingly that CO2 enhances the biosphere/environment.
Finally, there are many compelling reasons in life ...... political, pragmatic, economic, health and environmental, for improving our environment and life, for conservation of energy and water, for developing alternative fuels to finite fossil fuels, etc, but human contributed global warming with its CO2 fear mongering is not one of them.
But remember, Keiran, don't become a worshipper. Never worship. It is love that always maintains the critical functions of the mind and does not cripple life but worship certainly does a pretty good job with various degrees of destructiveness and depression where we see it can only create false versions of the world that clash with the reality.
Posted by: Keiran | July 8, 2008 4:43 AM
Can one be a nutcase and a fruitcake?
Seems so.
[kill-file]ed
Posted by: P. Lewis | July 8, 2008 5:23 AM
Hi Keiran Your last post finally showed some sort of revelation. While I disocer a few wise points in your speech, I give you a warning: You ARE a worshipper! You worship yourself, your own little free spirit above anything else. Watch out!
Sincerely, CP
Posted by: climatepatrol | July 8, 2008 7:55 AM
Kieran.
Quite frankly, your diatribes contribute nothing to any rational discussion, and indeed they only serve to advertise to the world how completely out of touch with reality you are. Can you not engage for a single second in a discussion that is actually founded upon evidence, rather than upon a baseless blather that is less decipherable than the craziest spoutings of L. Ron Hubbard?
Tell us, if "CO2 is a relatively minor greenhouse gas", what do you think would happen to the planet's climate if its atmospheric concentration increased to somewhere between 8 times and 16 times (at the outside) of current levels in the atmosphere?
Just a bit of science please, with some basic documentation.
And Kieran, if you keep embarrassing yourself with garbage like:
you will prove to all but the raving loonies who wear alfoil hats that you are completely ignorant of the basics of CO2 effects on biological processes. Have you actually reviewed every last scrap of existing scientific evidence?! You've been given a few clues above, but a 30 second search in Current Contents, Biological Abstracts, or JStore - or even Google Scholar for heaven's sake - would completely and embarrassingly show your drivel for the childish nappy-bomb that it is.
I used this link a couple of months ago to demonstrate the significant negative impacts of increased CO2 in a context relevant to current world circumstances. And it is merely one - ONE! - example of countless thousands that you will find that contradicts your fantasy, if you have the nouse to seek them.
Kieran - either grow up, or start taking your medication again, or bugger off and come back when you have learned how to have a real conversation based upon fact rather than delusion.
You surely take the prize for being a very sad, very ignorant little troll.
Posted by: Bernard J. | July 8, 2008 8:54 AM
Meanwhile, in a Kieran-free zone, I was interested to read the comments to the egregious WSJ op-ed. Initially, all commenters agreed with the piece and even began to recite z's list in #14. Then, the Kool-Aid abstainers began to show up and torpedo (nod to dhogaza in #26) very effectively. The tripe (actually gives tripe a bad name) in the WSJ piece is a collection of half-truths and outright falsehoods. But where does one start with such a bunch of claptrap? Where did the IPCC ever say that the trends would always be up every year without fail? Where did any IPCC document state that there had never been any fluctuation in global temperatures before 1900 (i.e. not caused by rising greenhouse gases)?
Posted by: David Graves | July 8, 2008 11:22 AM
If the byproducts of humanity aren't artificial, then what is "artificial." That word has a definition. Look it up.
Every scrap of evidence shows that increasing CO2 dissolved in the ocean will lead to the collapse of those ecosystems. If you are algae, the extra CO2 will be great. If you're a coral reef, then it's a death sentence.
Posted by: cce | July 8, 2008 2:39 PM
You can't just assume away a snake's appendages, man. That aggression will not stand. Man. Kerian, just tell these CO2-worshiping dark-art-practitioning, no-iris-or-pupil-having, climate con dudes that this aggression will not stand. Beverage-holding-yellow-submariner: out.
