Open Thread 38

Time for more open thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Neil Craig
    January 27, 2010

    The way preferred by “environementalists” of “dealing with” me is censorship as Deltoids know well.

  2. #2 Chris O'Neill
    January 27, 2010

    Billy Bob Hall:

    I am not allowed free and unfettered opinion on this blog site.

    Maybe, but you’re certainly allowed to make bullshit claims such as:

    As for ridiculous or nonsense claims by scientists who should know better, here are some examples :-

    and then quotes statements from several scientists that are not unreasonable.

    Billy Bob, you may not be able to write anything on this blog, but considering the bullshit you’re allowed to say, you shouldn’t complain too much.

  3. #3 Billy Bob Hall
    January 27, 2010

    Well Chris. I am again dumbstruck. You seriously don’t think the listed comments (#86) are ‘unreasonable’ (at best) ?

    No wonder there is no point trying to do too much debating with you people.

    To me (and I suspect other reasonable people) the quotes you list (post #99) appear much more rational. But hey, that view doesn’t align with yours – how dare I.

    I’m here, putting up with your abuse, because you need to be reminded that there is not just one world view on these matters – as much as you don’t like that fact.

    Do have a nice day.

  4. #4 Paul H
    January 27, 2010

    Is anyone planning to review Moshers’s book? Judging by the quotes on the front cover and his recent foray into slander against Pachauri it’s going to suck, hard. Have you seen how he took those emails about Pachauri, Hulme and TERI and invents a conspiracy? I might be wrong, but the discussions between Hulme, TERI and Pachauri seem innocuous. Anyone else bothered to look at that?

  5. #5 el gordo
    January 27, 2010

    Who gave Mosher the CRU emails on CD?

  6. #6 Paul H
    January 27, 2010

    El Gordo, is that a rhetorical question (can’t see why in this case) or a genuine one? The link to the emails was posted on WUWT and Anthony Watts’ support staff made a copy and sent it to Steve Mosher. At least that’s truth according the auditor.

  7. #7 el gordo
    January 27, 2010

    It was a genuine question, I didn’t know. Why did the hacker first contact the BBC’s Paul Hudson with a few of the leaked emails? A whistleblower would know that to be a waste of time.

    I don’t think Tom Melvin, Briffa or Harry Harris had anything to do with it.

  8. #8 Bernard J.
    January 27, 2010

    [Billy Bob Hall](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/open_thread_38.php#comment-2230373).

    If you are so sure about the imminent demise of AGW, why do you refuse to attempt an answer to even one of [these questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame.php#comment-2134083
    )?

  9. #9 Chris O'Neill
    January 27, 2010

    Billy Bob Hall:

    You seriously don’t think the listed comments (#86) are ‘unreasonable’ (at best) ?

    Let’s try:

    David Karoly – “…the observed increase in global-average surface temperature since the mid-20th century is mainly due to the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere caused by human activity.”

    What on earth is wrong with this? Anyone who thinks this is a “ridiculous or nonsense claim” is bullshitting.

  10. #10 Chris O'Neill
    January 28, 2010

    Billy Bob Hall:

    You seriously don’t think the listed comments (#86) are ‘unreasonable’ (at best) ?

    Since I don’t want to wait for Tim to let through what I think of what you’re saying here goes:

    Let’s try:

    David Karoly – “…the observed increase in global-average surface temperature since the mid-20th century is mainly due to the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere caused by human activity.”

    What on earth is wrong with what Karoly is saying? He’s just repeating climate science. Anyone who thinks it is a “ridiculous or nonsense claim” is talking absolute garbage, to put it mildly.

    To me (and I suspect other reasonable people) the quotes you list (post #99) appear much more rational.

    That’s because a lot of unskeptical people, such as yourself, are easily sucked in by lies such as:

    The New York Times, .., featured an article on September 23, 2009, which admitted that global temperatures have been stable for the past decade.

    In actual fact, every surface and lower troposphere temperature measurement for the last decade (2000 to 2009 inclusive) shows an increasing trend.

    No wonder there is no point trying to do too much debating with you people.

    I hope you realize that there is no point in debating people who propagate lies like Carroll. And you wonder why I get annoyed. Sheesh.

