Firedoglake book salon on James Hoggan's "Climate Coverup"

My review of Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming is up at the Firedoglake book salon. It begins:

Question: What's the difference between a computer salesman and a used car salesman?

You'll have to click through to find out the answer.

More like this

Q. What's the difference between a computer salesman and a used car salesman?
A. You'll have to click through to find out the answer.

Sorry, don't get it.

By Ezzthetic (not verified) on 06 Dec 2009 #permalink

Roy Spencer makes a good point..."What if the intercepted emails uncovered medical researchers discussing the fudging and hiding of cancer research data, and trying to interfere with the peer review process to prevent other medical researchers from getting published? There would be outrage from all across the political spectrum. Scientists behaving badly while the health of people was at stake would not be defended by anyone.

So why should it be any different with Climategate? Unnecessary restrictions on (or price increases for) energy use could needlessly kill millions of people who are already poverty stricken. Cancer research affects many of us, but energy costs affect ALL of us."

Of course a new car salesman, like James Hoggan, Tim and the Deltoid muppets have only a limited understanding of both climate and cancer.

Re #2.

We were outraged when the medical researchers hired by tobacco companies did exactly what you are talking about. Funnily enough, the very same people involved in that little fiasco are using much the same strategy to muddy the waters of climate research.

"the very same people involved in that little fiasco are using much the same strategy to muddy the waters of climate research"

So who are they Jimmy? Any names for us?

@Lank: the most obvious person is one Fred Singer...

Lank,

I addressed a similar question [else where](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/even_the_tobacco_companies_nev…).

Imagine if there were improper practice occurring, why have sceptics (or even denialist) not done the hard yards to put a cogent case together?

They opt instead for smear and innuendo. If I thought there was wrong doing I would gather all the contextual evidence, follow all the email clues, read all the cited papers discussed and nail the perpetrators.

Phoneys instead just push out PR propaganda.

If campaigners harassed cancer researchers, bombed them with a coordinated campaign of 5O FOI requests in five days, maligned their work with unsupportable methodologies (getting unsupportable papers in publication by gaming the peer review process.)

Then if you stole their emails and you applied that same standard of guilt (guilt by cherry picked quotes, assertion and speculation) to Cancer researchers, I wouldn't be surprised to find a similar level of evidence.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 06 Dec 2009 #permalink

Lank sez: "who are they Jimmy? Any names for us?"

I name one of them in my review and *Climate Cover-up* names more. Try clicking on the link to the review, Lank.

"medical researchers hired by tobacco companies" are 'muddying the waters of climate research' ??

I've clicked your link Tim but cant find these people.

Lank, dude.

Tim devotes and entire paragraph to one of them. You have to actually read the review after you click the link, you know.

I found it Lank, its very obvious, the name of the "group" and its leader. Initials JS and SM (Leader).

Try again.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 06 Dec 2009 #permalink

Alarmist journalists like Paul D. Thacker and George Monbiot, as well as the Union of Concerned Scientists and others, have contended that Milloy is a paid advocate for the tobacco industry.
Is he?
Do you believe these guys Janet or do you just take what they write as the 'truth'?
What proof do you have Tim?

Janet writes "If I thought there was wrong doing I would gather all the contextual evidence, follow all the email clues, read all the cited papers discussed and nail the perpetrators"..

I understand many have done this and it seems that they are finding some 'wrong doing'.

Now it seems there may be some hammering to be done!

Hey Tim, thanks to you & Jim coming by FDL for the review & discussion. Very good stuff! I was only sorry I had to leave halfway through.

If you're interested in collecting such odd relics, by the by, here is the most, uh, inventive (?) explanation I've seen so far for why It Would Be Irresponsible to look at the CRU hack and the Canadian break in attempt and suspect a "conspiracy":

The lesson? The snoops who are digging for a smoking gun at the Canadian climate facility are misguided for engaging in illegal activity. But they wouldnât be tempted if there was more transparency in the AGW community.

Yeah, someone really wrote that...

I understand many have done this and it seems that they are finding some 'wrong doing'.

You've just shown that you can't read links. And I thought I had defective trolls....

Lank [here is]( http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Front_groups) the page you need to study!

And here are some choice examples:

[Competitive Enterprise Institute](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Insti…)

[JunkScience ](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=JunkScience)

[Greening Earth Society ](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Greening_Earth_Society)

[Energy Citizens]( http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Energy_Citizens)

[EPA Watch ](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=EPA_Watch)

[Global Climate Information Project]( http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Climate_Information_P…)

[Heartland Institute ](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute)

[George C. Marshall Institute ](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_C._Marshall_Institute)

But go through them all and look for patterns. Even patterns in non-climate issues.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 06 Dec 2009 #permalink

Lank writes:

>I understand many have done this and it seems that they are finding some 'wrong doing'

Lank present your evidence.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 06 Dec 2009 #permalink

I understand many have done this and it seems that they are finding some 'wrong doing'.

And my grandson understands that Santa will bring him presents at Xmas. Since he will receive gifts he actually has some basis to his understanding.

Lank, what's the basis for your "understanding"? A link or two would be a pleasant change.

Lank writes:
>*Do you believe these guys Janet or do you just take what they write as the 'truth'?*

I look at the evidence Lank, and there's [quite a bit](http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_Milloy) that says Milloy is funded PR agent for both tobacco and dirty fuel.

I'm happy to look at your counter evidence if you have any.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 06 Dec 2009 #permalink

5 Marco,

And another was Fred Seitz (deceased), who also opposed action on CFCs.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

8 Lank,

Are you a liar or an idiot, or have I missed another possibility?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

11 Lank,

Again, which is it: do you know you are lying or not? It is beyond doubt that Milloy has been funded by industry to put out anti-science propaganda. Now, if that were against the law, he would be in jail, along with a few others. As it's not, he's free, not only in the sense of being a "free man", but also in the sense of being allowed to continue his propaganda campaign.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

@20: World of difference between funding academic studentships and funding pressure groups. I doubt making that bleeding obvious point would do much good over at WUWT though, where they have been ignoring the bleeding obvious for years.

Milloy denies that the emails were stolen, instead claiming that they were released because of a FOIA request and supports a call for Al Goreâs Oscar to be rescinded.

Are you sure "rescind" is correct? I thought it was "lucind" - you lucind an Oscar.

By Ezzthetic (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

Lank:

> I understand many have done this and it seems that they are finding some 'wrong doing'.

I understand Obama might be a communist Muslim. I'm not saying it's true, but he's not denied it. And someone needs to make these insinuati... umm... I mean... ask these questions.

P.S. Can you let me know which part of the science presented by the IPCC has been refuted as a result of the stolen emails and code?

Soon you may "begore" an Oscar, although it's highly unlikely.

What if the intercepted emails uncovered medical researchers discussing the fudging and hiding of cancer research data, and trying to interfere with the peer review process to prevent other medical researchers from getting published?

It would be outrageous. Nothing like this has occurred in climate science, though.

Further, it wouldn't be evidence of the link between smoking and cancer. The true evidence would be in the form of epidemiological studies.

Ezzthetic @24 and John @26: Sorry to spoil the "punditry" but, as usual, Milloy is mistaken. Al Gore has never won an Oscar.

A film about Al Gore won an Oscar, and as Wikipedia puts it:

After winning the 2007 Academy Award for Documentary Feature, the Oscar was awarded to director Guggenheim, who asked Gore to join him and other members of the crew on stage.

