Via Skeptical Science, Peter Sinclair’s video on the evidence for man-made global warming.

Comments

  1. #1 Erasmussimo
    March 1, 2010

    That’s a very impressive summary of the evidence. I was especially impressed with the 29,500 indicators, 90% of which are consistent with the AGW hypothesis. I’m going to look up that paper.

  2. #2 Erasmussimo
    March 1, 2010

    I just finished skimming the paper. It really is impressive. More than 29,500 datasets covering biological, agricultural, cryospheric, and other phenomena, and 90% of them indicate warming since 1970. The mountain of data supporting AGW just gets bigger and bigger, and denialists respond by shrieking that CRU refused to release its original data. Pathetic.

  3. #3 Proper Gander
    March 1, 2010

    Erasmussimo: The denier mentality is such that the headlines will read, “2950 indicators which disprove global warming.” Soon we’ll all be knee-deep in internet postings all parroting the same claptrap.

    I wonder when I became so cynical.

  4. #4 MapleLeaf
    March 1, 2010

    “I wonder when I became so cynical.”

    Perhaps when Lord Munchkin and ClimateFraudit and WFUWT were considered impartial sources of “real” science?

    Anyone have an idea whether or not higher sea-levels could have been a contributing factor to the breaching of the sea walls in France with this last “bomb” (i.e, rapidly intensifying depression)?

  5. #5 Erasmussimo
    March 1, 2010

    Anyone have an idea whether or not higher sea-levels could have been a contributing factor to the breaching of the sea walls in France

    I think that we can safely dismiss the possibility that higher sea levels played a role, because so far the rise is only a few centimeters. The intensity of the storm might — MIGHT — have been due to increased ocean temperatures. While it’s reasonable to say that AGW might be increasing storm intensities, assigning that causal factor to any single storm is just not justified at this time.

  6. #6 Wadard
    March 1, 2010

    I highly recommend this video as a reference for the retard that pop up in any AGW comments section asking for proof of AGW.

    Just keep on linking to it every time you see that moronic request.

  7. #7 James
    March 1, 2010

    The crock is the video. No sceptic (or very few) denies the greenhouse effect of CO2. No sceptic denies that there was warming in the three decades up to 2000 (although the extent appears may have been exagerrated). No sceptic would deny the natural consequences of warming (migratory patterns, ice melt etc). Some (perhaps many) sceptics question the extent of these natural consequences and contend that they are overstated.

    What is questioned is the extent (and unprecedented nature) of the warming, the extent to which anthropogenic CO2 is responsible, the extent of the consequences, and the effectiveness of the proposed solutions. The “Bolshevik Plot” refers simply to the idea that such a problem, if it exists, can be solved by the methods proposed by the Australian (and other) Government and the United Nations. Those solutions present like socialist makeovers rather than real solutions.

    So in creating what Sinclair would like his opponents’ arguments to be, he is then able to effectively rebut them. It is this type of tactic that has the sceptics wondering about conspiracies.

    The video is the crock.

    And that’s before we start talking about the conduct of some of the more prominent scientists and politicians in the AGW “industry”.

  8. #8 Rixaeton
    March 1, 2010

    #7

    The “Bolshevik Plot” refers simply to the idea that such a problem, if it exists, can be solved by the methods proposed by the Australian (and other) Government and the United Nations. Those solutions present like socialist makeovers rather than real solutions.

    Most laughable: The proposed solution is to introduce an emissions trading scheme that establishes a market for the licenses to emit CO2-e. The to the extent that the govt takes part is to
    1) set the number of licenses to issue, and
    2) compliance with those licenses.

    The rest is entirely up to the private sector. The govt is not “picking winners” or even “taking over the means of production”, which is what Bolshevism was/is.

    So the ETS is the opposite of being socialist. The ETS is a free market solution that says, “you can pollute as much as you want, so long as the cost of the correction to the pollution is included.

    After all, if you want to live in a fun world, you have to pay for the ride.

