Drudge and the denialists

Yesterday, I wrote:

I wonder how many of the folks accusing NIWA of cooking their data will correct their posts?

Of course, the answer was none of them. Instead, Drudge decided that my post was supporting the trumped out charges against NIWA and linked it. As a result, the comments were overrun by nutty denialists. I added a link to the Copenhagen Diagnosis to the top of my post and it would seem that this to Drudge what sunlight is to vampires, because he deleted the link. In the meantime someone blindly following Drudge put a link on Digg that presented my post as saying the opposite of what it did.

And over at WUWT one Gene Nemtz decided that the IPCC or someone was magically redirecting links:

It appears there is something going on with links going to ClimateGate stories. Some are being redirected to sites that say something like this:

You are being lied to–man is causing climate to change

A Drudge link to the NZ temp story actually ended up [at my post]

Below the fold for your amusement, a selection of the nutty comments from Drudgoids:

It’s not science, it’s the religion of the left… Science has never had one thing to do with it. It is simply about destroying the very concept of God and replacing it with MASSIVE government! All hail his royal FUCKTARD COWARD, Barack Obama!

Folks, this climate deal is very easy. Show us the raw data over time from the same sites over many years using equipment that does not require adjustments of any kind. Simple. We do not trust people or equipment that needs judgments of opinion when it comes to altering our lifestyles significantly and costing us Trillions of Dollars, not to mention the anxiety added.

Sounds like a bunch of you morons are a little upset that the biggest scam in the history of the world is out of the bag and into the light where it will die the death it deserves. Can’t wait to see Al Gore in jail oh happy happy day.

Is this computer scientist on the AGW dole, modeling grants say, or just a true believer? Because what kind of scientist hears “ADJUSTMENTS” and their BS detectors do not flutter. Enjoy your carbon trading scam, Zealanders.

ROFLMAO, Kool-Aid for everyone. Sorry idiot, we don’t bow down to your religion, and the curtain has been pulled from your hoax. What part of FALSIFYING DATA TO MAKE NON-EXISTANT TRENDS LOOK LIKE WARMING don’t you understand. You and your ilk can continue bowing down to Lord Obama, or whatever other liberal idol you want, but THE WORLD NOW KNOWS IT WAS A COMPLETE HOAX, AND YOUR RELIGION IS DEAD. TRYING TO CHANGE THAT FACT BY CONTINUING TO MASSAGE THE EMAILS IS NOT GOING TO HELP YOU. WE SEE WHAT THEY SAY, AND THEY SIMPLY SUPPORT THE FACTS WE ALREADY KNEW. YOUR GOOSE IS COOKED.

Tim L – Please seek mental help. AGW is hoax and you continue to push this hoax on a public that is aware of it. You and your colleagues look like idiots. Please STOP. Give it 5 or 10 years and a new great cause will come along.

Al Gore, q low grade moron has made over 100 million dollars off promoting his global warming scam. Gore has taken 500 million more from the US taxpayers in preparation for the Cap and Trade SCAM. I REST MY CASE. SCAM. SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM.SCAM

Lovely SCAM! Wonderful SCAM!

Comments

#1 Sarah Michael Palin
November 29, 2009

That’s enough discount viscount jokes, CapitalClimate!

The pythonic truth of the matter is that the tribal proclivities of the UEA cult date from the great nerd herd migrations of the late second millennium .

Debarred by acclamation from deb debracation, and debagged and driven from Oxbridge into the East Anglian fens by the Pitt-Bullingdon Hunt, the non-U CRU climatwits committed themselves to hyperbole by establishing the Centre at an average elevation intermediate between the Maldives and Dogger Bank.

Hence their very wet correspondence and ill concealed admiration for the mehods of CEI & The Spanish Inquisition.
#2 Ian Plimer
November 30, 2009

Priceless shot of Plimer, you may use it.
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a277/leavinglv/ian-plimer.jpg
#3 Sarah Michael Palin
November 30, 2009

Nice hard core shot of your soft core larch core Ian. if only trees with rings had evolved a few epochs earlier , Taranto & Morano could switch to denouncing the Great Materialist Snowball Earth Hoax
#4 el gordo
November 30, 2009

Why do deniers like Penny Wong (so immersed in the propaganda) exhibit ‘opinionated ignorance’ on an issue of such critical importance, to all of us, for generations to come?

She is the Minister responsible.
#5 Janet Akerman
November 30, 2009

El gordo,

You think Wong is denying the overwhelimg evidence of climate science?

Or you think that Wong hasn’t bothered to read even the summaries of science?

What is your evidence for either?
#6 el gordo
November 30, 2009

Minister Wong is a worthy politician and I hope this global warming hoax doesn’t ruin her career.
#7 Steve Chamberlain
November 30, 2009

el gordo (104), absolutely right, the Rudd govt CPRS as proposed (and espoused by Wong) is perfectly woeful as a vehicle for actually reducing Autralia’s GHG emissions. 5%?? Is that what all the fuss is about?

Glad to have you with us.
#8 Janet Akerman
November 30, 2009

Reads like confirmation of my [previous assessment](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/drudge_and_the_denialists.php#comment-2111449) of el gordo’s little smear fettish.
#9 el gordo
November 30, 2009

The Senate vote on the CPRS will be the oddest sight, with the Greens and Nats holding hands.

Could this be the long awaited agrarian revolution?

