Open Thread 32

Time for a new open thread.


  1. #1 Gaz
    September 11, 2009

    Steve C – Dave Andrews appears to have advanced the view that human population growth increases biodiversity because humans are all different, although he has wisely avoided direct attribution of this completely idiotic view to himself by using the words “some might say”.

  2. #2 Mark Byrne
    September 11, 2009

    Dave Andrews asked Jeff to reconcile the simple claim that loss of biodiversity is bad for us. DA’s rationale was that human have multiplied and prospered whilst biodiversity has suffered. I suspect DA is being contrary, to pick on Jeff use of the term ‘simple’, but the basis for this short term prosperity partially:

    1). genuine progress (social, political, and technological) and;

    2). partly cancer like growth- were the cancer grows exponential (for a period) by draining its host.

  3. #3 Bernard J.
    September 11, 2009

    Dave Andrews engages in another logical fallacy with:

    Jeff Harvey,

    As humans reduce biodiversity, we reduce the capacity of the planet to support man. It is as simple as that.

    Surely it is NOT that simple. Some might say that biodiversity has been reduced in the last 60 years. In that time, however, human population has more than doubled.

    How do you reconcile this fact?

    Jeff and Mark Byrne have already provided answers to this, but I would like to table another concept, relevant to both the decline in biodiversity and to the apparent human population success…

    Extinction debt.

    Like any other debt, it is incurred by spending capital faster than it is replenished, and by borrowing from others. Humans are doing both of these things in an ecological sense, and we are co-opting the fossilised energy of hundreds of millions of years of solar output to power our ecosystem raiding.

    As in any feeding-back system there are lags in the responses inherent in the system. Although disguised by the previously mentioned use of fossil carbon for fuel and fertiliser, such lags are becoming apparent in the declining health of our agricultural topsoils, and in the parlous state of much of the globe’s fossil water resources.

    Our depletion of crop genetic diversity is also starting to bite, as any farmer who is threatened by a wheat rust would tell you for example. The planet’s fisheries are approaching foreclosure, and all-in-all there isn’t much in the natural resource domain that’s actually looking healthy when compared to the past.

    So we might appear to be living high on the hog, but the ecological repayments are starting to bite, and whether we like it (or even admit it) or not, we will be as unable to repay the debt as were the nodoc/lowdoc unfortunates in the financial collapse over the last several years.

    Have no doubt Dave Andrews, one day there will be a hunking big bruiser coming to knock on humanity’s door, and he ain’t gonna be friendly, and he ain’t gonna let us slip outa town.

    Be alert, and perhaps consider being alarmed…

  4. #4 Bernard J.
    September 11, 2009


    The quoted text should have been:

    Jeff Harvey,

    As humans reduce biodiversity, we reduce the capacity of the planet to support man. It is as simple as that.

    Surely it is NOT that simple. Some might say that biodiversity has been reduced in the last 60 years. In that time, however, human population has more than doubled.

    How do you reconcile this fact?

    Et cetera, et cetera

    Need to watch those forward slashes.

  5. #5 Chris O'Neill
    September 11, 2009

    Mark Byrne:

    partly cancer like growth- were the cancer grows exponential (for a period) by draining its host

    A very appropriate simile. Cancers usually do really well until the host dies. Dave Andrews’ argument is the same as saying that because a cancer is doing really well, the host must also be doing really well.

  6. #6 el gordo
    September 11, 2009


    …’a trolls troll’. Is that like being a man’s man?

  7. #7 Janet Akerman
    September 11, 2009

    El Gordo,

    More like a creeps creep. Men usually behave decently.

  8. #8 el gordo
    September 11, 2009

    What makes you think I’m a man?

  9. #9 Janet Akerman
    September 11, 2009

    Look up, I just implied that I don’t think you are a man. Don’t go getting delusions of adequacy. I suggest you start with basic decency and work your way back up.

  10. #10 Mark
    September 11, 2009

    > Dave Andrews’ argument is the same as saying that because a cancer is doing really well, the host must also be doing really well.