Posted by: Majoratreehorn | July 8, 2008 3:44 PM
I'll go out on a limb: The Register was never reliable on tech issues, business issues, economic issues, the sun is shining or the sky is blue issues .... so being unreliable on climate science is in fact the Register being the Register. Geeks who rely on it were misguided.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | July 8, 2008 4:49 PM
As a public service: a) Seriously consider, when a new and especially silly troll appears, killfiling them before replying even once.
b) Do not get incensed about WSJ OpEds, it only raises the blood pressure and is useless. Read the news articles instead, which are often pretty good reporting. Sometimes, within a day or two will appear an OpEd calling AGW nonsense and an article matter-of-factly assuming it and examining its effects in specific cases, like increased wine-making around Lake Okanagan in British Columbia.
We discussed the WSJ here, a while ago, see especially comments #3 and #8.
Posted by: John Mashey | July 8, 2008 5:16 PM
Mr Msh smmrss n hs mzngl prl thght t nd stpd dvc "Rprtrs r hmn nd r nrmll-dstrbtd b blts. Fnd vrg-r-bttr ns nd hlp thm, nd dn't xpct gdnss t hppn vrnght."
WW - prfnd wrds frm GW rlgs dscpl t sprd th wrd f th Bblgr bt GW "gdnss". Mb h shld spnd sm tm stdng rth scncs.
Kp p th gd wrk Krn [Bored now]
Posted by: Lank | July 8, 2008 10:50 PM
"The song here at the Deltoid playpen " etc.
Oh, you're crazy. Why didn't you say so in the first place, we'd have cut you some slack?
Posted by: z | July 8, 2008 11:06 PM
JMsh cms t wth ... "s pblc srvc: ) Srsl cnsdr, whn nw nd spcll sll trll pprs, kllflng thm bfr rplng vn nc." lws thght trll ws fctnl chrctr tht lvd ndr brdg s n sm chldrn's ltrtr. Bcs thr ws sm cnfsn hr wth ths cmmnt frm JMsh t rsd m crst s fllwd hs lnk nd fnd Tmmb prsng hs rtcl s t "ffrd sm gd dvc n cmmnt"
n ths rtcl, JMsh hs hs brn ll twstd p n rlgs mnd cntrl tchnqs, s h dscsss th mst pprprt nd ffctv mns t bk prsn's brn wthn rlgs lrmst GW ncbtr. Chrmng ppl ths lrmst GW thlgns wth thr prsltzng schms n th md. Fr hm t hs nvr bn hw bst t prsnt th trth t th pblc bt nstd t s spn nd hw bst t s th nws t dcv th pblc nt gvng ths grp mr mn r mr pwr.
Fr th GWr wrshpprs spcll, w crtnl s tht th wll nd t b cntrlld, prprd nd rptdl wrnd, b wll rmd wth ntrnchd vdnc bhvrs lk pllng dwn th shttrs, dscnnctng nd wlkng w frm hghl plsbl rgmnts. .. Kp th blnkrs wll nd trl n nd s s, smpl fnd ths rrgnc prfndl dsqtng. [Bored now]
Posted by: Keiran | July 9, 2008 12:41 AM
Brnrd J f crs ls 'knws t ll' bcs Brnrd J s mmnsl qlfd n 'mmnlg/nclg/bchmstr' prr t chngng t 'clg nd ppltn blg'. Brnrd J s n xcllnt xmpl f Krn's (#53) blnkrd GW wrshppr wh sms t trt t th sm msldng clptrp prvdd b Gr, Hnsn nd th GW chrch f scrmngr.
Th mn tctc f GW wrshpprs n ths st s t s bllng nd nm cllng (.g. 'trll') f nn wh qrs th GW bbl. [Bored now]
Posted by: Lank | July 9, 2008 1:31 AM
Sigh...
Kiren. At the risk of egging you on, as others have asked, please provide some evidence to support you claims.
Repeating sometihngs (eg. "Timmyboy, the IPCC may have been set up initially with the best of intentions but unremarkably it has mutated into a religious faith" ... "his IPCC can only operate as a belief in belief system where the WILL to believe is easy and the exacto opposite to the WILL to find out" ... "alarmist AGW theologians with their proselytizing schemes in the media", ... "For the AGWer worshippers especially") does not make it true.
As for your claim: "I do not need to prove anything against AGW because it is the AGW bandwagon that NEED to constructively/positively prove it correct or abandon this perception as false."
you should perhaps open a book. There is a vast amount of evidence pointing to the relaity of AGW. So much so, that the vast majority of scientists/engineers working in relevant fields have accepted it. Hell, the WMO is even nice enough to bundle it together for you in the IPCC reports (which, contrary to popular belief, do not contain independant research of their own, but are a glorified literature survey).