I have new respect for Keith Briffa for standing up to his colleagues and telling them there was a MWP.
#10 san quintin
November 30, 2009

I spent some time yesterday over at Christopher Booker’s Daily Telegraph (mad right-wing UK newspaper). Out of over 400 posts only about 3 showed any sense. All the rest were shouting that AGW was a tax-raising scam, a socialist plot. It was all extremely depressing, although I did enjoy pointing out that none of them clearly had any expertise in climate science yet were arrogant enough to think that they knew enough to debate with scientists (Dunning-Kruger writ large). However, if this is how most people think, then we’ve got a fight on our hands. In a perverse way, I hope that 2009 or 2010 breaks the 98 record.
#11 Paul UK
November 30, 2009

Re trolls and not reacting.

This can be a problem if the forum (not this blog) is on a site that is supposed to have a specific view, but one of the moderators is opposed to it. eg. a moderator trolls the forum!

Yes, believe me, it does happen.

I think the owners of the forum think they are being nice and fare.
#12 TrueSceptic
November 30, 2009

110 san quintin,

These denydiots can’t wait to tell the world for the 1,000th time how warmofascist econazis are taking over the world so they naturally congregate at blogs like Booker (Telegraph) and Phillips (Mail). You will also find them at Monbiot (Guardian) but of course the moderation is a little different there.

I don’t think they’re representative of anyone other than wingnut gobshites.
#13 Jeremy C
November 30, 2009

A person I know went to the Spectator/Plimer non debate here in London. I asked this person what he thought of it (knowing he holds conservative views on various things). The reply was that the audience convinced him that global warming must be true as it was full of nutters going on about AGW being a government plot to control people and wrest more tax (and Nick Minchin wasn’t even there to prompt).

I asked him what Plimer had to say and this guy told me that the geological history stuff that Plimer talked about was really interesting. Fair enough. I asked him if Plimer mentioned volcanoes spewing out more CO2 than human activities. Suprised, he said yes. I told him that was an old trick of Plimer’s and it just wasn’t true. My aquaintance was a bit taken aback at that and I think it just confirmed for him the conclusion he had reached.
#14 Eli Rabett
November 30, 2009

Over at Rabett Run, Eli decided to start calling the denialists starlings, and Ed Darell pointed out that it really was a good description of them. They are not just noisy, but noisy in gangs. Starlings drive songbirds out of their nests, harass the songbird young, steal their food, and generally pose a barbarian-style blight upon the bird world.

and more. An altogether apt description
#15 dhogaza
November 30, 2009

Starlings are also very smart in an annoying, clever kind of way …
#16 caerbannog
November 30, 2009

Here’s the old “chess with pigeons” description of what it’s like to debate a creationist, revised and updated for the AGW “debate”:

Debating global-warming with an AGW “skeptic” is basically playing chess with a starling.

He’ll knock over the pieces, crap all over the board, and then fly back to his flock to claim victory.
#17 clippo
November 30, 2009

Re: 81 & *82

Yes Truesceptic, BVL is devoid of critical faculties but I can assure you he’s a pussycat to some of the others. I do know Besoeker and Ron well and I’ve always admired their critical support.

Yes also I have quoted those much admired, by me, sites such as Greenfyre, Tamino , RealClimate, here, logicalscience and many other science blogs as well as the Union of Concerned Scientists etc. etc. etc. but they usually ignore this and respond with papers from Energy & Environment, or the Cato institute and so on.

See what I mean – with lack of intelligence like that what can you do. But I have found that they can’t stand proper Peer-review – winds them up really quickly.

& Re: 110

by san quintin,
Booker is unbelieveable – but like Plimer has a 2nd book to sell. I am a regular reader of the Telegraph and I have noticed a slight thawing of it’s attitude to CC – especially since Geoffrey Lean joined them but like all newspaper and much media, they know that controversy sells. I’ve written hundreds of times to the DT about CC and other topics but they only published a letter once. Recently, they published another article by Lord Lawson of Blaby against CC (the old story that it’ll cost too much etc.) – but he’s got directorships in some energy companies and is indirectly related to an ex editor of the DT and the infamous Monckton. What can you do when such a family of nutters have it all sewn up. How Lawson produced a daughter like Nigella beats me.
#18 clippo
November 30, 2009

To add to my criticism of the Telegraph, today they have published on letter about CC – another idiot raising the NIWA study, (the original purpose of this thread) and claiming they fiddled the data.

No peer-review in the DT editorial team.
#19 el gordo
November 30, 2009

I noticed the queen of Australia rabbiting on about how we should become more environmentally aware and reduce our consumption of energy. Which is a bit rich considering how many castles she has to heat.

Rumor has it that the royal family are going to quit Britain and live on their ship in the Med, around the Greek islands, to reduce their carbon footprint.

According to this morning’s paper, Malcolm lite has more supporters amongst Labor voters than the traditional conservative base.

The world has turned upside down.
#20 M Btok
November 30, 2009

I believe the Copenhagen Treaty Summit should be cancelled! How in God’s name can this be considered a legal agreement when a “Huge Amount” of the basis for the “Climate Change Data” has been found to be “Fraudulently Sabotaged” and absolutely “Inaccurate”? This is signing a contract or agreement Document that has “No Legal Foundation” of Realistic conditions or elements due to “Inaccurate and Manipulated Data” as described and therefore, anything stated on this “Copenhagen Treaty Document” should be considered “Null and Void”! Why create a Pandora’s Box, subject to “Lawsuits and Misgivings” due to total inaccuracy of “Scientific Measurements”? Which “Now” is proving to be the case! This Treaty has no Legal ground to stand on and is and will be a “False Document” from day one!