  11. #11 Paul H
    January 28, 2010

    “Why did the hacker first contact the BBC’s Paul Hudson with a few of the leaked emails?”

    The hacker didn’t contact Hudson first. Several people misread, myself included, Hudson’s blog post and took it to mean that he was sent the hacked emails. What he actually referred to in his post was a fragment of an email exchange he was sent by someone at CRU, or elsewhere, regarding his ‘no warming’ blog post prior to the hack release and he was merely in a position to confirm the veracity of the contents of the emails on that basis since his email was in the bundle.

    “I don’t think Tom Melvin, Briffa or Harry Harris had anything to do with it.”

    Good. I find the idea quite preposterous myself. As far as I can see, only a total numpty would suggest that Keith Briffa was somehow involved. This whole Briffa vs. Jones nonsense is manufactured BS. There is no love lost between Briffa and denialists. Quite ironic, imo, that McI seems fond of such fantasies.

  12. #12 el gordo
    January 28, 2010

    More on Climategate

    The NDET is sending out a list of questions to sceptics. Bishop Hill and Steve McIntyre did their civic duty and responded, but there is some unease about this police probe. Will civil liberties be undermined by answering inane questions?

    The police think its not a hack, or at least they are giving the impression that it was a ‘leak’.
    It’s odd that none of the questions ask if the recipients have sophisticated IT skills.

  13. #13 Jeff Harvey
    January 28, 2010

    “The NDET is sending out a list of questions to sceptics”

    should read:

    “The NDET is sending out a list of questions to denialists”

    These people are NOT sceptics. They are absolutists in that they are, as far as I see it, distorting science to promote a political agenda. If the shoe fits, wear it.

    As for BBH, he still provides no empirical evidence why the points he highlighted earlier are “irrational”. All he has done is bolster his own apparent lack of scientific acumen. I am sure that BBH does not think that the loss of biodiversity is a problem, or that there is a massive extinction event underway. He would likely call this fact equally “irrational” because it does not gel with his political world view.

  14. #14 el gordo
    January 28, 2010

    It’s odd you should say they are ‘distorting science to promote a political agenda’, because that’s what they say about the ‘warmists’.

  15. #15 jakerman
    January 28, 2010

    el gordo,

    Who was your source that gave you [such confidence](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/open_thread_38.php#comment-2219021)?

    Or are you satisfied pushing a bunch of crap then pretending it was nothing when the claims are exposed as bogus?

  16. #16 Chris O'Neill
    January 28, 2010

    It’s odd you should say they are ‘distorting science to promote a political agenda’, because that’s what they say about the ‘warmists’.

    Yes, hypocrites, aren’t they?

  17. #17 vagueofgodalming
    January 29, 2010

    Richard Black at the BBC previews the Deltoid comment threads of 2011.

    Jeff Harvey – if you’re listening, can you point to a primer about the ecological services that we may find we shouldn’t have tried to do without?

  18. #18 el gordo
    January 29, 2010

    Plimer and the Lord will win in straight sets, but who’s watching?

  19. #19 Paul H
    January 29, 2010

    If you mean by winning, regurgitating already discredited nonsense, then, yes, Monckton and Plimer do great. El Gordo, does that not trouble you?

  20. #20 jakerman
    January 29, 2010

    el gordo,

    I think your selective responses have answered [my question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/open_thread_38.php#comment-2234245).

    But while you ignore it, I’ll keep asking it, in contrast to your selective responses, in order to emphasize your approach.

  21. #21 El gordo
    January 29, 2010

    I think Chris and Janet would do a better job of debating than B & R.

  22. #22 bi -- IJI
    January 30, 2010
  23. #23 Bernard J.
    January 30, 2010

    Very curious…

    I just had a look at the [Jo Nova thread slagging Tim Lambert](http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/deltoid-creates-some-sci-comm-pollution/), and marked a couple of the more egregious posts with the “dislike” button.

    When I refreshed the page I noticed that all of my counts have been removed, so I tried again and then refreshed… et voila!, once more my votes had been dropped, after initially registering when I clicked the button.

    Am I being blackballed, or what?

  24. #24 bi -- IJI
    January 31, 2010

    Bernard J.:

    Yet more SwiftHack news, by yours truly: the climategate.com web site seems to be run by right-wing extremists, though they don’t want to tell you that.

