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.

Comments

  1. #1 Ezzthetic
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  2. #2 Lank
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  3. #3 Jimmy Nightingale
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  4. #4 Lank
    December 7, 2009

    “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?

  5. #5 Marco
    December 7, 2009

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

  6. #6 Janet Akerman
    December 7, 2009

    Lank,

    I addressed a similar question [else where](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/even_the_tobacco_companies_nev.php#comment-2099234).

    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.

  7. #7 Tim Lambert
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  8. #8 Lank
    December 7, 2009

    “medical researchers hired by tobacco companies” are ‘muddying the waters of climate research’ ??

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

  9. #9 Lee
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  10. #10 Janet Akerman
    December 7, 2009

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

    Try again.

  11. #11 Lank
    December 7, 2009

    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?

  12. #12 Lank
    December 7, 2009

    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!

  13. #13 Thers
    December 7, 2009

    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 wouldn’t be tempted if there was more transparency in the AGW community.

    Yeah, someone really wrote that…

  14. #14 Thers
    December 7, 2009

    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….

  15. #15 Janet Akerman
    December 7, 2009

    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_Institute)

    [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_Project)

    [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.

  16. #16 Janet Akerman
    December 7, 2009

    Lank writes:

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

    Lank present your evidence.

  17. #17 zoot
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  18. #18 Janet Akerman
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  19. #19 TrueSceptic
    December 7, 2009

    5 Marco,

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

  20. #20 Lank
    December 7, 2009
  21. #21 TrueSceptic
    December 7, 2009

    8 Lank,

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

  22. #22 TrueSceptic
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  23. #23 Bud
    December 7, 2009

    @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.

  24. #24 Ezzthetic
    December 7, 2009

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

    Are you sure “rescind” is correct? I thought it was “lucind” – you lucind an Oscar.

  25. #25 DavidCOG
    December 7, 2009

    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?

  26. #26 John
    December 7, 2009

    Soon you may “begore” an Oscar, although it’s highly unlikely.

  27. #27 Joseph
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  28. #28 zoot
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  29. #29 Douglas Watts
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  30. #30 Bernard J.
    December 7, 2009

    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-.php#comment-2071238), 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.

  31. #31 William Wallace
    December 7, 2009

    Three words illustrate the fraud of climate researchers:

    Hide the decline.

  32. #32 Bud
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  33. #33 zoot
    December 7, 2009

    Is that the best you can do?

  34. #34 zoot
    December 7, 2009

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

  35. #35 Jeff Harvey
    December 7, 2009

    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?

  36. #36 Bud
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  37. #37 Jeff Harvey
    December 7, 2009

    Some good news amongst all of this gloom that cuts through the denialist crap:

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

    Link is here:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/04_12_09climatepoll.pdf

    The gig is almost up for the denialists.

  38. #38 William Wallace
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  39. #39 William Wallace
    December 7, 2009

    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?

  40. #40 lord_sidcup
    December 7, 2009

    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/i1520-0477-89-9-1325.pdf)

    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.

  41. #41 Chris O'Neill
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  42. #42 Harald Korneliussen
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  43. #43 William Wallace
    December 7, 2009

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

  44. #44 dhogaza
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  45. #45 Bud
    December 7, 2009

    Random, disconnected blaring out of talking points that other people told him and that he lacks the critical facilities to evaluate for himself.

    William Wallace and [this young man](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAwP5YD4Pwc&feature=related) seem to have a lot in common.

  46. #46 TrueSceptic
    December 7, 2009

    43 Wallace,

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

  47. #47 Betula
    December 7, 2009

    CLIMATE COVER-UP

    “An imperative read for a successful future.”
    ~LEONARDO DICAPRIO, Actor and Producer.

    Actor and producer!

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

  48. #48 TrueSceptic
    December 7, 2009

    44 dhogaza,

    Snap! ;)

  49. #49 Bud
    December 7, 2009

    That would be “faculties”, mrs Malaprop.

  50. #50 William Wallace
    December 7, 2009

    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. ~~~~

  51. #51 luminous beauty
    December 7, 2009

    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?

  52. #52 TrueSceptic
    December 7, 2009

    50 Wallace,

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

  53. #53 Former Skeptic
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  54. #54 Holly Stick
    December 7, 2009

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

  55. #55 llewelly
    December 7, 2009

    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

  56. #56 William Wallace
    December 7, 2009

    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”….

  57. #57 Janet Akerman
    December 7, 2009

    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!