Any International lawyers Canadian or American, that want to help keep our Sovereignty and Freedom should Pres. Obama or PM Harper sign this treaty?

Find out what Governments are doing behind your back, go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU
#21 Janet Akerman
November 30, 2009

M Btok writes:

>*a “Huge Amount” of the basis for the “Climate Change Data” has been found to be “Fraudulently Sabotaged” and absolutely “Inaccurate”?*

Wow, if only assertion could replace evidence then M Btok would have quite a case!
#22 ScaredAmoeba
November 30, 2009

el gordo @ 119

Rumor has it that the royal family are going to quit Britain and live on their ship in the Med, around the Greek islands, to reduce their carbon footprint.

Well, I’m no monarchist, but you’ve either got your wires crossed, or made it up.
The British Royal family have no Royal Yacht!

On 11 December 1997 Royal Yacht Britannia was decommissioned at Portsmouth Naval Base.

From http://www.royalyachtbritannia.co.uk
#23 ScaredAmoeba
November 30, 2009

Re: M Btok @ 120

Is this parody stupid or the genuine article?

If genuine, this person should be provided with a lifetime prescription of psychoactive drugs, a strait-jacket and free full-board and lodging of the padded type with no internal door handle.
#24 Steve Chamberlain
November 30, 2009

Possibly even more bizarre than all the insanitary posts from the anti-science trolls on Deltoid in the last week put together is the news that the Coalition has just voted Tony “People Skills” Abbott (aka the Mad Monk) as its leader, beating the incumbent (Turnbull) by one vote.

God’s honest truth. Read and weep:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/01/2758221.htm

The Coalition – from irrelevance to insanity in one leap. Barkingly, howlingly, rabidly insane.
#25 Janet Akerman
November 30, 2009

Speaking [of denialist](http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/01/2758221.htm),

We now get a science vs denial election campaign.

We now will hear repeated continuously how internalising the costs of carbon will wreck our economy. And how we must not lead but follow poor nations, with average incomes a fith and one tenth our ours. And how we must contiue undercut any efforts to internalise this in business practices.
#26 JennieL
November 30, 2009

Possibly even more bizarre than all the insanitary posts from the anti-science trolls on Deltoid in the last week put together is the news that the Coalition has just voted Tony “People Skills” Abbott (aka the Mad Monk) as its leader, beating the incumbent (Turnbull) by one vote.

Oh yes – this is pretty funny.
I’m very much hoping to be voting in a DD at the earliest possible opportunity…
#27 Janet Akerman
November 30, 2009

Brings to mind the Taoist “We’ll See…” [story](http://goto.bilkent.edu.tr/gunes/ZEN/zenstories.htm)

>We’ll See…

>There is a Taoist story of an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit.

>”Such bad luck,” they said sympathetically.

>”We’ll see,” the farmer replied.

>The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses.

>”How wonderful,” the neighbors exclaimed.

>”We’ll see,” replied the old man.

>The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune.

>”We’ll see,” answered the farmer.

>The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son’s leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out.

>”We’ll see” said the farmer.

Another election where the “centre ground” is weather to do anything at all on climate. Would the farmer celebrate this manufactured centre?
#28 Donald Oats
November 30, 2009

Great. Here in Oz we now have a party that wants Intelligent Design taught in public schools, and who believes that climate science is a crock, let alone AGW.
Led by a man whose religious base tried to keep Galileo from speaking from evidence, not dogma. Led by a man that is against stem cell research, against the woman’s right to choose, against welfare for single mothers (but provided middleclass well-fare for double income mothers), and for locking up boat-arrival refugees indefinitely (7 years is the record so far).

I’m looking forward to the coming political fight, it will be a real doozy.
#29 JennieL
November 30, 2009

Janet Akerman @127:

Well obviously the farmer would deny that celebration was ever appropriate, but would also deny that despair was ever appropriate…

However, I take your point – and I really like the parable.

It’s probably unwise to celebrate the election of People Skills on the assumption that we’ll now get the best case scenario – a DD election with an increased government majority and a strengthened ETS. I hope this is what happens, but there are too many factors at play, not least of which is the government’s lack of resolve on this issue. Personally I’m vacillating between extreme apprehension and morbid fatalism.

Nevertheless, on the assumption that the howlingly insane are still a minority amongst the general voting population, there is some amusement to be gained in seeing the opposition state so decisively that this is the only constituency they intend to represent.

Also, if they’re not a minority, then we’re all doomed and there’s nothing else to do but laugh…
#30 el gordo
November 30, 2009

ScaredAmoeba

The moral in all this is not to believe rumors.

Jenniel

…’if they’re not a minority’. They are at the moment, but their numbers will swell as we get closer to the election.
#31 Janet Akerman
November 30, 2009

Donald,

In short we’ve now got a party who are running right to the base that would be refelected by the crazies who were the topic of this thread.

Have you noticed the ideolgical armour put up by the hard right to justify doing nothing on climate change? “Were the party of lower taxes and small government”.

