Just wondering if there were any educated and intelligent women who live in Bundaberg. In fact, I would settle for someone who at least had half of their original teeth.
Re Himalayan glaciers. It's quite clear that small glaciers will disappear in that time frame (their annual retreat will see to that), but less clear that the big ones will go. In many parts of the Himalaya these are debris-covered (and likely to be come more so under a paraglacial regime). As a result, they may well be insulated from warming for centuries.
I always hear with some amusement that 'glaciers are melting more quickly in X than any other part of the world' where X is anywhere from the European Alps, Patagonia, Himalaya etc.
Glaciers will expand this century because of cooler and wetter conditions, similar to the 13th and 19th centuries, but a couple of hundred years from now the glaciers will grow as winters become longer and dryer.
El gordo. If climate sensitivity is anywhere near where we think it is, then very few mountain glaciers will survive the century in their present state. Good attempt at trolling though!
Anyone with a couple of neurons still working between their ears should know that global cooling will last a couple of decades. By 2035 the glaciers will be in rude good health.
Just when you thought commentary on the CRU hacked emails could not get any more absurd, along comes National Post columnist and âenvironmentalistâ Lawrence Solomon to up the ante. Believe it or not, Solomonâs latest over-the-top screed accuses Google of censoring search results to downplay the so-called Climategate scandal. But, as they say in the newspaper biz: âCheck a story, lose storyâ.
Furthermore, IIRC, the year after an El Nino starts is usually the warmest in the cycle. The latest El Nino started about a year ago, therefore 2010 is likely to be warmer than 2009, and there is a good chance it will be the new record high year. And this is a moderate El Nino, not even a strong one.
Obviously evidence for the major cooling trend that EG is predicting.
(Remind us again exactly what your prediction was, EG? The next two decades will be cooler than the 20th century average?)
Feel free to add this one to your ongoing Australian War on Science series:
1) A story about the IPCC follow-up to the Himalayan glacier gaffe.
2) A story about the people who sponsored Monckton's Australian visit.
3) A Janet Albrechtsen editorial praising Monckton for his "fact-based" arguments while mildly chiding him for calling people Nazis and Communists. http://demon-hauntedworld.blogspot.com/2010/01/australians-war-on-scien…
The raw data from Wisconson and Illinois was adjusted to show more warming by lowering the temperatures in the first half of the 20th century. Shouldn't we be using bristlecones instead of thermometers?
The raw data from Wisconson and Illinois was adjusted to show more warming by lowering the temperatures in the first half of the 20th century. Shouldn't we be using bristlecones instead of thermometers?
Is that improper el gordo? What did Watts et al want to happen with UHI effect etc?
How can one calculate global temperature continously for for more than 100 years without quality control, homogenisation and correction of known bias/errors?
"... but exaggerated claims - **especially if based on general commentary rather than peer-reviewed science** - inhibit public understanding and damage good policy-making."
They obviously don't realise they've just sunk the boot into Plimer, Monckton, Carter, and the rest of the denydiot fruitloops !!!
Attended a talk by Matt Menne at NCDC about USHCNv2 and its reliability - prompted by WTFWT's pitcher-taking orgy. NCDC has actually appreciated the effort, but the end result is bupkus. The project has become one-way; NCDC does all the work, and Watts doesn't do squat. Wasn't his paper (peer-reviewed and all, by someone besides Heartland) denouncing USHCNv2 supposed to be out by now? That's a big fat fail, kinda like Watts hisself.
On the other hand, since his job was to cast doubt, and cast aspersions on the fine folks at NCDC, Watts' real job is done. It's people like him and Munchkin that make me puke, and realize that the denialists are utter scum.
Of course you needn't put the bristlecone under Fatso's arm - everone knows that it should be inserted somewhere else, if you're wanting to determine his temperature...
It's measure a hockeystick's worth of increase too, once it slid in - those Monckthausen's sufferers run hot indeed.
Why not? Besides having a name that can be sung ala Disney's most famous export, I think it's a cool name that might stick. Besides, see definition 3 in the urban dictionary. I dare say it's a pretty good compliment. :-)
Thanks Michael @ #22.
You may be correct ? Everyone on this blog knows more than me for sure. But, just to be clear... are you saying Tasmania is not in any part of the globe... and thus cannot be affected ?
A paper came out recently, published in Physics Reports, by University of Waterloo professor Qin-Bin Lu. He says that CFCs caused global warming from 1950 to 2000 and not CO2.
If his work is proven to be correct then we will all have to shake hands and go home. Lu claims that temperatures have been falling since 2002 because all the CFC molecules have been eradicated.
It looks like parody, but its probably real climate.
As an environmental journalist, sometimes I get denier traffic to my writing. I'd appreciate climate scientists helping me battle our trolls from time to time:
Kate Shephard at Mother Jones ( http://bit.ly/7HWiCk )is also frequently besieged by denier trolls. The more widely read sites like hers get the worst infestations, probably these are paid day jobs. One environmental journalist noticed how much more came in between 9-5.
El Gordo - are you sure you know what Lu is trying to communicate with his reseach? Or aere you recycling some crap from a nonsense website?
Here's Lu's prediction: http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=4997
"New theory predicts the largest ozone hole over Antarctica will occur this month...the largest ozone hole will occur in one or two weeks.
"
And how did the prediction based on this theory pan out? http://www.theozonehole.com/ozonehole2008.htm
Sep/Oct 2008 Ozone hole was lesser in extent than for just about the entire corresponding period in 2007, and at no time reached the decade maximum.
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v91/i5/e058502
"observed stratospheric CFC distributions are inconsistent with a destruction of CFC on PSC surfaces and no significant correlation exists between ozone levels and cosmic-ray activity inside the polar regions."
In other words, contrary to your assertion, Lu has not the necessary observations or direct measurements to underpin his claim.
Lucky *I*'m a sceptic, or I might swallow that kind of hogwash uncritically.
