Last year Inhofe released a list of 400 scientists who disputed mainstream climate science. But as Joe Romm and Andrew Dessler observed, the list was padded with TV weathermen, economists and so on and contained very few actual climate scientists. Now he’s back with more of the same in a new list that adds 250 more names. Update: Joe Romm takes apart the new list. My favorite entry (reproduced in full so you can get the full nutty flavour):

Field Geologist Louis A.G. Hissink is the editor of The Australian Institute of
Geoscientists Newsletter and is currently working on the ore-reserve feasibility study
of the Koongie Park Base Metals project in Western Australia. Hissink, who earned
a masters in geology, recently dissented from man-made climate fears. “The assumption
that humanity, from its burning of hydrocarbons, is raising the surface temperature of the
earth by affecting its greenhouse effect, is not supported by theory nor the physical
evidence. No gas is capable of storing heat so the assumption a gas could is to
misunderstand basic physics and the greenhouse effect,” Hissink told EPW on January
21, 2008. “The global mean temperature derivations from the surface meteorological
stations confuse the thermal state of the measuring instruments with unspecified volumes
of air nor are those temperatures linked to any discrete physical object; in geostatistics
this is known as a data set lacking sample support and no more a metric of the earth’s
thermal state as the mean calculated from the telephone numbers of the meteorological
stations producing the temperature readings,” Hissink explained. “Recent discoveries by
NASA in the area of space exploration show that the earth is connected to the sun
electromagnetically where tens of millions of amperes of electric current are routinely
measured during polar aurora displays by satellites – this enormous source of energy, and
thus heat, is completely ignored as a factor affecting the earth’s thermal balance in global
climate models. It is this electromagnetic connection that underpins the solar factor that
modulates the earth’s climate,” Hissink added.

And that, mind you, is relatively sane for Hissink. Earlier he combined Gavin Menzies with Velikovsky with AGW denial to come up with the worst argument against global warming ever.

Also on the list is this guy, who isn’t a climate scientist and doesn’t even have a job as an economist any more:

John Lott, Jr., who has a Ph.D in economics, is a senior research scientist at the
University of Maryland and has published over 90 articles in academic journals. In
his March 3, 2008, article arguing against man-made climate change, “Global Warming:
Is It Really a Crisis?”, Lott said, “Are global temperatures rising? Surely, they were
rising from the late 1970s to 1998, but “there has been no net global warming since
1998.” Indeed, the more recent numbers show that there is now evidence of significant
cooling [...] Mankind is responsible for just a fraction of one percent of the effect from
greenhouse gases, and greenhouse gases are not responsible for most of what causes
warming (e.g., the Sun).”

The difference between weather and climate is just too much for these people to understand.

Update: Joe Romm takes apart the new list.

Comments

  1. #1 James F
    December 11, 2008

    I hear there’s a list of over 700 totally eminent scientists who completely deny evolution!!11ONE!!

  2. #2 Brian D
    December 11, 2008

    I’m tempted to take this list and categorize their explanations — i.e. how many say it’s the sun, how many say it’s a hoax altogether, how many accept it but cry inaction… Sort of a repeat of what you did with the Peiser study a while back, Tim.

    The Inhofe list keeps coming back like a freakin’ zombie even after the head’s cut off (note that a few prominent names, like Singer, are missing) — maybe it’s time to cut off its head and dice it categorically.

  3. #3 Matt Heath
    December 11, 2008

    So is time to start a list of Steves?

  4. #4 _Arthur
    December 11, 2008

    Those dumbkhoffs of scientists, they forgot to equip their satellites with proper magnetometers! Terawatts of (additional) undetected energy are heating the whole planet, and they have no clue!! Even the aurora borealis and the sunspots are being fooled !x100

  5. #5 sod
    December 11, 2008

    why would anyone be on a list with guys like Hissink?

    and here is funny claim from them:

    The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

    let me see:

    1. collect a lot of random names.

    2. call them “climate scientists”

    3. compare it to a minor part of the IPCC report.

    4. declare the end of consensus.

    business as usual..

  6. #6 jules
    December 11, 2008

    The thing which surprises me is how fast this list is spreading again.

    And oddly, it’s exactly the people claiming ‘them politicians’ are abusing science, who willingly use a list composes by a politician to attack science. They don’t see the irony. I do :)

  7. #7 sod
    December 11, 2008

    ooops, multiple words left out..

    why would anyone want to be on a list with guys like Hissink?

    and here is one funny claim from the link:…

    …..

    apart from that, looking at the list of names is pretty shocking.

    http://tinyurl.com/5mf54s

    Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

    Mr Beck, the German master of faking diagrams. and the guy who claims, that CO2 in the atmosphere was fluctuating WILD, right up to the moment, when precise measurement started..

    Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

    and Erren, who on this very blog made a completely insane claim about the formula E=mc² and climate change.
    according to Erren, stopping to burn fossil fuels and switching to solar energy would leave the earth with TOO MUCH ADDITIONAL MASS! (no, i am not joking!)

    so for once, i have to disagree with Tim:

    it is EXTREMELY HARD, to figure out, which fellow on that list is using the “worst” climate change argument of all times…

  8. #8 sod
    December 11, 2008

    and Erren, who on this very blog made a completely insane claim about the formula E=mc² and climate change. according to Erren, stopping to burn fossil fuels and switching to solar energy would leave the earth with TOO MUCH ADDITIONAL MASS! (no, i am not joking!)

    oops again, i mixed up Erren with Tim Curtin. who is on the list as well, of course!

    my sincere apology to Hans Erren. i don t think that he is playing in the same league as Curtin. he wont manage to qualify for “worst argument”.

    sorry again for this mix up. my fault.

  9. #9 bigcitylib
    December 11, 2008

    I notice Oliver “iron sun” Manuel is on the list this time. He blames the sun, but doesn’t provide details. His real motivation seems to be drawing attention to his own pet theories of solar evolution–that the sun was formed on the core of a 5,000,000,000 supernova.

    http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/search?q=manuel

  10. #10 bigcitylib
    December 11, 2008

    “5,000,000,000 year old” that oughtta be.

  11. #11 Eli Rabett
    December 11, 2008

    Hissink and relatively sane do not belong in the same galaxy, let alone in a sentence.

  12. #12 S2
    December 11, 2008

    Brian D:

    I’m tempted to take this list and categorize their explanations — i.e. how many say it’s the sun, how many say it’s a hoax altogether, how many accept it but cry inaction… Sort of a repeat of what you did with the Peiser study a while back, Tim.

    I’ve been thinking along the same lines.

    If you fancy a collaborative effort, let me know.

  13. #13 KiwiInOz
    December 11, 2008

    Matt, I think Project Steve is taken. Given that this is an Australian blog, why not start Project Bruce?