  58. #58 Jon
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  59. #59 Janet Akerman
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  60. #60 Jon
    December 7, 2009

    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…

  61. #61 Chris O'Neill
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  62. #62 Janet Akerman
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  63. #63 Jon
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  64. #64 Lank
    December 7, 2009

    Due to be unveiled at Hopenchangenfest, the Copenhagen Diagnosis has a problem. It “relies on data from the Hadley Centre of the UK meteorological office and the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University – two bodies that may now need to set aside the data altogether and start over.”
    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/07/lawrence-solomon-climategate-gang-is-writing-the-script-for-copenhagen.aspx

  65. #65 Lank
    December 7, 2009

    “While the wider world is just beginning to realize that the subfield of paleoclimatology is in shambles (and has been for the last decade), scientists in related disciplines are increasingly fighting back against the shoddy work and orthodoxy that was foisted on them.”

    http://volokh.com/2009/12/07/physicists-ask-americal-physical-society-to-rescind-its-statement-on-global-warming-because-it-was-based-on-cheating-and-corrupted-work/

  66. #66 Lank
    December 7, 2009

    Nearly half of Britons believe there is no proof that global warming is caused by humans…
    http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/144551/Global-warming-Brits-deny-humans-are-to-blame

  67. #67 Janet Akerman
    December 7, 2009

    Jon,

    Resort to conspiracy theory: check!

  68. #68 Janet Akerman
    December 7, 2009

    Oh! and Jon,

    Private jets? Whose?

  69. #69 Harald Korneliussen
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  70. #70 Gaz
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  71. #71 Dave Andrews
    December 7, 2009

    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”?

  72. #72 dhogaza
    December 7, 2009

    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?

  73. #73 William Wallace
    December 7, 2009

    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”….

  74. #74 Lank
    December 7, 2009

    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-hysteria-just-warming-up/story-e6frfig6-1225808076539

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

  75. #75 William Wallace
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  76. #76 el gordo
    December 7, 2009

    The AGW alarmists are shooting themselves in the feet with this vid.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVGGgncVq-4

  77. #77 Molnar
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  78. #78 TrueSceptic
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  79. #79 Hank Roberts
    December 7, 2009

    > how much additional heat is there on
    > this planet due to man?

    http://www.google.com/search?&q=heat+due+to+human+activity%3F

    Almost all of it, due to the greenhouse effect.

    http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/presse/faqs/ist-die-abwaerme-der-menschen-wichtig-fuer-das-klima.html

  80. #80 Jon
    December 7, 2009

    #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.

  81. #81 TrueSceptic
    December 7, 2009

    77 Molnar,

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

  82. #82 Jon
    December 7, 2009

    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…

  83. #83 el gordo
    December 7, 2009

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

    Graeme Bird comes to mind.

  84. #84 Janet Akerman
    December 7, 2009

    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-secrets) 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 “new world order” based on a carbon price? That’s a fig leaf and an excuse to run from facts.

  85. #85 Janet Akerman
    December 7, 2009

    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 I’ve articulated the solution. Your rebuttle: “new world order”.

    Get real, a carbon price doesn’t 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 – 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?

  86. #86 Sim
    December 7, 2009

    >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.

  87. #87 Jon
    December 7, 2009

    Your rebuttle: “new world order”.

    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.

  88. #88 Sim
    December 7, 2009

    >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?

  89. #89 Jon
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  90. #90 Jon
    December 7, 2009

    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?

  91. #91 Janet Akerman
    December 7, 2009

    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.php#comment-2130729) 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?

  92. #92 Jon
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  93. #93 Sim
    December 7, 2009

    Jon, you just repeated the same disingenous fallacies.

    Obvious to all but your self perhaps. Your reply dodge my [post here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame.php#comment-2130769).

    Instead you opted for another straw man.

    Keep setting them up Jon, I think you’ve nearly fooled yourself.

  94. #94 Janet Akerman
    December 7, 2009

    >You brought opinions not evidence.

    Your talking a lot of bull dust today Jon.

    Did you miss the evidence [I presented here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame.php#comment-2130729). And in Hoggan’s book?

    Is this a typical day for you?

  95. #95 Bud
    December 7, 2009

    “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.

  96. #96 Janet Akerman
    December 7, 2009

    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?

  97. #97 Ajax
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  98. #98 Gaz
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  99. #99 Sim
    December 7, 2009

    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).

  100. #100 Jon
    December 7, 2009

    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..