    > Posted by: Chris O’Neill

    Or “Of course the water’s good to drink: do you think all those things would be living in it if it weren’t???”

  11. #11 P. Lewis
    September 11, 2009

    Not withstanding Janet’s apposite characterisation, the grammar structure of your pseudonym, el gordo, would seem to indicate you’re a male of the [indeterminate] species. Of course, that could just be a misrepresentation, which you appear to be good at in at least one other area.

  12. #12 Mark
    September 11, 2009

    “man” used to be the gender neutral form of the dominant hominid homo sapiens sapiens.

    Given that homo sapiens sapiens means “seriously wise man”, I would suggest el gordo is not a man.

    But if you want to attribute some human intelligence in that blob of gloop, “man” would be correct and not necessarily indicate “male”.

  13. #13 Luke Silburn
    September 11, 2009


    Thanks for replying, but I’m afraid it doesn’t really address my confusion. The bit you’ve quoted is from post #106 (by which time the snark levels had gone critical), but what I was concerned about was why your reply at #33 contained so much heat that didn’t seem warranted by Fran’s original post at #11.

    Anyway it’s all water over the dam now, since there’s a separate thread.



    PS – The David Mackay mentioned by Fran in her original post had a brief slot on the BBC’s Today show (heavyweight politics/policy morning radio programme) this morning and came across as both sensible, articulate and media savvy.

  14. #14 Dave Andrews
    September 11, 2009

    Steve Chamberlain,

    OK then. how many people do you want to kill off in order to stop the ‘destruction’ of biodiversity that you say is happening?

  15. #15 Dave Andrews
    September 11, 2009


    You may already know this but David Mackay has written an excellent book- ‘Sustainable Energy – without the hot air’ It’s available on his website

    as well as from Amazon. Well worth reading.

  16. #16 Jeff Harvey
    September 11, 2009

    *OK then. how many people do you want to kill off in order to stop the ‘destruction’ of biodiversity that you say is happening?*

    What an infantile remark. This is comic level book intellectuality.

    First of all, you can take the quotations off of the term biodiversity; you are also creating a strawman when you say that Steve is the one who alone says that the destruction of biodiversity is happening. This is classic contrarian behavior: turn a fact into an allegation that apply that allegation to someone you are wishing to discredit.

    The empirical evidence is voluminous and growing. We know that between 10 and 40% of well studied species – that is to say vertebrates and vascular plants – are threatened with extinction according to the IUCN. We also know that area-extinction models of exponential decay that link biodiversity loss with habitat loss generally underestimate extinction rates because they exclude other anthropogenic processes such as pollution and the introduction of exotic invasive species that also reduce biodiversity. Given that some half of the world`s species rich wet tropical forests are gone, then one does not need a calculator to know that with it has gone many species that were probably never formally classified.

    Your final point is even more of a strawman. I cringe when I read this kind of childish stuff, but I feel compelled to respond. Read this and learn: there is not a trade-off between the protection of biodiversity and the welfare of humanity. Making frankly flippant remarks like
    *how many people do you want to kill off in order to stop the ‘destruction’ of biodiversity that you say is happening* have no place in intellectual discourse. As I said above, which you clearly did not read nor understand, this is an artificial choice. It is therefore not a choice between nature and people; it is the choice of a sustainable or an impoverished future for man. Nature generates conditions through a stupendous array of interactions crossing innumerable hierarchal scales from individuals to populations to communities to ecosystems to biomes to the biosphere that permit our species to exist and to persist. Biological interactions purify the air and water, recycle nutrients, disperse seeds, pollinate plants, help to maintain a breathable atmosphere, provide us with food and materials in which to build our civilization and provide for emotional well being. It is therefor not a choice between wild places and people. This, as I said, is the classic refrain from those who know nix about ecology.