The denier trolls are best ignored (or blocked). They are also usually pretty easy to spot and tend to peddle out the same old nonsense (and usually over and over) and refuse to accept that their arguments are tired and have been debunked (over and over). They will not accept whatever you tell them as their position is either ideologically or financially driven, so arguing with them is a waste of time. Basing their arguments on links to WUWT or CA (or newspaper op eds) is usually the extent of their science.
This should not be confused with genuine sceptics and, if you or Kate Shepherd doesn't feel confident in addressing their questions, probably the best places to direct them are here or any of the following:
First M class flares of the current cycle, including an M3.4 flare on Wednesday. Plenty of C class activity happening now and all the solar activity indicators are trending up.
Susan Kraemer: ooh, i see you got a visit from neil craig! he turned up in the comments of a blog i read, [spEak You're bRanes](http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/) last summer, and proved to everyone he's a deeply entertaining person.
he got confused quite early on, and decided that his posts were being censored. then that everyone was working for the BBC, or were all the same person, or all the same person working for the BBC. or something like that, anyway.
[his website](http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/) is full of wonderfully fringe ideas. i particularly like the letter to the scotsman about the health benefits of low level radiation that somehow goes off on a crazy tangent about the CRU hack, and includes my first experience of the word "concensii". i'd have gone for "consensata" myself.
ligne - ahh, you've met the internet phenomenon that is Neil Craig. Invoking his name means it is likely that he will pop out of the woodwork to call us all fascists. His scientific ignorance is entertaining, given he runs an SF bookshop in Glasgow, but it does get silly when he tries to redefine things to suit himself. Last run in with him I had, he was refusing to understand that ocean acidiciation meant the ocean was becoming more acidic, prefering instead ot call it more neutral.
Susan Kraeme #43- actually I think the 9 to 5 correlation will be with bored office drones trying to act big on the ineternet. There are many, many people willing to bash those they percieve as greenies and socialists for free. Absent evidence of paid commenters for astroturf, it is much more likely that they are just annoying members of the public.
A paper came out recently, published in Physics Reports, by University of Waterloo professor Qin-Bin Lu. He says that CFCs caused global warming from 1950 to 2000 and not CO2.
Perhaps I should have spent a little more time coming up with a few more examples...
Consider:
I have a theory that thylacines are extinct. I find some fresh tracks in mud after a recent storm, and use an unlabelled set of mimeographs of animal footprints from my primary school days as a reference. I know that I have a good memory for stuff, even after the passage of several decades, so when I see a print that's just like the one in the mud I am confident that I have found a thylacine print.
Does this observation, and the research that followed, disprove my theory?
el gordo, so now you support the enhanced-greenhouse-effect theory? How quickly you dropped your other PDO theory, or was it the Sun, (or what ever was your last bunk) if favour of the latest flash in the pan.
>*To examine the potential relationship between temperature and CFCs, Lu compares global temperature to Equivalent Effective Stratospheric Chlorine (EESC), a measure of atmospheric CFCs. There is no EESC data before 1970 so the data is extrapolated backwards assuming an identical growth rate until EESC levels hit 0 in the 1940s.*
OK, that's extrapolation not observation. But seems plausible, yet it doesn't make Lu's observations superior to the more than 100 years of observational data from multiple lines of evidence, which support the current AGW theory. Further more:
>*The physics of how CFCs might impose such a strong radiative forcing are not addressed. Lu mentions that the radiative forcing from CFCs haven't been directly measured, then moves onto statistical correlations.*
So Lu hasn't measured the radiative forcing, he's assumed it from correlation. Fortunately others have measured it.
>*the greenhouse effect from CFCs have been quantified from surface observations of the infrared radiation spectrum (Evans 2006). The observed results are broadly consistent with model predictions of greenhouse forcing (although observations show slightly higher forcing than model results). The proportion of CFC forcing compared to total greenhouse forcing is still around 14%, a close match to the IPCC estimate of 13%.*
So el gordo, do you still want to chuck your PDO speculation in favour of Lu's CFC statistical tests?
>*No, Janet, I'm just as horrified as you that Lu's paper even got up.*
That didn't take long for your to chuck Lu under the bus. So who was your source that had you making such confident snipes such as:
>*Unbelievable, Lu used observation and measurements to work out his theory. Anyone with so little respect for models cannot be taken seriously.
Posted by: el gordo | January 21, 2010 4:07 PM*
I'm struggling to reconcile two El Gordo utterances made just 3:28 hrs apart:
"Lu used observation and measurements to work out his theory."
"I'm just as horrified as you that Lu's paper even got up."
The first was clearly an uninformed opinion, but what is the second one supposed to mean?
"I posted an endorsement of an opinion I don't agree with".???
Lu's dismissal of a particular trace gas has my support, but to say that cooling is now happening because CFCs are out of the equation - is just silly.
I currently am not able to access my institution's library, so I can't go through the paywall to read Lu's paper.
I'm curious though to know exactly what technique he employed that permitted him to establish that "correlation between global temperature and CFCs is evidence that CFCs have been the dominant driver of climate over the past century".
When I look at the first graph, I see a 20th century warming trend that commences before the increase in EESC, and I see a period of (aerosol attributed) cooling kicking in at the time that EESC does begin to rise. This would seem to indicate that for a decade or so either side of the point where EESC begins to increase, there is no relationship with temperature at all.
Any 'correlation' seems to occur after 1960, or even later, and given the vast number of human-produced substances that would demonstrate a similar trend, I would suggest that the correlation is a completely spurious one.
At first blush, and given the poor relationship implied by the graph, it's certainly no evidence of a (partial, at best) correlation indicating causation. If this truly is Lu's claim, it should have been weeded out during review
It seems that Fatso is still using dodgey material in his attempts to push his Denialist barrow.
>*Lu's dismissal of a particular trace gas has my support*
No matter the known flaws and inadequacy, any junk that purport to dismiss CO2 induced warming is to be supported by rank denialist. Even when they think it *"silly"*, they still support the bunk.
Throw in that the current El Nino is only a moderate one, and that 2009 still managed to reach equal second highest temps (with the promise of more to come in 2010), and there remains a ship load of warming to explain away.