So in their philosophy, that singular means/policy must be preserved above all else? They aiming for a tactic instead of a stated goal. What about complexity, nuance, and dynamic evolution of structures of power? Nothing stands still except their solution! And their sacred tactic can always be justified if they they put it ahead of any stated goal.

Why are they articuling their goal on climate change? Cos they are about fig leaves. I think we’ve got to hammer them to state their goal. They are trying to have it both ways, and get by on dog whistle politics.

If they are forced to articulate their goal on climate, each of their actions can held to accout and compared to their stated goal.

[Notably, I believe their last governent (1996-2007) taxed more and spent more than any government before them. So not only is their solution stangnant, but its just PR.]
#32 Janet Akerman
November 30, 2009

Should read: *Why **aren’t** they articuling their goal on climate change?*
#33 Chris O'Neill
November 30, 2009

el gordo:

Minister Wong is a worthy politician and I hope this global warming hoax doesn’t ruin her career.

Like it ruined Malcolm Turnbull’s. Good one gordo, ahahahahahahahahahahahaahah.
#34 el gordo
November 30, 2009

‘ The planet deserves the benefit of the doubt.’ Rupert Murdoch May 14, 2007

‘The earth deserves the benefit of the doubt.’ Joe Hockey Dec. 1, 2009

Yesterday’s men.
#35 Janet Akerman
November 30, 2009

Green’s Senator Milne

>*”The Government has always been keen to frame this as a question of action vs inaction on climate change”*

Now Minchin and the extreme right have made Rudd’s task easier. Rudd can be less ambious on climate and still look he is doing something meaningful. Unless….

That is unless the centre-ground can be shifted to between ALP and another party. That’s going to require all of the follwing:

1) Moderate libs shifting to ALP and Greens;

2) ALP supports abandoning the unambitous climate policies and some centre-right positions of the ALP;

3) Stepwise expantion and acceleration in the Greens grassroots engagement with local communtites and local issues.

If the momemetum starts to shift at lot of the ‘follower’ class with start to get interested.
#36 Steve Chamberlain
December 1, 2009

Janet (135), it’s made it easier for Rudd in some ways (calling a DD election, or watering down an already pi$$-weak CPRS). OTOH getting any CPRS through (before or after any potential election) will mean he and Wong will have to strike a bargain with the Greens, which I think they will find a lot less palatable than arguing the toss with Turnbull.

PS sorry for the thread hijack but I thought it was important enough to run the risk. Maybe time for another open thread Tim so this stuff doesn’t dilute the point of this one?
#37 Janet Akerman
December 1, 2009

Steve, JennieL,

Yes, I’m in a ‘half-emtpy’ type of mood today.
#38 Chris O'Neill
December 1, 2009

Steve Chamberlain:

el gordo (104), absolutely right, the Rudd govt CPRS as proposed (and espoused by Wong) is perfectly woeful as a vehicle for actually reducing Autralia’s GHG emissions. 5%??

This 5% reduction occurs AFTER the population increases by 24% by 2020. So per person, the reduction is actually 24% (by coincidence). If you want to sheet home blame for the “woeful” 5%, then blame Australia’s immigration and family payments policy.

BTW, if the world wanted to put the brakes on carbon emissions, then one of the last things it would do is to encourage high population growth in places such as Australia with high carbon emissions per person. From a global carbon emissions point of view, high population growth in Australia is a stupid policy.
#39 Chris O'Neill
December 1, 2009

el gordo:

‘The earth deserves the benefit of the doubt.’ Joe Hockey Dec. 1, 2009

Yesterday’s men.

Unlike,….. Tony Abbott. Ahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

More comedy gold from el gordo.
#40 el gordo
December 1, 2009

Greg Hunt should be given the flick by the pug.
#41 Jeremy C
December 1, 2009

I’m not so sure Tony Abbot’s leadership win means a sure outcome for climate science and reason on the Australian scene (non Australian contributors please indulge me).

If his win leads to a double dissolution I think there are two BIG weaknesses for getting Ausralia onto a low carbon path.

The first is that the government has consistently failed to explain how the ETS will lower emissions. The more astute media commentators have been highlighting this for nearly a year now.we all see it as a gift of corporate welfare with no targets attached.

The second is the way the deniers are going around the country addressing the community whenever and whereever they can. Yes they are talking to the faithful but they are exploiting people’s concern and feelings/perceptions of lack of control at the way things are unfolding in Australia.

The first will feed the second and don’t forget the deniers are not a rabble like the hansonites were. In their fanaticism they are are articulate and driven by the fury of their thwarted ego and ideology. Look at how this has played out in the liberal party with egos like Nick Minchin.

Can anybody tell me whether the message on the science and how to address AGW is being explained in the Australian community at a grassroots level where people’s concerns are? Just because AGW appears to have been embedded, however imperfectly, at policy level dones’t mean people will vote for it.

We can laugh at Tony Abbot’s election but i think it shows that yet again the message of the science may be driven away.
#42 el gordo
December 1, 2009

Jeremy, lets all hope the msm can educate the populace before the next election.

Abbott is an inclusive politician who will galvanize all the deniers and sceptics within the coalition to go out on the hustings and tell the people about this ‘green tax’.

Those in the party who followed the Turnbull line will have to recant and be reeducated about climate change. So it’s all smooth sailing from where I’m standing.