  14. #14 Marion Delgado
    December 11, 2008

    Matt:

    No, a list of Jims (james, etc.) would be better.

    The original list was in honor of stephen jay gould

  15. #15 Marion Delgado
    December 11, 2008

    Project Jim would be a great idea.

    First you’d need to get an estimate of how many have the name jim or james in the general population. then you’d know how many people each jim represents.

  16. #16 DavidONE
    December 11, 2008

    That *wasn’t* a parody?

    “Mr. Hissink, here is a large bag of medications. Take them all.”

  17. #17 Don Smith, FCD
    December 11, 2008

    No gas is capable of storing heat

    So I could remove those nasty CFCs from my A/C and it would still work?

    (Idiot)

  18. #18 John McKay
    December 11, 2008

    Hissink may be more of a Velikovskian than you thought. Velikovski’s original idea also included the idea that electrical charge was the most important force in the universe and that electrical discharges between the pinball planets explained some of the myths that dragged together. He viewed the solar system as being a large atom (a theory best explained in old Atom comic books). He envisioned the eruption of Venus out of Jupiter, which was the center piece of all his theories, as being exactly the same as an electron jumping from a lower to a larger quantum state.

    This element was barely mentioned in his books, but survived in his notes and has been built on by his followers. Google around for “electric universe” and you can find a few of them.

    Since Hissink has a history of suggesting the Earth regularly shifts its axis and that electrical charges from the sun are more important than its light or heat, I think he’s been drinking deeply from the Velikovskian kool-ade pitcher.

  19. #19 Immanuel Velikovsky
    December 11, 2008

    I’m not dead.
    I’m not dead.
    I’m not.
    I’m getting better.
    I don’t want to go on the cart.
    I feel fine.
    I think I’ll go for a walk.
    I feel happy. I feel happy.
    Look I’ve had another idea – you see manna from heaven was the result of a comet passing through Earth’s upper atmosphere and the hydrocarbons became carbohydrates on the way down.
    See – I’m not dead yet, my ideas are not crazy, just advanced!

  20. #20 Marion Delgado
    December 11, 2008

    Velikovsky also didn’t understand – at all – that gases mix. Similar to many climate denialists. That was in a crank paper of his, an early sign to real scientists (this was pre-Worlds In Collision) that this psychoanalyst and amateur historian of the MidEast had no business pretending to understand, let alone initiate, physical science.

    In some respects the electrodynamic elements of his theory were not the looney part at all, he realized that the likelihood of venus moving from a typical comet orbit to a nearly circular elliptical orbit was vanishingly small, so electric charge was one of the only minimizing forces he could conjure up. An Australian astronomer named Bailey postulated that there was a hidden potential between the Earth and Sun for instance of many teravolts (if I recall correctly) due to electrons from the sun passing through other dimensions (which is why we didn’t see them leaving the Sun).

    It’s not that much crazier than some of what comes out of string/brane/M theory, especially as popularized by people like Michio Kaku. Who’s to say we arent in that section of the anthropic landscape where the planets just happen to be magnetized?

  21. #21 Bernard J.
    December 11, 2008

    When I was a lad in the early years of high school, my friends and I used to spend our time in dull summer afternoon lessons trying to conjugate as many disparate scientific terms and polysyllable words together into as seemingly coherent a piece as we could. We would wheeze with laughter until we cried, or until we were caught by the teacher and given lines for not paying attention.

    Hissinkfit’s efforts though eclipse everything that we ever came up with, and they are all the more flabbergastingly hilarious for the fact that he apparently has a Masters, and that he genuinely believes in what he concocts.

    Some science historian in the future is going to review the two sides of the climate change debate that is currently percolating, and when that person analyses the fruitcake that is the body of current denialist dogma they will shake their heads in disbelief. A bit like the way that the rest of the world is incredulaous that somewhere between a third and a half of people in the States still believe that the planet was created in 7 days about six thousand years ago.

    I’m all for mavericks and the challenging of paradigms, but there’s a line beyond which it becomes plain lunacy…

    I haven’t laughed for ages, as much as I have in the last two days. First Michael, and now Louis – the difference though is that I was laughing with Michael…

  22. #22 bi -- IJI
    December 11, 2008

    > Project Jim

    I think Project Steve is still not a bad idea, but that’s just me.

  23. #23 Paul
    December 12, 2008

    >I’m tempted to take this list and categorize their explanations — i.e. how many say it’s the sun, how many say it’s a hoax altogether…

    One dictionary definition of “Scatter gun”:

    ‘Covering a wide range in a haphazard or ineffective manner: shotgun methods of testing the hypothesis…’

    eg. Don’t bother working out a definitive theory yourself, but instead take a shotgun to the established theory in the hope of hitting something.

  24. #24 truesceptic
    December 12, 2008

    How about making [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/06/eli_rabbets_guide_to_climate_t.php#comment-930212)
    into a table and just seeing how many of the 650 make each claim?

    (Of course, if anyone has any more for my list, please say. :) )

    Can someone remind me how to include URLs?

  25. #25 James
    December 12, 2008

    There might be a few kooks on the list, but how do you deal with many of the well-credentialed scientists?

  26. #26 sod
    December 12, 2008

    There might be a few kooks on the list, but how do you deal with many of the well-credentialed scientists?

    minor understatement.

    why don t you simply compile a number of active climate scientists, who published a real paper in a real magazine over the last 2 years?

    in that list?

  27. #27 Orac
    December 12, 2008

    The thing which surprises me is how fast this list is spreading again.

    Indeed. I got a copy of it by e-mail from a most unexpected source…

  28. #28 Dr Dave
    December 12, 2008

    My favourite:

    “Economist Dr. Arnold Kling, formerly of the Federal Reserve Board and Freddie Mac, expressed man-made climate skepticism in 2007.”

    Presumably he did such a great job at Freddie Mac (I mean, why wouldn’t you be proud?) that he thought that he’d have a go at climate too?

    Seriously though there is a real need to expose this list for what it actually is. If we take say five names each we should be able to run through it pretty fast. For each person can we identify:
    1. Highest degree (Bachelors, Masters, PhD)
    2. Current or most recent employer, with a yes or no as to whether they are a scientific institution
    3. Main research discipline (e.g. Geographer, Geologist, Economist, Climatologist, none)
    4. Evidence of peer reviewed papers on climate science (lets be as inclusive as possible) in ISI journals

    Once we have compiled this for them all, can we then start stage 2, which is to find out how many are happy to be on the list and to identify whether they have made the sort of crazy claims that we have highlighted above.

    The key is to be honest and impartial – i.e. if someone is a recognised climate scientist then lets say so.

    What do you think?