    Dave, if it be known I have had to repeat this kind of post several times on Deltoid over the past few years become some layman has waded in with the same kind of fatuous remark as you made to Steve. I find it quite disturbing to say the least that there are so many people who think that humans derive little from nature except what we use to build our cities or to feed our populations. Until I resp@onded, you had probably never heard of the term “ecosystem services” which has been a staple of the ecological literature for the past 20 years. Only a few neoclassical economists hang on to the notion that humans can exist on a planet covered in concrete and computers. Many more ecologically minded economists realize that the cumulative total of all GDPs of all countries on Earth represent but a tiny fraction of the sum total of the value of supporting ecosystem services alone. By supporting I mean the indirect services I described above that do not carry prices. If they did, we would protect them more vigilantly because we would realize that humans are taking significantly more out of nature than nature is sustainably putting back., and that these services that sustain us would be threatened. This cannot go on indefinitely.

    The Global Ecosystem Assessment published in 2006 painted a stark picture: humans have degraded or locally eliminated some 60% of important services that have no technological replacement. The consequences of losing many of these services will be disastrous for rich and poor alike.

    I am willing to discuss this with you but please ignore making such fatuous remarks that have little substance.

  17. #17 Chris O'Neill
    September 11, 2009

    OK then. how many people do you want to kill off in order to stop the ‘destruction’ of biodiversity that you say is happening?

    What do we expect from Dave Andrews but a strawman. No-one is suggesting killing off anyone. You should have got a clue from the word “burgeoning”. Governments could act rationally by stopping their crazy incentives to increase the birth rate. Then at least they’re not intentionally causing the problem to be worse than necessary.

  18. #18 Mark Byrne
    September 11, 2009

    >*OK then. how many people do you want to kill off in order to stop the ‘destruction’ of biodiversity that you say is happening?*

    I’ll buy into the tripe from Dave Andrews. Dave its is the denialists who are responsible for the impending poopulation destruction. It is the denialists who rev the machine of increasing consumption. It is the denialalists (together with those enjoying current “wealth” and “prosperity” and the apathetic detraction) who are responsible for what the human species will be left with as biodiversity shrinks.

    The cancer has been diagnosed by the specialist (ecologists) and denialists are egging the cancer on, rather than treatment to slow or stop its destruction. (That means less cream and more beans for you and I, so that we can sustain the current population, and provide decent prospects for 6 billion until we can come ups with a better solution).

  19. #19 Mark - BLR
    September 12, 2009

    WARNING : This post is now off-topic. It may not have been about 120 posts ago, but I’ve only just found this thread.

    I’ve been looking for a while now for the data needed to check for myself the various claims, from both sides, about the “divergence” between the IPCC AR4 scenarios and the CRU / GISS / NCDC / UAH / RSS datasets.

    The data I am currently using for the AR4 “Model Average Surface Air Temperature Changes” are as follows (sorry about the horizontal compression of the first line, I can’t see how to avoid it) :

    Year A1B A1FI A1T A2 B1 B2

    1990 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


    2000 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16

    2005 0.19 0.21 0.24 0.24 0.21 0.24

    2010 0.30 0.33 0.36 0.33 0.32 0.36

    2015 0.40 0.45 0.52 0.43 0.41 0.48

    2020 0.52 0.60 0.66 0.52 0.53 0.62

    2025 0.69 0.72 0.80 0.65 0.64 0.75

    2030 0.86 0.91 0.97 0.79 0.73 0.86

    2035 1.05 1.08 1.13 0.94 0.84 0.98

    2040 1.25 1.33 1.35 1.13 0.93 1.10

    2045 1.42 1.59 1.52 1.28 1.02 1.24

    2050 1.59 1.91 1.68 1.47 1.14 1.37

    2055 1.76 2.15 1.82 1.68 1.26 1.50

    2060 1.95 2.49 1.96 1.87 1.37 1.62

    2065 2.12 2.78 2.07 2.11 1.46 1.75

    2070 2.31 3.07 2.16 2.34 1.55 1.88

    2075 2.43 3.34 2.25 2.55 1.65 2.00

    2080 2.57 3.58 2.33 2.80 1.71 2.13

    2085 2.69 3.85 2.39 3.04 1.79 2.26

    2090 2.79 4.09 2.46 3.29 1.83 2.38

    2095 2.87 4.26 2.47 3.56 1.87 2.51

    2100 2.96 4.41 2.49 3.78 1.90 2.62

    You don’t want to know where I got these numbers from, the important thing is that they are definitely “a bit dodgy” (as they say in England).