What if the intercepted emails uncovered medical researchers discussing the fudging and hiding of cancer research data, and trying to interfere with the peer review process to prevent other medical researchers from getting published?

If the Queen had junk, she'd be the King.

Lank.

Let's cut straight to the chase.

Show us your best piece of evidence from the material stolen from UEA that proves, or even credibly implies, that there has been any scientific malfeasance.

For a gold star and a smiley-face stamp on your wrist, show us your best peer-reviewed paper that disproves human contribution to global warming.

And for an early-mark (do kids still receive them these days?), you might also try answering [my questions here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-…), posed almost one month ago, and asking for your best pieces of evidence that humans are not responsible for the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last several centuries.

Actually, scrub the offer of an early-mark. Little boys who don't do any of their homework don't deserve that.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

And your consistent repetition of those three words everywhere and to everyone, despite numerous demonstrations of their very likely (innocent) meaning, illustrates why these emails were stolen in the first place. Mud sticks.

Is that the best you can do?

Sorry Bud, my comment was directed to loony uncle Bill, not you.

William "out-of-date" Wallace has written on his vacuous web site:

*I love how, back in the 70s, we had the same types of ominous guilt inducing music and narration, but the boogie man was exactly opposite of what it is now. Back then, it was the coming ice age*

This myth has been dispensed with so many times in the past few years that I thought even the most die-hard denialists would be too embarrassed to wheel it out. But along comes WW (# 31) to show that it ain't so.

Basically, the more I read the denialist dirge, the more I think that they will grasp at ANY thread to promote their hollow gospel. Come on William, fess up: what are your qualifications in climate science. Or in any scientific endeavor?

Let me guess - um - nil?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

zoot#33: I'm glad it wasn't directed at me. I'd have been forced to admit that indeed, yes, that's the best I can do without resorting to bad language or copious spluttering.

This myth has been dispensed with so many times in the past few years that I thought even the most die-hard denialists would be too embarrassed to wheel it out.

LOL. Rewrite history, much.

Science: Another Ice Age?.

However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. (Jun. 24, 1974)...
When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since.

Even NPR is turning on you guys now:

So the IPCC is really the authoritative assessment of our science for policymakers. And some of these emails do mention the IPCC and trying to keep certain journal articles or papers out of the IPCC, and I think that's wrong....he things that bothered me were the discussions about trying to deny Freedom of Information Act requests. There were things in there related to trying to unduly influence the peer review process of some skeptical papers, trying to keep them out of the published literature. And this is done because the IPCC will only consider peer-reviewed journal articles in the assessment. So trying to keep certain things out of the literature is a way of keeping them out of the IPCC report.--Dr. Judith Curry interviewed for all things considered

Didn't you get the "ignore climategate" memo to NPR?

William Wallace # 38

You might want to read [The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Consensus](http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/89/9/pdf/i1520-0477-89-9-13…)

It is a survey of the scientific literature from 1965 to 1979 that finds only 7 articles forecasting global cooling whilst 44 predicting a global warming. The warming articles were also more cited in subsequent scientific literature.

By lord_sidcup (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

William Wallace:

Science: Another Ice Age?.

Ah yes, that scientific journal "Time" magazine. Pity William Wallace missed out the following gem in his quote:

Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F.

Even referring to 1974, this is utter bullshit.

William Wallace has zero credibility citing that Time article as scientific evidence. I won't believe anything his says.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

Do that, WW. And ask yourself this: If it was true that the earth cooled for three decades, the arrow pointing downwards, why did most scientists nonetheless insist that we were due for warming? and why did they so suddenly become so dramatically right?

Could it have anything to do with physics?

But by all means, keep on trumpeting the "our side is winning" meme if you want to. Just remember the physics isn't going anywhere.

By Harald Korneliussen (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

How to make global warming, I mean climate change alarmists angry. LOL. Sorry I stepped on your ACC meme.

Liars tend to make most reasonable people angry.

43 Wallace,

What makes *most* people annoyed, perhaps even angry, is people repeating the same lies over and over.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

CLIMATE COVER-UP

âAn imperative read for a successful future.â
~LEONARDO DICAPRIO, Actor and Producer.

Actor and producer!

I'm going to run out and get my copy now!

44 dhogaza,

Snap! ;)

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

That would be "faculties", mrs Malaprop.

What makes most people annoyed, perhaps even angry, is people repeating the same lies over and over.

So instead you just change the lie from coming ice age to global warming to climate change. Much better. LOL. ~~~~

Willy Wally,

[Here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz#Global_warming) is the source of your 'global warming' is now 'climate change' meme.

Interestingly, Frank Luntz himself is a recovering denial-a-holic, but his meme lives on among the Dunning-Kruger impaired.

The real deal is that anthropogenic global warming is a material cause, and disruptive climate change is its inevitable material effect.

You do understand cause and effect, don't you, Willy?

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

50 Wallace,

What makes you think that making further idiotic accusations will somehow support (or perhaps make us forget?) all the previous ones?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

If you have the facts (like the IPCC), pound the facts.

If you have the law (like developing nations claiming mitigation/adaptation $$ during COP-15), pound the law

If you have neither (like William Wallace), pound the table.

Pity the table.

By Former Skeptic (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

Tim, it's not bad as a post, but it could have used a little more information about the book.

By Holly Stick (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

Jeff Harvey | December 7, 2009 10:57 AM:

A new BBC poll shows that the vast majority of the world is very concerned about the effects of climate change.

Markdown interpreted the underscores in your link as italics delimiters. Try this:
Climate Concerns Continue to Increase: Global Poll

William Wallace, is getting far too much attention for simple vacuous statements. He's not talking fact, so he on his home turf.

Just ask him what his new word for the day means?

>*How to make global warming, I mean climate change alarmists angry. LOL. Sorry I stepped on your ACC meme.*

He might not know what it means, but he sure relies on them a lot!

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

The people who believe in AGW the most are currently meeting in Copenhagen. They are the ones that want to drastically reduce carbon-based emissions. Yet, they have to drive Limos in from Germany and use several airports to support all the private jets for the attendees of this conference. If they are not interested in reducing their carbon-footprint and these are the "smartest" people who "get it" then why should we believe them? If it is that important, that dire, would these people be burning carbon like that of many small countries combined? Its BS, the attendees in Copenhagen show us that with their actions.

Jon, the people wanting us to continue rampant burning of fossil fuels are suppressing low carbon alternatives by supporting perverse carbon prices where its cost are not sufficiently internalised.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

Janet,

So... What does that have to do with the actions of the "smart" people currently meeting in Copenhagen? Have these people never heard of "video conferencing"? Or "taxis" or "walking" or "bikes"? I know I know ladies of the evening are much more impressed with a Limo...

William Wallace:

So instead you just change the lie from coming ice age

You just don't get it, do you? Your Time statement:

Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F.

is a lie. You are repeating a lie. You are a liar.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

Jon,

What does it have to do with action of people? Everything.

Will a teleconference enable the high-level interaction required to make this level of multi-lateral agreement? Unfortunately not. Humans respond better in person. Unfortunately our top leaders will burn fuel maximise their interaction and human contact.

Our infrastructure and options as currently offered are based on perverse pricing. Put a price on carbon, people respond to price. What the market respond (if it is allowed and not monopolized).

You'll even have a chance of changing the footprint of the bullet proofed and most well guarded government officials.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

Will a teleconference enable the high-level interaction required to make this level of multi-lateral agreement? Unfortunately not. Humans respond better in person. Unfortunately our top leaders will burn fuel maximise their interaction and human contact.

lol Yep and those private jets and limos are so important for some good quality "face" time. It is obvious people going to Copenhagen do not believe that we are in a crisis a "turning point". Their actions say otherwise.