  29. #29 bi -- IJI
    December 12, 2008

    Dr. Dave: there’s really no need, because this is how it goes:

    Inactivist: They’re well-credentialed scientists!
    Us: No they’re not.
    Inactivists: Well, you may be right, but this just means that the scientific community is like the Inquisition!
    Us: Excuse me?!?!?!?!?
    Inactivists: Persecution! Persecution! Name-calling! Eco-nazis! Argh!

  30. #30 bi -- IJI
    December 12, 2008

    > > The thing which surprises me is how fast this list is spreading again.

    > Indeed. I got a copy of it by e-mail from a most unexpected source…

    Probably the “International Climate Science Coalition” at work again, using their rigorous methodology of “information sharing” + “coordinated local activism”.

    Now, should we be surprised?

  31. #31 bi -- IJI
    December 12, 2008

    > methodology

    (For the uninitiated.)

  32. #32 Alan D. McIntire
    December 12, 2008

    Try looking at Lubos Motl’s website:

    http://motls.blogspot.com/

    Or Nir Shaviv’s:

    http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar

    Since physics is math based, it stands to reason that those specializing in the more math oriented disciplies would be
    smarter and more aware of climate than unlicensed computer programmers- A. McIntire

  33. #33 Stuart
    December 12, 2008

    I am sure someone will e-mail me this – I will send them (the people) here. Right now I am dealing with the “its -20! how can there be global warming” argument from a few of my friends up here. I just try to patiently explain the difference between weather and climate, and point them to good climate sites like here and RealClimate.

  34. #34 dhogaza
    December 12, 2008

    Since physics is math based, it stands to reason that those specializing in the more math oriented disciplies would be smarter and more aware of climate than unlicensed computer programmers

    You’re speaking of all those physicists who are actually part of the mainstream effort to understand how our climate works, and to model it, right?

    Oh, wait, if they’re part of consensus, then by definition, in your mind, they’re dumber than the quacks you mention in your post. That’s accurate, I assume?

  35. #35 guthrie
    December 12, 2008

    I kind of thought post #32 was a joke.
    But anyway, if it isn’t, the poster clearly knows nothing about the relationship between climate and maths…

  36. #36 Alan D. McIntire
    December 12, 2008

    Regarding dhogaza and guthrie:

    Try a google search on the art of persuasion. You will discover that using attack terms like “dumb quacks” and
    “post #32 was a joke” are GUARANTEED not to be persuasive.
    Try and make reasoned attacks against the IDEAS, not the people proposing them. [2]

    Additionally, you should acknowledge the opposition. By failing to acknowledge opposing points of view, your opponents, who ARE aware of those points of view, will conclude that either you are ignorant of those views, or you are unable to offer a coherent argument and are ignoring those views in hopes that they will go away. [3]

    1) The reason the “CO2 lags temp in the ice ages” issue is repeated is that those who wish to rebut it never provide an fully adequate explanation. As far as I have been able to tell, a handwaving “it’s a positive feedback system” is provided with no math, not mechanistic model etc.

    Of course we all understand positive feedback and how it works. But to demonstrate that this is the reason for the CO2 lag itself requires more work than explaining the mere existence of positive feedback.

    Given the lack of a full explanation for the lag, I am hardly surprised that thinking people are are not universally convinced that the issue is a “canard” as you put it. If you want it to go away, provided a decent, complete explanation. Preferably including a model; preferably with math. Then, when people bring it up, be proactive and link to the decent explanation. Claims of previous explanations which always turn out to point to inadequate explanations is not going to work.

    Claiming that others don’t are deficient because they don’t understand a theory that cannot be adequetely or convincingly explained by those who believe it is, in a word, lame.

  37. #37 Brian D
    December 12, 2008

    Alan, the “CO2 Lag” was actually predicted a decade before we had any measurements. The paper with the prediction and the reasoning behind it is by Lorius et al (1990).

    If you want a lay English version that is more than just handwavy, with links to the relevant literature, consider John Cook.

    There is not a “lack of a full explanation”; there’s just a “lack of effort spent looking for one”.

  38. #38 guthrie
    December 12, 2008

    Who is this alan McIntire?
    Why does he think he is trying to persuade us of anything? I can’t see any posts on this page before his comment #32, which signally fails to provide any information, merely looks like blog spamming, except we know Motl and Shaviv are happy using their own names. You see Alan, communication requires that you make it clear what you are trying to talk about, and post #32 signally fails to make anything clear, except that you, the supposedly nice adult person, dislikes some computer programmers. Yet here again you fail to communicate, since you never say which ones? Teenage hackers? Climate modelers? Linux? You never did make it clear.

    Then, Alan talks on as if he is an adult talking to a naughty child, about a topic which he clearly knows nothing, as pointed out by Brian D.

    So, troll marks C.

    Or, did you actually come here for an intelligent conversation? If so, please say that you did, and we’ll restart and forget this conversation ever happened.

  39. #39 Dave Andrews
    December 12, 2008

    guthrie,

    “Intelligent conversation”

    Well why would one come here for that? It is after all a blog that regularly slags off people for commenting on climate science if they are not climate scientists.

    And it is run by a…….computer scientist!!!

  40. #40 Eli Rabett
    December 12, 2008

    In general people who don’t understand the lag/lead issue don’t understand the difference between external forcing of a system and feedbacks. External forcings are system drivers imposed from outside, for example, increases in solar output, or burning fossil fuel. Depending on how it comes about something (CO2 increases) can be both a forcing and a feedback

    Let us consider both cases. If the solar output increases, the earth will warm, the warming will increase greenhouse gas concentrations (CO2-fizzy coke effect and water vapor evaporation). These are feedbacks because while they did not cause the initial warming increasing the greenhouse gas concentrations by any means increases the greenhouse effect, further warming the earth. There are also some negative feedbacks, increased clouds, increased production of plants, etc. You don’t get a runaway because of the balance, but you do get significant warming above that of the initial forcing. For greenhouse gas increases, the amplification of the forcing raises the average global temperature change by a factor of almost three mostly due to the feedback of increasing water vapor concentrations.

    See how easy it was to understand Alan. BTW, it is usually a good practice not to proclaim how little you know in your first post to a group.

  41. #41 Alan D. McIntire
    December 12, 2008

    Notice on the Vostok icecore data graph that when the temperature goes up, CO2 follows quite rapidly. When the
    temperature drops drastically, CO2 remains high and only drops gradually, so obviously CO2 is a lagging indicator, and has only a secondary effect, less than the immediate forcing of the sun.

    http://home.scarlet.be/~ping5859/co2_temp_ice.html

    The realclimate doubletalk drive explanation doesn’t address the followup COOLING trend.

    Obviously the feedback effect of CO2 must be less than the
    primary effect of the sun.