  9. #9 FishOutofWater
    March 1, 2010

    Jeff Masters made an excellent post which shows that the storm that hit Europe intensified over much warmer than normal water off of Africa.

    Precipitable water, not sea level, explains the storm’s intensification and damage.

  10. #10 MikeH
    March 1, 2010

    James @ 7

    The crock is the video. No sceptic (or very few) denies the greenhouse effect of CO2. No sceptic denies that there was warming in the three decades up to 2000 (although the extent appears may have been exagerrated). No sceptic would deny the natural consequences of warming (migratory patterns, ice melt etc). Some (perhaps many) sceptics question the extent of these natural consequences and contend that they are overstated.

    Now the deniers are misquoting themselves.

  11. #11 MapleLeaf
    March 2, 2010

    Thanks guys @ 5 and @9.

    Just to avoid any confusion, I completely understand that one cannot use a single storm, or even one season to draw conclusions about whether or not factors associated with AGW played a role.

    My thoughts about the sea walls is that they were built centuries ago, and sea levels have increased quite a bit since they were first built. Age was probably a factor too, of course.

    Regarding the role of the SSTs, yes the SSTs off N. Africa right now are much warmer than average. The storms which dumped so much snow on the eastern seaboard of the USA also developed in an air-mass having unusually high PW values. Now is internal variability responsible for the high SSTs off N. Africa (e.g., perhaps associated with the negative NAO on the go right now), of is there also an AGW signal there? Looks like a good case study on many fronts, and if combined with the US storms, one might be able to make some connections between the warming and storm intensity and precip. totals.

    Off to read Jeff’s piece….

    James @7. Intriguing post and good effort to spin it for the contrarians. But that is all you guys can do now, spin, distort and misrepresent. And of course throw in some reference to a ‘socialist plot’ (the video is about empirical evidence for AGW) for good measure. Desperate times indeed for the ‘skeptics’.

    Things did not go too well for the contrarians today in London either with the Parliamentary commission. McI bungled some key figures, Lawson made several erroneous and alarmist statements. The only ones who were grounded in reality and solid science were the scientists from the CRU, Met Office and government.

  12. #12 Erasmussimo
    March 2, 2010

    James insists that “nobody is denying the basic phenomena”. C’mon, James, do I really have to trot out several dozen quotes from comments on this very blog denying precisely what you say “nobody denies”?

    I would be pleased if deniers would be so reasonable as to acknowledge the obvious and move on to the questionable, but my experience leads me to conclude that deniers concede a point only when it was established beyond a reasonable doubt five years earlier. I am convinced that deniers are engaging in a cynical rearguard action, denying everything possible, obfuscating everything possible, and conceding only what has long since been lost.

    As to the issues that you claim are questionable:

    1. the extent (and unprecedented nature) of the warming.

    The temperature records for the last century are beyond question. They show the extent of the warming quite plainly. As to the “unprecedented nature” of the warming, deniers can’t seem to get it through their thick skulls that it’s the rate of change of temperature that is unprecedented, not the temperature itself. I hope that you’re a cut above the average denier, but if you recognize the difference between a value and its rate of change, you wouldn’t be calling it “unprecedented”.

    2. the extent to which anthropogenic CO2 is responsible

    C’mon, all the other possible hypotheses have been examined quite closely and there simply isn’t any other plausible mechanism — and the CO2 hypothesis explains the data quite neatly. What do you want — a deep voice booming out from the clouds, “It’s the CO2, stupid!”

    3. the effectiveness of the proposed solutions

    Now here’s something that can be discussed in a reasoned way. Yes, there’s plenty of debatable material here — but all of your fellow riders shut down debate on the subject by arguing endlessly about scientific points when they don’t know the difference between a time derivative and a hole in the ground. So yes, let’s talk about the effectiveness of proposed solutions, their costs, and the costs of not acting. I’m willing to decide this matter strictly on economics. Let’s quit frackin’ around with ignorant arguments about science and get down to dollars and cents.

