Open Thread 39

This new thread is named after John Buchan’s book.

Comments

  1. #1 Paul H
    February 4, 2010

    Anybody up for some fun fact checking of stuff posted up at CA and Pielke Jr’s blog and my counter claims?

    CA and Pielke claim here and here that this article shows the IPCC claim that “The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level where 60% of its population lives and 65% of its Gross National Product (GNP) is produced.”

    is in error.

    See here for the correct page of the WG II report.

    On the face of it those criticisms appears correct. However, I’m not sure that sentence means what they think it means. I think the first claim regarding 55% is not a stand alone claim that 55% of the Netherlands is below sea level. I think that claim applies only to the area of land occupied by 60% of the population. Presumably 65% of Dutch GDP is produced within the land occupied by 60% of the population given that it covers some of their largest cities. This would make sense given that these claims highlight how close some of the most densely populated areas in the Netherlands are to low lying areas.

    It is poorly worded, for sure, and open to equivocation of meaning, but when has that stopped McI or Pielke before.

    Looking at some info on the Netherlands the claim the IPCC makes doesn’t seem far-fetched at all. See here for a map relating population density to proximity to low lying elevations. You can verify the elevations using Google Earth.

    Maybe I’m suffering from reading comprehension problems and I have this wrong. I would appreciate your criticisms and comments on this issue.

  2. #2 dhogaza
    February 4, 2010

    This goes to show how limited the value of a “global temperature” metric is…

    Jakerman, this is the same Steve Goddard who published crap about arctic ice conditions (in The Register) so wrong that NSIDC felt compelled to take him down. Goddard was forced to publish acknowledgement in The Register.

    This was followed by a guest post at WUWT in which he “proved” that there are CO2 snowstorms in the Antarctic.

  3. #3 dhogaza
    February 4, 2010

    OK, that WUWT thread’s quite hilarious…

    It will show a warming trend during an El Nino that is stronger than the IPCC trend with no El Nino

    If you’re trying to hang your hat an El Nino for a long term tend, you’ll be disappointed.

    This from the crowd that hung their hat on an exceptionally strong El Niño in 1998 to “prove” cooling, and the 2008 cool La Niña to “prove” even more drastic “cooling” …

  4. #4 jakerman
    February 4, 2010

    dhogaza, [that](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2251149) is amazing!

    I wonder if the warming trend disappears or become more clear if standardise to account for ENSO cycle?

    I wonder why “skeptics” haven’t done this anaylis to prove that warming disappears if we account for ESNO?

    < http://www.aussmc.org/documents/waiting-for-global-cooling.pdf>

  5. #5 luminous beauty
    February 4, 2010

    >Bernard, since the scientists use the word “may”, this means they aren’t positive we are even partially responsible.

    No, Betula, the construction is “__Evidence has mounted__…that humans may be partly responsible…” Evidence has increased from plausible to probable to likely to very likely to damn near certain.

    Contrary-wise, no falsifying evidence has emerged that humans may not be responsible. The evidence is that most 20th century warming cannot be explained without anthropocentric cause. Because we don’t know everything and scientific knowledge is ultimately empirically inferential and not deduced from a priori absolutes, some unknown cause can never be entirely or completely ruled out, scientists are always cautious about making absolutly certain statements. Such an unknown cause is becoming ever increasingly unlikely, whether you are intelligent enough to understand the subtley of such caveats or not, which, from all available evidence, you may very well not be.

  6. #6 carrot eater
    February 4, 2010

    Ah, Steven Goddard was the origin of the CO2 snow idea? Not surprising, if so. Came across him recently, and he seems to have a fairly poor understanding of lots of things. And given to changing the subject rapidly.

  7. #7 Todd F
    February 5, 2010

    I found Spencer’s thread at WWUT quite interesting, especially seeing some of the posters try to come to grasps with it.

    This one takes the cake:

    Mark – “I wonder if that satellite was hacked… I find it hard to believe that Jan was this warm in the northern hemisphere.”

    Anyway, is this really all so surprising? No. There are bigger shocks in the lower troposphere data than the surface data. Temperatures rise proportionally more in the LT than the surface during El Ninos (and the same explanation goes for why the satellite anomalies are so darn cold during La Ninas).

    Some posters also compared this El Nino to the one in 97/98, and said there is no warming. It appears thus far the 97/98 was a lot stronger than this one. My model suggests that February 1998 was about 0.20C warmer due to El Nino than current. (surface impact is about 0.12C). My model also suggests about an 8 month (exponential weighted) lag for Nino on UAH data. (It’s 6 months for surface data.) So even though the Nino index has essentially peaked, the temperature impact of Nino hasn’t peaked yet. Another thing is that the sun is about 0.06C cooler now than in 1998 (the sun is a tricky thing to get a robust estimate on, though). 1998 and 2010 are still apples and oranges comparisons.

    I might have to try a non-linear Nino model, though. My model tracks moderate Ninos and Ninas pretty well, but tends to underestimate the stronger ones, especially with the troposphere data.

    The anthropogenic contribution is about 0.14C / decade, given UAH data (0.16C with RSS, and 0.19C with GISS). The interesting thing about UAH data is that it seems to be catching up to RSS over the last decade.

  8. #8 Bernard J.
    February 5, 2010

    [Betula](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2250717).

    Oh yes, I can smell hypocrisy – yours.

    You might wriggle and twist, but it is plain to see that you really do not want to provide straight answers to my questions, and more importantly, to establish the real facts of the matters.

    Aside from [the long-standing catalogue of questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame.php#comment-2134083
    ) to which you assiduously avoided providing any answers of your own, you twisted my question:

    perhaps you might explain why the specific prediction of such contradicts models of global warming to the extent that said warming will not actually occur, or if it occurs, that it does not represent a danger to the stability of ecosystem integrities, and to human societal integrity.

    to come up with:

    1.You ask me to explain this statement: “we can’t rule out cooling in certain areas” The actual quote from the “very good scientists in the article is…”Global warming can induce a colder climate for many of us.”

    which in no way addresses any of the several separate aspects of my question.

    In repsonse to my question:

    Finally, perhaps you would deign to explain to the scientists of the world why the application of statistical process does not render irrelevant your comments that:

    we don’t know enough and don’t have enough data to rule out what might happen if the warming trend continues…

    [My latter emphasis]

    you come up with

    2.You ask me to explain this statement: “we don’t know enough and don’t have enough data to rule out what might happen if the warming trend continues”

    This from Dave @66….”we don’t know enough, and don’t have enough data, to rule out a massive and paradoxical cooling in eg. the north atlantic region over a very short (ie, catastrophic) period of time if present warming trends continue.”

    which has nothing to do with my actual question. Seriously, did you even read it?!

    Once more confusing the intent of another of my questions:

    And most especially, could you detail to all, using statisitcal [sic] process, why your comment that:

    [i]n addition, we take it as a given that humans are in part responsible, even though we don’t know how much of a part that is

    is accurate

    [My latter emphasis]

    you muddled through an answer:

    3.Finally, you ask me to explain this: “i]n [sic] addition, we take it as a given that humans are in part responsible, even though we don’t know how much of a part that is”

    This from the “very good” scientists in the artice [sic] @11….”Evidence has mounted that global warming began in the last century and that humans may be in part responsible.”

    which has nothing to do with the thrust of my question.

    Your answers remind me of some of the first-year essays and reports that I’ve marked, where the (completely clueless) student thinks that repeating some of the key words, and making vague hand-wavings toward the hemisphere in which they think the original question resides, will somehow bamboozle the assessor.

    That crap doesn’t fly, and nor does yours.

  9. #9 Dave
    February 5, 2010

    Betula @ 90

    Ok then, I thought everyone else was pointing out your dishonest misrepresentation of the article in question, but if you want me to join the chorus…

    > We don’t know enough and don’t have enough data to rule out what might happen if the warming trend continues, in fact we can’t rule out cooling in certain areas.