I think you mean put a "tax" on carbon, regulate it and let a one-world government make decisions for all of us in the nmae of science which the people who are "telling the story" are not acting like they even believe what they tell the rest of us.

Jon,

Resort to conspiracy theory: check!

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

Oh! and Jon,

Private jets? Whose?

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

64: You wish, Lank. 65: Motion rejected (btw. one of those is an Exxon guy! funny coincidence, huh?) 66: Just more "our side wins!!1!" boasting. Physics of gases still aren't changed by popular vote.

By Harald Korneliussen (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

two bodies that may now need to set aside the data altogether and start over

What a load of twaddle, Lank.

Not the most jaundiced, cynical interpretation of the stolen emails from the CRU could suggest that, or anything like it.

You are a time-wasting troll with nothing of substance to say.

Jeff Harvey,

Your link to the BBC report, it wasn't their survey, does not work. But as I heard it on the radio this morning it was a survey of 34,000 people.

Now out of a population of 6.5 billion, how can that be said to represent the "vast majority of the world"?

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

Your link to the BBC report, it wasn't their survey, does not work. But as I heard it on the radio this morning it was a survey of 34,000 people.
Now out of a population of 6.5 billion, how can that be said to represent the "vast majority of the world"?

Oh, my, he's a statistical sample denialist, too?

Chris O'Neill:
You just don't get it, do you? Your Time statement:

Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F.

is a lie. You are repeating a lie. You are a liar.

That, or I was quoting an article.

I notice nobody has given an answer:

So, how much additional heat is there on this planet due to man? (Can't count the hot air that phil jones blows...)

Waiting for those "facts"....

Here's some twaddle from one of yours Gaz...Is Prof Flannery ging to Copenhagen? I'd certainly like to hear him speak on his latest statistical alarmist acrobatics....."overall increase (of the earth's temperature) since the industrial revolution of 25 per cent(sic) -- from 15 to 20 degrees . . ."
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/climate-hyst…

Another example of an alarmist's innacurate, thoughtless and exagerated tripe aimed to shock.

If Science and the challenges ahead : report of the National Science Board (1974 [i.e. 1975])

During the last 20-30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade.

But wait, they were hedging their bets even in 1974[5], LOL:

The cause of the cooling trend is not known with certainty. But there is increasing concern that man himself may be implicated, not only in the recent cooling trend but also in the warming temperatures over the last century.

LOL. We caused cooling and warming. We are the weather gods. We are bad. We must stop progress, or we are doooomed.

You guys crack me up.

Hey, moderator. It's your blog, so you can do what you want, but if you allow it to be overrun by loonies I won't bother with the comments anymore. I'll still read the posts, though. Just so you know.

73 WW,

If you had a clue, you'd look it up. We could give you the figures too, but why bother: whatever you get given, you will just deny the science, won't you? You'd deny that 2+2 = 4 if it conflicted with your ideology.

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

#67 Janet. Conspiracy back at ya. The world's collusion on carbon prices. lol You are pretty funny. You cannot even see the problem people may have with AGW proponents saying its change now or we are all doomed and they themselves practice ZERO caution and ZERO that of which they speak.

No thanks. Until it is important to the proponents will it EVER become important to the skeptics. Too bad you cannot see that.

77 Molnar,

Tim is extremely tolerant. What more do you want? "Censorship"?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

Hank,

Doubling of CO2 will amount to a 1.2C increase in temperature without feedbacks. Thats the physics and the math. However, there is a lot of room for discussion on these feedbacks and how much that may affect the overall impact of increased CO2. To continually refer to "Its warming, man contributes CO2 so all warming is man's responsibility is absurd.

Like I said above, until the proponents act like its a crisis you certainly cannot expect anyone else to act as if it were. Seriously...

Tim is tolerant and when he does ban someone its because they overwhelm a thread with long winded drivel.

Graeme Bird comes to mind.

Jon

Oh, conspiracies do occur, but sensible people compile the evidence to determine reality from distraction.

Put together industry [front groups]( http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Front_groups), [backdoor funding](http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon…) the massive [lobbying](http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?showYear=2009&indexType=s), the campaign contributions, the [massive spending](http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/expenditures.php?cycle=2008) required for a successful campaign. Then [entrenchment](http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/top.php?indexType=u) of powerful well resourced interests. All contributing to concentration of wealth and power. And all providing a terrible challenge for a fair democracy.

Your claim is a conspiracy of ânew world orderâ based on a carbon price? Thatâs a fig leaf and an excuse to run from facts.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

Jon writes:

>*You cannot even see the problem people may have with AGW proponents saying its change now or we are all doomed and they themselves practice ZERO caution and ZERO that of which they speak.*

Jon, I can see the problem, but you are ignoring that Iâve articulated the solution. Your rebuttle: ânew world orderâ.

Get real, a carbon price doesnât mean the end to all travel. It means more thoughtful prioritization. And better investment in efficieny and alternatives.

And guess what? When a semi-democracy/plutocracy elects a government, its appropriate for a government to represent the people. That is, this is priority use of carbon â making democratic engagement on a very important topic.

What is not priority use? Let the market decide, and intervene to prevent further perverse outcomes such as inappropriate burden on the poorer.

Now back to my question, who as you claimed, is using private jets?

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

>Like I said above, until the proponents act like its a crisis you certainly cannot expect anyone else to act as if it were. Seriously...

Disingenuous Jon,

Your interpretation of peoples action won't change the earth's response to increasing GHGs.

And even your basic logic is flawed, there are millions of AGW "proponents" who are not flying and who have made low carbon choices.

Your rebuttle: ânew world orderâ.

Did not type that and you obviously missed the fun I was having at you. Its you, not me that thinks there is a grand price fixing, and avoidance of more "carbon friendly" fuels and power sources.

Now back to my question, who as you claimed, is using private jets?

Obviously quite a few attendees of Copenhagen where they are meeting to discuss what to do about combatting GW. Which, according to those same attendees is a problem caused by, um uh man and uh um man's carbon emissions. Its a Crisis!! Yet they choose the most carbon inefficient ways to hold a conference, not important to them, not important to me.

>To continually refer to "Its warming, man contributes CO2 so all warming is man's responsibility is absurd.

Again Disingenuous Jon,

The findings are that most of the current (50 year) warming trend is anthropogenic (>90% confidence).

Your strawman set-up and victorious knockdown is "absurd", and shows the weakness of your arguemnt.

>"there is a lot of room for discussion on these feedbacks and how much that may affect the overall impact of increased CO2."

like will will be have 2 degrees warming (disaster) for a 6 degree warming (massive population contraction) this century?

And will we beable stop at a doubling of CO2 conentractions?

Disingenuous Jon,

Your interpretation of peoples action won't change the earth's response to increasing GHGs.

Buzz. Wrong it is not disingenuous to point out that the decision makers are not acting as if its a crisis. Of course my opinion will not change the earth's response to increase GHG's. Nice straw man though..

"And even your basic logic is flawed, there are millions of AGW "proponents" who are not flying and who have made low carbon choices."

Buyt thoise are not the vocal in the press proponents and the decision makers are they. Another straw man, you are good at that.

See Sim you went exactly where I thought you would. >90% I thought the science was settled. You are off my point. If the people who are trying to convince us of "dire" conditions show ZERO effort to change their carbon footprint then why should anyone else?