People like el gordo are dedicated right-wing trolls. Their mission is to waste our time by casting doubt with wild accusations among other tactics. I don't know why Tim doesn't just ban all trolls and other proven liars and idiots. If anyone can think of a reason for keeping trolls on board, I'd like to hear it.
By the by, silkworm, I'm actually from the far left. The green/left alliance seemed like a good idea at the time and we supported it, but the greens put all their eggs in the CC basket.
This is a disaster for our side. Political commentators will look back and refer to the 'great delusion'.
By the by, silkworm, I'm actually from the far left.
This is now my favourite ever comment on this site, beating the time troll AussieJoe tried to pretend he was a different AussieJoe, this time a retired teacher named Josephine E.
By the by, nobody on the far left actually uses terms like far left. If you were on the left you might be able to objectively look at the science instead of getting hung up on right wing "talking points".
Your bungled multiple conspiracies to explain the hacking of the CRU proves you to be what I suspected, a troll who will say anything to provoke a response. It is only by the grace of Tim you haven't had your arse booted out of here yet.
The denialists' tactics revolve around personal attacks (I've heard of at least two climate scientists that have gotten death threats) against the scientists, rather than disputing the science.
It's just like claiming that the sun doesn't rise in the east and set in the west because of alleged skullduggery at the US Naval Observatory. Those denialist idiots (but I repeat myself) haven't an effing clue...
Please provide evidence for the "nonsense promulgated by many Scientists" [emphasis mine].
Please provide, also, evidence that this "nonsense promulgated by many Scientists" represents a significant portion of the scientific literature, and that where such "nonsense promulgated by many Scientists" occurs, it has been "promulgated" with deliberate intent.
And as you are so convinced that climatology has it wrong, please provide evidence that substantially addresses any of [the questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame…
) that your denialist buddies have been so assiduoulsy avoiding for the last few months.
Further on my own wacky investigation into the CRU crack:
Apparently the router at IP address 82.208.87.170 -- which McIntyre claimed to be the IP behind the "A miracle just happened" message -- experienced a enormously huge surge in network traffic from mid-November to mid-December. Hmm.
El Gordo - I've no idea where you get your appreciation of politics from, but pushing a response to climate change is going to neither lose the Greens votes, not harm their long-term credibility.
Unfortunately, like the Democrats, the greens have been largely hijacked by yuppie trendoids who are gradually pushing the Party out of its core direction and off onto stupid tangents such as encouraging illegal immigration and blowing-up the homosexual marriage nonsense into a supposed "civil rights" issue.
Although climate change related problems will continue to provide the electorate with an incentive and an inspiration to support environmental issues, the Greens will have trouble turning that into actual votes if the carry on with their current idiotic policy focus.
The people who in the next 15 years will lose their credibility (and utterly so) over climate change are Nick Minchin, Tony Abbott, The Australian and all its employees, Bob Carter, Ian Plimer, Barnaby Joyce and Steve Fielding. (Although the last three have precious little credibility to start with.)
Thanks Bernhard (#81) - Of course I am not allowed to have an opinion. It is also not for me to construct 'a case' - as of course I am not qualified to do so. There are inquiries for that, and I am well pleased to see that some are underway.
As for ridiculous or nonsense claims by scientists who should know better, here are some examples :-
Cynthia Rosenzweig NASA - Cannibalism and declining population of polar bears (caused by global warming...).
Tim Flannery - "Climate change is happening so quickly that mankind may need to pump sulfur into the atmosphere to survive".
James Hansen - NASA - "Global climate is near critical tipping points that could lead to loss of all summer sea ice in the
Arctic with detrimental effects on wildlife, initiation of ice sheet disintegration in West Antarctica
and Greenland with progressive, unstoppable global sea level rise...." etc.
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."
Penny Whetton - CSIRO - "I am one of many scientists who have studied the interactions between carbon dioxide (CO2) and climate for decades, concluding that CO2 is an agent of global warming and that humanity must reduce CO2 emissions".
and, not forgetting Robyn Williams - 100m sea-level rises etc etc..
go on, Billy Bob, humour me: how are those ridiculous or nonsense claims? you seem very certain of that fact, so i assume you have some extremely convincing evidence to that effect.
Given BBH is a veritable neophyte, on what scientific grounds does he dismiss these points?
The answer should be obvious. NONE.
Basically, as we have all known for quite some time, BBH is a troll. For those who have not used it yet, {killfile] may help to avoid his vacuous musings.
Maybe Bob can explain why Hansen is so wildly wrong?
I live near the city at most risk in the UK of serious flooding due to sea level rises. If 'Bob' can explain how a 6 metre rise could be defended against by an island city 3 metres above current levels, without ridiculous walls all around it which would have to be built up on a regular basis, then please do advise. Maybe he can advise about salt/sea water ingress?
Fortunately in the UK, people do take the issue seriously and are planning for sea level rises as best they can.
BTW, any one know of any dark alleys?
Oops maybe I should have kept that for an email!
Of course you're allowed an opinion, who said you weren't? You're even allowed an uninformed, distorted, unsupported opinion.
Starting off with your above false claim suggest that you'd rather say a bunch of pretend things rather than address Bernard's challenge. Bernard seems correct when he bet that you could construct credible case to support your opinion.
Thanks jakerman (#90). Firstly, I promise you, I am not allowed free and unfettered opinion on this blog site. Check with Tim by all means to see I am not making up what you seem to think is a 'false claim'.
Secondly, are you suggesting that I have made up the 'pretend' statements from the aforementioned 'Eminent Scientists' ?
The trouble with reality for some of you people, is that it is now becoming all 'too real' now ! That dreaded 'denialism' seems to be everywhere - 'because we are in the pay of big oil' and 'we have nothing else better to do' ! ;-)
Yes, Billybobhall. Your quotes were real shockers.
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."
Tim permits you to share your opinions on open threads yet this is all you give. If you stop pretend that you can't have opinions you'd have to face how shallow your contribution is. You might even grow.
"Current predictions of global warming and its long-term effects depend on computer-generated mathematical models."
"We are confronted every day with how poor economic commentators are at prediction. If this is true in the domain of economics, how much more the case is it for climate, where the potential variables are vastly greater?"