    Your use of the word “cooling” is a greatly reduced interpretation of what the article actually states. One of their main criticisms of current models is that they are too conservative, dealing mostly with gradual warming processes and lacking the mechanisms and data to predict sudden regional shifts. The balance of your sentence places an equivalence between the word “warming” in the first section, and “cooling” in the second – when in fact the rate and extent of the two phenomena as discussed in the article are radically different. The implication is that while the globe gets *gradually warmer*, some areas will get *gradually cooler* – when in actuality the stark warning is of sudden climatic shifts of several degrees over a timescale of less than a decade. It is dishonest to downplay the major thrust of the article by understating its major concerns in favour of highlighting its criticism of modelling (as you did earlier in the thread) as in fact the criticism of current models *only makes sense* if you accept that the “cooling” discussed is of a sudden, and dramatic nature, and is no way equivalent to the gradual predicted warming.

    > In addition, we take it as a given that humans are in part responsible, even though we don’t know how much of a part that is.

    When we have a range of possible contribution, along with error bars, simply saying “we don’t know how much” is a misrepresentation. We don’t know *precisely* but we have a range that we can be pretty confident in. There is a world of difference between “we have an approximate idea, that we are refining all the time” and “we have no idea at all”, and your choice of words leans towards the latter. Because of your choice of words, this *weakens* the first part of the sentence – the “we take it as a given” section. Because you imply we have no idea (or at least, much less of an idea than we actually do), you further imply we are wrong to take it as a given that humans are responsible (through your use of the words “even though”).

    The particular stresses and emphasis you use are completely unsupported by the article in question in the tone that you employ, hence the accusation of dishonest misrepresentation.

    > And with this information, you conclude that at least I have “accepted both the clear and dangerous warming trend, and the obvious cause.”

    I conclude that (facetiously) based on your declared approval of an article that does precisely that. Of course, your approval only went so far as to choose some select, out-of-context quotes and ignore the central thrust of the article which alters the nature of your quotes substantially, clearly highlighting that you approve of it only insofar as you read what you want to read and hear what you want to hear. Hopefully my attempt to point out that the article *does not say what you think it says* has not gone unnoticed, and that by accepting it you are accepting a position that you have in previous threads denied vociferously.

  10. #10 Betula
    February 5, 2010

    Bernard…

    I thought you were better than that, but at the same time I understand your dilema. Once exposed, covering yourself with a blanket is only natural.

    Let’s review:

    First you ask me to explain my comments, which were mimicking those that were made by Woods Hole Scientists and Dave. Then you call me a hypocrite for pointing out the hypocrisy of not directing your questions to them.

    Of course, you weren’t aware my comments were nearly identical to those of the “very good” scientists until after the fact, so now you stumble for your blanket.

    In addition, you are upset that I didn’t answer a question you posed to someone else on a different post, and then directed at me as a way to change the subject.

    You’re going to need a bigger blanket.

  11. #11 Former Skeptic
    February 5, 2010

    The Rabett has a humdinger of a post today, aus Deutschland. It’s the first time I’ve seen anyone rightfully label BOTH RPs as concern trolls.

  12. #12 Betula
    February 5, 2010

    Dave @105…

    Fascinating comment here at 105 that I recommend all read.

    Apparently, I am dishonest because I used the term “cooling” instead of the actual term that was used in the article (@11), that being the word “cooling”

    You see, what I said was…..”in fact we can’t rule out cooling in certain areas.”

    And what the article states is….”Model calculations indicate the potential for cooling of 3 to 5 degree Celsius in the ocean and atmosphere should a total disruption occur.”

    Dave then goes on to expose my dishonesty with this fine piece of detective work….

    I said….”In addition, we take it as a given that humans are in part responsible, even though we don’t know how much of a part that is.”

    Dave points out how dishonest a statement this is, because I didn’t say…”we don’t know precisely how much of a part that is”

    Of course, Dave forgets to mention “precisely” how much of a part that is, though I suspect he can find out while sharing the blanket with Bernard.

  13. #13 Dave
    February 5, 2010

    Betulant @ 108

    Really, you’re getting more than a little tiresome with your strawmen and context-snipping quotations and paraphrasals. I provided far more detail and criticism than you address in your response, specifically through implication, omission, downplaying or over-simplification, especially placed in the wider context of your other comments on this thread (ie. your initial quotation of the article that yet again was highly selective and dishonest in its presentation of key phrases without context).

    Do I take your inability to form a coherent response without mangling my argument as a concession that you are, in fact, utterly dishonest?

    And you can do your own homework on the prevailing opinion on warming attribution (although you could do worse than start at IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 9). Pretending such things do not exist simply because they are not cited in detail every time they are mentioned in passing is childish, tedious, and a double-standard of the highest order.

  14. #14 Betula
    February 5, 2010

    Dave @109..

    “specifically through implication, omission, downplaying or over-simplification, especially placed in the wider context of your other comments on this thread (ie. your initial quotation of the article that yet again was highly selective and dishonest in its presentation of key phrases without context).”

    Dave, you dance much better than you talk, so I’m going to give you a big dance floor to work with.

    Here are the quotes and my comment from #62.All quotes are from the article @11. Remember, these are “very good” scientists from Woods Hole…

    1.”This is a daunting task but is necessary before we can confidently rely on models to predict future climate change.”

    2.”Besides needing believable models that can accurately predict climate change, we also need data that can properly initialize them.”

    3.”For the ocean, our data coverage is wholly inadequate.”

    4.”Our knowledge about past climate change is limited as well.”

    5.”Global warming can induce a colder climate for many of us.”

    6.”we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur.”

    7.”And now perhaps you begin to see the scope of the problem.”

    My comment:

    “….can’t confidently rely, need more believable models, need more accuracy, wholly inadequate ocean data, limited knowledge about past climate, scenarios opposite of what might occur….”

    So Dave, let me see you do the implication, omission, downplaying or over-simplification dances….. or get off the dance floor.

  15. #15 jakerman
    February 5, 2010

    Betula’s tactic to avoid facing his dishonesty; build some more strawmen:

    >*Apparently, I am dishonest because I used the term “cooling” instead of the actual term that was used in the article (@11), that being the word “cooling”*

    Cover your eyes Betula, and pretend that you haven’t been [called out](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2250895) for truncating quotes to remove the context that puts that “cooling” in terms of a regional impact in the greater global warming.

    [Yet again](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2248608)

    Dave this is classic Betula, he is overwhelmingly empty but will argue a non-point eternally. Though your efforts are not totaly in-vain, as Betula’s antics do provide a case study in the style of empty argumentative denial buttressed with his army of strawmen.

  16. #16 Lee
    February 5, 2010

    Betula, that articl eis aobut REGIONAL mpacts, so let me fix yor post by putting back in the context that you lose when you quote mine those sentencfes.

    1.”This is a daunting task but is necessary before we can confidently rely on models to predict future [REGIONAL] climate change.”

    2.”Besides needing believable models that can accurately predict [REGIONAL] climate change, we also need data that can properly initialize them.”

    3.”For the ocean, our data coverage is wholly inadequate [TO PREDICT REGIONAL IMPACTS ON OCEAN CONVEYORS].”

    4.”Our knowledge about past [REGIONAL] climate change is limited as well.”

    5.”Global warming can induce a ‘REGIONALLY] colder climate for many of us.”

    6.”we may be planning for [LOCAL AND REGIONAL] climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur [IN A GIVEN LOCALE OR REGION].”

    7.”And now perhaps you begin to see the scope of the problem [OF MAKING REGIONAL PREDICTIONS].”

    See, Betula that question does not call GLOBAL warming into question at all – it is pointing out the difficulties in making accurate regional predictions with the current state of the observations and models. Duh! – we’ve known that all along.

  17. #17 Billy Bob Hall
    February 5, 2010

    I agree with Betula (#108). In the face of the obvious, the ‘alarmist deniers’ are intellectually bankrupt, and incapable of accepting an alternative point of view. Unlike me of course ! :-)

  18. #18 bi -- IJI
    February 6, 2010

    Shorter Billy Bob Hall:

    The alarmists must listen to us! We needn’t listen to them! Therefore, I’m open-minded.

    * * *

    More news on the SwiftHack front: According to the Guardian, UEA climatologist Paul Dennis was interviewed by the Norfolk police, and gave a former statement to them. I don’t think he was the one who Did It™, though.