    For a simple linear model, if the effect of the sun on climate is F1, and the effect of CO2 is F2, and the combined forcing is F1 + F2, the the F2 feedback effect of CO2 MUST be less than the forcing of the sun alone.
    In other words, F1 + F2 < 2 F1.

    If not, when the sun switches to a cooling phase and CO2 is still high, you'd get - F1 + F2 is greater than zero, and you'd never have a followup cooling trend.

    The difference in period of warming and period of cooling will give you an idea of the relative feedback of CO2. If the cooling period is 3 times as long as the warming period, you get a rough estimate of the effect of CO2 compared to solar by solving the simple algebraic set of equations
    F1 + F2 = 3
    F1 - F2 = 1

    To get F2 is 1/2 F1. So if the expected warming by the sun is 1 C, the additional effect of the CO2 feedback would be 0.5 C. , so obviously those estimates that with a roughly 1 C increase due directly to CO2 doubling,
    the temperature could increase anywhere from 1.5 C to 4.5C under a doubling of CO2 are wild overestimates.

    When the solar system originated, the sun was only about 70% as luminous as it is now. Despite an increase in luminosity of 40%, the earth has managed to maintain life sustaining temperatures. Water vapor is a much more plausible way to account for the stable temperature than CO2. Here's an interesting article by Hsien-Wang Ou, ascribing our climate stability to cloud feedback.

    http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0442(2001)014%3C2976%3APBOTES%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    - A. McIntire

  42. #42 jre
    December 12, 2008

    Louis Hissink is on record contending that craters on the Earth and Mars are not the result of impact, but of electrical discharge.

    Interestingly, he and Immanuel Velikovsky have never been seen in the same room together.

  43. #43 sangfroid
    December 12, 2008

    Really O/T but I’ve been having trouble following the whole AGW debate; is there a climate equivalent of talk.origins out there?

  44. #44 Gaz
    December 12, 2008

    Alan D. McIntire, you say: “…the F2 feedback effect of CO2 MUST be less than the forcing of the sun alone…. If not, when the sun switches to a cooling phase and CO2 is still high, you’d get – F1 + F2 is greater than zero, and you’d never have a followup cooling trend.”

    Well, Alan, that might start to make at least a little bit of sense if CO2 concentration was independent of the temperature, which of course it isn’t.

  45. #45 Chris O'Neill
    December 12, 2008

    Alan D. McIntire:

    Try looking at Lubos Motl’s website

    Already have. It’s crap. Any other useless suggestions?

  46. #46 Bernard J.
    December 12, 2008

    [I]t stands to reason that those specializing in the more math oriented disciplies (sic) would be smarter and more aware of climate than unlicensed computer programmers- A. McIntire

    and then

    Additionally, you should acknowledge the opposition. By failing to acknowledge opposing points of view, your opponents, who ARE aware of those points of view, will conclude that either you are ignorant of those views, or you are unable to offer a coherent argument and are ignoring those views in hopes that they will go away.

    Ah, self-parody.

  47. #47 bi -- IJI
    December 12, 2008

    And those darn eco-communist-fascist-nazis, always engaging in name-calling.

    And why look at Motl’s web site? He’s a scientist, which means he’s GREEDY GREEDY GREEDY FOR GRANTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Everyone should instead look at my web site, which is obviously the greatest thing since the first chicken and egg. While I may be unlicensed, that’s only because the scientific community is like the Inquisition.

    GALILEO!!!!!!

  48. #48 Eli Rabett
    December 12, 2008

    Alan darlin’ CO2 concentration is not an indicator, it is either a forcing or a feedback. Indicators do not change the system, they merely indicate where it is at any time.

  49. #49 John McKay
    December 13, 2008

    Louis Hissink also appears to believe in the abiotic origin of petroleum. Is there any geologic wackiness that he doesn’t support? What’s his position on the hollow earth? Flood geology? Atlantis? The Lock Ness monster? Hitler’s secret UFO base under the Antarctic ice?

  50. #50 Tim Lambert
    December 13, 2008

    sangfroid, your best one stop shop is [at realclimate](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/)

    See also [how to talk to a climate skeptic](http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics) and [skeptical science](http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php).

  51. #51 Tim Lambert
    December 13, 2008

    Hissink also rejects plate tectonics and Darwinian evolution. But he’s not a Creationist, so he’s got that going for him.

  52. #52 Tim Lambert
    December 13, 2008

    Priceless. [Hissink accidently accuses Morano of blatant lying](http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/12/number-of-%e2%80%98official-skeptics%e2%80%99-increased-in-2008/?cp=4#comment-74355):

    >As I don’t recall being interviewed by anyone during January 2008 over climate issues, Lambert’s quote

    >””The assumption that humanity, from its burning of hydrocarbons, is raising the surface temperature of the earth by affecting its greenhouse effect, is not supported by theory nor the physical evidence. No gas is capable of storing heat so the assumption a gas could is to misunderstand basic physics and the greenhouse effect,” Hissink told EPW on January 21, 2008. ” is a blatant lie.

  53. #53 guthrie
    December 13, 2008

    Dave Andrews #39- You know, one of the fun things about science is that evidence is involved.
    Something you forgot to mention. After all, wheres the fun in merely slagging someone off? Its much more fun to crush their argument by reference to the scientific facts, and watch them bluster and rant when they find the facts don’t agree with them. At that point, we slag them off.
    (Although sometimes we start slagging them off when they jump in claiming that falsehoods are facts)

    Or in other words, come back when you know something.

  54. #54 bi -- IJI
    December 13, 2008

    guthrie: But… but… how can you even trust the evidence, when it’s possible that it’s been fabricated by a conspiracy of Freemasons, old-school Communists, and solar energy companies?

  55. #55 sod
    December 13, 2008

    For a simple linear model, if the effect of the sun on climate is F1, and the effect of CO2 is F2, and the combined forcing is F1 + F2, the the F2 feedback effect of CO2 MUST be less than the forcing of the sun alone. In other words, F1 + F2 < 2 F1.

    you did not understand the explanation of forcings, that Eli offered to you.

    normally the car is pulling the trailer.

    but if the road gets steep enough, the trailer might start pulling the car…

  56. #56 JM
    December 13, 2008

    Hissink: “No gas is capable of storing heat”

    Hmmm, check reverse cycle air-conditioner setting: 22C.

    Check self: feel comfortably warm.

    Check thermometer on ornamental weather station on mantelpiece: 22C

    But gas doesn’t store heat, so … real temperature -273C by definition, instruments be damned.

    I knew it felt a little cold today.

  57. #57 TrueSceptic
    December 13, 2008

    52 Tim,

    Louis is beyond parody. He accused you of lying about what he said when, of course, you were quoting Morano quoting him!

    He backed down later on when Morano apparently emailed him but until then he was in complete DENIAL about who was “lying” about what he (really) said.