Inferno wrote this gem on deniers: ‘When so-called ‘experts’ in their ‘peer reviewed journals’ say one thing, we dare the impossible and find imaginative ways to believe something else entirely.’
#43 Chris O'Neill
December 1, 2009

Jermy C:

Jeremy C:

The first is that the government has consistently failed to explain how the ETS will lower emissions. The more astute media commentators have been highlighting this for nearly a year now.we all see it as a gift of corporate welfare with no targets attached.

It’s pretty simple in principle which is all you need to know for how it is supposed to work. The government sells/gives out a finite number of permits and reduces the number of permits as reductions in emissions are required. People with a vested interest are only interested in creating confusion so they’ll talk about anything but the basic principle.
#44 Chris W
December 1, 2009

For those who think Nick Minchin can’t be as bad as he’s been made out to be over the last few days … a little snippet from today’s Oz. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/nick-minchin-was-a-sceptic-on-tobacco/story-e6frgczf-1225805535960.

Jesus wept !!
#45 Chris O'Neill
December 1, 2009

el gordo:

Those in the party who followed the Turnbull line will have to recant and be reeducated about climate change.

We have ways of making you recant.

So it’s all smooth sailing from where I’m standing.

Comedy platinum.
#46 Jeremy C
December 1, 2009

Chris,

Its that simple message that the government seems to not have got across. All the Australian newspapers report is how much more ‘compensation’ various industries get or are demanding whether ‘trade exposed’ or not.

The lobbying is what is getting reported, not the government’s reaction or consideration of the lobbying in line with what it is trying to do. Plus confused and vague stories about the cost of domestic power going up for a perceived lack of emissions reduction by the generators. This isn’t only the government’s fault as the greens’ very public criticsm has perhaps blunted the government’s message to the avergae Australian punter.
#47 Tom
December 1, 2009

To those that care… From a sinner like me… God loves all of us and though we still sin, he forgives us. That is the way it will be until he takes us home. That, is His Truth. The Bible is Christ. Christ is the Word. Ask and you too will be forgiven. Love to all, Tom
#48 TrueSceptic
December 1, 2009

147 Tom,

Umm. Anything about the topic?
#49 Steve Chamberlain
December 1, 2009

The Australian Senate rejects the Rudd Government’s proposed CPRS:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/02/2759595.htm

Quote:
‘Senator Fielding said Australians did not want to rush ahead on the legislation and had started to question climate change science.

“The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) makes the GST look minor,” he said.

“How can you vote for the CPRS when so many Australians have questions?”‘
#50 Chris W
December 2, 2009

Yes Jeremy C, couldn’t agree more … but I’m also thinking that maybe Wong and her deputy, Combet, are just not the personality types to be selling this thing to the Australian people.

For some reason I can’t quite fathom, Wong unfailingly pesents as a humourless and (mostly) emotionless android, while Combet just seems to restrict himself to filling the role of faithful, but menacing, second banana.

They’re both undoubtably talented, able, and intelligent individuals but I can’t help the feeling that, to date, the most articulate and passionate politicians on this subject have been Turnbull and MacFarlane (and they got thrown out with the Coalition bathwater).

Cheers
Chris
#51 ThomasS
December 2, 2009

How can anyone look at the graph of the earth’s temperatures over the last 100,000 years and not see a cardiogram that virtually guarantees a coming Ice Age with the attendant ruin it will bring? Can you tell me that GW will not help delay this? Can you tell me what my recourse is if you’re wrong? Can I reclaim my plans if you are? Can I take it out of your flesh as you desire to take it out of mine? The unanswered questions are legion and the rush for political control is blood-chilling. And its funny how the advocates’ self-interest, in grants and political inclinations, all seem to line up so nicely with the theory. Nevermind, I must be paranoid. You’re right. Take my freedom and my money and all my future plans in hand and do with them as you please . . . RIGHT!
#52 ThomasS
December 2, 2009

Correction: The time frame should be 450,000 rather than 100,000

Here is the chart:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_tm33tTS2iZc/RizPy2CJfjI/AAAAAAAAADY/A1bBqSYdgbE/s400/global_temp2.jpg

I propose a test. I will show this chart to my niece and nephew (9 & 11) and ask them what they think will happen next based on what they see. I suspect that they will prove both more aware and correct than y’all.

I’ll be back with the results . . .

Why don’t you try it?
#53 ThomasS
December 2, 2009

Google Global Tempertures for the last 450,000 years
#54 Tom
December 2, 2009

Just so there is not any confusion; please always remember that “It is not where you are at, it is who(Christ) you are in.” Love to all, Tom
#55 Bud
December 2, 2009

“Google Global Tempertures for the last 450,000 years”

No. I would, but I’m scared that if I do my entire worldview will be blown out of the water and shattered into so much…erm…disconnected information by what I see.

Unless it’s information of temperatures for the last 450000 years, which is nothing new to anyone.
#56 TrueSceptic
December 2, 2009

152 ThomasS,

[This one](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png) or [this one](http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature_Rev_png)?

Now, from those graphs, roughly how many years away is the next minimum? If we wanted to stave off the next ice age, when should we start doing something?
#57 luminous beauty
December 2, 2009

Tom,

This might help with your prognostication:

< http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Milankovitch%20cycles>

#58 Vindicated
December 2, 2009

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125970198500271683.html

Told you two weeks ago that he was busted!!
#59 TrueSceptic
December 3, 2009

157 luminous,

That’s obviously all lies as it was produced by climate scientists!