  19. #19 el gordo
    February 6, 2010

    Paul Dennis is innocent, the hack was conducted by a secret service organization and released just before Copenhagen for maximum impact.

    They are talking about an imminent snow job in DC, big Al must be in town.

  20. #20 Bernard J.
    February 6, 2010

    So, Betula…

    The long and the short of it is that you cannot answer [my very simple and straight-forward questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2248051), and thus you have to construct your own version of events.

    Good luck with that.

    Once again, I querie if you have actually read what I asked of you, and I invite everyone here to re-read the exchange between you and myself, and decide for themselves who is hiding under a blankie of cognitive dissonance.

    I know that it’s not me tugging a forelock and sucking my thumb…

    As I so often say to your comrades who all fail in this exercise, to prove your case you have but to address [the questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2248051).

    Why, oh why, is this so hard for the Denialati to do?

    Hmmm???

  21. #21 Betula
    February 6, 2010

    Jakerman @111 states…

    “Cover your eyes Betula, and pretend that you haven’t been called out for truncating quotes to remove the context that puts that “cooling” in terms of a regional impact in the greater global warming.”

    Jakerman, please explain in detail what you believe my comment “cooling in certain areas” means.

    Waiting anxiously.

  22. #22 Betula
    February 6, 2010

    Lee @112…

    “See, Betula that question does not call GLOBAL warming into question at all – it is pointing out the difficulties in making accurate regional predictions with the current state of the observations and models. Duh! – we’ve known that all along.”

    Lee, after inserting your own words into the Woods Hole scientists comments, you reach an imaginary conclusion about something I never said. In other words, you have managed to convince your own imagination into believing something by confusing it with your own imagination.

    Dig deep and try to pay attention.

    1.First, @38 you state this…

    “You appear to think the article makes some point you support, Betula, so why don’t you tell us what the article says?”

    2.I respond @68 with this…

    “It’s called doubt. Doubt in the way AGW consequences are predicted, resulting in doubt of the predictions themselves.”

    3.You use your imagination @78 and believe the above comment has something to do with doubting GW.

    “So, when you use the Woods Hole article to proclaim that there is doubt about A Global W, you are wrong.”

    4.I respond @91 to the absurdity of your comment with a conclusion…

    “Either you are blind, or your entire comment is dishonest.”

    5.Your response @112 proves you refuse to ignnore the fact that I was referring to “Doubt in the way AGW consequences are predicted.”

    “See, Betula that question does not call GLOBAL warming into question at all”

    Possible Conclusions….

    1.Since you fail to see the words in front of your face you are blind.

    2.You saw the words, but lack the ability to put them together to form an understanding of their meaning.

    3.You interpret everything you read to fit into your preconcieved conclusion.

    4.You are dishonest.

    5.You are retarded, in which case I apologize for making fun of you.

  23. #23 Betula
    February 6, 2010

    Bernard @116.

    “The long and the short of it is that you cannot answer my very simple and straight-forward questions, and thus you have to construct your own version of events.”

    Bernard, the questions you refer to are @77. Did you happen to notice that before each question, you post comments from which you base your questions? You do know you did that don’t you?

    Did you also happen to notice that the comments you posted are based on comments from Woods Hole Scientists? Did you know that Bernard?

    So, despite the fact that I already gave you the answer, I am going to give it to you again so you can sleep at night, under your blankie of course.

    Are you ready?

    Your questions are insincere.They should be directed at the people who made them, the people you agree with, rather than the person who repeated them, the person you disagree with.

    You can pretend I can’t see you under the blanket, but I know your there…..right under #77.

  24. #24 A. Lurker
    February 6, 2010

    Shorter Betula: “It’s only a flesh wound.”

  25. #25 Lee
    February 6, 2010

    Betula, here is what that article says, placed intot eh broader context of the wider field.

    Current models mostly show a continuing atlantic conveyor, and those models show that AGW will have substantial negative regional consequences for the North Atlantic region. However, making the models a bit more realistic reveals a bistable state – either the conveyor continues, or it shuts down. If it shuts down, the consequences for the north Atlantic region are likely to be even more severe, with Little Ice Age conditions for northern europe.

    We don’t currently know enough to distinguish between those possibilities, but either one sucks if you’re in Europe or dependent on European services and economics.

    The ‘doubt’ in that article is not doubt about whether there will be bad consequences from AGW. It is ‘doubt’ about WHICH really suck-full consequence is the one to prepare for. With those suck-full consequences superimposed on top of sea level rise and acidification, etc, which happen either way.

    The point you’re trying to make is like this – informed people tell you that the door you’re about to walk through has someone lurking behind it who is bent on doing you some damage. You ask what kind of damage, and they tell you that you will either be shot or stabbed, they don’t have enough information to know which. So you say, ‘well, there’s doubt, so your warning is worthless,’ and you walk blindly and confidently through that door anyway, to be either shot or stabbed. Because, hey, the guy might stab you so why worry about being shot, and he might shoot you so why worry about being stabbed? Right?

  26. #26 Dave
    February 6, 2010

    Betula,

    You’ve even resorted to snipping your own quotes – you do yourself a disservice, what you actually said was:

    > It’s called doubt. Doubt in the way AGW consequences are predicted, resulting in doubt of the predictions themselves. As I have said many times….the worst case scenarios are speculations built on hypotheticals derived from inaccurate models.

    So you read an article, take a few sentences out of context about weaknesses with models, and use that to back your case about worst case scenarios being doubtful because of model innacuracy.

    Except… the whole point of the article is pointing out that *the models don’t go far enough* and that there are entirely reasonable scenarios that are far worse than the current conservative predictions, but we cannot yet assess those specific cases with any confidence due to a lack of knowledge.

    So if your position is that the models are too uncertain to be useful and that the IPCC’s worst-case scenarios are purely hypothetical (and by extension unconvincing and/or unlikely), this article really doesn’t support that viewpoint, and your attempts to take sections out of context to make that point are (drumroll please) dishonest.

  27. #27 jakerman
    February 6, 2010

    >*Betula,
    You’ve even resorted to snipping your own quotes…*

    Classic!

    And Betula asks me:

    >*Jakerman, please explain in detail what you believe my comment “cooling in certain areas” means.*

    I’ll do better than that strawman Betula, I’ll redirect you back to where you were called out truncating quotes to fabricate a false alignment between Joyce’s and your views.

    Start [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2253017). And track back to [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2248608).

    And here is the outstanding question that Betula tries to ignore: Why did you truncate the highlighted part of this (following) sentance?

    >*For those of us living around the edge of the N. Atlantic Ocean, we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur.*

    Let me once again remind you of the essence of deception you tried to fabricate with this truncated quote, Betula writes:

    >*this [Joyce's article] is starting to sound like me! Yet, here you are telling me…..”The scientists in the Woods Hole article are very good, as is the article itself”
    I’ll take that as a compliment.*

    Difference is of course that you Betula are disingenuously cherry picking and truncating quotes to argue that we don’t know enough about anything to act seriously to mitigate global warming. Joyce is not, his article concerns a regional impact. For the broader contexts he cites the likes of the NAS.

    Wiggle as much as you like Betula, its gotten to the state that you are way past unreliable, you are making your self look more and more delusional. The more you blather, the worse you look.

  28. #28 Bernard J.
    February 7, 2010

    Betula, it’s really very simple.

    You are making claims about anthropogenic global warming in contradiction of the consensus of experts scientists working in climatology, you are very selectively quote-mining phrases from them, and in so doing you are distorting the meaning of their statements.

    My questions to you are very sincere. If you truly believe that the imputations of your ‘interpretation’ are correct, you will be quite prepared to say why they are so in the context of my questions, which seek to clarify exactly where your understanding concords with the mainstream science.

    That you persist in refusing to do answer is telling.

    That you are as determinedly avoiding [the more general questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame.php#comment-2134083
    ) only exacerbates the demonstration of your factually depauperate arguments.

  29. #29 el gordo
    February 7, 2010

    Europe is due for another icy blast. I hold to my conviction that February is traditionally the coldest month in the UK.

  30. #30 Jeff Harvey
    February 7, 2010

    el gordo,

    So what is your point? Just making inane conversation or have you anything more substantial to say? Last week temperatures in western Europe were well above normal, and this week they will drop a few degrees below normal. This thing is called WEATHER. Ever heard of it?