    Such idiocy/mendacity shouldn’t be allowed to slip by unrecognised. I wonder if Jennifer will delete my post?

    Louis Hissink: one of mainstream science’s greatest assets? Few could discredit the “sceptic” cause as effectively as he does.

  58. #58 WotWot
    December 13, 2008

    Louis Hissink is on record contending that craters on the Earth and Mars are not the result of impact, but of electrical discharge.
    Interestingly, he and Immanuel Velikovsky have never been seen in the same room together.

    Posted by: jre @42.

    He he he.

    O what fun and games.

  59. #59 bob
    December 13, 2008

    I started listing the arguments made by each name on the list and some background information. I have three done so far.

    http://650list.blogspot.com/

    I decided to primarily focus on their arguments than their credentials (or lack of), for multiple reasons:

    -If someone makes an appalling argument like “you can spit and have the same effect as doubling co2″ then no matter what their credentials are, they are exposed as either ignorant or in willful denial. In fact the more relevant the credentials, the harder it is to plead ignorance.

    -A lot of people on the list have credentials, but not sufficient knowledge of climate. Of the three I have already looked at one is a geologist, one a meteorologist and another a geophysicist, but all of them show glaring lacks of knowledge in the subject. One seemed to be unware that the 2007-2008 cooling was contributed by a La Nina, another thinks we are at 360ppm co2, another made the “Warming on Mars” argument.

    -By compiling all the arguments it’s possible to look at the patterns and the contradictions between different names on the list (for example Jaworkski claims the ice core records of co2 are unreliable, while other skeptics will mention the 800 lag between co2 and temperature. If Jaworkski is right then the existance of a lag is shaky). I list of contradicting skeptics would be quite interesting.

  60. #60 Lee
    December 13, 2008

    Its even better!

    Hissink made the comment Lambert quoted at 52, claiming that Lambert was lying about Hissink saying that gasses don’t store energy, at 8:10 PM.

    But in the IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING comment, posted at 7:56 PM, 14 minutes earlier, Hissink says:

    “Actually there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas as no gas can store thermal energy, only transmit it. What greenhouse effect exists on the earth’s surface is dominated by water which none of the general circulation models incorporate because no one has yet worked out how to model clouds, and hence water.”

    http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=3618&cp=4#comment-74352

  61. #61 Alan D. McIntire
    December 13, 2008

    Again, more of your doubletalk drive on CO2 forcing. You say some secondary factor increases temperature a little, also driving up CO2. The additional CO2 drives temperature up further a lot. Look at the damn graph!

    http://home.scarlet.be/~ping5859/co2_temp_ice.html

    Your explanation is plausible for the period roughly 135,000 to 120,000 + years ago. Notice that roughly 2,000 year or so period of time between about 112,000 to 110,000 years ago. There is an apparent strong NEGATIVE correlaton between CO2 and temperature for that time.

    Obviously natural temperature decrease due to changes in solar flux, plus secondary feedback factors OVERWHELMED any possible effects of CO2 between 120,000 or so to 110,000 or so years ago.

    It’s plausible to believe that CO2 is a negligible tertiary factor. CO2 must have a much smaller effect that cloud feedback, ice/ albedo feedback, etc., all of which overwhelmed any effect of CO2.

  62. #62 Steve Bloom
    December 13, 2008

    To the surprise of none, the “650″ media offensive ended up very close to a goose egg. Obviously it will have gotten attention in all the usual places in the wingnutosphere and AM ralk radio, but it’s pretty sad when even outlets like Fox News and the Washinton Times won’t even cover it. IIRC the original “400″ release did a lot better.

  63. #63 dhogaza
    December 13, 2008

    Yawn. Wake me up when you’ve achieved worldwide acclaim for proving everything we know about climatology wrong, Alan McIntire.

  64. #64 TrueSceptic
    December 13, 2008

    61 Alan McIntire,

    This thread is about the veracity of the list compiled by the serial liar Marc Morano. It is *not* about the science. Are you too dim to understand that?

  65. #65 guthrie
    December 14, 2008

    Hey, McINtire, why don’t you address the fact that we know from modern experience that CO2 is a climate forcing? Why all this floofling about in historical records, which are by their nature more innacurate, when you could disprove AGW at a stroke by showing how CO2 is not a greenhouse has?

  66. #66 James Haughton
    December 14, 2008

    Alan McIntire,
    @ 41 and 61 you speak as if the past warming and cooling was driven by fluctuations in the sun’s output (the sun “switching to a cooling phase”). This is incorrect; ice ages etc are mostly driven by Milankovitch cycles, that is, gravitationally induced fluctuations in the earth’s position. There’s no strong evidence for significant solar fluctuations.

    Past temperature-induced releases of CO2 have been limited by natural forcings (like the shifts in position) and have occurred over much longer periods. We are in the process of adding CO2 as a forcing directly, which will then trigger further natural CO2 release; CO2 is going to be both F1 and F2.

    The argument that “because it hasn’t happened naturally, humans can’t cause it to happen” is an obvious non-sequiter.

  67. #67 TrueSceptic
    December 14, 2008

    66 James,

    “Forest fires can’t ever have been caused by humans because we know that they happened before humans existed.”

  68. #68 Bernard J.
    December 15, 2008

    Tim seems to have touched a nerve with Louis Hissinkfit, because said gentleman has been rather vociferous on Marohasy’s thread about his notoriety here. In particular, he resents the label of ‘nutter’ than cropped up:

    Comment from: Louis Hissink December 14th, 2008 at 2:35 pm

    Cohenite,

    It’s quite interesting this fuss about a short summary I sent to Marc and I am not sure why Lambert needs to harp on the issues forming the worst global warming argument.

    It is generally accepted that plate tectonic theory has failed and while no all encompassing alternative has been proposed, (though expanding earth theorists are hopeful), one fact is becoming obvious – if continental drift never happened, then this mechanism cannot be used to explain the existence of glacial deposits on continents now located in temperate or equatorial regions.

    As our predecessors have consistently asserted that the earth seemed to have changed its axis of spin etc, the tippe-toppe hypothesis, (and I quoted a lengthy list of citations from history) then this completely undermines present assumptions of palaeoclimate. The tippe-toppe earth was proposed by Hugh Auchincloss-Brown, for example, and others have also considered it. But for this mechanism to work requires gravity being relegated to a secondary place in the pantheon of forces in the cosmos, hence the continued discrediting of electric universe theory by Lamprey and the Turing Machine.

    I think Lambert and crew sense this, hence the need to shoot the messenger of this new geological explanation. They are too late, of course, since thoughtful people are reassessing these hypotheses.

    Um, Louis, we none of us ‘sense’ any problem with the evidence for plate tectonics, nor with the evidence for gravity. You are projecting inappropriately.

