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 Jon
    December 7, 2009

    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

  2. #2 Janet Akerman
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  3. #3 Hank Roberts
    December 7, 2009

    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?

  4. #4 Hank Roberts
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  5. #5 William Wallace
    December 7, 2009

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

  6. #6 Janet Akerman
    December 7, 2009

    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?

  7. #7 Janet Akerman
    December 7, 2009

    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?

  8. #8 Bud
    December 7, 2009

    “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.

  9. #9 Bernard J.
    December 7, 2009

    Lank.

    Are you too scared to answer [my questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame.php#comment-2129244)?

    Jon.

    Bud [puts it nicely](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame.php#comment-2130848). To respond to your hysteria though, myself, 40% of Copenhagen’s working population cycles to their places of employment – including the Prime Minister. Just goes to show, doesn’t it?

  10. #10 carrot eater
    December 7, 2009

    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.

  11. #11 William Wallace
    December 7, 2009

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

  12. #12 Silly Willy
    December 7, 2009

    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?

  13. #13 Lank
    December 7, 2009

    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 world’s 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 “environmental consultant” to Branson’s Virgin Galactic venture, which aims to sell space trips to civilians. Great if you can get the work!

  14. #14 Janet Akerman
    December 8, 2009

    Thanks to Swift-gate: More evidence of a coordinated [conspiracy to delay](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame.php#comment-2130729) 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-talisman-energy-and-the-de-freitas-brothers/).

  15. #15 Chris O'Neill
    December 8, 2009

    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.

  16. #16 Bernard J.
    December 8, 2009

    Lank.

    Why do you persist in refusing to answer [my questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame.php#comment-2129244)?

  17. #17 Hank Roberts
    December 8, 2009

    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.

  18. #18 cce
    December 8, 2009

    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.

  19. #19 Jeff Harvey
    December 8, 2009

    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?

  20. #20 Lank
    December 8, 2009

    Hey Bernard #116

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/#more-13818

    This is but a single example of the volumes of corruption and dishonesty uncovered by Watts and his team. Why are you so ignorant that you elect to ignore the crap alarmist manipulation of temperature data?
    The future of science is at stake and all you can do is close your eyes.

  21. #21 sim
    December 8, 2009
  22. #22 luminous beauty
    December 8, 2009

    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.

  23. #23 Jon
    December 8, 2009

    #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.

  24. #24 Jon
    December 8, 2009

    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.

  25. #25 Hank Roberts
    December 8, 2009

    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.

  26. #26 Jon
    December 8, 2009

    “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

  27. #27 Jon
    December 8, 2009

    “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?

  28. #28 Hank Roberts
    December 8, 2009

    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.

  29. #29 carrot eater
    December 8, 2009

    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.

  30. #30 Hank Roberts
    December 8, 2009

    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_et_al.pdf

    should be read with this correction:

    Corrections
    In the News & Views article “Global change: Plankton cooled a greenhouse” by Birger Schmitz (Nature 407, 143–144; 2000), the period of ‘superwarm’ 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, 171–174; 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 — 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 — 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.

  31. #31 Jon
    December 8, 2009

    #128 Your condescending speech is tiresome “…glad you’re thinking”? “…you get started thinking” Is this how you converse? Really? sick…

  32. #32 Hank Roberts
    December 8, 2009

    Also for Jon — because many people find it hard, without reading Spencer Weart’s book
    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=spencer+weart+warming
    to understand how CO2 can change both as forcing and a feedback that leads to more change: here’s the record of one such event that you wanted to see:

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?sourceid=Mozilla-search&q=PETM+co2+increase+preceded+temperature

  33. #33 luminous beauty
    December 8, 2009

    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.

  34. #34 Jon
    December 8, 2009

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

  35. #35 Jon
    December 8, 2009

    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…

  36. #36 Dave
    December 8, 2009

    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?

  37. #37 luminous beauty
    December 8, 2009
  38. #38 Jon
    December 8, 2009

    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?

  39. #39 Hank Roberts
    December 8, 2009

    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.

  40. #40 Jon
    December 8, 2009

    #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…

  41. #41 Hank Roberts
    December 8, 2009

    > 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.

  42. #42 Jon
    December 8, 2009

    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.

  43. #43 luminous beauty
    December 8, 2009

    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.

  44. #44 Jon
    December 8, 2009

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

  45. #45 Jon
    December 8, 2009

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

  46. #46 luminous beauty
    December 8, 2009

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

    If true, why bother to respond?

  47. #47 Jon
    December 8, 2009

    #146

    So I bother you emotionally?

    Also see my #145…

    Done.

  48. #48 luminous beauty
    December 8, 2009

    >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.

  49. #49 luminous beauty
    December 8, 2009

    >So I bother you emotionally?

    No, you bother me intellectually.

  50. #50 t_p_hamilton
    December 8, 2009

    Lank says:”http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/#more-13818

    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.

  51. #51 Jon
    December 8, 2009

    #149 Thats your problem.

  52. #52 Dave
    December 8, 2009

    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.

  53. #53 Dave
    December 8, 2009

    > 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.

  54. #54 Janet Akerman
    December 8, 2009

    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.

  55. #55 Dave Andrews
    December 8, 2009

    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!

  56. #56 Michael
    December 8, 2009

    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.

  57. #57 Janet Akerman
    December 8, 2009

    Jon writes:

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

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

  58. #58 Jon
    December 8, 2009

    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?

  59. #59 Jon
    December 8, 2009

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

  60. #60 Janet Akerman
    December 8, 2009

    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.php#comment-2130848) and [Ajax](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame.php#comment-2132681).

    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.

  61. #61 Michael
    December 8, 2009

    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?

  62. #62 Jon
    December 8, 2009

    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!!

  63. #63 pough
    December 8, 2009

    Done.

    Liar.

  64. #64 Jon
    December 8, 2009

    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.

  65. #65 Michael
    December 8, 2009

    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.

  66. #66 Jon
    December 8, 2009

    Michael @165 Thats not what I said.

  67. #67 TrueSceptic
    December 8, 2009

    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?

  68. #69 Michael
    December 8, 2009

    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.

  69. #70 Jon
    December 8, 2009

    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.

  70. #71 PS
    December 8, 2009

    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.

  71. #73 Chris O'Neill
    December 8, 2009

    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.

  72. #74 PS
    December 8, 2009

    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 — 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?

  73. #75 Jon
    December 8, 2009

    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?

  74. #76 Chris O'Neill
    December 8, 2009

    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.

  75. #77 Jon
    December 8, 2009

    @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”.

  76. #78 Chris O'Neill
    December 8, 2009

    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?

  77. #79 Dave
    December 9, 2009

    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”.

  78. #80 Bernard J.
    December 9, 2009

    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.php#comment-2129244), originally asked a month ago [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-.php#comment-2071238)?

    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.php#comment-2131491) 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.

  79. #82 Bernard J.
    December 13, 2009

    Yoohooooo…

    [Lank](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame.php#comment-2134083)?

    Hmmm…

    Perhaps Dave Andrews, Bray-fart, Betula, El Porko, or any other of the drive-by ignorati would like to fill in for Lank?

  80. #83 Bernard J.
    December 16, 2009

    Gawd.

    How hard it is to get the Denialati to answer a [few simple questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame.php#comment-2134083).

    After all, with Plimer’s [latest excursion into climatological commentary](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php) they should all be pumped…

    Or is it they they do not actually have the goods?

  81. #84 wazzamad
    January 10, 2010

    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.

  82. #85 Bernard J.
    January 13, 2010

    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?