  31. #31 Jeff Harvey
    February 7, 2010

    Bernard beautifully sums up the main streatgy of the entire anti-environmental movement when he describes Betula’s latest gibberish:

    *You are making claims about anthropogenic global warming in contradiction of the consensus of experts scientists working in climatology, you are very selectively quote-mining phrases from them, and in so doing you are distorting the meaning of their statements*

    Given that most of the deniers do little or no actual research, they are forced to resort to whatever tricks they can to downplay the findings of empirical research and to blunt the views of the vast majority of the scientists conducting this research. Betula is only illustrating this with his nonsensical musings. Bjorn Lomborg, for instance, selectively quotes scientists to draw conclusions that the scientists in question had not intended (check out his partial quote of Paul Colinvaux’s discussion about the importance of biodiversity loss and how Lomborg distorts that to alter the meaning of Colinvaux’s original quote making it appear that Colinvaux is downplaying what we know about the issue).

    As I have said before: Betula’s aim is to bait and switch – he unwisely jumped into the debate on the effects of climate change on biodiversity on another thread, was hammered on it, and fled with his tail between his legs, only to resurface here in an attempt to distort the meaning of the Wood’s Hole Research.

    As I have said before many times, most of the deniers are driven by their owbn political ideologies and could not give a damn about the “truth”, as elusive as that is in science.

  32. #32 Dave Andrews
    February 7, 2010

    Jeff Harvey,

    Yet another ‘I am Jeff Harvey and my views are right’ post.

    Plenty of verbiage, a la Bernard J, but no substance!

  33. #33 el gordo
    February 7, 2010

    Jeff, if you keep your eye on the weather you may catch a glimpse of real climate change.

    It may sound absurd, but the Old Farmer’s Almanac is more accurate in their seasonal forecasts than anyone else. They predict weather trends and events by comparing solar patterns and historical weather conditions, with current solar activity.

    Britain will again be under snow by week’s end and the UK Met will be red faced.

  34. #34 jakerman
    February 7, 2010

    Comparing the last two posts, I’m struck by how accurately Jeff has nailed Betula’s tactics, and how inacurately Dave Andrews has reviewed Jeff’s.

    Not surprising thought, both observations are consistent with past performance.

  35. #35 jakerman
    February 7, 2010

    My reference @ 134 should refer to the last two post prior to el gordo’s attention seeking guff about cherry picking weather.

    But what a fine troika are made by Betula, Dave Andrews and el gordo!
    ;)

  36. #36 Billy Bob Hall
    February 7, 2010

    Oi jakerman – what about me ? Don’t forget me. I was banned from this site long before any of the noobs turned up. ;-)

  37. #37 el gordo
    February 7, 2010

    More on its weather not climate, a super storm is developing in the US.

    http://www.accuweather.com/regional-news-story.asp?region=eastusnews

    Kind regards,
    Noob 3

  38. #38 zoot
    February 7, 2010

    @137: And in related weather news, there seems to be a problem finding snow for the [Winter Olympics.](http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6151NU20100206)

  39. #39 jakerman
    February 8, 2010

    Appologies Billy Bob, you make an apt quartet. Does Duff or Keith or Lank and Janama want make it the orchestra? Then perhaps you could swap details and form a support group or something?

    Is it Bathurts el gordo? Unfortunatley betula and ducky are OS, but does el gordo seem like someone you could spend more time with Biilly Bob? el gordo’s family make him keep his denialist under his hat, so he keen for more contact.

    Your both white middle aged right? El gordo in his 50s? Maybe close to sixty? Billy Bob just a little younger? How close did I get?

    PS Billy Bob, you might do some reserach to verify where you sit in the noob rankings. My inclination is that only el gordo is noober to Deltoid than you.

  40. #40 el gordo
    February 8, 2010

    Back to the science, Karoly and Rudd are being abused over at Watts. Something to do with their incorrect comments that AGW is responsible for drought in the Murray-Darling basin.

  41. #41 Betula
    February 8, 2010

    Bernard, Lee, Jakerman et al:

    Your groupthink is old and tired.

    You all seem hellbent on the idea that I am intentionally “truncating” the comments of the Woods Hole scientists for the following reasons:

    1.I misrepresent the fact that they are talking about “regional” areas….

    Yet somehow you purposely ignore that I quoted them as saying “cooling for many of us”. For all you brilliant scientists out there, “many of us” does not mean “all of us”, and therefore does not and cannot insinuate “all of us”.

    In addition, you ignore that I said “we can’t rule out cooling in certain areas”. Once again for all you arrogant, condescending, willfully ignorant scientists, “certain areas” doesn’t mean “all areas”, and therefore does not and cannot insinuate “all areas”.

    2.I “use the Woods Hole article to proclaim that there is doubt about A Global W”

    Yet somehow, I never once mentioned Global Warming or proclaimed anywhere, that Global Warming doesn’t exist. Unless you believe you are some sort of genius, in which case I did.

    What I did say @66 was that there is “Doubt in the way AGW consequences are predicted, resulting in doubt of the predictions themselves” and “scientists at woods hole are skeptical of both the accuracy of the prediction process and the prediction itself”

    None of you are willing to dispute the fact that the predicted worst case scenarios cannot be assessd with any confidence due to a lack of knowledge (the point of the article), yet you act like they can.

    Old, tired, willfully ignorant, purposely misrepresenting, dishonest, groupthink geniuses….all blind in the dark and unwilling to change the bulb.

  42. #42 luminous beauty
    February 8, 2010

    >None of you are willing to dispute the fact that the predicted worst case scenarios cannot be assessd[sic] with any confidence due to a lack of knowledge (the point of the article), yet you act like they can.

    Not at all, Betula. The fact that the worst case scenarios of sudden climate change cannot be confidently predicted within some narrow time frame does not discount the fact that as the relatively gradual stress on the climate system increases the likelihood of sudden climate change likewise increases. Particularly since the most likely and conservatively gradualist scenarios that can be assessed with a high degree of confidence are themselves catastrophic enough to give any rational person reason for concern.

  43. #43 Joseph
    February 8, 2010

    What I did say @66 was that there is “Doubt in the way AGW consequences are predicted, resulting in doubt of the predictions themselves

    @Betula: You could make that argument about anything. Try tobacco. We can’t be sure exactly how much lung cancer and other health complications will be caused by smoking X packs a day. We can’t be sure about the precise effects of second-hand smoke and so forth.

    I believe those are true statements, but what would be the reason for anyone to argue them? Clearly, they would be designed to promote inaction.

  44. #44 Lee
    February 8, 2010

    Betula:
    “None of you are willing to dispute the fact that the predicted worst case scenarios cannot be assessd with any confidence due to a lack of knowledge (the point of the article), yet you act like they can.”

    Betula, my post at 125 is about EXACTLY THAT. Do you imagine no one notices?

  45. #45 jakerman
    February 8, 2010

    Betula tries to distract from his dishonesty (which he’s [been called](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2254873) on) with new bundles of his dishonesty:

    Betula attempts to addresses the fact that he’s been called out for quote mining and distorting Joyce’s article. But to defend himself Betula used quite bazaar claims:

    >*”Yet somehow, I [Betula] never once mentioned Global Warming”*

    The first point is, what an odd logic? Betual is trying to defend against his misrepresenting of Joyce (via quote mining, truncating quotes etc) by reasoning that he didn’t mention global warming.

    The second point is, he contradicts himself even about this:

    >*I never once mentioned Global Warming [...].What I did say @66 was that there is “Doubt in the way AGW consequences are predicted, resulting in doubt of the predictions themselves” and “scientists at woods hole are skeptical of both the accuracy of the prediction process and the prediction itself”.*

    Betula, are you so blind that you can’t see you immediately contradicted yourself? Apparently for Betula mentioning AGW is not mentioning Global Warming. But worst of all, betula totally failed to address the quote at issue.

    I’m happy to show Betula his dishonesty as many times as he dodges it:
    >And here is the outstanding question that Betula tries to ignore: Why did you truncate the highlighted part of this (following) sentance?