"The New York Times, .., featured an article on September 23, 2009, which admitted that global temperatures have been stable for the past decade."
"The claims made about the science have been rash, asserting dogmatic certainty about human-induced warming when the reality is that the overall picture is quite unclear."
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
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' ! ;-)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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).
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.
...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.
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'.
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.
Just wondering if there were any educated and intelligent women who live in Bundaberg. In fact, I would settle for someone who at least had half of their original teeth.
I believe Janet Albrechtsen is moving to Bundaberg soon. She is, I am told, educated. Unable to verify teeth.
Himalaya glaciers...
This isn't very helpful:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100119/full/463276a.html
It's going to cause more problems.
Looks like they need to take more time checking through any future reports.
I doubt if there's ever been a 1,000 page report about anything, in any language, that has been free of error.
Jack Chick tells me that the Bible, in its original English, is inerrant.
Re Himalayan glaciers. It's quite clear that small glaciers will disappear in that time frame (their annual retreat will see to that), but less clear that the big ones will go. In many parts of the Himalaya these are debris-covered (and likely to be come more so under a paraglacial regime). As a result, they may well be insulated from warming for centuries.
I always hear with some amusement that 'glaciers are melting more quickly in X than any other part of the world' where X is anywhere from the European Alps, Patagonia, Himalaya etc.
Glaciers will expand this century because of cooler and wetter conditions, similar to the 13th and 19th centuries, but a couple of hundred years from now the glaciers will grow as winters become longer and dryer.
El gordo. If climate sensitivity is anywhere near where we think it is, then very few mountain glaciers will survive the century in their present state. Good attempt at trolling though!
Anyone with a couple of neurons still working between their ears should know that global cooling will last a couple of decades. By 2035 the glaciers will be in rude good health.
What global cooling?.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100115_Temperature2009.pdf
"The past year, 2009, tied as the second warmest year in the 130 years of globalÂ
instrumental temperature records, in the surface temperature analysis of the NASA GoddardÂ
Institute for Space Studies (GISS).  The Southern Hemisphere set a record as the warmest year
for that half of the world."
Â
Ah well, what the heck, I hope no one minds a repost here of something buried well down at Open Therad 37:
The latest on ClimateGate - Google censorship!
http://deepclimate.org/2010/01/19/national-posts-lawrence-solomon-claim…
Just when you thought commentary on the CRU hacked emails could not get any more absurd, along comes National Post columnist and âenvironmentalistâ Lawrence Solomon to up the ante. Believe it or not, Solomonâs latest over-the-top screed accuses Google of censoring search results to downplay the so-called Climategate scandal. But, as they say in the newspaper biz: âCheck a story, lose storyâ.
dappledwater, natural climate cycles will overwhelm your much vaunted AGW.
5 mb: is troo. but only the KJV, mind you. all the others were actually translated by the devil.
The erratic nature of el gordo's comments, here and elsewhere, make me wonder whether he's not one individual but a committee.
El Gordo,
if cycles really are cyclical, and AGW really is an underlying upward trend, what will happen when the cycles reach their 'up' part?
El gordo:
How true.
@ 10
Furthermore, IIRC, the year after an El Nino starts is usually the warmest in the cycle. The latest El Nino started about a year ago, therefore 2010 is likely to be warmer than 2009, and there is a good chance it will be the new record high year. And this is a moderate El Nino, not even a strong one.
Obviously evidence for the major cooling trend that EG is predicting.
(Remind us again exactly what your prediction was, EG? The next two decades will be cooler than the 20th century average?)
*[Cut and Paste of nutty web page deleted. Follow the link if you want to read it. Tim]*
Tim,
Feel free to add this one to your ongoing Australian War on Science series:
1) A story about the IPCC follow-up to the Himalayan glacier gaffe.
2) A story about the people who sponsored Monckton's Australian visit.
3) A Janet Albrechtsen editorial praising Monckton for his "fact-based" arguments while mildly chiding him for calling people Nazis and Communists.
http://demon-hauntedworld.blogspot.com/2010/01/australians-war-on-scien…
Jury still out on climate change: CSIRO.
BY ROSSLYN BEEBY, SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT REPORTER.
The Canberra Times. (January 19th, 2010).
[Jury still out](http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/jury-still-out-…).
The raw data from Wisconson and Illinois was adjusted to show more warming by lowering the temperatures in the first half of the 20th century. Shouldn't we be using bristlecones instead of thermometers?
Billy Bob:
Fancy that, a denialist misrepresents the facts.
CSIRO scientist actually says - the jury is still out on whether the current drought in Tasmania is due to AGW.
Got proof for that?
Definite proof is hard to find, as they keep adjusting the raw data.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/ushcn-vs-ushcn-version-2-more-i…
>*they keep adjusting the raw data.*
Is that improper el gordo? What did Watts et al want to happen with UHI effect etc?
How can one calculate global temperature continously for for more than 100 years without quality control, homogenisation and correction of known bias/errors?
How does the editorial team at the Australian come up with this stuff ?? ...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/not-so-fast-why-glaciers-o…
"... but exaggerated claims - **especially if based on general commentary rather than peer-reviewed science** - inhibit public understanding and damage good policy-making."
They obviously don't realise they've just sunk the boot into Plimer, Monckton, Carter, and the rest of the denydiot fruitloops !!!
Attended a talk by Matt Menne at NCDC about USHCNv2 and its reliability - prompted by WTFWT's pitcher-taking orgy. NCDC has actually appreciated the effort, but the end result is bupkus. The project has become one-way; NCDC does all the work, and Watts doesn't do squat. Wasn't his paper (peer-reviewed and all, by someone besides Heartland) denouncing USHCNv2 supposed to be out by now? That's a big fat fail, kinda like Watts hisself.
On the other hand, since his job was to cast doubt, and cast aspersions on the fine folks at NCDC, Watts' real job is done. It's people like him and Munchkin that make me puke, and realize that the denialists are utter scum.
I don't need to shove a bristlecone in your armpit to know that you're feverish,El Gordo.