So...I repeat. Provide counter evidence or go away.
Posted by: ChrisC | July 9, 2008 1:33 AM
ChrisC....Why not start with this graph which shows the temperature variations over the 20 year period NASA's Dr James Hansen predicted 'a long term warming period'.
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/june2037.gif
Notice that it does not use the manipulated and false data of the James Hansen graph shown at the top of this blog and which is dragged out at almost all of the AGW worship meetings on Deltoid. Red dots mark the start and finish of the 'warming period' predicted by Hansen. Since Hansen 'raised the alarm' (and during the preceding 9 years) there doesn't appear to be much warming. All this time CO2 levels were steadily rising but apparently without a corresponding increase in temperatures.
Posted by: Lank | July 9, 2008 2:53 AM
The IPCC has corrupted the "reporting process" so thoroughly that it makes the oil-for-food scandal look like someone stole a kid's lunch money.
They have modified the science as needed to fit their predetermined conclusions. The IPCC has decided the conclusion first, then solicited "opinions" on the reporting, ignoring any science which does not fit thier predetermined conclusion while falsifying data to support unrealistic models.
Posted by: Lank | July 9, 2008 3:13 AM
Lank,
Constant assertion isn't a substitute for reason.
The two dots on the graph you linked to are pretty irrelevent if you're trying to suggest something about the trend.
Posted by: Michael | July 9, 2008 3:52 AM
I think the two dots on Lank's graph must be cherries. Try working out the trend.
Posted by: Tim Lambert | July 9, 2008 4:03 AM
Lank...yawn.
Posted by: Nick | July 9, 2008 4:05 AM
ChrisC, your cheerleader will not indulge in debate on OLO or here at his yellow submarine. I'll just leave you with my message again ... "All You Need Is Love". i.e. the love to find out or in other words discovery.
Posted by: Keiran | July 9, 2008 4:47 AM
Lank.
I do not have the enthusiasm nor the patience to piece together your post at #54 that Tim decided warranted disemvowelling. The gist though, as I understand it, is that I am 'religious' in my apparent zeal for global warming.
If this is your claim then it would appear that illiteracy is a part of the vast array of undercapacities that you seem determined to demonstrate. I have said above, and previously on many threads, that I am happy to accept any evidence that contradicts AGW, if said evidence stands the same scrutiny as the evidence that I currently accept is indicative of climate warming. I am a true sceptic, and I always querie the evidence, but you have not provided a shred of defensible evidence of your own to substantiate your claims. And that graph is, as Tim points out, an exercise in cherry picking.
If you can't understand why, then you are simply making it ever more obvious to the readers of this thread why you do not have the intellectual faculty to sensibly engage in a serious debate about the science.
And it is serious science. Your little spiel
shows beyond doubt that you subscribe to paranoid conspiracy theories. If so, my quip about alfoil hats seems to rather close to the mark after all...
Kieran, you've yet to make any sense at all.
I like to counter trollshit for the benefit of unsuspecting bystanders so that they might see the dung for what it is, but I think that the two of you have left such a sorry trail of rubbish here that even the most nasally-challenged fence-sitter would smell the reek. I reckon that I can safely heed John Mashey's advice and leave you to flounder in your own bilge, and I have no doubt that others will keep you in line if you get too silly to be left sitting in the road by yourselves.
Good luck in your own personal little war on science.
You'll need it.
Posted by: Bernard J. | July 9, 2008 5:20 AM
All these accusations of scientific misconduct on the part of climate scientists, an accusation, which, if true would cost Hansen dearly as an employee of NASA.
Yet, outside of the blogosphere and the press ... nothing.
No attempt is made through official channels to indict and punish the man for his conduct.
I wonder why?
Posted by: dhogaza | July 9, 2008 6:47 AM
dhogaza:
It's a conspiracy! Sometimes Hadley Centre is also part of the conspiracy, sometimes it is not. You can tell when Hadley Centre is part of the conspiracy by when the HadCRU data shows warming according to your particular method of data selection as of your blogging.
Posted by: bi -- IJI | July 9, 2008 7:32 AM
Actual