    >*For those of us living around the edge of the N. Atlantic Ocean, we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur.

    >Let me once again remind you of the essence of deception you tried to fabricate with this truncated quote, Betula writes:

    >*this [Joyce's article] is starting to sound like me! Yet, here you are telling me…..”The scientists in the Woods Hole article are very good, as is the article itself” I’ll take that as a compliment.*

    >Difference is of course that you Betula are disingenuously cherry picking and truncating quotes to argue that we don’t know enough about anything to act seriously to mitigate global warming. Joyce is not, his article concerns a regional impact. For the broader contexts he cites the likes of the NAS.

    Keep writheing like a snake Betula, you keep looking he worse and worse. Now, in the spirit of either his ignorance or dishonesty Betula tries to shift the heat on him by complaining:

    >*None of you are willing to dispute the fact that the predicted worst case scenarios cannot be assessd with any confidence due to a lack of knowledge (the point of the article), yet you act like they can.*

    I don’t argue with your strawmen Betula, I [call you on them](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2248608).

    I asked you about most likely estimates, more commonly referred to as ‘best estimates’. These most likely estimates are bad enough to warrant intensive mitigation. The worst estimates of which you pretend to have knowledge leave Earth as a Venus like dead planet.

  46. #46 el gordo
    February 8, 2010

    A couple of papers came out recently which puts a dampener on global warming.

    The Solomon et al. paper says the warming of the 1990′s came about because there was more moisture in the stratosphere and the flatness in temperatures since 2000 can be accounted for by stratospheric dryness.

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

  47. #47 Vince Whirlwind
    February 8, 2010

    Yes, El Gordo, Solomon has something interesting to say about decadal variability.

    No, El Gordo, Solomon isn’t putting a dampener on Global Warming – the CO2 level is still increasing, and CO2 still forces temperature.

  48. #48 jakerman
    February 8, 2010

    Dampner is an apt term el gordo, as like a shock absorber such phenomena shift the load of warming, they don’t stop it.

    Unfortunately the stratosphere cannot get perpetually drier and drier, so this ain’t no permament end to warming. And more unfortunately the stratosphere can get more moist.

    < http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/the-wisdom-of-solomon/>

  49. #49 Mark
    February 8, 2010

    I have two simple questions for Betula:

    1) Do you contend that the science is insufficient to warrent serious greenhouse-gas mitigation?

    2) If so, do you claim that the article by Joyce supports the above contention? Or does Joyce’s article imply that failure to mitigate against further global warming may risk leading to harmful cooling in regions close to the North Atlantic?

  50. #50 el gordo
    February 9, 2010

    A new paper by Rohling et al. ‘Comparison between Holocene and Marine Isotope Stage-11 sea level histories’, claims our current interglacial is similar to the MIS-11 of around 400,000 years ago.

    Previous studies have suggested the Holocene should have ended 2-2.5 thousand years ago, but because of the anthropogenic connection it has remained warm due to deforestation, plus methane and CO2 buildup.

    I dismiss the Gaia theory out of hand, too few trees had been chopped down to have any impact over natural variability.

    The authors are putting their money on the amount of solar energy reaching the earth on the same latitude in summer and they suggest the Holocene may not end anytime soon, with or without AGW.

  51. #51 Betula
    February 9, 2010

    Jakerman @145

    1.”Apparently for Betula mentioning AGW is not mentioning Global Warming.”

    It isn’t, unless you believe all global warming is caused by man. Global warming has alternated with periods of global cooling throughout history in regular, natural cycles.

    2.”Betula, are you so blind that you can’t see you immediately contradicted yourself?”

    Please answer this one…..If I were contradicting myself, than why did I explain to Lee @95 that I was talking about AGW and not GW?

    3.”Why did you truncate the highlighted part of this (following) sentance?”

    “For those of us living around the edge of the N. Atlantic Ocean, we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur.”

    Because it was a huge scheme on my part to hide the fact that we don’t know what will happen in a given region, not a “certain area” and not “for many of us”, but for a region.

    And this makes a big difference when we ask the tough questions, doesn’t it Jake?

    So please tell me, who is planning for climate scenarios that may be the opposite of what occurs? Where did they get their information for this planning that may be opposite?
    Should they keep the old plan or create a new one? What should be different in the new plan? What if the new plan is wrong and the old plan turns out to be right? Can they still rely on the information from the old plan?

    Of course it doesn’t really matter, because it’s a regional issue.

    What a tool.

  52. #52 Betula
    February 9, 2010

    Mark @149…

    1) Do you contend that the science is insufficient to warrent serious greenhouse-gas mitigation?

    I contend that the science is biased and the predictions are exaggerated, not just by scientists, but by politicians, advocacy groups and various representatives of countries that have a stake in recieving big money from rich nations. There are also those that see this as a way to advance their ideology, mainly through fear.

    I contend that many aspects that may affect future outcomes are intentionally ignored, including some of the potential outcomes themselves.

    If this is what you mean by “the science”, then the answer is yes.

    2.”If so, do you claim that the article by Joyce supports the above contention? Or does Joyce’s article imply that failure to mitigate against further global warming may risk leading to harmful cooling in regions close to the North Atlantic?”

    The article implies that we may be planning for warming, but get sudden cooling, due to warming.

    The article also implies that because of our limited knowledge, we don’t know what will happen, in fact it may be the opposite of what we think.

    In other words, the article implies it doesn’t know.

    Also, you might notice the article implies that the consequences of ignoring the unknown “may be large”, only after they request more money for research.

  53. #53 Dave
    February 9, 2010

    > The article implies that we may be planning for warming, but get sudden cooling, due to warming.

    Planning for warming *globally* but get sudden dramatic *regional* shifts that may encompass *dramatic cooling*, within a continued *overall global warming* trend.

    > The article also implies that because of our limited knowledge, we don’t know what will happen, in fact it may be the opposite of what we think.

    Yes – if what you are talking about it prediction of specific tipping points where a global warming trend triggers regional events far outside the currently anticipated gradual warming.

    > In other words, the article implies it doesn’t know.

    This is reductio ad absurdum. That’s not at all what the article says – certainly not in the way you’ve tried to extend that to cover uncertainty in other predictions.

    It says *nothing* about the predictions for an overall warming trend globally, and indeed takes that *as a necessary precursor* for triggering dramatic events *within that context*. The thing it says we don’t know about is whether our current predictions are *far too conservative*.

    Tell me again – why do you think this article supports your contention that:

    > As I have said many times….the worst case scenarios are speculations built on hypotheticals derived from inaccurate models.

    Perhaps it would help if you described in detail which worst case scenarios you are talking about that you have expounded on before – because I’ve seen you characterise the IPCC assessment as scaremongering in precisely this way.

    Tell me – is the current IPCC assessment reasonable, or a hypothetical worst case scenario? Do you accept it or not?

  54. #54 Vince Whirlwind
    February 9, 2010

    Betula:
    “I contend that the science is biased and the predictions are exaggerated,”

    Sure they are, but your bias and exaggeration is many orders of magnitude higher.

  55. #55 Mark
    February 9, 2010

    Betula, thankyou for responding to [my question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2258765), though I find part of your answer evasive:

    Let me recap my second question:

    >Do you claim that the article by Joyce supports the above contention? [that the science is insufficient to warrent serious greenhouse-gas mitigation?] Or does Joyce’s article imply that failure to mitigate against further global warming may risk leading to harmful cooling in regions close to the North Atlantic?

    You arrive at your answer that “the article implies it doesn’t know” [that the science is insufficient to warrent serious greenhouse-gas mitigation]. But to construct that answer you selectively misrepresent the article with this summary:

    >*The article implies that we may be planning for warming, but get sudden cooling, due to warming.*

    And you write:

    >*we don’t know what will happen, in fact it may be the opposite of what we think.*

    Would you like us to believe that you recognise the Joyce artical is concerned with regional cooling in a global warming context or that you think the artical is about global cooling in response to global warming? Which is it?

    Please in your answer consider what you meant at the moments that [you made statments](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2257823) such as:

    >*for all you arrogant, condescending, willfully ignorant scientists, “certain areas” doesn’t mean “all areas”, and therefore does not and cannot insinuate “all areas”.*

  56. #56 jakerman
    February 9, 2010

    Betula shows us how arse backward he’s got it:

    >>.”Apparently for Betula mentioning AGW is not mentioning Global Warming.”