Rectal temp is better Nick.
[Nick](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/open_thread_38.php#comment-2215…).
Of course you needn't put the bristlecone under Fatso's arm - everone knows that it should be inserted somewhere else, if you're wanting to determine his temperature...
It's measure a hockeystick's worth of increase too, once it slid in - those Monckthausen's sufferers run hot indeed.
Dang, beaten by Michael.
Ironically, whilst I took a break to measure a baby's temperature...
9 el gordo,
You just don't know when to stop, do you?
Once more: wanna bet?
Folks:
Mickey Tobis at Only in it... has a quite brilliant discussion of denier typologies which is definitely worth a read.
Mickey?
MICKEY???
Why not? Besides having a name that can be sung ala Disney's most famous export, I think it's a cool name that might stick. Besides, see definition 3 in the urban dictionary. I dare say it's a pretty good compliment. :-)
Heck of a good post that was, too.
Bernard, is it done yet?
Sorry that was tasteless.
Unlike a delicious ba *pushing the bounds of normal social interaction*
Lawd stop me! My brain just comes up with these sick jokes and I feel compelled to share them. Ermm, ok, clean joke, er
A dyslexic man walks into a bra.
Ahh, much better.
'Anyone who uses the expression climate denier has lost the argument'. Lindzen.
Scripps is shouting it from the rooftops, so they are definitely heading for a fall.
http://sio.ucsd.edu/Announcements/Somerville_denialists/
Thanks Michael @ #22.
You may be correct ? Everyone on this blog knows more than me for sure. But, just to be clear... are you saying Tasmania is not in any part of the globe... and thus cannot be affected ?
Read it again - (and then weep). :-)
[Fatso](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/open_thread_38.php#comment-2216…).
If Lindzen's words, which are apparently [translated](http://sppiblog.org/news/scientists-goosestepping-after-al-gore), really were:
then he has engaged in a gargantuan non sequitur.
After all, only an idiot would deny the existence of climate.
But then again, given the enormous body of evidence that suuports AGW, only an idiot would deny that particular corpus also.
If you disagree with me, I invite you once again to consider [this challenge](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame…).
A paper came out recently, published in Physics Reports, by University of Waterloo professor Qin-Bin Lu. He says that CFCs caused global warming from 1950 to 2000 and not CO2.
If his work is proven to be correct then we will all have to shake hands and go home. Lu claims that temperatures have been falling since 2002 because all the CFC molecules have been eradicated.
It looks like parody, but its probably real climate.
Another day, another cowpat for the village idiot to drag into the house:
In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002.
FAIL
As an environmental journalist, sometimes I get denier traffic to my writing. I'd appreciate climate scientists helping me battle our trolls from time to time:
http://cleantechnica.com/2010/01/20/we-might-still-have-food-in-the-fut…
Kate Shephard at Mother Jones ( http://bit.ly/7HWiCk )is also frequently besieged by denier trolls. The more widely read sites like hers get the worst infestations, probably these are paid day jobs. One environmental journalist noticed how much more came in between 9-5.
Unbelievable, Lu used observation and measurements to work out his theory. Anyone with so little respect for models cannot be taken seriously.
El Gordo - are you sure you know what Lu is trying to communicate with his reseach? Or aere you recycling some crap from a nonsense website?
Here's Lu's prediction:
http://newsrelease.uwaterloo.ca/news.php?id=4997
"New theory predicts the largest ozone hole over Antarctica will occur this month...the largest ozone hole will occur in one or two weeks.
"
And how did the prediction based on this theory pan out?
http://www.theozonehole.com/ozonehole2008.htm
Sep/Oct 2008 Ozone hole was lesser in extent than for just about the entire corresponding period in 2007, and at no time reached the decade maximum.
So what does the rest of the scientific community think of Lu's ideas?
Not much.
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v89/i21/e219803
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v89/i21/e219801
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v91/i5/e058502
"observed stratospheric CFC distributions are inconsistent with a destruction of CFC on PSC surfaces and no significant correlation exists between ozone levels and cosmic-ray activity inside the polar regions."
In other words, contrary to your assertion, Lu has not the necessary observations or direct measurements to underpin his claim.
Lucky *I*'m a sceptic, or I might swallow that kind of hogwash uncritically.
el gordo writes:
>*Unbelievable, Lu used observation and measurements to work out his theory. Anyone with so little respect for models cannot be taken seriously.*
el gordo,
Was Lu's observation and measurement "more equal" than that of the observation and measurement which lead to, and then reconfirmed AGW?
Re #42 and #43
Susan,
The denier trolls are best ignored (or blocked). They are also usually pretty easy to spot and tend to peddle out the same old nonsense (and usually over and over) and refuse to accept that their arguments are tired and have been debunked (over and over). They will not accept whatever you tell them as their position is either ideologically or financially driven, so arguing with them is a waste of time. Basing their arguments on links to WUWT or CA (or newspaper op eds) is usually the extent of their science.
This should not be confused with genuine sceptics and, if you or Kate Shepherd doesn't feel confident in addressing their questions, probably the best places to direct them are here or any of the following:
Real Climate: http://www.realclimate.org/
Skeptical Science: http://www.skepticalscience.com/
RC Wiki: http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=RC_Wiki
Grist: http://www.grist.org/kingdom/climate-energy
Spencer Weart: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
I find that the Skeptical Science one is particularly good as it is well written, logical and provides links to the papers supporting the arguments.
yeah, who needs models to explain their correlation? models are for little girls; Real Men draw pretty graphs.
Is this the first real sign that solar cycle 24 is kicking in?
http://www.solarcycle24.com/
First M class flares of the current cycle, including an M3.4 flare on Wednesday. Plenty of C class activity happening now and all the solar activity indicators are trending up.
Susan Kraemer: ooh, i see you got a visit from neil craig! he turned up in the comments of a blog i read, [spEak You're bRanes](http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/) last summer, and proved to everyone he's a deeply entertaining person.
he got confused quite early on, and decided that his posts were being censored. then that everyone was working for the BBC, or were all the same person, or all the same person working for the BBC. or something like that, anyway.