Applogies Jon

Your conspiracy was "one-world government". Presented with zero evidence and a fig leaf for inaction.

The conspiracy I [presented evidence](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame…) for was the self interested powerful industries who are camgaigning for inaction. Its also the topic of this thread.

Whould you like to challenge my evidence, or Hoggens?

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

Sorry Janet I do not believe in conspiracies since Booth shot Reagan after Oswald landed on the moon in Arizona after Armstrong shot Kennedy with Aldrin. You can keep trying to attribute a conspiracy to me, it is not honest to do so.

You brought opinions not evidence. Actions of individuals do not make a conspiracy.

"Like I said above, until the proponents act like its a crisis you certainly cannot expect anyone else to act as if it were. Seriously..."

Bullshit.

You choose to use this particular point to beat those who take global warming seriously with. Whatever. But don't have the fucking temerity to claim your speaking for your imagined "anyone else" and don't expect us to listen when you claim you are swayed by the Copenhagen delegates' mode of transportation. Seriously, there aren't many fools here. It wouldn't make a difference to you if they all arrived by pedalo into France and then cycled to Denmark, would it? Admit it. You'd still be singing the same kind of inactivist tune. Except this time it'd be "until the proponents act in a manner that would be more realistic for the average person, no one is going to take them seriously".

Look, I'm not massively keen on the pomp and bollocks surrounding international diplomacy. My own philosophy would profess myself satisfied with a commercial flight into the nearest common airport followed by a charted coach with one toilet only and standing room for whatever country arrived late (USA, I'm looking at you). But even as it is now, I'm not going to use the inevitable excess of statehood to excuse myself from accepting the science, because there is a bigger fucking picture. That's the grown-up perspective, Jon, getting over your own political dislike of the manner these official act in (assuming they are acting in a decadent way) and concentrating on securing a deal that is going to help prevent millions upon millions of people in the future from suffering the effects of global warming.

You deny global warming is happening or anthropogenic. That much is clear. But don't act like a child and claim you don't like how the bigger boys flash their toys. You don't fool anyone.

Jon,

If you can't tell me who is flying private jets to Copenhagen, can you tell me where you read/heard that some/many/one people or person where flying priviate jets?

Since this is why you are arguing agaist action, I assume you got your facts straight?

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

Jon wants a little closed loop where anyone who goes to Copenhagen is not to be listened to, and anyone who doesn't go to copenhagen is a no-body that he doesn't count.

What a clever fellow you are Jon.

Here's some twaddle from one of yours Gaz...Is Prof Flannery ging to Copenhagen?

Actually, Lank (#74), here's something we can agree on, at least in some small way.

I thought Flannery's performance on Lateline was pretty inept and played into the hands of those wishing to misrepresent Trenberth. I actually groaned when I saw it on TV because it was obvious it would provoke an epidemic of deniarrhoea.

Of course, Flannery should not have used "trend" to describe such a short term movement in the global temperature.

Trenberth - who Flannery was discussing - was concerned about the difficulty of accounting for year to year fluctuations around a long term rising trend in temperatures and it was unfortunate that Flannery failed to express that adequately.

And talking about changes in temperature in terms of percentages is plain silly, and I'm surprised Flannery did that - eg, a rise of 0.8 degrees from 0.1 degree would be an 800% rise, from 0.2 degrees it would be a 400% rise and from 20 degrees it would be a 4% rise.

So it was not a sensible way to present the prospective rise.

Still, 4-5 degrees is still a nasty rise no matter how you present it and under business as usual emissions that's just what will happen. That's alarming, but pointing it out isn't alarmist.

Nor is it exaggerating what will happen if collective stupidity continues to dominate human behaviour.

This is why people like me argue on blogs with people like you, to try to make sure that doesn't happen.

BTW Jon,

The >90% is about as settled as things get.

Lets look at what Jon sez:

>*To continually refer to "Its warming, man contributes CO2 so **all warming** is man's responsibility is absurd.*

Bolded emphasis added. I'll hightlight in bold the bit in my response that Jon disingenuously avoided:

>The findings are that **most** of the current (50 year) warming trend is anthropogenic (>90% confidence).

My aren't the posters here quite emotional. I NEVER denied Global Warming. I NEVER said that those who went to Copenhagen should not be listened too. I asked a simple question and the attack dogs are set loose.

Janet you keep saying you have provided evidence OF a conspiracy when all you have provided is evidence that a conspiracy could exist, ya no kidding.

I guess we are done now that you all have begun the process of making false attributions of me so you can setup your favorite attack. Have fun..

BTW Jon,

The >90% is about as settled as things get.

You are right. Lets stop the science and move onto policy decision making. Its settled..clap clap clap

Gaz,

Terry Macran gets it badly wrong as well, he clamis that its people like Flannery who are writing the GC-models.

Flannery is a biologist. His area is on impact of climate and evidnece in the fossil record.

Its like condeming the structure of a building beacuse the electrical engineer dosen't understnad all the calculatons that the structural engeering team produced.

More gotcha PR bunk.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

Jon:
> a 1.2C increase in temperature
> without feedbacks.

Right. And how, in the real world, can anything happen without feedbacks?

Look, the only guy who imagines it could be possible to actually double the number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere instantaneously with nothing else happening is that string theorist. And if he could come up with a way to cut the number of CO2 molecules by half, by maybe pulling in half those little loops of string, he'd solve the problem.

Nobody in reality imagines it's possible to double the amount of CO2 with nothing else happening.

Not even you -- right?

Oh, and the answer to the riddle --

Jon, are you more like the computer salesman or the used car salesman?

You know the difference, right?

The used car salesman _knows_ he's lying.

Jon:
>*Like I said above, until the proponents act like its a crisis you certainly cannot expect anyone else to act as if it were. Seriously...*
Sim:
>" your basic logic is flawed, there are millions of AGW "proponents" who are not flying and who have made low carbon choices."

Jon:
>*Buyt thoise [sic] are not the vocal in the press proponents and the decision makers are they. Another straw man, you are good at that.*

Ajax:
> Jon wants a little closed loop where anyone who goes to Copenhagen is not to be listened to, and anyone who doesn't go to copenhagen is a no-body that he doesn't count.

Jon:

>*I NEVER said that those who went to Copenhagen should not be listened too. I asked a simple question and the attack dogs are set loose.*

Shall we say Jon is trying to be very slippery? Or Jon, your pants are on fire!

BTW way Jon after your inital claim:

>*You brought opinions not evidence*.

I'm glad you now concede that I did present evidence to back my claims of conspiracy. The evidence I produce is strong enough to warrent broad campaigns for lobby reform, campaign reform, media overship reform etc. I think it should also warrent a "Church Commission" styled congressional investigation into the practice of fossil funded front groups and their campgagins to delay a carbon price.

Finally, since you can't tell me who is flying private jets to copendhagen, I'm still waiting for your source of the claim of what private jets are being used for Copenhagen? Surely its a tiny minority and you're pushing it in the face of the overwhelming majority would don't use it.

What is your source?

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

Wallace writes:

>*Again I note no response to the 1974[5] Science and the challenges ahead : report of the National Science Board*

What do you think it the reports implications are Wallace?

That sulphates aerosols have a cooling foring and CO2 have a warming forcing? Or that we've gathered a lot more evidence since 1974? Or that we've cleaned up our sulphate aerosols more than we have our CO2?

Which is it you would like to emphasize?