    The TAR had an equivalent table (Appendix II, section II.4, page 824), but I have not been able to find one for AR4. The data must exist somewhere within the IPCC, otherwise the last row of graphs in Figure 10.26 (AR4, page 803) could not have been plotted.

    I have looked through the AR4 PDF files, but not seen such a table, even in the “Supplementary Material” files. Have I just missed it (3 times) ?

    Is there a web page that contains such a table (one line per decade would be enough), with at least a semi-official “Approved by the IPCC” stamp ?

    Bonus points if your page has similar tables with “+/- 1 Standard Deviation” labels (the dark shaded areas in Figure 10.26 of AR4).

    Nomination for MENSA if your page has tables with “Upper 95% Confidence Interval” and “Lower 95% Confidence Interval” labels instead of (or as well as) the “+/- 1 S.D.” ones …

  20. #20 Boris
    September 12, 2009

    Marc Morano to debate Roger Pielke, Jr.

    Anybody else find this matchup odd?

  21. #21 Dave Andrews
    September 12, 2009

    Jeff Harvey,

    No I am not an ecologist – no one can be expert in everything.

    However, you say

    “It is therefore not a choice between nature and people; it is the choice of a sustainable or an impoverished future for man”

    Well then what is your definition of ‘sustainable’, how many people would it support and what do you propose to do about future population growth?

    Like you, I agree Nature, or in other words the Earth, is an extremely complex system. Maybe you could spend some time communicating that fact to climate scientists.

  22. #22 bi -- IJI
    September 12, 2009

    Shorter Dave Andrews:

    I insist on claiming that you want to kill off people in order to maintain “sustainability”! Why won’t you tell me how many people you want to get killed? Why? Why? Why?

    You can’t answer that question? Haha! This shows that you are a Global Warmist Fraud!

  23. #23 Dave Andrews
    September 12, 2009

    Mark Byrne,

    I’d be interested to know if you rate ‘biodiversity denialists’ on the same scale as ‘climate denialists’? Or is just anyone who doesn’t agree with you a denialist?

  24. #24 bi -- IJI
    September 12, 2009

    Dave Andrews:

    Mark Byrne, I’ll just ignore your arguments and claim that you just hate me for disagreeing with you!

  25. #25 lenny
    September 12, 2009

    “Well then what is your definition of ‘sustainable’, how many people would it support and what do you propose to do about future population growth?”

    I won’t pretend to speak for Jeff Harvey, but the definiton of sustainable is “that which can be sustained”, or if you don’t understand the root word ” behaviour that we can continue indefinately”. Whether or not we should behave sustainably is obviously not negotiable.

  26. #26 Mark Byrne
    September 12, 2009

    They are the same people Dave, eg. Tim Curtin, the IPA, Heartland institute etc, etc. Denialists are those who deny the science and instead substitute utopian economic ideology.

    And then there’s a another class who make fatuous strawman arguments, a bit like this pearl:
    >*OK then. how many people do you want to kill off in order to stop the ‘destruction’ of biodiversity that you say is happening?*

  27. #27 el gordo
    September 12, 2009

    Found a few more denialists.

  28. #28 Jeff Harvey
    September 13, 2009

    Dave Andrews,

    No need to apologize for not being an ecologist. It was clear from you earlier strawman post that you have have no knowledge of ecology whatsoever and had probably never heard of ther term “ecosystem services”, even though it has been extensively used for the past 20 years. If it means anything, Bjorn Lomborg completely misinterpreted it as well in his error-fileld book, “The Sceptical Environmentalist”. But then again, it is hard to say what Lomborg exactly is, but an envrionmental scientist is not one of them.