No response from ThomasS yet…
#60 TrueSceptic
December 3, 2009

158 Vindicated,

The obvious thing to do while the matter is investigated.

British Researcher Leaves Post Temporarily Amid Probe Sparked by Hacked Emails
#61 Hawkyns
December 3, 2009

I really am amazed by the bigotry that occurs on these comment threads. I really have not seen this kind of hatred for a long time.

People disagree with you, or you disagree with them. So you mock them. You feel proud about it, you pat each other on the back because you managed to make fun of some people than couldn’t defend themselves. You call them “fanatics” and a “cult”. I mean, can you be more pathetic? These people have legitimate concerns about an issue that will affect a lot of people no matter which way it goes. You just want to brush it all off because you think it’s stupid of them to be skeptical. But consider the political weight that this matter carries and you can see that we should examine this throughly. The fact that these emails would have been deleted by the people that wrote them says a lot about the integrity of these scientists.

As far as the quotes you posted- face it- there are radicals on each side of the isle. I could pull up equally stupid quotes made in favor of global warming. Both sides attract uneducated idiots. So how about this: instead of joining the crowd, why don’t you look at it neutrally, instead of making assumptions and deciding that because people you disagree with have an opinion on a matter, your opinion must be the polar opposite.
#62 Chris W
December 4, 2009

Hawkyns,

“The fact that these emails would have been deleted by the people that wrote them says a lot about the integrity of these scientists.”

Huh ?? Those e-mails would have been deleted ?? As far as I recall the stolen mail went back 10 years or so; doesn’t sound like much deleting has been going on now does it.

I ask you, AGW has been examined “thoroughly” for at least the last 30 years so when do you think the time to start taking it all seriously would be ?

When will unequivocal warming, receding glaciers, melting ice caps, rising sea levels, earlier flowering plants, species migrating poleward, extended mid-latitude droughts, huge potential future risks to national economies etc, (all linked to rising CO2 levels) bring you out from behind your flaccid “amazement at the bigotry” figleaf and give you some sort of pause to consider that climate change might be a real and increasing threat.

It may be hard for you to grasp this but the IPCC reports distill the considered and professional findings of thousands of climate scientists. They’re also accepted as a firm basis for policy-making by every national government **on** **the** **planet**.

Surely we can stop this obsessive fretting over name-calling and start doing something substantial about AGW … now ?
#63 Hawkyns
December 4, 2009

“Huh ?? Those e-mails would have been deleted ?? As far as I recall the stolen mail went back 10 years or so; doesn’t sound like much deleting has been going on now does it.”

Somebody hadn’t been paying attention.

“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.”

“I ask you, AGW has been examined “thoroughly” for at least the last 30 years so when do you think the time to start taking it all seriously would be ?”

Again, somebody isn’t paying attention- 30 years ago, everyone was panicking about global cooling, and the next ice age.

For your paranoia-induced list of “evidence”, I offer this:

Melting ice caps/glaciers- in the northern hemisphere only, as the southern hemisphere experiences record ice coverage.

Recall too, that what glaciers usually do is melt…

Rising sea levels- barely. Try this: put a bunch of ice cubed in a dish with water. Mark the water level and let it melt. The next day, check the water level. There will be no change, as the mass of the ice is already displacing water.

Earlier flowering plants? Fine by me. Recall that “ice is the enemy of life”. The tropical rainforests contain the highest biodiversity on earth. Warming would be quite nice to see, considering how rainforests would spread.

Spieces migrating poleward- proof? And not just proof that it’s abnormal, but that it’s happening?

Extended droughts- ever hear of the dust bowl? That was what, 80 years ago?

As far as financial risks, I abhor even the concept of money. Financial risks to countries sounds great.

Now, this may be hard for you to grasp, but politics influences science. Simply because politicians pay the scientists. If global warming is “in”, and you want to survive, you’re going to do everything you can to make it look like the politicians are right, because that way you get grant money.

“They’re also accepted as a firm basis for policy-making by every national government on the planet.”

Apparently not, if not all countries are concerned about global warming. I certainly don’t see Saudi Arabia doing much to be “green”.

“Surely we can stop this obsessive fretting over name-calling and start doing something substantial about AGW … now ?”

Or are you just upset because I called you out as the bigot you’ve shown yourself to be?

My bottom line is that I don’t think global warming is man-made. And if I did believe it was, I would do everything I could to bring about more of it. Because that’s what will best foster life on this planet.
#64 tigtog
December 5, 2009

Again, somebody isn’t paying attention- 30 years ago, everyone was panicking about global cooling, and the next ice age.

You’re the one who hasn’t been paying attention – what the MSM decided to place in a cover story 30 years ago is a very good indication of what journalists find exciting but has very little relation to what a review of the scientific literature published by climatologists 30 years ago reveals. A handful of people were publishing their theories on global cooling, everybody else was publishing studies of how their data showed warming trends.
#65 Chris W
December 5, 2009

Jeezus Hawkyns,

I’m shocked !!! So much hatred, so much bigotry, so few facts.

Dredging up that 70′s ice-age earth shite is almost the textbook definition of classic denydiot behavior … oh cr*p, now I’ve gone and mocked you with a nasty word … sorry petal … please don’t let my use of denydiot confirm your suspicion that Global Warming must be a great big hoax.