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

"Again I note no response to the 1974[5] Science and the challenges ahead : report of the National Science Board"

Again, this fucking bizarre self-delusion that the points LOLlace makes are so earth-shattering that people are actually scared of answering him.

For scattergunning mudslinger like you, that takes some chutzpah.

Posted by: William Wallace | December 7, 2009 9:51 PM

"Again I note no response to the 1974[5] Science and the challenges ahead : report of the National Science Board"

It needs no response. It says aerosols can cause cooling, that greenhouse gases can cause warming, that they are not sure which will dominate in the future, and more work was needed. And guess what - the last 30+ years have been spent doing that work.

You really should just read the paper by Peterson, Connolly and Fleck in BAMS. Nobody with any intellectual honesty should be repeating the myth that you are peddling.

By carrot eater (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

Again I note no response to my post:

>*Global cooling, global warming, climate change oh my! Just follow the green brick road.*

Too afraid to challenge your science?

By Silly Willy (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

Hey Gaz #98... While yer on the subject of your alarmist chum Flannery I hear he's lent his name to a scheme by the worldâs most infamous self-publicist, Richard Branson, to burn untold tonnes of greenhouse gases so rich people can become space tourists. Flannery yesterday defended his new role as an âenvironmental consultantâ to Bransonâs Virgin Galactic venture, which aims to sell space trips to civilians. Great if you can get the work!

Thanks to Swift-gate: More evidence of a coordinated [conspiracy to delay](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame…) action on carbon mitigation. Many will be aware of the travesty of the SB 2003 paper. I was not previously aware that the preparation for the paper was underwritten by the [American Petroleum Institute](http://www.seattlepi.com/national/124642_warming02.html). The paper was promoted by front groups for big energy. The paper got through [peer review](http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/12/03/climategate-exxon-fascism/) in interesting circumstances. The Paper had a deeply flawed methodology and several editors wanted to publish compilation of flaw to rebuke.

The blocking of this by it chief Chris de Freitas lead the resignation of 5 of the journals editors in protest. Deep Climate reminds us of [de Freitas' other work](http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/02/in-the-beginning-friends-of-science-t…).

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

William Wallace:

Chris O'Neill: You just don't get it, do you? Your Time statement:

Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. is a lie. You are repeating a lie. You are a liar.

That, or I was quoting an article.

Your quoted article contained the statement:

Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F.

As I pointed out before, this is utter bullshit. 1974 was only about 0.3°C cooler than 1944.

You are being deliberately dense to cover up your citation of a non-scientific magazine that contains utter bullshit.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

Wanting new energy tech to replace fossil fuels and being in favor of space travel go together quite well. we just don't want to use up and wear out the planet we start from.

I know, since 90% confidence is far too low to justify action, let's wait until we have 100% confidence. Then all we have to do is travel back in time to a point when we could actually do something about it. Problem solved.

DA,

The survey was conducted in 25 countries. In most of South America, for example, over 80% of the respondents argued that climate change was a very serious problem. The pattern was repeated over most of the countries in the survey.

Game, set and match. In spite of their anti-scienctific tactics, the denialists are losing, that is clear. And as the data continues to come in, what little support they retain will literally melt away (no pun intended).

As for WW, if you want comic relief, read his web site. I did that just yesterday and had to log off due to the comic-level book science it parades. Having to cite an old article in Time Magazine in 1974 to suggest that there was a general concern over global cooling reveals how much he has to scrape the bottom of the barrel for information supporting his wafer-thin hypothesis. Two points here: first, as was pointed out later, a total of 7 peer-reviewed articles during the decade purported to support the argument of future cooling. Even in the 1970s, before the current dramatic rise in temperatures occurred, more studies were published in the empirical literature arguing that the human combustion of fossil fuels might inevitably lead to future warming. Second, scientists are not bound to remain stuck to their beliefs as more data accumulate. Good scientists are always willing to change their opinions if new data suggest that they are wrong. For the very few outliers in the 1970s, this was indeed the case. They argued that greenhouse gases that stimulate warming were more than compensating for aerosols which might induce cooling.

And for the record, WW: what are your scientific credentials?

By Jeff Harvey (not verified) on 07 Dec 2009 #permalink

Re:

Jon's pissant whiny plaint against diplomats, policy analysts, lobbyists, and other such government and business officials, and their use of private jets and chauffeured limousines;

I offer, in point of contrast, one [Kim Nguyen](http://www.klimaforum09.org/One-man-and-a-bicycle-against), citizen of Brisbane, Australia.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 08 Dec 2009 #permalink

#122

Ah the ole "I can read emotion from text" bit. I ask a simple question and look at the reaction. Again if the poeple who are meeting to discuss this imminent threat to our existence exercise ZERO restraint in their carbon emissions how can they expect anyone elso to do the same? Let me try. in Lumonous Beauty's typical bitch-like way she arrogantly projects emotions onto another poster that make her klingon mother proud. You are right that is fun!

Typical of sites like this the responses have nothing to do with my question, rather attacks are made, emotions projected, I am labeled things I am not, I have attributions of things I never said.

Hank, 1.2C doubling of CO2 is the math and physics w/o feedbacks. I NEVER said there was NOT feedbacks! Most feedbacks are currently said to be warm. But there is still more research that needs to be done to better determine if the overall feedbacks are positive. Stop twisting what I say so you can pull one of your stock arguements of a can and try to make yourself look oh so smart.

You all still do not get it. You could have a 100% confidence in 5C increase in 20 years, but if you do not deal with your utter arrogance, and hyopcrisy in actions you are not going to convince a single skeptic and they have the same number of votes as you, one each.

Maybe I should type slowly so the attack dogs can understand. I agree that Global Warming is occuring, I agree that CO2 is part of that increase, I believe that man's contribution is part of it. I do not believe the projections of 2C a century or above will result. Model are not enough to convince me.

Janet,

I do not know a single pilot who flies private jets. I also refuse to play your game of "where did you read it" so if I supply a source that you can attack instead of addressing the point, childish. Try Bing or Google "Private jet copenhagen" and select a source you trust.

Jon, do you believe in evolution?
Do you trust the paleo record?
Do you understand that every past natural warming (see Milankovich) has showed positive feedback as CO2 increased?

If you start a little paper fire and throw gasoline on it, how is this different from starting a little gasoline fire and throwing more gasoline on it? Is there any way the latter method can produce cold rather than more heat?

If you don't believe in evolution, then you can't believe in the paleo record. Is there any other reason not to read the paleo record for what it shows, in many different ways?

C'mon, Jon. You're just chanting "can't believe" with this stuff:

> I NEVER said there was NOT feedbacks! Most
> feedbacks are currently said to be warm. But
> there is still more research that needs to be
> done to better determine if the overall
> feedbacks are positive.

"Jon do you believe in evolution" Um yeah, what of it? Again as smart as you pretend to be you miss the point, again and again.

Learned something new though, CO2 is like gasoline 'cause Hank Roberts said so. cool. lol

"Do you understand that every past natural warming (see Milankovich) has showed positive feedback as CO2 increased?"

In the past did the warming preceed the CO2 increase?

Also, how did the temp ever come back down?

Jon! Good questions, to which there are good answers. I'm glad you're thinking.

You've missed one fact: CO2 changes after warming (a feedback) in the paleo record, but an increase in CO2 is a forcing that leads to more warming. Yes, there are examples in the paleo record like the Deccan Traps flood basalt and the PETM event where a pulse of CO2 shows up and warming follows.

The physics is clear; increasing CO2 slows down the rate at which the planet gets rid of heat.