    You are also demonstrating why folk are inclined to regard you as a nutter. Hey, I’m all for profound paradigm shifts, but really, where’s the evidence or the modelling for your theories?

    Aw heck, does this make me an Electric Universe/Tippe Toppe Denialist, or is it that old Louis simply a Tectonic/Gravity Denialist on top of his other denials?

    Seriously, is there any main-stream science that Hissink does accept?!

  69. #69 Dano
    December 15, 2008

    Alan McIntire:

    Your arguments are nothing new. They were addressed and refuted long ago.

    Yea, verily, I estimate that script has been around so long that it has moldered, added its organic matter to the soil, and has been planted with corn intended to be sold for ethanol.

    We could be driving to buy Christmas gifts on Alan’s borrowed ideas! Who says the right’s ideas no longer have power?

    Best,

    D

  70. #70 Ender
    December 17, 2008

    The even stranger thing is that Louis got on the list without knowing it. You would think that he would be asked to be included and that his views coincided with what the list represents.

    http://stevegloor.typepad.com/sgloor/2008/01/mr-hissink-is-o.html

    For more of Hissink madness
    http://stevegloor.typepad.com/sgloor/2005/06/letter_to_harry.html

    and yet more
    http://stevegloor.typepad.com/sgloor/2005/08/loius_hissink_w.html

    As you can see Louis and I go way back. He doesn’t believe in black holes or neutron stars either BTW.

    NB – he would be loving this – all these people talking about him.

  71. #71 Barton Paul Levenson
    December 18, 2008

    Alan D. posts:

    The reason the “CO2 lags temp in the ice ages” issue is repeated is that those who wish to rebut it never provide an fully adequate explanation.

    In a natural deglaciation, slight changes in the distribution of sunlight on the Earth’s surface cause the Earth to warm slightly, which releases carbon dioxide from the oceans. The carbon dioxide then amplifies the warming, being a greenhouse gas. The process works in reverse during a natural glaciation. The sunlight variations themselves (due to Earth’s orbital “Milankovic cycles”) are not great enough to account for the temperature changes in the ice ages. You need the CO2 as an amplifier.

    This is not what is happening now. The radioisotope signature of the new carbon dioxide clearly shows it to be coming from fossil fuel burning. The natural cycle has been short-circuited and CO2 is the cause, not the effect.

  72. #72 mgr
    December 18, 2008

    BPL @71

    WTF?

    1.) Milankovich is a necessary explantion for glacial stadia and interstadia. Changes in ocean temperature occur as provide positive feedbacks attendant with changes in carbon dioxide partial pressure. Ice retreat follows; but ice advance precedes.

    2.) Carbon dioxide isotope composition is a non sequiter in this context. Carbon dioxide sequestered in ocean does not have sufficent carbon fourteen (e.g. Carbon dioxide respired from plants does, due isotope preference in the carbon fixing)to distinquish it from carbon dioxides from fossil fuel.

  73. #73 Barton Paul Levenson
    December 19, 2008

    mgr,

    Why would ocean carbon not include carbon-14? I’m not following your reasoning here.

  74. #74 Eli Rabett
    December 19, 2008

    He is talking about the deep ocean.

  75. #75 elspi
    December 19, 2008

    Eli: ” He is talking about the deep ocean.”

    Yes he is, but he is wrong.

    Carbon-14 has a 1/2 life of 5730 years. All of the fossil fuels (being millions of years old) will have virtually no carbon -14.

    On the other hand from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/219/4586/849
    we see that :

    “The carbon-14 distribution in the abyssal waters of the world oceans indicates replacement times for Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic ocean deep waters (more than 1500 meters deep) of approximately 510, 250, and 275 years, respectively. The deep waters of the entire world ocean are replaced on average every 500 years.”

    The percentage of carbon-14/carbon in the deep oceans is only slightly less than what we expect in the air, where as the percentage of cabon-14/carbon in fossil fuels is essentially 0.

  76. #76 mgr
    December 22, 2008

    Elspi:

    Beg to differ. Carbon is sequestered as a precipitate. I don’t pretend to know the Equilibrium constant, however I suspect the rate is insufficient to maintain an isotopic ratio equivalent with atmospheric carbon. The point at hand is that carbon isotope ratio in the carbonate is sufficiently out of global circulation to mimic fossil fuel signals when released.

    Mike

  77. #77 Chris O'Neill
    December 22, 2008

    Carbon is sequestered as a precipitate.

    I suspect elspi was referring to the dissolved Carbon in seawater.

    I don’t pretend to know the Equilibrium constant, however I suspect the rate is insufficient to maintain an isotopic ratio equivalent with atmospheric carbon.

    Carbon 14 has a half lifetime of 5730 years so if the oceans are replaced on average every 500 years then the average Carbon 14 concentration in the oceans is (0.5)^(500/5730) of the atmospheric concentration, i.e. 94% of the atmospheric concentration.

  78. #78 mgr
    December 23, 2008

    Elspi and Chris:

    I could be rude and refer you to W. Broeker’s work, but this article’s abstract addresses what I am talking about.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/316/5830/1456

    Stuvier is addressing a steady state climate condition, glacial retreat and advance are not steady state. The ongoing problem has been that what she reports is at odds with the empirical evidence obtained in ice cores at the stades.

    The postulated mechanism for carbon movement into the deep ocean water is precipitation of carbonate from upper photic zone into the deeper colder water where it would then sublimate. As this stagnant body of water has no direct interaction with the atmosphere, the residence time of the carbon will exceed the 40,000 year threshold for C14 detection, and would resemble fossil fuel carbon.

    To my now limited knowledge, no compelling mechanism for how this deep water carbon sink came into play at the end of the Wisconsin has been offered, though I recall one model that presumed a ‘lake turnover’ effect.

    Mike

  79. #79 Chris O'Neill
    December 23, 2008

    BPL:

    This is not what is happening now. The radioisotope signature of the new carbon dioxide clearly shows it to be coming from fossil fuel burning.

    mgr:

    2.) Carbon dioxide isotope composition is a non sequiter in this context. Carbon dioxide sequestered in ocean does not have sufficent carbon fourteen

    I think BPL was referring to the C-13 content of the atmosphere declining because of C-13-depleted carbon being put into the atmosphere from fossil fuel. C-14 is not part of this explanation.

  80. #80 Clara Andrea Jane Dominguez
    July 25, 2009

    Im a scientist my new information is mosquitoes is going to touch a rice when we calling ”langaw’is not calculating it is now circulating to mosquitoes i think that is true bacauase when i eating mosquitoes got touching rice…………

  81. #81 John
    September 30, 2009

    I think you guys forgot to account for the other 31,478 American scientists who believe manmade global warming is a hoax — kind of like UFOs and bigfoot, if that’s what you’re into. Got your tinfoil hat?