Look, I’m sure somewhere, deep down inside, the more rational part of you realises that your inner hypocrite has taken over and is driving your elemental NEED to swallow hook, line, and sinker, any f*cked-up answer you find on any denier website just as long as it purports to debunk AGW. Don’t be too hard on yourself though … you are being suckered by some of the most devious and dishonest minds **on** **the** **planet**.

So … as an antidote to the normal bilge you so credulously slurp down, can I suggest for starters you ‘neutrally’ browse around the wonderful http://www.skepticalscience.com ? Here’s a couple of links to whet your appetite …

http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-do-the-hacked-CRU-emails-tell-us.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

Don’t forget to check out the articles on East Antartica losing ice and the Overview of glacier trends while you’re there.

BTW: I see from your previous post you’ve maybe pored over those stolen emails (did you memorize them too?) and gullibly accepted everything the howler monkeys a Drudge, WTFUWT, and McSteve say about them … so … how come you’re not at all skeptical about STOLEN stuff, posted by hackers, on the internet ??

I’m thinking you’d probably be called (cover your eyes now petal) a ‘rube’, or (gasp) a ‘sucker’ back in those balmy dust-bowl years.
#66 Hawkyns
December 6, 2009

@Tigtog: Proof please?

Chris,

You really do manage to be a disgrace to the human race. You stoop to mocking, backstabbing tactics. I thought that usually that was a sign of defeat, a sign of a last grasping hold in most debates. You seem to be forgetting a few key things.

1. You seem to be trying to maneuver around the fact that similar things have happened before. Like it or not, people used to be worried about global cooling. It was warming in the 40s and 50s, and cooling before that, in the 20s and 30s. It appears to be a nice little cycle. You seem unable to grasp that concept, as you have to resort to flaming me instead of trying to counter my point. But is that because you simply can’t counter it?

2. I’m sure that you are desparate to convince yourself that I am a total idiot. But please. When I take a stance on an issue, I do not repeat any drivel I see on the internet (you might want to do the same thing). Drudge is a sensationalist tabloid, and FOX is as biased as CNN. I don’t trust people as a rule, if they are right-wing or left-wing. I trust people even less when it comes to money, and there is plenty of money wrapped up in “green” business. In my mind, all humans are “Dishonest and Devious”

3. Global warming is good. As I said before, if it’s not happening, I don’t care, and if it is, I’m happy. There is plenty of uninhabitable land in the far north and south that will be opened up, while the current wildlife can move closer to the poles. Don’t worry about the drowning polar bears- they’ve evolved to have the capability to swim for three days straight, and they have survived thus far. I don’t think they’re in much danger.

4. I’m not going to trust a website dedicated to one side of an arguement any more than I trust FOX to give me accurate news, or Drudge to give me an accurate view of major news articles.

5. When nothing is done to deny the legitimacy of stolen data, it can be reasonably assumed that it is fairly accurate. I trust Anonymous more than I do Al Gore. Also recall, that it is unsure if they were stolen or leaked.

Now one of the things I used to trust was well-written, peer-reviewed scientific papers. I say used to, because id these emails give any indication, peer review may not be as trustable as it once was. So here’s a key excerpt from one I thought interesting:

Between 1900 and 2006, Antarctic CO2 increased 30% per 0.1 °C temperature change (72), and world CO2 increased 30% per 0.5 °C. In addition to ocean out-gassing, CO2 from human use of hydrocarbons is a new source. Neither this new source nor the older natural CO2 sources are causing atmospheric temperature to change.

The hypothesis that the CO2 rise during the interglacials caused the temperature to rise requires an increase of about 6 °C per 30% rise in CO2 as seen in the ice core record. If this hypothesis were correct, Earth temperatures would have risen about 6 °C between 1900 and 2006, rather than the rise of between 0.1 °C and 0.5 °C, which actually occurred. This difference is illustrated in Figure 16.

The 650,000-year ice-core record does not, therefore, agree with the hypothesis of “human-caused global warming,” and, in fact, provides empirical evidence that invalidates this hypothesis.

Source: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

But I feel that the bottom line, as I said, is that if AGW is real, so much the better. Warmth is life. That’s all there really is to it.

BTW, I love how you treat me like I’m 80 years old, minus the respect that most humans have for elderly people. I’m 18, for the record. It always amuses me when I see teenagers like myself being far more mature than grown men on the internet. At least I assume you’re a grown man. If not, I would guess that you’re 14? And that’s giving you leeway, I know fourteen-year-olds that act far more mature, both online and IRL.
#67 Janet Akerman
December 6, 2009

Anther Gish Gallop of bunkem,

Hawkyns starts of by letting us see how self-aware he is:

>*You really do manage to be a disgrace to the human race You stoop to mocking, backstabbing tactics. I thought that usually that was a sign of defeat, a sign of a last grasping hold in most debates.*

Hawkyns continues:

>*Like it or not, people used to be worried about global cooling […]

[Here is]( http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/pdf/i1520-0477-89-9-1325.pdf) some background reading for people considering how to apply this meme.

Hawkyn continues:

>*When I take a stance on an issue, I do not repeat any drivel I see on the internet […]*

Which Hawkyns demonstrates by repeating the global cooling meme, that “warming is good for you” meme, and [extracts of the notorious]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2004/05/oregonpetition.php) Oregon Petition.