If you light a small paper fire (natural warming) and throw gasoline in it, it gets warmer. If you light a small gasoline fire (fossil fuel burning) and throw gasoline on it, it gets warmer. The fossil carbon, gets oxidized naturally as a feedback; when it's burned the result is a forcing

Temperatures come back down naturally -- slowly -- when CO2 is removed over time from the atmosphere ("biogeochemical cycling").

See for example:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=plankton+cooled+greenhouse

Look at the White Cliffs of Dover. Know where those came from?

You can look this stuff up for yourself once you get started thinking.

Posted by: Jon | December 8, 2009 2:08 PM

"Also, how did the temp ever come back down?"

You mean, how does the Earth ever go back into an ice age? Because insolation went down, per the Milankovitch cyle, and then the atmospheric CO2 level went down as well.

You need BOTH insolation and the composition of the atmosphere to begin to explain the temperature history of the earth on geologic time scales.

By carrot eater (not verified) on 08 Dec 2009 #permalink

For anyone coming late to the biogeochemical cycling papers, remember to always check for subsequent citations and corrections. To have the complete record you need to do this each time you look up a paper.

Here for example, this paper:
http://courses.washington.edu/ocean450/Discussion_Topics_Papers/Schmitz…

should be read with this correction:

Corrections
In the News & Views article âGlobal change: Plankton cooled a greenhouse" by Birger Schmitz (Nature 407, 143â144; 2000), the period of âsuperwarmâ conditions at the Palaeocene/Eocene boundary should have been cited as lasting about 60,000 (not 150,000) years. Proof corrections made to the paper concerned (by S. Bains et al. 407, 171â174; 2000) were not passed on to the News & Views author.
NATURE|VOL 407|28 SEPTEMBER 2000 at 467

Schmitz starts off with a paragraph worth quoting:

"Scientists who can perform laboratory experiments are lucky â a megalomaniac climatologist can only dream of putting an Earth-like planet in a giant test tube, pumping billions of tonnes of CO2 into its atmosphere, and registering the effects on life and climate. Fortunately, there are other approaches. At the Palaeocene/Eocene (P/E) boundary 55 million years ago, nature appears to have done the greenhouse experiment for us. Bains et al.1 (page 171 of this issue) now report that they have identified a rather unexpected response of the oceanic biosphere to dramatically high concentrations of atmospheric CO2, and temperatures, at this boundary â one that can account for a subsequent reduction in atmospheric CO2 and cooling."

For Jon in particular: don't miss the irony of the first sentence.

#128 Your condescending speech is tiresome "...glad you're thinking"? "...you get started thinking" Is this how you converse? Really? sick...

Jon,

>in Lumonous Beauty's typical bitch-like way she arrogantly projects emotions onto another poster that make her klingon mother proud.

In your haste to project your feelings at being criticized onto me you failed to notice my counter example to your complaint.

Idiot. And I mean that in the most charitable way.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 08 Dec 2009 #permalink

# Myb y shld hv ld wth yr cntr xmpl rthr thn tryng t b s "ct. Dmbss whr.

Hank,

Already understand how CO2 can change both as forcing and a feedback that leads to more change. Did I say otherwise? Did you file this straw man arguement under D for Denier or S for Skeptic.. lol You certainly are a piece of work...

Jon @ 135

> Already understand how CO2 can change both as forcing and a feedback that leads to more change. Did I say otherwise?

Jon @ 127

> In the past did the warming preceed the CO2 increase?

Dave @ 136

So, one cannot ask a question that they may already have the answer? That was directed at Hank who also assumed I must be a skeptic/denier who is trotting out "but but in the past warming always preceeded CO2 increase". Wrong please find above where I CLEARLY stated my positions on GW, CO2 etc.

Remember Dave you cannot ask questions of other posters that you already know the answer, even if you just want to hear and listen to someone else answer. You do want to live by your own standards, correct?

From the above search, this is one of many clear descriptions the best example we have of CO2 increasing first, followed by warming, which caused as a feedback release of more CO2, followed by fast warming. That's "fast" in geologic time terms. Humans do it much faster.

(No, I'm not assuming Jon wants to learn; this is recreational typing, perhaps for the next kid along who is reading this stuff for the first time and will learn how to do his own research. If Jon takes the time to read, and think, he won't be back posting old talking points right away. Time will tell.)

http://www.geotimes.org/oct06/feature_Geocatastrophes.html#Climate

"... Earth experienced a very gradual, long-term warming, likely due to volcanic activity. But then, at approximately 55 million years ago, chemical indicators in fossils and sediments suggest that a much more rapid warming occurred. This warming provided mammals with an opportunity to take over the world. The diversity and range of the mammal population exploded, with new species appearing in the geologic record and ranging all across the Northern Hemisphere. At the same time, however, deep-dwelling ocean fauna suffered a rapid extinction.

Geologic temperature proxies suggest that this rapid warming at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary occurred over a period of 10,000 to 20,000 years in association with a large change in the global carbon cycle. Surface temperatures increased by as much as 5 degrees Celsius in the tropics, and 10 degrees Celsius in high latitudes, then gradually returned to warm background levels over the next 100,000 years. At no other time during the last 65 million years do we have evidence for such a rapid change in temperature."

------

Note the rate of change; we're increasing CO2 maybe 100x faster than it increased during that rapid warming event.

#137

Ah more projection? I am laughing at you. I laugh at people like you all the time. Don't give yourself credit that you can affect me emotionally, not in a million years...

> Dumbass whore.
> Posted by: Jon | December 8, 2009 2:56 PM

Ah, I'd missed that. Welcome to my killfile.
No more responses for that userid til it's cooled off and more likely someone new is using it.

Hank The straw man king. I CLEARLY stated my "beliefs" on GW, CO2 and man earlier in thread. Your choice to argue against a position I never took, is common and yet all so boring.. You have yet to post anything I have not read.

So, Jon. What fantasy negative feedback do you believe will counteract the known positive feedbacks, e.g., water vapor, snow and ice albedo, etc, of which we have high confidence and empirical evidence?

Please state your position CLEARLY.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 08 Dec 2009 #permalink

Hank @ 141 Is that the same place you have luminous beauty at? No? thought so. Selective standards for "team" members. What a joke.

#143 Do you really think I would even begin to waste my time in engaging in a discussion with you? Are you serious?

>Don't give yourself credit that you can affect me emotionally, not in a million years..

If true, why bother to respond?

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 08 Dec 2009 #permalink

#146

So I bother you emotionally?

Also see my #145...

Done.

>Do you really think I would even begin to waste my time in engaging in a discussion with you? Are you serious?

You're already engaged in an exchange of insults. Why not serious discussion? Seriously.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 08 Dec 2009 #permalink

>So I bother you emotionally?

No, you bother me intellectually.

By luminous beauty (not verified) on 08 Dec 2009 #permalink

Lank says:"http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/#m…

This is but a single example of the volumes of corruption and dishonesty uncovered by Watts and his team."

Actually, it is but one of many incompetent analyses by posters at Watts. You're right about the large volume - of crap at WTF! For example, the idiot poster drew a trend line of -0.7 degrees C through data that clearly show a quantum jump downwards because the station was moved.

By t_p_hamilton (not verified) on 08 Dec 2009 #permalink

#149 Thats your problem.

Jon @ 134

> Dumbass whore.

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth?

With tongues?

Don't worry - I already know the answer to these questions.

> it taste like dirt.

That'll be the six feet of soil you had to dig up first then. Whatever gets you going I guess...