[his website](http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/) is full of wonderfully fringe ideas. i particularly like the letter to the scotsman about the health benefits of low level radiation that somehow goes off on a crazy tangent about the CRU hack, and includes my first experience of the word "concensii". i'd have gone for "consensata" myself.
ligne - ahh, you've met the internet phenomenon that is Neil Craig. Invoking his name means it is likely that he will pop out of the woodwork to call us all fascists. His scientific ignorance is entertaining, given he runs an SF bookshop in Glasgow, but it does get silly when he tries to redefine things to suit himself. Last run in with him I had, he was refusing to understand that ocean acidiciation meant the ocean was becoming more acidic, prefering instead ot call it more neutral.
Susan Kraeme #43- actually I think the 9 to 5 correlation will be with bored office drones trying to act big on the ineternet. There are many, many people willing to bash those they percieve as greenies and socialists for free. Absent evidence of paid commenters for astroturf, it is much more likely that they are just annoying members of the public.
Mr Nightingale: The forecast is still for low to very low solar activity. It doesn't feel like a Dalton.
45 jakerman,
What is the origin of CFCs?
48 ligne,
If you enjoy Neil Craig, you'll _really_ enjoy [Graeme Bird](http://graemebird.wordpress.com/)
Fatso [points out](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/open_thread_38.php#comment-2217…) that:
and [thinks](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/open_thread_38.php#comment-2218…) that because:
he must be correct.
Fatso, did you not really understand [my point](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/a_beat_up_of_himalayan_proport…) yesterday about the quality of measurement/observation, did you?
Perhaps I should have spent a little more time coming up with a few more examples...
Consider:
Does this observation, and the research that followed, disprove my theory?
If this is all just too abstract for you, consider that [John Cook](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Could-CFCs-be-causing-global-warming.ht…), who has an Honours degree in solar physics, and [Eli Rabett](http://rabett.blogspot.com/2009/12/if-you-got-hammer.html), who is not what one would call "ignorant in chemistry", have sent Lu back to his desk to try harder next time...
el gordo, so now you support the enhanced-greenhouse-effect theory? How quickly you dropped your other PDO theory, or was it the Sun, (or what ever was your last bunk) if favour of the latest flash in the pan.
Lets [look at Lu's observations](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Could-CFCs-be-causing-global-warming.ht…) or lack of them:
>*To examine the potential relationship between temperature and CFCs, Lu compares global temperature to Equivalent Effective Stratospheric Chlorine (EESC), a measure of atmospheric CFCs. There is no EESC data before 1970 so the data is extrapolated backwards assuming an identical growth rate until EESC levels hit 0 in the 1940s.*
OK, that's extrapolation not observation. But seems plausible, yet it doesn't make Lu's observations superior to the more than 100 years of observational data from multiple lines of evidence, which support the current AGW theory. Further more:
>*The physics of how CFCs might impose such a strong radiative forcing are not addressed. Lu mentions that the radiative forcing from CFCs haven't been directly measured, then moves onto statistical correlations.*
So Lu hasn't measured the radiative forcing, he's assumed it from correlation. Fortunately others have measured it.
>*the greenhouse effect from CFCs have been quantified from surface observations of the infrared radiation spectrum (Evans 2006). The observed results are broadly consistent with model predictions of greenhouse forcing (although observations show slightly higher forcing than model results). The proportion of CFC forcing compared to total greenhouse forcing is still around 14%, a close match to the IPCC estimate of 13%.*
So el gordo, do you still want to chuck your PDO speculation in favour of Lu's CFC statistical tests?
>*Mr Nightingale: The forecast is still for low to very low solar activity. It doesn't feel like a Dalton.*
Low solar activity, and yet still [so warm](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/).
And current regional anomalies don't seem bring down global temperatures. The denialists are [forced to argue](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/15/uah-satellite-data-has-record-war…) that global warming makes no difference.
But I thought the PDO has switched? Perhaps someone is making more CFCs? Cosmic rays anyone?
No, Janet, I'm just as horrified as you that Lu's paper even got up. So much for peer review.
You're into CO2 forcing and I'm a supporter of natural variability, we don't need another theory to upset our biased viewpoint.
el gordo writes:
>*No, Janet, I'm just as horrified as you that Lu's paper even got up.*
That didn't take long for your to chuck Lu under the bus. So who was your source that had you making such confident snipes such as:
>*Unbelievable, Lu used observation and measurements to work out his theory. Anyone with so little respect for models cannot be taken seriously.
Posted by: el gordo | January 21, 2010 4:07 PM*
I'm struggling to reconcile two El Gordo utterances made just 3:28 hrs apart:
"Lu used observation and measurements to work out his theory."
"I'm just as horrified as you that Lu's paper even got up."
The first was clearly an uninformed opinion, but what is the second one supposed to mean?
"I posted an endorsement of an opinion I don't agree with".???
57 Vince,
El gordo thinks he's being ironic.
Lu's dismissal of a particular trace gas has my support, but to say that cooling is now happening because CFCs are out of the equation - is just silly.
As I said on the [Skeptikal Science post](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Could-CFCs-be-causing-global-warming.ht…) about Lu's nonsense:
It seems that Fatso is still using dodgey material in his attempts to push his Denialist barrow.
>*Lu's dismissal of a particular trace gas has my support*
No matter the known flaws and inadequacy, any junk that purport to dismiss CO2 induced warming is to be supported by rank denialist. Even when they think it *"silly"*, they still support the bunk.
At least until it backfires on him and he claims he never supported it.
Hey Gordo - who do you think hacked the CRU this week?
MI5
El gordo, who was your source that gave you such [confidence](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/open_thread_38.php#comment-2218…)?
Low solar activity, and yet still so warm.
Throw in that the current El Nino is only a moderate one, and that 2009 still managed to reach equal second highest temps (with the promise of more to come in 2010), and there remains a ship load of warming to explain away.
#48 ligne and #42 Susan Kraemer
One way of dealing with Neil Craig is to remind him of this:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKL0887458220071108
He calls himself a âscientific skepticâ, and yet is utterly credulous.