    To which Betual responds:

    >*It isn’t, unless you believe all global warming is caused by man. Global warming has alternated with periods of global cooling throughout history in regular, natural cycles.*

    Spot your error yet Betula?

    I’ll give you a clue; All mice are mammals, but not all mammals are mice.

    All AGW is GW, get it?

    [Here is the context: < http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2258516>]

  57. #57 Lee
    February 10, 2010

    Betula keeps using ‘doubt’ as if it means ‘we don’t know anything.’
    Even regionally, that article points out that we know a lot. We know that the probable regional response to AGW is either:
    1: Warming on pace with the planet, which will have bad consequences for the region.
    2: Sudden catastrophic cooling which will have even worse regional consequences.

    We know what the switch is that decides which it will be – it is the Atlantic conveyor. There is pretty good evidence that the conveyor can shut off. If it does Europe gets really fucking cold. If it doesn’t, Europe keeps warming. We just don’t know enough to be able to decide which it is going to be – thus the call for better models and more data, to try to figure out which of 2 bad consequences is the most probable.

    Not, as Betula keeps implying, to decide if there will be any consequence at all.

  58. #58 Betula
    February 10, 2010

    Dave @153 states….

    “Perhaps it would help if you described in detail which worst case scenarios you are talking about that you have expounded on before”

    In response to my comment….

    “As I have said many times….the worst case scenarios are speculations built on hypotheticals derived from inaccurate models.”

    Dave, do I really need to explain the terrifying worst case scenarios to you? This is scary, scary stuff. Where have you been?

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2078944470709189270#

    Now, this is where Dave says this movie, based on the IPCC findings, was indeed designed to exaggerate and my comment was correct.

    C’mon, that last line was funny!

  59. #59 Betula
    February 10, 2010

    Vince @154…

    I state….”I contend that the science is biased and the predictions are exaggerated”

    Vince agrees with me that the science is biased and exaggerated with…”Sure they are”…, but believes my comments about bias and exaggeration are biased and exaggerated with….”but your bias and exaggeration is many orders of magnitude higher.”

    This is comedy gold.

  60. #60 Betula
    February 10, 2010

    Mark @155…

    You asked me 2 questions.

    My answer to your first question was….”If this is what you mean by “the science”, then the answer is yes.”

    Your second question was structured in 2 parts, “If” being the first part and “Or” being the second.

    I answered the “Or” part of your question.

    So by answering the “or” part, we eliminated the need to answer the “if” question. It is already answered by choosing “or”.

    Your “or” question is this…

    “Or does Joyce’s article imply that failure to mitigate against further global warming may risk leading to harmful cooling in regions close to the North Atlantic?”

    A more clarified answer would be…. the article implies it, but does not directly state it, because it doesn’t know.

  61. #61 Betula
    February 10, 2010

    Jakerman @156…

    Apparently, Jakerman believes mentioning man made global warming is like mentioning global warming, just like mentioning mice is like mentioning a mammal.

    So mentioning man made mice is like mentioning mice, just like mentioning warming is like mentioning a temperature.

    A comedian could make a fortune off this site.

  62. #62 Mark
    February 10, 2010

    Betula, the concept you seem to miss is that when I find your answer to be evasive, I ask a follow-up question. Now you seem to try to evade answering my [follow-up questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2261470).

    I’ll restate it here:

    Betula, thankyou for responding to [my question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2258765), though I find part of your answer evasive:

    **Let me recap my second question:** [Emphasis added]

    Do you claim that the article by Joyce supports the above contention? [that the science is insufficient to warrent serious greenhouse-gas mitigation?] Or does Joyce’s article imply that failure to mitigate against further global warming may risk leading to harmful cooling in regions close to the North Atlantic?

    You arrive at your answer that “the article implies it doesn’t know” [that the science is insufficient to warrent serious greenhouse-gas mitigation]. But to construct that answer you selectively misrepresent the article with this summary:

    >*The article implies that we may be planning for warming, but get sudden cooling, due to warming.*

    And you write:

    >*we don’t know what will happen, in fact it may be the opposite of what we think.*

    Would you like us to believe that you recognise the Joyce artical is concerned with regional cooling in a global warming context or that you think the artical is about global cooling in response to global warming? Which is it?

    Please in your answer consider what you meant at the moments that you made [statments such as](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2257823):

    >*for all you arrogant, condescending, willfully ignorant scientists, “certain areas” doesn’t mean “all areas”, and therefore does not and cannot insinuate “all areas”.*

    Posted by: Mark | February 9, 2010 7:39 PM

  63. #63 jakerman
    February 10, 2010

    Apparently Betula thinks that if he makes a [word salad](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2263937) that someone will be confused about how awfully he is [botching things](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2258516).

    Afraid that won’t work here Betula, instead just makes you look more and more dishonest.

    Why not try this alternative, admit you got it wrong, [that you contradicted yourself](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2258516) and adjust your agrment accordingly.

    Why not try it and see if this new approach helps your growth and advancement in knowledge.

    I’ve seen you apply your approach in such a consistent manner, that I don’t expect you will take this advice; however laying out what a reasonable person would do makes quite a contrast to your dishonest, empty and argumentative approach.

  64. #64 Betula
    February 11, 2010

    Mark @162 states…

    “Please in your answer consider what you meant at the moments that you made statments such as:

    for all you arrogant, condescending, willfully ignorant scientists, “certain areas” doesn’t mean “all areas”, and therefore does not and cannot insinuate “all areas”.”

    Mark,

    What I meant was all you arrogant, condescending, willfully ignorant scientists think using the phrase “certain areas” is a scheme used to avoid the phrase “regional areas”.

    Of course, “certain areas” was my phrasing, but I notice you didn’t include that I posted the scientists as stating…..”cooling for many of us”. Another scheme on my part to avoid the word “region”

    I find it hard to believe this is so difficult for you.

    Perhaps you missed the part about “willfully ignorant”. < look, it’s there.

    If you look close you can also see it here ^^

  65. #65 Betula
    February 11, 2010

    Jakerman,

    Let’s follow the deep ruts of your circle….

    1.I step into your rut by pointing out I am refering to AGW and not GW.

    2.You insist that my mentioning AGW is the same as mentioning GW, so I contradict myself.

    1.I point out there is a difference between AGW and GW.

    2.You point out I’m wrong because mice are mammals.

    1.I agree mice are mammals, but wonder what the difference between man made mice and mice is, in relation to temperature.

    2.You want me to change my tactic so I can be as knowledgable about GW and mice as you are.

    1.I think you are a tool, not able to admit there is a difference between discussing man made mice and mice.

    Maenwhile, I have a feeling someone is scurrying for cheese.

  66. #66 Mark
    February 11, 2010

    Betula, I’m going to have you call you out on your evasiveness. For a third time you evaded my [strait questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2264456). That says something in itself.

    Given your evasiveness I believe it likely that you feel you have been caught in your own contradictions.

    You don’t intend being forthright and truthful here do you Betula.

  67. #67 Jeff Harvey
    February 11, 2010

    As I have said before, its a waste of time debating pseudo-intellects like Betula. His strategy is hit-and-run; he gets creamed in one thread and pops up in another. He wades into areas beyond his competence, much like Bruce Barrett does on another thread.

    I recall Betula making an arse of himself on the subject of polar bear demographics a couple of weeks ago and then trying to add his five cents worth on the effects of climate change on response and effect traits in ecological communities (granted, he does not know what these terms mean, but he comments anyway). Then he surfaces here.

    The fact is this: Betula never admits he is wrong, even when the facts clearly prove it. I would not be at all surprised if he is right wing Republican or else holds strongly libertarian views. This has everything to do with his views of climate change.

  68. #68 Betula
    February 11, 2010

    Mark,

    I’ve answered your question twice to no avail. Perhaps you should cut to the chase of what you want the answer to be, or explain how my answer doesn’t fit into your preconcieved notion.

  69. #69 Betula
    February 11, 2010

    JH…

    I love the tactic. Claim someone is wrong, but don’t mention or link what they are wrong about. Just that they are wrong.