    I will get to the various interpretation of sustainability a bit later (below).

    First, I would like to comment on that absurd post by some nincompoop that el gord linked. As for biodiversity denialists, the link el gordo posted was, as I see it, pure and utter insanity. The blogger, who is anonymous, sees some great global scientific conspiracy amongst the rank and file of the climate science and population ecology community, based on his or her grade-school level understanding of the field. They have put two and two together to come up with six.

    First of all, Gaia was a serious scientific theory proposed by James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis more than 30 years ago that purported to explain the link between different levels of organization in ecological systems through various levels of hierarchal complexity. That it was subsequently hijacked by new age religion types and then considered some kind of wacky cult is a shame. But I would challenge the writer of this web site to give me examples where Ehrlich, Mann and other eminent scientists have ever directly described the biosphere in such a pseudo-religious way. I certainly do not ascribe an y credibility to that. But science certainly has shown that ecological systems do function as the sumn of their parts, and that how they have evolved to do this remains baffling, given that individual organisms for the most part (excluding eusocial species with high co-efficients of relatedness) are genetically programmed to behave selfishly and to behave in such ways as to optimize the fitness of theirs and closely related genotypes. Numerous empirical studies have shown that more species-rich systems tend to be more resilient to environmental change than species-poor systems. This has been one of the most enduring debates in ecology, but it now seems that species rich systems offer more links for the transfer of nutrients and energy through the system, more functional redundancy, and the various feedback loops are weaker meaning that the loss of some links are buffered by the presence of alternatives.

    The gist of this discussion is that there is also a vigorous debate over the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning and this debate has been acrimonious at times. One side argues that at least some part of biodiversity is functionally redundant and that systems can withstand some reduction in diversity (this is based on the idea that a few keystone species retain the capacity to keep the system effectively stable); the second side argues that a reduction in biodiversity pushes systems closer to the edge beyond which a range of critical services emerging from them are disrupted or eliminated. This is known as the rivet popper hypothesis; removing rivets continually from an aircraft will be OK until a critical threshold is reached and the plane crashes to the ground. In reality, the two hypotheses are not that different but they have generated immense debate in the ecological community. The former group sees some leeway for losing biodiversity to a point and argues that we should focus conservation efforts in protecting vital keystone species as they are identified through empirical research; the second group acknowledges that ecosystems are immensely complex entities and that a huge array of interactions occur amongst individuals, species and populations that helps to keep the systems running viably. They thus argue that we continue to exterminate any species at our peril, given that our understanding of this complexity is veryrudimentary. I opt for the latter school of thought, although I have many colleagues who argue in defense of the former. The debate is ongoing. One thing is for certain, though. The hypothesis that ecosystems function due to input from individuals over variable and often vast spatial and temporal scales is beyond doubt. Call it Gaia or whatever the heck you like, but systems do function on the basis of input from a huge number of organisms occupying different trophic levels and performing different ecological functions. This is not at all controversial, perhaps except in the minds of dead-enders who see left wing global environmental conspiracies everywhere they look.

    Given what we do know the link el gordo provided is clear and utter b*, and I hate to even dignify such utter balderdash with an intellectual response. It seems to me that the reader has not read a shred of the primary scientific literature on the field of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning and instead has glossed over a few books in which the information is discussed so that laypeople will appreciate the importance of biodiversity. This person I think is a moron who has come up with their own kind of conspiracy theory – as many contrarians pushing right wing agendas do – to explain why scientists spanning different disciplines are concerned about connected issues such as climate change and the loss of biodiversity. The site was a mish-mash of partial quotes, misquotes and the like. The scientific underpinning of their site was utterly incompetent. I do not wish to waste any more of my time on this kind of bilge.