    4. Those solutions present like socialist makeovers rather than real solutions.

    Since when is taxation a socialist makeover? A carbon tax is the preferred approach of most economists and scientists. If taxation is socialism, then every government in human history has been socialist.

  13. #13 el gordo
    March 2, 2010

    Fishoutofwater

    That warm spot off the Afican coast looks ominous and I wonder if we are to get a repeat of the 1780 hurricane season.

  14. #14 Mikeh
    March 2, 2010

    James @ 7

    The “Bolshevik Plot” refers simply to the idea that such a problem, if it exists, can be solved by the methods proposed by the Australian (and other) Government and the United Nations. Those solutions present like socialist makeovers rather than real solutions.

    In reality the ETS is a neo-liberal solution to carbon mitigation which is why first John Howard and then Malcolm Turnbull supported it.

    Tony Abbott’s “direct action” [plan](http://www.theage.com.au/business/abbotts-idea-of-direct-action-is-business-as-usual-20100205-nild.html) is actually a plan to do little more than hand tax payer funds to the major polluters – commonly known as “socialism for the rich”.

    The Business Spectator columnist Alan Kohler this week commended the Coalition’s Emissions Reduction Fund as a plan to pay British utility International Power, operator of the developed world’s dirtiest brown-coal-fired power station at Hazelwood, in Victoria, and Chinese-owned Truenergy, operator of the similarly polluting Yallourn station nearby, to switch to cleaner gas-fired power.

  15. #15 James
    March 2, 2010

    Eras……,

    We can both trot out ridiculous arguments from both sides and we both know where that leads. You (or this blog) regard Bolt as at the extreme of “climate denial” so how about we use him as the “end point” for the spectrum of sceptical argument. Now can you perhaps nominate and “end point” for your side? Gore perhaps? Pachauri? Flannery? Someone whose claims beyond which I won’t go when evidencing the ridiculous.

    The temperature records for the last century are broadly not contended, at least until recently. To the extent that they are, can I suggest you visit the University of East Anglia to discover the reasons why?

    There is much debate, despite the apparent “consensus” as to what caused the warming of the last century, and I don’t accept that the debate is close to concluded. For the decade that I have been following this it has become more and more apparent that the arguments, and the methods of argument, on the part of (shall we call you) proponents has been fundamentally flawed. It would seem highly unlikely that the addition to the naturally occurring CO2 in the relatively minute levels that is anthropogenic would be causing the heating that has occurred and is predicted (however incorrectly so far) to occur. Specifically, as far as I can tell (and I am in no way a scientist or a mathematician) there is much debate as to what should be the figure for the “forcing effect”(?) of CO2.

    Happy to talk solutions. $50 billion (more than enough I would contend) towards a nuclear power plant should get us through nicely until research into other “green” energy sources reaches a point where they can be economically competitive. Shouldn’t be a problem given what we spend on pink batts, school halls, cash gifts to taxpayers etc and we might just generate a return out of it.

    The effect of the ETS would be to centralise wealth and power. Moreover, the creation of an industry which trades in hypotheticals is a recipe for disaster and an invitation for fraud. Just see what happened with Collateralised Debt Securities and Tech Stocks. Can’t work, won’t work, and the damage will be done to the consumer. And if the UN want to have countries like Australia pay countries like Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and China a “climate debt” they can leave forthwith and fornicate (it’s that which is the socialist part).

  16. #16 Dan
    March 2, 2010

    James@7 has never heard of Tim Ball and a dozen like him. James must be the first PhD in See-no-evilology, and 28 (or 35) years not using the internet.

    “The crock is the video. No sceptic (or very few) denies the greenhouse effect of CO2. “

  17. #17 Michael
    March 2, 2010

    James @7

    I envy the sheltered life you’ve led.

    Just check out the trolls that visit here, or for a concentrated dose of the crazies, check out any climate change thread by Andrew Bolt.