Then Hawkyns give us:

>*When nothing is done to deny the legitimacy of stolen data, it can be reasonably assumed that it is fairly accurate.*

Accurate for what? An accurate source of cherry picked out of context quotes on which to based any number of speculative fantasies?
#68 Chris W
December 7, 2009

Hmmm … you’re lurching all over the place Hawkyns, almost schizophrenic in fact. You start as some artless naif, fretting about name calling and bigotry while ignoring the scientific consensus. Next post you charge in, all muscled up and blithering about liking it hot. Now you’re back as an error-riddled sanctimonious windbag.

Frankly bucko, as soon as I saw that OISM shite, ‘Wanker Alert’, started flashing in front of my eyes and any thoughts I might have had of partaking in a bit of sporting banter with you went out the window. Call me immature, even pathetic if you will, but I’d rather chew my own arm off than lose another minute having a non-debate with you.

If it makes you feel better to think you’ve had a bit of a victory here (notwithstanding tigtog gently kicking your brains out and Janet crushing your balls) … go right ahead mate, live it up … chug another stein of your usual bilge.

And, oh yeah … what a surprise !! I’m eighteen too !!! Who’da thunk it ?
#69 Rumpleforeskin
December 9, 2009

Let’s face it global warming (SCAM) is caused by the Sun’s radiation patterns and not by man. Volcanoes produce more carbon emissions in one eruption than all of the carbon ever emitted by humans combined.

You people are fruitcakes.

I refuse to be screwed up the ass by a band of leftist marxist eco freaks with f’d up light bulb in one hand and a micro machines shit car in the other. Let people live. I love V8 engines. I love regular TV and regular light bulbs. If my electric bill goes up one penny becuase of this world fascist socialist dictatorship known as “science” and cap and trade, I am going to shove a CFL bulb up someone’s ass and turn it on.

You ecofreaks are causing more problems than solving. looks like a worldwide cosnpiracy to allow more UN control of our lives to me. I wish we could leave the UN. They are a pathetic attempt at robbery. Most are criminals, socialists, marxists, and Islamic Terror supporters. i say we leave it now.

Socialism will burn in the fires of hell – where it rightfully belongs.
#70 Chris Winter
December 10, 2009

Somebody with a fake handle blathered: “If my electric bill goes up one penny becuase [sic] of this world fascist socialist dictatorship known as “science” and cap and trade, I am going to shove a CFL bulb up someone’s ass and turn it on.”

What will you do when your electric bill goes up because the cost of fossil fuels has risen? I think we can guess. The attempt will certainly fail, but it ought to generate some amusing news headlines.
#71 Rumpleforeskin
December 10, 2009

Somebdoy with a fake agenda (helping the world -SCAM) blathered :

“What will you do when your electric bill goes up because the cost of fossil fuels has risen? ”

————————-

This can be prevented if the far left radical fascists would let us biuld a new nuclear reactor in every state. Idiots. Next, they need to let us drill more -anywhere there is oil. Screw the EPA and the fascist enviroradicals. Some oil is abiotic and not a fossil fuel. Again – idiots.
#72 Chris W
December 11, 2009

Hawkyns, can you come back and slap Foreskin around … he’s being a dick.

Please give him your “amazed by the bigotry” spiel, or better yet, one of your “You call them ‘fanatics’ and a ‘cult’. I mean, can you be more pathetic?” homilies.

Or do you just direct your wrath towards those who accept the scientific consensus ?

Thanks in advance,
Chris W
#73 Brian
December 12, 2009

Wow,

IMO,

It seems like the deniers and the alarmists are very polarized. I’ve spent quite a lot of time with the data and buried in the issue and I can’t seem to find the support for anthropogenic global warming. I don’t know how you alarmists convince yourselves. At best it is a hypothesis with limited data support. Furthermore, it seems more of a debate between socialists and libertarians. Who the heck wants to tax carbon if it is not absolutely needed? It’s a government invasion of lifestyle and privacy. Environmentalism is a good thing in moderation, but save the climate…give me a break, it does not need saving at all.

Peace, another loony environmental scientist
#74 dhogaza
December 12, 2009

I’ve spent quite a lot of time with the data and buried in the issue and I can’t seem to find the support for anthropogenic global warming.

Oh, yes, I’m sure you have …

/snark
#75 GFW
December 12, 2009

Well Brian, you’re wrong.

On the one hand you have a bunch of scientists who have uncovered a seriously dangerous side-effect of our current approach to power generation. They reported it, they kept researching, finding more and more corroboration. Meanwhile actual measured temperatures kept going up. Over 30 years of being nearly ignored by policy makers, some of the scientists have become political, and they are saying that as a result of the science, we (the human race) need to organize ourselves in such a way as to mitigate the danger. If social organization for the common good is socialism, well, that’s what the science demands.

On the other hand, you have people who believe that libertarianism must always be best. Because there can be no libertarian answer to AGW, they must deny its existence on ideological grounds.

One of these positions is grounded in reality. The other is fantasy and denial.
#76 TrueSceptic
December 12, 2009

169 Rumple,

Nice parody. I hope you also post at Denial Depot.
#77 TrueSceptic
December 12, 2009

173 Brian,

Another nice spoof. Thanks.
#78 TrueSceptic
December 12, 2009

166 Hawkyns,

Are you some sort of ageist?

FWIW I think it works better if we shift the decimal point: 8.0 works much better that 80 in your case.