    Back to the question Dave proposed. What is sustainable? That is a difficult question because everyone marches to their own tune with respect to what sustainable development means. To a neoclassical economist who thinks that nature is a small subset of the economy and that there are no material limits to growth anyway, sustainable development means unlimited economic growth: production and consumption will march along hand in hand forever and forever into the future. This in my view is outdated. To a population ecologist such as myself, sustainable development is economic development that does not compromise the ability of natural systems that underpin our civilizations to repair and replenish themselves. If we continue on the current path, devouring natural capital like there is no tomorrow, this will seriously compromise the quality of life for future generations of people. It could end up being much worse than that – due in large part to vast overconsumption by 15% of the world`s population in the “quad”, we have created an environmental bottleneck that is getting narrower with each passing day, and it it going to take the cumulative efforts of humanity to get us out of it to a sustainable future where there is some measure of dignity for everyone on Earth and not just the “privileged few”. The joint World Bank-UN Living Planet Index, started in 1970, showed that humans have degraded the most important natural systems – coastal marine, freshwater and forest – by 35 in 2003. This cannot go on indefinitely. There will be (in fact already are) social and environmental consequences of our growing national and global ecological deficits. The number of environmental refugees is already in the millions and increases ever year.

    None of this is, or should be, considered controversial. That some see what I write as a vast conspiracy against freedom shows how successful the anti-environmental campaigns waged by a small coteries of well funded groups and individuals have been.

  29. #29 Jeff Harvey
    September 13, 2009

    One error – by 35 I meant “35%” with respect to the LPI.


  30. #30 Mark Byrne
    September 13, 2009


    All credit to you, though I think only the Billy Bob’s of the world would take seriously anything that anything El Gorgo says after his ongoing [misrepresentations]( and poor jugdement.

  31. #31 el gordo
    September 13, 2009

    How can I alarm thee? Let me count the ways…

  32. #32 Janet Akerman
    September 13, 2009

    1) Scary foreginers; yellow peril;

    2) scary muslims, scary clash of civilisations;

    3) scary black people; scary black presidents

    4) scary homosexuals;

    5) sacry taxes;

    6) scary health reforms; scary public schools; scary social polices;

    9) scary socialists, leftists, water melons; scary reds under the bed;

    10) scary bring down social fabric;

    11) scary feminists;

    12) scary greens, econazis, ecofacists, ecoterrorist;

    12) scary unions;

    13) scary WMD in hands of brown, black, yellow, red people (other people).

    I count so may ways.

    Or we could count real scary stuff; asbestos, CFCs, DDT, Dioxin, Depleted uranium, weapons testing fallout, nuclear contamination, lead pait, WMD in the has of anyone, smoking, habitat disctruciton, biodiversity loss, keystone species loss, global heating, invasions, occupations, massacres….

  33. #33 el gordo
    September 13, 2009

    I’m speechless, but I suspect Mr Byrne will attack you with ad hominem.

  34. #34 GWB's nemesis
    September 13, 2009

    El Gordo, surely you meant “How can I humiliate myself? Let me count the ways…”

  35. #35 Mark Byrne
    September 13, 2009

    El Gordo won’t even allow “speachless[ness]” slow his misrepresentations. El Gordo’s latest example is misuse of the term [ad hominem](

    It seems mis-representation is [becoming all to regular]( for El Gordo.

  36. #36 el gordo
    September 13, 2009

    Ad hominem abusive.

    You can have the last word on this thread, but are well advised to leave the host (Tim can look after himself) and earn your stripes on Graham’s Green Blog. The poor man has an infestation of sceptics and deniers.

  37. #37 Mark Byrne
    September 13, 2009

    El Gordo,

    I name what you do. If you misrepresent people, I’ll call you on it. If you present fallacious charts and show poor judgement by voicing unsupported conspriacies, I’ll point out those errors.

    If you continue making these misrepresetations, malicious insinuations, and ill considered acusations, don’t be surprised or cry ‘ad hominium’ when your behavour, and the implications of your behaviour is described in words.