    Here, let me try….

    Jeff Harvey is wrong and never admits it. Hey, this is fun!

    By the way, you remind me that you never directly answered my question about how many polar bears have died or been affected as a direct result of AGW?

    To be fair, you did explained what might happen if warming trends continue, time lags, long term effects, everything effects everything else, if, maybe, might, possibly, could, you never know, most likely, perhaps and all those other terms that are way to complicated for me to understand.

    Unfotunately, I still don’t know the number of cute cuddly polar bears that have died to date, due to some selfish senior citizen trying to stay warm with oil heat. You’re the ecologist, isn’t there some study stating this number?

    It’s a simple question really, and rather than assume it implies something, why not just answer it.

    Let me know, I’ll answer it if you find it too hard.

    In the meantime, here’s another one. Do you remember that picture of that cute polar bear stranded on the ice cap that Al Gore showed? You know the one. Anyway, do you think he died right after that photo, you know, from drowning?

    If you want, I’ll let you count that as one.

  70. #70 Betula
    February 11, 2010

    JH @167, showing his true colors as a non biased scientist, who refuses to form scientific opinions based on politics states…..

    “I would not be at all surprised if he is right wing Republican or else holds strongly libertarian views. This has everything to do with his views of climate change.”

    Classic.

  71. #71 Mark
    February 11, 2010

    Betula,

    Your continued evasiveness clearly confirms my observation that:

    >*You don’t intend being forthright and truthful here do you Betula.*

    But, I’m going to call you out for now four times evading my [straight questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2264456).

    Your continued failure to answer my question provides an element of confirmation to my judgment that: *Given your evasiveness I believe it likely that you feel you have been caught in your own contradictions.*

    Betual asks:

    >*Perhaps you should cut to the chase of what you want the answer to be, or explain how my answer doesn’t fit into your preconcieved notion.*

    Betula, the reason you find it so difficult is that the truthful answer undermines your prior claims. Some of your misrepresentation have come round to contradict themselves.

    You could answer that you’d *like us to believe that you recognise the Joyce artical is concerned with regional cooling in a global warming context*, but that would exposes the selective misrepresentation that Betula depended on as the basis for Betula’s prior answer:

    >Do you claim that the article by Joyce supports the above contention? [that the science is insufficient to warrent serious greenhouse-gas mitigation?] Or does Joyce’s article imply that failure to mitigate against further global warming may risk leading to harmful cooling in regions close to the North Atlantic?

    >You arrive at your answer that “the article implies it doesn’t know” [that the science is insufficient to warrent serious greenhouse-gas mitigation]. But to construct that answer, Betula selectively misrepresent the article with this summary:

    >*The article implies that we may be planning for warming, but get sudden cooling, due to warming.*

    >And this:

    >*we don’t know what will happen, in fact it may be the opposite of what we think.*

    And this is the same misreprentation that you claimed you weren’t making when you truncated quotes to turn remove the localized regional nature of cooling (in the greater context of global warming).

    So after denfending yourself against that charge, to answer truthfully you would be confirming your critics charges.

    Quite a quandary for you Betula. Little wonder that you are being so evasive.

  72. #72 Betula
    February 14, 2010

    Mark.

    I was going to imply that you are retarded, but your reasoning speaks for itself.

    You are stuck in a loop with this question…..

    “Do you claim that the article by Joyce supports the above contention? [that the science is insufficient to warrent serious greenhouse-gas mitigation?]”

    Obviously, your handicap played a large roll in your inabiliy to see my answer @152….

    “If this is what you mean by “the science”, then the answer is yes.”

    Your retardedness seems to grow exponentially by claiming I misrepresented the article when I said this..

    “The article implies that we may be planning for warming, but get sudden cooling, due to warming.”

    and this….

    “we don’t know what will happen, in fact it may be the opposite of what we think.”

    I have 2 questions for you…..

    1.Where did I say or infer the article is talking about “the greater context of global warming”.

    2.What does the article say about areas along the Atlantic….are they going to warm or suddenly get cold?

    The more I think about it, I aplologize to all mentally Handicapped people for putting you in the same catagory.

  73. #73 Mark
    February 14, 2010

    How unsurprising Betula’s response is. Once more he evades the question. Though I see implied in Betula’s evasive response was an angling to toward trying to hope that he can agrue that the potential cooling refereed to by Joyce was more than regional cooling.

    One answer to Betula’s current dishonest angling is in his own words. Remember when you [wrote this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2257823) Betula:

    >*You all seem hellbent on the idea that I am intentionally “truncating” the comments of the Woods Hole scientists for the following reasons:

    >*1.I misrepresent the fact that they are talking about “regional” areas….Yet somehow you purposely ignore that I quoted them as saying “cooling for many of us”. For all you brilliant scientists out there, “many of us” does not mean “all of us”, and therefore does not and cannot insinuate “all of us”.*

    >*In addition, you ignore that I said “we can’t rule out cooling in certain areas”. Once again for all you arrogant, condescending, willfully ignorant scientists, “certain areas” doesn’t mean “all areas”, and therefore does not and cannot insinuate “all areas”.*

    There you go Betula, even you acknowledge you are only faithfully representing Joyce’s point in the article when you clarify that the potential cooling he discusses is limited to “certain areas” & that does not mean for “all of us”.

    So you skewer yourself once again Betula. If you keep being dishonest for too long, it can come back to snooker you.

  74. #74 jakerman
    February 14, 2010

    I see [Betula is now](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2273796) making [my case](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2258516) against himself for me.

    In summary Betula is now arguing against his earlier attempted defense of his truncating and use of these truncated quotes.

    When Betula was called out for truncating quotes which misrepresented the context of Joyce’s article, he defended himself by arguing that he had mentioned (separate from when he trucated quotes) that Joyce was referring to a potential region cooling, quoting himself as citing ["certain areas"](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2257823).

    Now Betula is contradicting this earlier defense of his trunation of quotes, by once again trying to misrepresent Joyce’s cooling comments in a fabricated global context rather than a regional context.

    Betula is so caught up is his cycle of dishonesty that he seems to be on the verge arguing that Joyce’s article was not in the context of global warming at all.

    >*Where did I say or infer the article is talking about “the greater context of global warming”.*

    Betula, I think you need to see someone about your pathology.

  75. #75 Betula
    February 14, 2010

    Mark,

    Your assumptions have turned to delusions. You are searching for answers to questions that only you know know the answers to, only you don’t know it.

    In the meantime, I noticed you avoided this question…..

    What does the article say about areas along the Atlantic….are they going to warm or suddenly get cold?

  76. #76 Betula
    February 14, 2010

    Welcome to another episode of the Jakerman Zone.

    This episode is called…..”The reverse of the non answered question answer”

    Question…. “Where did I say or infer the article is talking about “the greater context of global warming”

    Jakerman…by asking the question, I seem “to be on the verge arguing that Joyce’s article was not in the context of global warming at all.”

    Notice how “the greater” is missing? This is called truncating to make a question appear to be the reverse of what it is, which allows Jakerman to avoid giving an answer while appearing to give an answer.

    Of course, it was Mark who assumed I was refering to “the greater context of global warming”, not based on the words I used, but on the one word I didn’t use…”regional”

    So Jakerman was truncating Marks words in my question to satisy a delusion that needs to be continuously fed with assumptions.

    Meanwhile, Mark is caught in the Jakerman Zone and can’t get out.

    Luckily, I’m just enjoying this episode from the confines of my computer screen.

    Return for the next episode of the Jakerman Zone, when Jakerman’s non answer will be used as a way to continue to avoid answering this question…

    What does the article say about areas along the North Atlantic….are they going to warm or suddenly get cold?

  77. #77 jakerman
    February 15, 2010

    Betula, if it wasn’t so sad it would be a pleasure to watch you twist our your own petard.

    BTW which Betula are you saying is correct now, and which is incorrect. Its not clear from your latest empty rant which Betula is winning and which is losing.

  78. #78 Dave
    February 15, 2010

    @Betula

    Ah this thread is still alive I see..

    > Dave, do I really need to explain the terrifying worst case scenarios to you? This is scary, scary stuff. Where have you been?