Seriously, there's the arrogant rubbish that comes out of the anti-science denialist blogs.

Then there's the fawning drivel that gets posted in their comments.

Then there's the faith-in-humanity-destroying inane comments you get on youtube.

Then there is a thin strata comprised of Girma Orssengo.

Then - right at the bottom - there's you.

Oh no.

I didn't think Jon would get worse than his slippery ways yesterday.:

Jon:
>*Like I said above, until the proponents act like its a crisis you certainly cannot expect anyone else to act as if it were. Seriously...*

>Sim: " your basic logic is flawed, there are millions of AGW "proponents" who are not flying and who have made low carbon choices."

>Jon:
>*Buyt thoise [sic] are not the vocal in the press proponents and the decision makers are they. Another straw man, you are good at that.*

>Ajax:
Jon wants a little closed loop where anyone who goes to Copenhagen is not to be listened to, and anyone who doesn't go to copenhagen is a no-body that he doesn't count.

>Jon:
>*I NEVER said that those who went to Copenhagen should not be listened too. I asked a simple question and the attack dogs are set loose.*

**But today Jon gives us more slippery gems from the slippery master class:**

Jon @ 135
>*Already understand how CO2 can change both as forcing and a feedback that leads to more change. Did I say otherwise? Did you file this straw man arguement...*

Jon @ 127
>*In the past did the warming preceed the CO2 increase?*

(Thanks Dave)

**An army of stawmen guarding Jon's slippery tactics**

Jon @89

>*Buyt thoise are not the vocal in the press proponents and the decision makers are they. **Another straw man, you are good at that.***

Jon @100
>*you all have begun the process of making **false attributions of me** so you can setup your favorite attack. Have fun..*

Jon @123

>*Typical of sites like this the responses have nothing to do with my question, rather attacks are made, emotions projected, I am labeled things I am not, I have attributions of things I never said.*

Jon @ 142
>*Hank The straw man king. *

**Jon takes it to another level**

Jon @123
>*Lumonous Beauty's typical bitch-like way she arrogantly...*

Jon @131
>*Your condescending speech is tiresome*

Jon @134

>*Maybe you should have led with your counter example rather than trying to be so "cute. Dumbass whore.*

Jon @137

>*Ah more projection? I am laughing at you. I laugh at people like you all the time. **Don't give yourself credit that you can affect me emotionally, not in a million years...***

(Emphasis added)

Jon @ 145

>*Do you really think I would even begin to waste my time in engaging in a discussion with you? Are you serious?*

[What a horrible thought, more of this disingenuous slippery talk, perish the thought].

***

Another lesson in the perils of playing chess with a pidgin.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 08 Dec 2009 #permalink

Jeff Harvey,

Let's see 189 countries in the world, survey conducted in 25 that's 13%. 34,000 people surveyed (not bad I suppose but still less than 1500 in each country) world population 6,500,000,000.

Somehow, I still don't think that means the whole world agrees!

By Dave Andrews (not verified) on 08 Dec 2009 #permalink

Janet

It's a good thing Jon doesn't want to "engage in discussion" with you. If he did, imagine how many more acres of stupid we'd have to wade through.

Jon writes:

>*Wow! You did all that BS by yourself?*

No I pasted your own words to presented your own pattern of disingenuous gaming.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 08 Dec 2009 #permalink

Michael @157 and if I had said that to Janet instead of Luminous you may actually have a point. Who is the stupid one now?

Jnt clp clp clp y gt th gld str, kp bbbng nt th wtr glss.

Jon,

Your whining that LB labelled your piss-ant whiny plaint against diplomats meeting in Copenhagen?

Your complaint was suitably assessed and its lack of temerity was summed up by [Bud](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame…) and [Ajax](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame…).

The case has been made to support the crude name of your "piss-ant whine". You made no case to support your calling LB a "Dumbass whore".

You are slippery and pretend to never be wrong and that somehow you are always misrepresented. You try to use semantics to cover defend your provocations.

You are disingenuous, and your contribution here has been worthless, expect for demonstrating slippery tactics that can be named and used as an example.

The missing questions that Jon tried to frame out of the debate: If someone were to present realistic views on the subject of your complaint they would be along the lines of:

a) it is bad how much carbon is used in Copenhagen;

b) what can we do about that?

c) is it worth having Copenhagen?

d) has someone assessed the alternatives?

e) what if we didn't have Copenhagen?

f) Does inequality and massive concentration of power have a role in this problem? (both Copenhagen footprint and AGW abatement).

This was the opposite of your disingenuous approach.

By Janet Akerman (not verified) on 08 Dec 2009 #permalink

Sorry Jon, forgot the sarcasm alert.

Janet

[sarcasm on]It's a good thing Jon doesn't want to "engage in discussion" with you. If he did, imagine how many more acres of stupid we'd have to wade through [sarcasm off].

Better?

160 posts and my original question has not been answered, addressed, or even considered by the bobbing birds! It has devolved into name calling labeling quote mining gotcha.

And I actually believe in AGW! Just not at the level of these bobbing birds, I can only imagine if I was a skeptic.

Thanks for the laughs!!

Done.

Liar.

Janet @161 Try holding your arms over your head to catch the points people are making.

The goal to change the level of emissions of carbon will take government, correct?

Governments are made up of politicians, correct?

Politicians derive their power from people, correct (USA context as that applies to me and myy point)?

Politicians for the most part follow polls, correct?

People (voters) typically do not vote for politicains that do not agree with them.

98% of the population makes up their mind about science issues without any knowledge of the science, hence they judge but what is in the news and what advocates are themselves doing.

If the advocates of AGW continue to not practice in their actions how dire this is (their belief) they are not going to convince skeptical people who will NEVER read Spence Weart. They will also dismiss it as BS. Thus they will not support politicians who also want to pass CO2 reducing legislation that will cost them in the NEAR term.

That was my point, you all avoided it and still continue to put me in some preconceived box of a denier to bring out all your well worn arguements.

See Janet your a-f actually misses the point I was making. Since none of were curious for further explanation from me as to what I orignally meant this is how we got to where we are now. Like I said I can only imagine if I WAS a denier...

Keep bobbing into the water glass little birds.

That's a stunningly naive point that Jon makes.

Does he really think that people base their opinions and actions on what politicians think and do??

Nuttier than a bag full of squirrels.

Michael @165 Thats not what I said.

150 t_p_hamilton,

I object to your description. Let me correct it.

"Actually, it is but one of many dishonest analyses by posters at Watts."

No one thinks such errors are accidents, do they?

By TrueSceptic (not verified) on 08 Dec 2009 #permalink

Jon,

It's true that I may have misunderstood the point you were labouring to make. But your wrting is of a style that maximises that likelihood.

Michael @169 Nothing a few questions could not have cleared up...

Janet @168 again with randowm links that do not correlate to any part of the recent conversation.

Jon says:
"The people who believe in AGW the most are currently meeting in Copenhagen."

That's just not true. Most of the people meeting in Copenhagen are there to argue why they and their countries shouldn't have to do anything even if AGW exists. As such the fact that they use private jets or even CFC propelled rockets to get there is beside the point.

Jon:

Model are not enough to convince me.

If you only get your facts from the denialosphere, then one thing they will never tell you is that there are empirical observations of climate sensitivity and consequently feedback.