How expected that all those "environmentalists" who say how obviously wrong I am are so keen to censor any response.
Via Eli Rabett here's an accepted paper on bias in the surface record:
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf
So, now Watts and the rest will admit that siting issues make no difference. Haha, just kidding! They'll demand emails via FOI.
People like el gordo are dedicated right-wing trolls. Their mission is to waste our time by casting doubt with wild accusations among other tactics. I don't know why Tim doesn't just ban all trolls and other proven liars and idiots. If anyone can think of a reason for keeping trolls on board, I'd like to hear it.
Tim needs a couple of resident trolls to keep the blog ticking over, this thread has been stalled on Boris for a day.
By the by, silkworm, I'm actually from the far left. The green/left alliance seemed like a good idea at the time and we supported it, but the greens put all their eggs in the CC basket.
This is a disaster for our side. Political commentators will look back and refer to the 'great delusion'.
This is now my favourite ever comment on this site, beating the time troll AussieJoe tried to pretend he was a different AussieJoe, this time a retired teacher named Josephine E.
By the by, nobody on the far left actually uses terms like far left. If you were on the left you might be able to objectively look at the science instead of getting hung up on right wing "talking points".
Your bungled multiple conspiracies to explain the hacking of the CRU proves you to be what I suspected, a troll who will say anything to provoke a response. It is only by the grace of Tim you haven't had your arse booted out of here yet.
Tim Lambert,
Before I waste my time doing the collecting, would you object to a post here containing a collection of el gordo's idiocy?
"Tim Considers"
76 John,
:)
Finally a substantial response - UK Parliament Inquiry. We need a Royal Commission is Australia too.
A sad day indeed when Science has to be investigated in this sort of way.
But then again, seeing some of the nonsense promulgated by many Scientists, all I can say is 'bring it on'.
[Disclosure of climate data](http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_…).
The denialists' tactics revolve around personal attacks (I've heard of at least two climate scientists that have gotten death threats) against the scientists, rather than disputing the science.
It's just like claiming that the sun doesn't rise in the east and set in the west because of alleged skullduggery at the US Naval Observatory. Those denialist idiots (but I repeat myself) haven't an effing clue...
Prove it. Prove you are not a lying troll. Say something a socialist would say.
[Billy Bob Hall](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/open_thread_38.php#comment-2223…).
Please provide evidence for the "nonsense promulgated by many Scientists" [emphasis mine].
Please provide, also, evidence that this "nonsense promulgated by many Scientists" represents a significant portion of the scientific literature, and that where such "nonsense promulgated by many Scientists" occurs, it has been "promulgated" with deliberate intent.
And as you are so convinced that climatology has it wrong, please provide evidence that substantially addresses any of [the questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame…
) that your denialist buddies have been so assiduoulsy avoiding for the last few months.
In other words, construct an actual case.
I'd bet you can't.
Further on my own wacky investigation into the CRU crack:
Apparently the router at IP address 82.208.87.170 -- which McIntyre claimed to be the IP behind the "A miracle just happened" message -- experienced a enormously huge surge in network traffic from mid-November to mid-December. Hmm.
Cut back on science and engineering in society and you get companies exporting divining rods to detect bombs in Iraq!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8475341.stm
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2010/01/2010123153619638743.ht…
The appalling thing is that it seems the ban only applies to Iraq and Afghanistan.
El gordo bobo:
Again I invoke Hank's deathless formulation:
"Unless you have parasites, this is overplurification."
El Gordo - I've no idea where you get your appreciation of politics from, but pushing a response to climate change is going to neither lose the Greens votes, not harm their long-term credibility.
Unfortunately, like the Democrats, the greens have been largely hijacked by yuppie trendoids who are gradually pushing the Party out of its core direction and off onto stupid tangents such as encouraging illegal immigration and blowing-up the homosexual marriage nonsense into a supposed "civil rights" issue.
Although climate change related problems will continue to provide the electorate with an incentive and an inspiration to support environmental issues, the Greens will have trouble turning that into actual votes if the carry on with their current idiotic policy focus.
The people who in the next 15 years will lose their credibility (and utterly so) over climate change are Nick Minchin, Tony Abbott, The Australian and all its employees, Bob Carter, Ian Plimer, Barnaby Joyce and Steve Fielding. (Although the last three have precious little credibility to start with.)
Thanks Bernhard (#81) - Of course I am not allowed to have an opinion. It is also not for me to construct 'a case' - as of course I am not qualified to do so. There are inquiries for that, and I am well pleased to see that some are underway.
As for ridiculous or nonsense claims by scientists who should know better, here are some examples :-
Cynthia Rosenzweig NASA - Cannibalism and declining population of polar bears (caused by global warming...).
Tim Flannery - "Climate change is happening so quickly that mankind may need to pump sulfur into the atmosphere to survive".
James Hansen - NASA - "Global climate is near critical tipping points that could lead to loss of all summer sea ice in the
Arctic with detrimental effects on wildlife, initiation of ice sheet disintegration in West Antarctica
and Greenland with progressive, unstoppable global sea level rise...." etc.
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."
Penny Whetton - CSIRO - "I am one of many scientists who have studied the interactions between carbon dioxide (CO2) and climate for decades, concluding that CO2 is an agent of global warming and that humanity must reduce CO2 emissions".
and, not forgetting Robyn Williams - 100m sea-level rises etc etc..
Need I go on !
Have a nice day y'all.
go on, Billy Bob, humour me: how are those ridiculous or nonsense claims? you seem very certain of that fact, so i assume you have some extremely convincing evidence to that effect.
I second ligne's posting.
Given BBH is a veritable neophyte, on what scientific grounds does he dismiss these points?
The answer should be obvious. NONE.
Basically, as we have all known for quite some time, BBH is a troll. For those who have not used it yet, {killfile] may help to avoid his vacuous musings.
Maybe Bob can explain why Hansen is so wildly wrong?