  25. #25 Billy Bob Hall
    January 31, 2010

    Nothing unusual about that at all Bernhard. (#121)

    At least you or indeed anyone would be able to make comment on any thread on that blog. Unlike here.

    Oh, and ‘word has it’ the wheels on the old ‘carbon gravy train’ are falling off all up the track – The track that is that leads all the way to the ‘ bridge-less’ crossing soon to be known as ‘dead mans gulch’ ! ;-)

    Hombre ! Did you guys get this all wrong ! :-)

  26. #26 jakerman
    January 31, 2010

    Billy Bob provides the lite relief.

    Nice POE work Billy, you captured the combination of arrogance and emptiness beautifully. Denialist hate it when you show them the mirror.

  27. #27 el gordo
    January 31, 2010

    BJ: It worked alright for me, both ‘like’ and ‘dislike’. Just a few lines from comments: ‘Lambert’s problem is his model blindness’…’the ad hom attacks is a reflex for Deltoid’.

    As Jo said, the Deltoid posts are debatable but not important and the David Rose saga is a prime example. The IPCC ship is sinking and captain Tim is sitting on the poop deck splitting hairs.

  28. #28 John
    January 31, 2010

    This is amusing, here are the headlines for the Wikipedia page on “Objections to evolution“. See if you can recognise the similiarity between these arguments and those of another subject which is occasionally discussed here:

    * 3.1 Evolution is just a theory, not a fact
    * 3.2 Evolution is controversial or contested

    * 4.1 Evolution is a religion
    * 4.2 Evolution is unfalsifiable

    * 5.1 Evolution has never been observed
    * 5.2 Past evidence for evolution has been overturned
    * 5.3 Evolution’s evidence is unreliable or inconsistent

    * 7.3 Evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics

  29. #30 bluegrue
    January 31, 2010

    [bi #122](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/open_thread_38.php#comment-2239724),

    I’m not sure, you can draw the conclusion of a right extremist connection just based on what sites are cohosted on the same IP. WhoIs details are hidden by using _Go Daddy_ as a registrar.

    Related to the above, [aquiring the domain was worth 10,099 USD](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/open_thread_38.php#comment-2239724) to its current owner. There’s quite a bit of money involved here.

  30. #31 bluegrue
    January 31, 2010

    Messed up the link in my above comment, here we go once more:

    [ClimateGate.com Domain Name Sold in November 2009 for $10,099](http://domainnamewire.com/2009/12/07/climategate-com-domain-name-sells/)

  31. #32 jakerman
    January 31, 2010

    A very moving [report from DN](http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/29/exclusiveblackwaters_youngest_victim_father_of_9). I commend it to everyone.

  32. #33 Gaz
    February 1, 2010

    Just a little comment to add to this open thread.

    I’m not an expert on these things, but it would seem that what’s left of the Wilkins Ice Sheeet is starting to crack up again.

    In [this picture](http://webservices.esa.int/wilkinsarctic/wilkins.php?type=full) it appears the section on the north-east (to the south of the small island) is disintegrating and starting to float away.

    Oh dear.

  33. #34 Gaz
    February 1, 2010

    That little island I mentioned in #131 is Rothschild Island, I think.

    An easier link to the picture is [here](http://www.esa.int/esaEO/SEMWZS5DHNF_index_0.html) although it is cropped a bit compared to the full size version.

    The ESA used to present this in normal black and white but a few weeks ago they started showing the pictures as negatives, which makes it hard to see what’s going on.

    I wonder how long it will be before some dickhead starts talking about growing grapes on Charcot Island, given that the climate there is now so toasty.

  34. #35 el gordo
    February 1, 2010

    They have been saying for years that Wilkins is losing its footing, sounds like another beat-up. In the off chance that it does slip, rest assured it has nothing to do with global warming.

  35. #36 John
    February 1, 2010

    More “taking the piss” Gordo?