By the way, if your prime interest is learning some introductory climate science, then you should spend time reading through the realclimate index and start here pages. Tim Lambert's blog is mainly comments about attempts to distort and misinform people about climate science, e.g. Plimer's book.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 08 Dec 2009 #permalink

Jon, here's a quote from the Time article you referenced:

"To skeptics of climate change, many of whom will attend the conference, Copenhagen is the last defense of another kind â against the growing global momentum to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, an undertaking they think could cripple the international economy."

So if a skeptic shows up in Copenhagen in a private jet is there some sort of hypocrisy there? If a private jet shows up in Copenhagen don't we have to know who's on it before we can charge hypocrisy?

Chris Please take the time to learn what my positions are before labeling me and making ignorant statements about my reading habits.

Why would I want to learn something I already know, introductory climate science. Since I am obviously already packaged into one of your boxes so you can whip out one of your canned responses, shall I bother to enlighten you? Sure why not. I agree the earth is warming. I agree some of it is due to an increase in CO2 concentration. I agree man is reponsible for that CO2 increase. So all your labels and assumptions have already been attempted several times by others on this particular post. It is interesting how so many of you try the same tactic, was someone on here talking about conspiracies earlier?

Jon says: "The people who believe in AGW the most are currently meeting in Copenhagen."

@PS #170 Really?

I wouldn't think the delegates from the Saudi Arabian government etc. are too keen on accepting the science.

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 08 Dec 2009 #permalink

@PS #174 Sure if you think the average person is going to care to inquire. I don't. The average person will hear that a climate conference is happening in Copenhagen. They will hear that AGW proponents are saying this is our chance its dire. The average person will hear about private jets and limos (I find it hard to believe only skeptics are using the private jets and limos) and figure "well cannot be that important". Maybe the organizers should think a little more about people's reactions. I think you would agree since the "science is settled".

Jon:

If the advocates of AGW continue to not practice in their actions

So you think they should be living in caves and walking everywhere? Exactly what do you mean when you say "practice in their actions"? And who exactly are you referring to?

By Chris O'Neill (not verified) on 08 Dec 2009 #permalink

Jon @ 162

> 160 posts and my original question has not been answered, addressed, or even considered

Lest we forget your original question:

> Yet, they have to drive Limos in from Germany and use several airports to support all the private jets for the attendees of this conference. If they are not interested in reducing their carbon-footprint and these are the "smartest" people who "get it" then why should we believe them? If it is that important, that dire, would these people be burning carbon like that of many small countries combined?

Despite the fact that this is phrased in a loaded manner, and presumes its conclusions without providing evidence (either in this message or subsequently in the thread), Janet @ 62

> Will a teleconference enable the high-level interaction required to make this level of multi-lateral agreement? Unfortunately not. Humans respond better in person. Unfortunately our top leaders will burn fuel maximise their interaction and human contact.

> Our infrastructure and options as currently offered are based on perverse pricing. Put a price on carbon, people respond to price. What the market respond (if it is allowed and not monopolized).

> You'll even have a chance of changing the footprint of the bullet proofed and most well guarded government officials.

Janet @ 68

> Private jets? Whose?

Jon - even if you disagree with it - please explain in detail how Janet's response neither addresses nor considers your original question. She lays out that:

a) Face-to-face meeting is an important requirement for optimal negotiations for subjects such as this

b) Our entire infrastructure is built on skewed carbon pricing, and so arranging such a face to face meeting will inevitably involve some CO2 emissions

c) Asks for you to support your claim as to the excessive nature of the emissions, which is necessary for your question to have any merit whatsoever

Of course, your immediate reply to an initially reasonable response was "lol".

Lank.

I have asked you repeatedly - why do you persist in refusing to answer [my questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame…), originally asked a month ago [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-…)?

Is it really that hard to present your best pieces of evidence that demonstrate that humans are not responsible for the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last several centuries?

I am losing patience with your avoidance of this issue, so I will pose some further questions to see exactly what science you base all of your ideology upon. So...

What is your best piece of evidence that demonstrates that global atmospheric temperature is not as sensitive to increasing CO2 as the IPCC reports estmiate?

What is your best piece of evidence that demonstrates that temperatures are not rising as GISS or Hadley indicate?

Borrowing from [Scott Mandia](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/hack/#comment-36667), what are your best pieces of evidence that demonstrate:

  1. the Arctic is not warming
  2. that sea ice extent is not decreasing
  3. that sea ice is not thinning
  4. that ocean heat content is not rising
  5. that the stratosphere is not cooling
  6. that plant and animal species are not shifting their ranges and/or their phenological traits, and/or are not suffering from alterations in their bioclimatic envelopes
  7. that glacier mass-loss and -retreats are not increasing
  8. that sea levels are not rising?

Oo, and one last - what is your best piece of evidence that demonstrates that mean night-time minimum temperatures are not increasing?

I note that your [last reply to me](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame…) was a lame distraction about the non-scandal that is the temperature record for Darwin. It seems that since I last read the threads here you well and truly have had your arse kicked on the [More on the Stolen Emails](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/more_on_the_stolen_emails.php) thread, but if you're not satisfied that your comrades' pseudoscience was completely rebuffed, perhaps you could also post your best evidence that there actually is a problem with the record, and we could set you straight on that too.

You have a lot of homework, young feller-me-lad. No more excuses that the dog shat on it, because right now you're up to your neck in the poop of your best friends.

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 09 Dec 2009 #permalink

Bernard J,I will have a go at your questions.Just so you wont be disappointed.
Increase in CO2??
Yes we humans are probably responsible for a majority of it.
Temperature sensitive to CO2??
There is plenty of evidence that global temperature is not particularly sensitive to CO2.
a]The ice core records from vostok show that temperature falls while CO2 is stll rising.
b]Paleo climate studies show that on geological timescales the earth had very low temps with high CO2[and vice versa].
c]From 1940 to 1975,during the period of the greatest production of CO2,temperatures did not rise in response,they fell for 4 decades.
d]CO2 has risen 4% in the last 9 years and temperatures have remained flat.
From Scott Mandia,
1]The arctic is warming just like it did in the 30's.
2]Sea ice extent is increasing in antarctica for the period for which we have satellite data.Sea ice in the arctic over the same period had a slow decline until 2007 but is now[2008,2009] increasing again.
4]Well in the arctic it probably has not thinned in the last 2 years.The data on volume is not over a long enough period.[If yes, then I stand corrected].
5]The stratosphere is cooling,the cause is not known for certain.If it was GHG's we would also see a troposphereic hotspot which we dont observe.
6]Plant /Animal species are shifting their ranges.
7]Glacier mass lost/retreat-I am not sure if the rate is increasing;I have seen different studies claiming different things.Mass loss/retreat is however, ongoing.
8]Sea levels are rising and the long term rate is the same.
Night time minimum temps are rising and it is thought to be due to UHI and/or land use changes.
Regards Warren.

Wazzamad.

Well, at least you had a go, which is more than anyone else to whom I've put the questions has managed, although cohenite apparently is working on something at Marohasy's... I've avoided that cesspit for weeks so I have no idea if he actually produced anything of substance: if he has, he is welcome to reproduce it here, as I have requested on several occasions.

Anyway, the trouble is that I am disappointed with your answers. Where you disagree with empirically observed phenomena that support AGW, not a single one of your responses includes a succinct and referenced description of your evidence.

All I asked for was your best evidence. Your reply was akin to asking a Creationist to refute evolution, and getting "because the Bible says so" in response. What I am interested in is the best science that you believe supports your case.

How about a serious effort?

By Bernard J. (not verified) on 12 Jan 2010 #permalink