    Yes. In detail. Because you claimed the article supported your contention that the “terrifying worst case scenarios” were unsound. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that perhaps you were speaking of “terrifying worst case scenarios” that lay beyond the IPCC forecasts, but it turns out those were the very scenarios you were referring to.

    So, given that the article shows that these “terrifying worst case scenarios” are a sound basis, but that they likely represent an optimistic minimum bound for warming effects and thus are overly conservative in terms of predicting sudden rapid (and potentially catastrophic) events, please expand at length as to how the article somehow supports your position in the way you describe.

  79. #79 Betula
    February 15, 2010

    Previously on the Jakerman Zone…

    “Return for the next episode of the Jakerman Zone, when Jakerman’s non answer will be used as a way to continue to avoid answering this question…”

    “What does the article say about areas along the North Atlantic….are they going to warm or suddenly get cold?”

    And today’s episode answers the question with…

    “BTW which Betula are you saying is correct now, and which is incorrect. Its not clear from your latest empty rant which Betula is winning and which is losing.”

    Stay tuned for our next episode, where Jakerman explains to us that the reason the article doesn’t know whether there will be warming or sudden cooling “in certain areas” is due to the lack of information we have about the effects of man made mice on future climate.

  80. #80 Betula
    February 15, 2010

    Dave.

    You ask me to explain “the terrifying worst case scenarios to you” … “in detail”, after I sent you this….

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2078944470709189270#

    So are you saying you didn’t see this?

    Here, let me send it again…..

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2078944470709189270#

    Did you see it that time? I understand if you didn’t, it’s called a continuous loop and it’s one of the main facets of the Jakerman Zone….

    You see, one of the reasons you didn’t see it is because you forgot (another facet of the Jakerman Zone) you phrased the original question like this…

    “Perhaps it would help if you described in detail which worst case scenarios you are talking about that you have expounded on before – because I’ve seen you characterise the IPCC assessment as scaremongering in precisely this way”

    Ah yes, you’ve seen me characterize the IPCC assessment as scaremongering. How about this…. is this scaremongering based on the IPCC assessment?:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2078944470709189270#

    How about this:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2078944470709189270#

    I know, you didn’t notice the scare mongering because you’re in the “Jakerman Zone”. Sorry Dave, I can’t help you.

    Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for someone to answer this question, or should I say, I’m anticipating the answer to this question as asked in the Jakerman Zone……

    What does the article say about areas along the North Atlantic….are they going to warm or suddenly get cold?

    I know, you didn’t see it. Here, let me post it again…

    What does the article say about areas along the North Atlantic….are they going to warm or suddenly get cold?

    If you still didn’t see it, just ask and I’ll post it again, and be sure to stay tuned for the next episode of The Jakerman Zone titled….”As The Loop Continues”

  81. #81 Dave
    February 15, 2010

    Betula,

    You seem to put a staggering amount of effort into missing the point. Tiresome though it is, I’ll try and spell it out in very simple terms yet again.

    You seem to be under the impression I am offended by your use of the term “terrifying worst case scenarios”, or that all you have to do to answer all of my points is link to a trailer for a movie (which I haven’t seen, BTW) that by all accuonts gives a broad, populist, digestable presentation of the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.

    This is all a complete tangent.

    In this thread you have claimed that the Woods Hole article supports your view that the IPCC conclusions are unsound. The article has been shown to do no such thing, and no matter how you dance around it, what is required now is for you to admit that you did not understand the article at first, and applied your own (mis)interpretation to the matters under discussion.

    Seeing as how I’m a polite sort, I’ll answer your question, that you address to me for the first time in your typically abrasive style, and no matter that it is a pointless repetition of a topic already well discussed in this very thread.

    > What does the article say about areas along the North Atlantic….are they going to warm or suddenly get cold?

    The article says that the globe is going to warm, and that the areas along the north atlantic *may* warm in line with IPCC predictions of gradual increase in temperature, but that there is insufficient data and understanding available to rule out a sudden and dramatic shift to a colder climate if the north atlantic conveyer is disrupted, as has happened at other points in Earth’s history. Clearly the possibility of events such as these become more likely with an increasingly unstable climate system, so further study is warranted, and the IPCC models should be treated with caution for being potentially too conservative.

    So – what was your point again?

    Perhaps it is worth noting here that one point of the judgement against An Inconvenient Truth in the UK (mandating it was largely accurate but could only be shown in schools with supplementary material on 9 specific points) was that the judge felt it was “very unlikely” that the north atlantic conveyer would shut down. Given your newfound love of this Woods Hole article, and its concern that this scenario is underplayed in IPCC predictions, are you in fact leaping to the defence of AICT?

  82. #82 Mark
    February 15, 2010

    >*Betula,
    You seem to put a staggering amount of effort into missing the point.*

    Dave I see you are catching on to one of Betula’s tactics. Betula is the opposite of a truthseeker, his dishonest traits seem to so fully dominate him that he “believes” what he is saying even when he argues against himself.

    Let me recap why Betula is being so evasive this time, he is trying to create us much dis-clarity as he can, in an effort to make his egregious errors less apparent.

    >How unsurprising Betula’s response is. Once more he evades the question. Though I see implied in Betula’s evasive response was an angling [] toward trying to hope that he can argue that the potential cooling refereed to by Joyce was more than regional cooling.

    >One answer to Betula’s current dishonest angling is in his own words. Remember when you wrote this Betula:

    > *You all seem hellbent on the idea that I am intentionally “truncating” the comments of the Woods Hole scientists for the following reasons:*

    >*1.I misrepresent the fact that they are talking about “regional” areas….Yet somehow you purposely ignore that I quoted them as saying “cooling for many of us”. For all you brilliant scientists out there, “many of us” does not mean “all of us”, and therefore does not and cannot insinuate “all of us”.*

    >*In addition, you ignore that I said “we can’t rule out cooling in certain areas”. Once again for all you arrogant, condescending, wilfully ignorant scientists, “certain areas” doesn’t mean “all areas”, and therefore does not and cannot insinuate “all areas”.*

    >There you go Betula, even you acknowledge you are only faithfully representing Joyce’s point in the article when you clarify that the potential cooling he discusses is limited to “certain areas” & that does not mean for “all of us”.

    >So you skewer yourself once again Betula. If you keep being dishonest for too long, it can come back to snooker you.

    Betula responds with typical evasion, but does ask two questions:

    >*1.Where did I say or infer the article is talking about “the greater context of global warming”.*

    Even Betula seem to have [dropped](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2274838) this bankrupt line of question after the absurdity was [pointed out](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2274285) to him.

    Yet Betula does persist with this question:

    >*2.What does the article say about areas along the Atlantic….are they going to warm or suddenly get cold?*

    Betula should know the answer to this as it has been pointed out many times Joyce says:

    >*For those of us living around the edge of the N. Atlantic Ocean, we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur.*

    A quote that [Betula truncated]( http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_39.php#comment-2258516) to make the **same misrepresentation that he keeps trying to make**; that is, **except for the moments when Betula tried to deny that he was truncating for that purpose, and tried to pretend he was faithfully representing Joyce’s argument**.

    In Betula’s words again:

    >*You all seem hellbent on the idea that I am intentionally “truncating” the comments of the Woods Hole scientists for the following reasons:*

    >*1.I misrepresent the fact that they are talking about “regional” areas….Yet somehow you purposely ignore that I quoted them as saying “cooling for many of us”. For all you brilliant scientists out there, “many of us” does not mean “all of us”, and therefore does not and cannot insinuate “all of us”.*

    >*In addition, you ignore that I said “we can’t rule out cooling in certain areas”. Once again for all you arrogant, condescending, wilfully ignorant scientists, “certain areas” doesn’t mean “all areas”, and therefore does not and cannot insinuate “all areas”.*

  83. #83 jakerman
    February 15, 2010

    >”Betula, You seem to put a staggering amount of effort into missing the point.”

    Betula’s recipe for “success”:

    1) Start with the precondition that Betula is always right.

    2) All facts that contradict point 1 are delusions.

    3) All arguments that support point point 1 are truthseeking.

    4) Always be truthseeking (see point 3 for clarification).