    Petition Project: 31,478 American scientists have signed this petition (see http://www.petitionproject.org/ ) which requires a hand-written signature and paper form submission), including 9,029 with PhDs.

    Now go debunk 9,000 PhDs. I’ll bet none of you here have a PhD.

  82. #82 Mark
    September 30, 2009

    > Now go debunk 9,000 PhDs. I’ll bet none of you here have a PhD.

    > Posted by: John | September 30, 2009 12:28 PM

    And I bet that 99% of those “9000 PhDs” are from mail-order universities and/or about “The effects of basket-weaving on the indiginous peoples of Angola in the 8th Century AD” etc.

    Did YOU check whether there were even 9000 PhD’s of any sort in the list?

    No, I don’t think you did.

    You just took this scam site at face value because you WANT to believe it.

  83. #83 Mark
    September 30, 2009

    PS Here’s a “whack”:

    http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/oregon-petition-redux/

    First five names listed:

    1. Earl Aagaard. Field: Biology, interested explicitly in Intelligent Design. Relevant publications on climate change? None.

    2. Charles W. Aami. Field: Unknown. I couldn’t find any person by that name in connection to any scientific field, let alone climate science. Relevant publications on climate change? None.

    3. Roger L. Aamodt. Field: Oncology. Relevant publications on climate change? None.

    4. Wilbur A. Aanes. Field: Veterinary surgery (specifically “large animal surgery”). Relevant publications on climate change? None (although he seems to be well-published on equine surgery, which I’m sure has some bearing on climate change).

    5. M. Robert Aaron, DECEASED. Field: Telecommunications. Relevant publications on climate change? None.

  84. #84 Mark
    September 30, 2009

    Deltoid has a good addition too:

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/05/oregon_petition_warmed_over.php#comment-899447

    In kee[ing with Tito’s unquestioning approach to denialists, David W. Ballard is the President of Ballard Petroleum.

    And on that list.

    As is one person who died gour years before the Oregon Institute started.

    Obviously a PhD in Post-Mortem studies…

  85. #85 John
    September 30, 2009

    Regarding the Petition Project (http://www.petitionproject.org)… where 31,478 scientists debunk manmade global warming — the web site outlines the credentials of the petition signers. Since you obviously would rather accuse me of faith-based reasoning than click a button on a web page, I’ll do it for you:

    From http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

    Qualifications of Signers

    Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

    The current list of petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,153 MS; 2,585 MD and DVM; and 12,711 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

    All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

    The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

    Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

    1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,803 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

    2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 935 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

    3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,810 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

    4. Chemistry includes 4,818 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

    5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,964 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

    6. Medicine includes 3,046 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

    7. Engineering and general science includes 10,102 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

  86. #86 John
    September 30, 2009

    Some more hard data for you to chew on…

    ** Professor Mojib Latif, the leading scientist of the IPCC (the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change) has admitted that the Earth’s temperature has not increased in nine years, and that we’re entering a period of steady or cooling temperatures that will possibly last until 2020 or 2030.

    Despite no global warming in 10 years and record-setting cold in 2007-2008, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change (IPCC) and computer modelers who believe that CO2 is the cause of global warming still predict the Earth is in store for catastrophic warming in this century. IPCC computer models have predicted global warming of 1° F per decade and 5-6° C (10-11° F) by 2100, which would cause global catastrophe with ramifications for human life, natural habitat, energy and water resources, and food production. All of this is predicated on the assumption that global warming is caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 and that CO2 will continue to rise rapidly. However, records of past climate changes suggest an altogether different scenario for the 21st century. Rather than drastic global warming at a rate of 0.5 ° C (1° F) per decade, historic records of past natural cycles suggest global cooling for the first several decades of the 21st century to about 2030, followed by global warming from about 2030 to about 2060, and renewed global cooling from 2060 to 2090 (Easterbrook, D.J., 2005, 2006a, b, 2007, 2008a, b); Easterbrook and Kovanen, 2000, 2001). Climatic fluctuations over the past several hundred years suggest ~30 year climatic cycles of global warming and cooling, on a general rising trend from the Little Ice Age.

    Global climate changes have been far more intense (12 to 20 times as intense in some cases) than the global warming of the past century, and they took place in as little as 20–100 years. Global warming of the past century (0.8° C) is virtually insignificant when compared to the magnitude of at least 10 global climate changes in the past 15,000 years. None of these sudden global climate changes could possibly have been caused by human CO2 input to the atmosphere because they all took place long before anthropogenic CO2 emissions began. The cause of the ten earlier ‘natural’ climate changes was most likely the same as the cause of global warming from 1977 to 1998.

    When the Royal Society of New Zealand recently claimed that the earth was warming, Society member and climatologist Dr. Vincent Gray responded:

    “This statement is a lie. The globe is currently cooling. ……..there are currently nine authorities currently involved in providing a dataset of monthly global temperature anomalies. They are:

    NOAA’s National Climate Data Center (NCDC, GHCN-COADS)

    NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)

    Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (HadCRUT2v)

    NOAA radiosonde network , (RATPAC)

    Hadley Centre Radiosonde Network (HadAT2)

    University of Alabama Lower Troposphere TLT MSU (UAH )

    Remote Sensing Systems Lower Troposphere TLT MSU (RSS)

    National Center for Environmental Protection Reanalysis (NCEP50)

    European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts Reanalysis (ERA40)

    Eight of these authorities agree that the globe is currently cooling. Only GISS disagrees.” (Source: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm )

    ** Who stands to gain from man-made global warming?

    March 25, 2009 — While on the board of a Chicago-based charity, Barack Obama helped fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the cap-and-trade carbon reduction program he is now trying to push through Congress as president.

    The “privately-owned” Chicago Climate Exchange is heavily influenced by Obama cohorts Al Gore and Maurice Strong (Strong has played a critical role in working with the UN to globalize the environmental movement).

    For years now Strong and Gore have been cashing in on that lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming.

    Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as “the world’s first and North America’s only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil.”

    Gore, self-proclaimed Patron Saint of the Environment, buys his carbon off-sets from himself–the Generation Investment Management LLP, “an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C., of which he is both chairman and founding partner. The Generation Investment Management business has considerable influence over the major carbon credit trading firms that currently exist, including the Chicago Climate Exchange.

    (Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/25/obama-helped-fund-carbon-scheme/ )

  87. #87 Chris O'Neill
    September 30, 2009

    Dear John,

    We’re bored by ancient science denialism. Fossils don’t change anyones mind.

  88. #88 elspi
    September 30, 2009

    John
    Lambert and most of the people who comment on this blog have a PhD in one of the sciences. (me included). If you want to impress, you need a list of people who know more about AGW than the average blog commenter on this blog. You list people who know less.
    EPIC FAIL.