  38. #38 Janet Akerman
    September 13, 2009

    …[you] are well advised to leave…

    El Gordo,

    just who is providing this “well” advice. What is so “well” with this advice?

  39. #39 Billy Bob Hall
    September 14, 2009

    ‘Advice is what we ask for when we already know the answer but wish we didn’t.’ – Erica Jong:

    I’m happy to provide you with my advice at any time Janet. :-)

  40. #40 Marco
    September 14, 2009

    In an attempt to change the discussion, anyone seen this:

    Sad, now the deniosphere even resorts to death threats.

  41. #41 P. Lewis
    September 14, 2009

    Well, I hope he’s passed on all correspondence to the relevant authorities (Web and local law enforcement).

  42. #42 Dave Andrews
    September 14, 2009

    Janet Akerman,

    You missed out the most scary thing of all – people :-)

  43. #43 Janet Akerman
    September 14, 2009

    Dave Andrew writes:

    >*”You missed out the most scary thing of all – people :-)”*

    Dave can you clarify, are you smiling at [your own strawman folly](, or trying to reconstruct it?

  44. #44 Steve Chamberlain
    September 15, 2009

    Dave Andrews (241): What’s scariest of all isn’t people but unthinking adherence to dogma and wilful ignorance.

  45. #45 Bernard J.
    September 15, 2009

    The Australian’s War on Everything Scientific [continues](, with a hefty dose of conspiracy theory added to the mix.

    My budgie has taken to pressing its arse against the wire and shitting outside of its cage…

  46. #46 Dave Andrews
    September 15, 2009

    Steve Chamberlain, #244

    Wouldn’t disagree at all about the adherence to dogma and ignorance!

  47. #47 bi -- IJI
    September 16, 2009

    Paul UK:

    > So the skeptics are the scientists now and the scientists are alarmists.

    And speaking of “X are Y and Y are Z“, there’s yet more fun from the Heartland Institute about the coming International ‘Conference’ on Climate Change — yours truly reports.

  48. #48 Dan L.
    September 16, 2009

    Hi, all:

    On a special interest group site that has a politics forum, I’m going it alone against a half dozen deniers. Their “captain” is hammering me with Climate Audit posts criticizing Kaufman, et al.’s recent paper on Arctic warming.

    Note also that McIntyre never misses a chance to take shots at Mann. Here he flat out accuses him of scientific fraud:


    Frankly, I haven’t the scientific chops to argue against CA on this subject. Does anyone here have a link to a detailed rebuttal of CA’s attack on Kaufman?


  49. #49 Billy Bob Hall
    September 16, 2009

    Speaking of frord. Jo Nova has a nice article exposing another carbon tax fraud in ye olde europa.

    “Another major carbon auditor goes down.”


  50. #50 bi -- IJI
    September 17, 2009

    Shorter Billy Bob Hall:

    We skeptics are going to win! We’re going to win! When we win you’ll be sorry! We’re going to win! We’re going to win! When we win you’ll be sorry!

  51. #51 Mark Byrne
    September 17, 2009

    [Over flowing from the crazy long [Girma thread](, which is now so slow to load]

    Jeff, another [stunning quote]( from “The Wrecking Crew”:

    >*The best public servant is the worst one. A thoroughly first-rate man in public service is corrosive. He eats holes in our liberties. The better he is and the longer he stays the greater the danger. If he is an enthusiast — a bright-eyed madman who is frantic to make this the finest government in the world — the black plague is a housepet by comparison.*

    And Jeff, Thanks for your recommendations also.

  52. #52 Billy Bob Hall
    September 17, 2009

    I assure you bi–IJI I am not certain of winning anything.

    My assessment is that you guys have the ‘upper hand’ now.

    I also assure you I will be sorry if you guys do ‘win’.

  53. #53 Eamon
    September 22, 2009

    Seems Dr Jay Lehr, the Heartland Institute’s Science Director is putting [shite]( out about global cooling that’s been picked up by the [crazies]( in my native land.

    I might just send this on to Helen Roe!