  18. #18 James
    March 2, 2010

    I am a frequent visitor (and sometimes contributor) to Bolt’s blog and a number of others. They are punters with opinions, some more, some less, informed. So what? I haven’t seen anything worse there than that expressed in “6” above.

  19. #19 Vince Whirlwind
    March 2, 2010

    James, don’t be ridiculous.

    olt’s blog attracts a tidal wave of ignorant drivel from a bunch of frothing idiots who are clearly quite a few snags short of a barbie.

    Here’s one now:
    “Its all a blind they are coninuing with the mad one world green government ,the Bali info has been leaked to fox news under the heading of Bali Woo ,it will blow your mind what they are up to as if climate gate never happened. ”

    [I mean, huh?]

    “You are right. The UN is still at it – world governance etc. The agenda is still the same business as usual. There’s a lot of life still left in the AGW scam! ”

    [True. It's those inconvenient facts that are keeping it alive, eh?]

    “mainstream and WE NEED someone like Lord Monckton to come out again and spread the word of what is REALLY going on before it is too late!”

    [Not enough CAPS there - please try harder]

    “Nevertheless, the final report of the parliamentary committee may be interesting to read. Will it be a cover up or will it reveal all? With questioning like that, I have reservations. ”

    [Gee, I guess it depends - will reveal anything about paranoid conspiracy theories? Probably not. That's a cover-up then]

    “Phil Jones and his mates have fudged the temperature data to such an extent that they have some poor people believing we are about to melt or something – so who do you blame?”

    [Er, yep - Phil Jones went and left his heater on all day to warm the planet up and pretend it was the CO2]

  20. #20 James
    March 2, 2010

    Come on, Vince, it’s a blog, a popular one, and a conservative one. I can name plenty of vitriolic trash coming out of left wing blogs but where does that leave us? Interesting to see the types of arguments my comment has attracted. Only one attempt out of eight to even try to debate the substance of what I have written, which was on point. You guys can hardly be critical of Bolt with a scorecard like that eh? You can debate what I have written or not. I stand by what I write, and what I quote. Or would you perhaps like to defend David Marr on ABC declaring that the opposite of an ETS was to “let the world fry….”. It’s a chicken shit argument. “Those who share your views express them this way therefore you are wrong”.

  21. #21 Alex
    March 2, 2010

    Don’t feed the concern troll

  22. #22 Paul UK
    March 2, 2010

    Nice video.

    Although it would have been nicer to see the GHG molecules vibrate when hit by photons.

  23. #23 Dave
    March 2, 2010

    @James

    Get off your high horse – you’ve come here seemingly claiming to hold the “one true coherent message from the anti-AGW movement” when in reality what you’ve claimed is contradicted time and time again in popular blogs, in the media, and in comments here. You say no skeptic denies the greenhouse effect of CO2 – yet you would surely have to agree that the attack on the vostok ice cores (that there is an 800 year lag between rising CO2 and rising temperature) has been a popular anti-AGW line for many years. The purpose of that argument is to show that rising temperatures cause a rise in CO2, not the other way round, and therefore question the very CO2 greenhouse effect you claim nobody questions. This is but one example of many (largely contradictory and incoherent) arguments that take this line. See, eg. Ian Plimer’s abysmal Heaven & Earth for more.

    For a primer of the patient, well-sourced debunking of utterly repetitive misinformation that goes on in the comments on this blog in the face of really quite offensive trolling, I refer you to [this epic thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/matthew_england_challenges_the.php). Incidentally your argument about “minute” amounts of CO2 having little impact is dealt with repeatedly in there.

    Until you accept the very simple premise that rising CO2 is a driving force of much of the warming, and that anthropogenic sources are the primary cause of that rise, there really isn’t any valid way to have a discussion about the economics. Solutions to eg. reduce CO2 emissions from transportation that might not seem economically viable become comparatively cheap if the cost of inaction is accepted to be high. Using attacks on the science as a way to skew the economic discussion in a direction you find more acceptable is not especially helpful, and neither are tangential asides about socialism or ill-informed smears about the temperature record and UEA.