  89. #89 Chris O'Neill
    September 30, 2009

    BTW John, before you feed us with more “hard facts” that “suggest global cooling for the first several decades of the 21st century” (awfully hard word “suggest”), don’t forget to check that Greg Easterbrook is an idiot. It’s easy to find on this blog, it’s one of the categories in the left margin.

  90. #90 John
    September 30, 2009

    Anybody with enough money (aka, international central bankers — ring a bell?) can pay anyone with a PhD or any background to say whatever they want. I believe this blog is a testament to that. You folks here are a little too hungry to debunk the debunkers. I imagine the paychecks must be pretty good.

    All of you fail to look at the political reasons for pushing manmade global warming. There are a lot of reasons for pushing a fictional crisis. Power and money being two of them, and perhaps the best reasons in the world.

  91. #91 Chris O'Neill
    September 30, 2009

    I imagine the paychecks must be pretty good.

    Ahahahahaha. Yeah, zero is pretty good.

    All of you fail to look at the political reasons for pushing manmade global warming.

    Why don’t you look at your own failure to look at the political reasons for denying climate science? Conservatives hate the consequences of the science.

    Power and money being two of them,

    Yes, all those multi-millionaire climate scientists.

    By the way, what article are you up to in Greg Easterbrook is an idiot. Since you’re so interested in hard facts you should be pretty busy with it.

  92. #92 Brian D
    September 30, 2009

    John, dealing with the petition project is like dealing with a creationist who says there’s no transitional fossils. It’s a claim that’s so easily debunked there’s just no point to rehashing ourselves every time, so instead we just link.

    (By the way, the previous links to Tim’s own initial addressing were broken. I don’t know why more people don’t use {A} tags on ScienceBlogs.com, since the underscores that show up on URLs are used as markdown for _italics_, causing rote copypaste to break said links.)

    Other links that address this particular fraud of a petition include Chris Colose, who sampled from every letter and searched for relevant qualifications, and Eli Rabett, who points out the issues with the paper that accompanied it.

    By the way, the comparison to creationists is valid, especially in the case of petitions like the Oregon Petition and Inhofe’s list. Consider here, showing the level of quackery present on both lists, or view this, comparing to the creationist original. The parallels are eerie.

    We don’t seem particularly “hungry” – especially to take down something we’ve already eviscerated. We have better things to do than play whack-a-mole on command. (The only reason I’m doing it now is because I literally have nothing better to do – I’m waiting for a simulation to finish.)

    Oh, and if you replace “international central bankers” with “the fossil fuel industries”, your argument all of a sudden has evidence to back it up. We’ve seen it before with tobacco, and now we’re seeing it with climate. In some cases (Seitz, Singer, etc.) it’s the same freakin’ scientists. And yet you seem to think there’s some “international bankers” (which, by the way, is a conspiracy theorist term for “Jews”, so unless you’re anti-Semitic, I’d suggest using a different term – surely you can name names, right?) behind the reality-based community, without a hint of cognitive dissonance showing through your self-righteous veneer. Hilarious – somewhat like Singer making similar accusations about the 1992 Rio summit (the Framework Convention on Climate Change), where he was convinced it was being staged by ““third world kleptocrats”.

    Your side isn’t doing a very good job of staying credible, is it?

  93. #93 elspi
    September 30, 2009

    ” PhD or any background to say whatever they want. I believe this blog is a testament to that. ”

    The people on this blog are professional scientists, many of the people on your list are tobacco scientists.

    Pot; snow; black.

    If it weren’t for hypocrisy and projection, John would be speechless.

  94. #94 John
    September 30, 2009

    So once you skew your “science” to achieve your totalitarian socialist/communist New World Order, what do you think that’s going to do for you? Make life better? Make you closer to God? Do you think someone is going to take your DNA, mount it in a frame and build a religion around it? Did you think your orgasms will become stronger? Maybe you’ll get to sit on Lucifer’s lap for 30 seconds?

    I really want to know why anyone would spend so much time and energy writing blatant disinformation to the extent that it’s covered here. Please educate me, all-knowing scientists.

  95. #95 Michael
    September 30, 2009

    Where did this winged-monkey fly in from??

  96. #96 Janet Akerman
    September 30, 2009

    John, can you concisely restate anything accurate you have said? That will save me reading all the nonsense tin-foil-hat stuff of yours.

    And what lead you to a 2008 thread about 650 ‘sciency’ folk? Were you hoping to buttress your argument from authority?

    I’ll go bank my cheque from the Illuminati then return to read your reply.

  97. #97 elspi
    September 30, 2009

    John my boy:

    Let us just imagine for one second, that the people being paid millions of dollars to lie to you (Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Bill O, Coulter, Malkin,.. generic wingnut welfare case…) are ACTUALLY LYING TO YOU.

    That instead of trying to destroy the world (or take it over), the evil “librul” science community is trying to fix some rather serious problems.
    For instance, if the world warms by 6 C (on average), then it is bend-over-and-kiss-your-ass-goodbye time. Those of us with children (or just those that aren’t soulless monsters) would like to avoid this (even if it won’t happen in our life time). We are so warped, that we don’t see the Mad Max movies as nirvana, but rather as something to be avoided. There, now you actually know what Our motivation is.

    Feel free to rant some more about the new world order or whatever it is that the drug-addicted pedophile on the radio is ranting about today.

    Best wishes

    A sane person

  98. #98 Janet Akerman
    September 30, 2009

    John,

    Further to elspi’s post, do you think the banking oligarchs could not turn any situation to their favour? Why does AGW need to be fake for the banking class to take advantage of it?

    Seems to me that AGW is a bit of a change for elite capitalists (the Banksters), yet they are agile, powerful and resourceful, they can lobby for an ETS rather than a simple transparent tax.

  99. #99 Chris O'Neill
    October 1, 2009

    Where did this winged-monkey fly in from??

    I think this is a common form of trolling where they:

    1. state some dinosaur argument,

    2. have zero interest in checking the history,

    3. ignore the explicitly restated defects in the argument,

    4. state some non-sequitur so-called “hard facts”

    5. and then when they see the audience doesn’t take crap, they

    6. launch into their ideological diatribe and

    7. finish by making a false plea to be educated with a false and disingenuous statement of praise.

  100. #100 Mark
    October 1, 2009

    > I really want to know why anyone would spend so much time and energy writing blatant disinformation to the extent that it’s covered here. Please educate me, all-knowing scientists.

    > Posted by: John

    Might as well ask why those Televangelists fake “miracle cures” on telly. It’s a lot of time and energy spent isn’t it.

    Then again, you’re a believe-anything neophyte.