  36. #37 Jeff Harvey
    February 1, 2010

    vagueofgodalming:

    Sorry I did not reply right asway but I have been away for the past 4 days. Here is a uselful link from the Ecological Society of America that gives a good overview of ecosystem services:

    http://www.actionbioscience.org/environment/esa.html

    As for el fatso’s usual nonsense, what more is there to be said? He/she berates the ‘warmists’ for being overtly political but then curiously spends little time telling us all here which side is doing the vasty majority of the science and where the bulk of the empirical evidence lies. Instead, he perpetually provides links to anti-environmental web sites, some financially supported by polluting industries, that do not do their own research but instead distort the findings of research carried out by others.

    As for the IPCC ‘sinking’, well that is the wishful thinking of unemployed journalists reading too many articles form the corporate MSM.

  37. #38 Gaz
    February 1, 2010

    …In the off chance that it does slip…

    El Gordo, don’t be such a prat. The break-up of the Wilkins Ice Shelf has been [under way for several years](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkins_Sound)

    (Oh, by the way, for those who noticed, in my earlier post I meant Wilkins Ice *Shelf*, not *Sheet*.)

  38. #39 P. Lewis
    February 1, 2010

    A good read is Ice shelf changes on the Antarctic Peninsula by Cook and Vaughan.

  39. #40 el gordo
    February 1, 2010

    The BBC’s Roger Harrabin is having doubts.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8488000/8488894.stm

    Jeff, the gravy train is coming off the tracks and you would be wise to recant now.

  40. #41 jakerman
    February 1, 2010

    >*Jeff, the gravy train is coming off the tracks*

    I hope you’re right el gordo. But I fear that train still has momentum. More than $1 billion each and every day is a lot of gravy. (More than enough to confuse and bamboozle the likes of you).

    < http://anarchist606.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-much-is-global-warming-denial-worth.html>

  41. #42 el gordo
    February 1, 2010

    I like the new you, Janet.

    The gravy train does have momentum and it will morph from global warming to cooling, without too much disruption to the scientists on the ground.

    Exxon’s financial contribution to the Denialati is irrelevant if those they are supporting are proven correct. On the other hand, the AGW cabal will be given a roasting for making alarmist predictions based on flimsy evidence.

  42. #43 Gaz
    February 1, 2010

    flimsy evidence

    …like 190 gigatons of ice being lost every year from the Antarctic ice Sheets?

    Or is that just the gentle ebb and flow of nature, which you can’t explain but know, for sure, that’s its nothing to do with the 8 or 9 gigatonnes of CO2 we’re pumping out every year by burning coal and oil.

  43. #44 Michael
    February 1, 2010

    Shorter el gordo:

    Scientists are in it for the research grants.

    Exxon are just trying to find the truth.

  44. #45 jakerman
    February 1, 2010

    el gordo writes:

    >*the AGW cabal will be given a roasting for making alarmist predictions based on flimsy evidence*

    Are you again [“*taking the piss*”](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_david_rose_caught_mis.php#comment-2238760)?

    Or is that just what you say to avoid [answering question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_david_rose_caught_mis.php#comment-2237735)?

  45. #46 Bud
    February 1, 2010

    Check out this bizarre series of articles – all from yesterday – by the same ‘top science writer’ in the Guardian that both accuse Phil Jones of fraud and describe the ‘climategate’ scandal as bogus and based on ‘global warming sceptics lies’.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/climate-emails-sceptics

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese

    To be fair, I don’t know how any top science writer could describe Energy and Environment as a regular peer-reviewed journal, but there you go.

  46. #47 John
    February 1, 2010

    “the gravy train is coming off the tracks and you would be wise to recant now.”

    I thought it was a ship?

    In other news, Lord Monckton reckons NASA deliberately crashed their own satelite to avoid giving accurate data.

    Possibly a new low (although the one world government claim is hard to beat).

  47. #48 vagueofgodalming
    February 4, 2010

    Jeff @135

    Thank you – that looks like just the job (and mea culpa for not thinking to google it).

  48. #49 Lars Karlsson
    February 4, 2010

    Gray train, roasting … methinks El Gordo is hungry.

  49. #50 Martin Vermeer
    February 4, 2010

    Bud #144, yeah, amazing. Still, it seems more like incompetence than malice. Same problem with Monbiot, who has gained himself an encyclopedic understanding of what the actual science of climatology says; but he is naively ignorant on how science is done.

Current ye@r *