I live near the city at most risk in the UK of serious flooding due to sea level rises. If 'Bob' can explain how a 6 metre rise could be defended against by an island city 3 metres above current levels, without ridiculous walls all around it which would have to be built up on a regular basis, then please do advise. Maybe he can advise about salt/sea water ingress?
Fortunately in the UK, people do take the issue seriously and are planning for sea level rises as best they can.
BTW, any one know of any dark alleys?
Oops maybe I should have kept that for an email!
Billy Bob writes:
>*Of course I am not allowed to have an opinion.*
Of course you're allowed an opinion, who said you weren't? You're even allowed an uninformed, distorted, unsupported opinion.
Starting off with your above false claim suggest that you'd rather say a bunch of pretend things rather than address Bernard's challenge. Bernard seems correct when he bet that you could construct credible case to support your opinion.
Sciencemag: Richard Tol, Roger Pielke, and Hans von Storch criticizing a range of procedures at the IPCC
Ahh, usual suspects parroting the usual suspect points.
Yeah, global warming is false.
Just look out how the arctic ice cap has "recovered"
el gordo displays the intelligence of an idiot. This is a statement of fact, not a name-call.
[Dhogaza](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/open_thread_38.php#comment-2227…).
It's even more interesting considering that the [sea ice "recovery"](http://i49.tinypic.com/29ztrib.jpg) has occurred after the cold snap that the Denialists, [including Watts](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/so_thats_why_surfacestationsor…), indicate the incipient Ice Age.
I wonder how they will explain that away?
Thanks jakerman (#90). Firstly, I promise you, I am not allowed free and unfettered opinion on this blog site. Check with Tim by all means to see I am not making up what you seem to think is a 'false claim'.
Secondly, are you suggesting that I have made up the 'pretend' statements from the aforementioned 'Eminent Scientists' ?
The trouble with reality for some of you people, is that it is now becoming all 'too real' now ! That dreaded 'denialism' seems to be everywhere - 'because we are in the pay of big oil' and 'we have nothing else better to do' ! ;-)
Yes, Billybobhall. Your quotes were real shockers.
Since when have scientists been saying this?
Billy Bob,
Your lack of anything sensible to contribute just provides more evidnce that [Bernard's bet](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/open_thread_38.php#comment-2226…) was a good one.
Tim permits you to share your opinions on open threads yet this is all you give. If you stop pretend that you can't have opinions you'd have to face how shallow your contribution is. You might even grow.
Who knows John (#96)... for too long and it does seem like forever. But finally the 'good ship' Global Warming has taken a few torpedo hits too many.
It's never pleasant to see a tough old ship go down, but they all eventually sink or get scrapped at some time.
...---... ...---... ...---... -.. . .- --. .-- --. --- .. -. --. -.. --- .-- -.
I notice that John Carroll, professor of sociology at La Trobe Uni, has a piece in The Age promoting climate science denial. A few quotes:
"Current predictions of global warming and its long-term effects depend on computer-generated mathematical models."
"We are confronted every day with how poor economic commentators are at prediction. If this is true in the domain of economics, how much more the case is it for climate, where the potential variables are vastly greater?"
"The New York Times, .., featured an article on September 23, 2009, which admitted that global temperatures have been stable for the past decade."
"The claims made about the science have been rash, asserting dogmatic certainty about human-induced warming when the reality is that the overall picture is quite unclear."
The way preferred by "environementalists" of "dealing with" me is censorship as Deltoids know well.
Billy Bob Hall:
Maybe, but you're certainly allowed to make bullshit claims such as:
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.
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.
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?
Who gave Mosher the CRU emails on CD?
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.
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.
[Billy Bob Hall](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/open_thread_38.php#comment-2230…).
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…
)?
Billy Bob Hall:
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.
Billy Bob Hall:
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.
That's because a lot of unskeptical people, such as yourself, are easily sucked in by lies such as:
In actual fact, every surface and lower troposphere temperature measurement for the last decade (2000 to 2009 inclusive) shows an increasing trend.
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
It's odd you should say they are 'distorting science to promote a political agenda', because that's what they say about the 'warmists'.
el gordo,
Who was your source that gave you [such confidence](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/open_thread_38.php#comment-2219…)?
Or are you satisfied pushing a bunch of crap then pretending it was nothing when the claims are exposed as bogus?
Yes, hypocrites, aren't they?
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?
Plimer and the Lord will win in straight sets, but who's watching?
If you mean by winning, regurgitating already discredited nonsense, then, yes, Monckton and Plimer do great. El Gordo, does that not trouble you?
el gordo,
I think your selective responses have answered [my question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/open_thread_38.php#comment-2234…).
But while you ignore it, I'll keep asking it, in contrast to your selective responses, in order to emphasize your approach.
I think Chris and Janet would do a better job of debating than B & R.
More SwiftHack news, or rather, bogonews:
John O'Sullivan, by way of Marc Morano: ""Report: Climategate's Phil Jones could face ten years on fraud charges".
My reply: "Report (by myself): John O'Sullivan and pals could face jail time for bribery... and fraud".
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-pollutio…), 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?
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.
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 ! :-)
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.
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.
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:
Billy Boob diligently ignores the fact that he's been sucked in by a lie while every global temperature indicator, even ones that ignore a lot of the Arctic, shows warming over the last decade.
[bi #122](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/open_thread_38.php#comment-2239…),
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-2239…) to its current owner. There's quite a bit of money involved here.
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/)
A very moving [report from DN](http://www.democracynow.org/2010/1/29/exclusiveblackwaters_youngest_vic…). I commend it to everyone.
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.
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.
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.
More "taking the piss" Gordo?
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.
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*.)
A good read is Ice shelf changes on the Antarctic Peninsula by Cook and Vaughan.
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.
>*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).
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.
...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.
Shorter el gordo:
Scientists are in it for the research grants.
Exxon are just trying to find the truth.
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…)?
Or is that just what you say to avoid [answering question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/rosegate_david_rose_caught_mis…)?
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-scepti…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/dispute-weather-fraud
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate…
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.
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).
Jeff @135
Thank you - that looks like just the job (and mea culpa for not thinking to google it).
Gray train, roasting ... methinks El Gordo is hungry.
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.