    When you say there is much debate about the causes of temperature rise in the last century, please point to where in the scientific literature that debate is occuring and what nature that debate takes.

  24. #24 toby
    March 2, 2010

    Dear James (#7), you wrote:

    “And that’s before we start talking about the conduct of some of the more prominent scientists and politicians in the AGW “industry”.”

    Don’t you realise how lame you sound? Translation of your screed: I have no scientific arguments against the video presentation, so I will just call it a “crock” as a substitute. Not having arguments means that then I want to attack a handful of scientists personally in order to distract readers from the weakness of my position.

    Get a life.

  25. #25 Vince Whirlwind
    March 2, 2010

    OK James, let’s try to find this “substance” you claim to be providing us with:

    – Bolt’s frothingly mad blog equivalent to Al Gore/Pachauri/Flannery

    – The Uni of East Anglia causes the temperature records to be “contended”

    – Cause for warming not acceptable to you, arguments re CO2 “fundamentally flawed”, much debate re figure for CO2 forcing

    – solution = nukes, nothing else is economic

    – ETS = centralise wealth and power

    And my answer to your 5 points of “substance:

    1/ equivalence arguments of this sort are an artifact of the unthinking antilogic from post-modern uni-wankers. It’s bullshit, pure and simple. Bolt’s nonsense is demonstrably false, time and time again, while the mad rantings of his supporters are just off-the-wall.

    2/ the Uni of East Anglia has done nothing of the sort. They aren’t the only people presenting temperature info and they haven’t presented anything which isn’t in agreement with other research organisations. You’ve fallen for the bullshit on this one. Clearly you either will not or can not bring yourself to understand what a “trick” is, and what the “hide the decline” divergence issue was all about.

    3/ CO2 forcing is a fact, which has been known about for over 150 years. The precise figures are under discussion. CO2 is causing warming, and your “fundamentally flawed” assessment bers no relation to the facts.

    4/ Nukes are an utterly uneconomic form of producing energy, which is why they only exist through massive government subsidy. A form of socialism of which you clearly approve. Hypocrite.

    5/ Utter bullshit. Ask an economist to explain to you how the free market works.

    So we see that contrary to your pathetic bleatings, you’ve brought all froth and no substance to this party.

  26. #26 jakerman
    March 2, 2010

    James write:

    >*The crock is the video. No sceptic (or very few) denies the greenhouse effect of CO2.*

    James who do you speak for a so called “skeptic’s” consensus? I’ve regularly read rubbish such ‘CO2 is not a pollutant’, and man cannot change the climate’. Sinclare eve used denialist industry video that claim there is no evidence of CO2 warming.

    I suggest you need a poll to support your claim that no or few people who call themselves AGW skeptics deny the greenhouse effect of CO2.

    James continues:

    >*No sceptic denies that there was warming in the three decades up to 2000*

    Then James contradicts himself:

    >*(although the extent appears may have been exagerrated).*

    What evidence do you have for exagerrated warming in the last 30 decades?

    James continues:

    >*No sceptic would deny the natural consequences of warming (migratory patterns, ice melt etc).*

    That would be except if they called it exaggerated instead of admitting to denial:

    >*Some (perhaps many) sceptics question the extent of these natural consequences and contend that they are overstated.*

    Add to James’ denial (or science conspiracy) those who invest the debate with arguments such as the sea ice has recovered. Jame have you ever smacked down a denialist for that type of bogus claim?

    James continues:
    >*So in creating what Sinclair would like his opponents’ arguments to be, he is then able to effectively rebut them.It is this type of tactic that has the sceptics wondering about conspiracies. The video is the crock.*

    Sinclare has nailed you James, you’ve raced to the barricades and you’ve need to charge scientific conspiracy (exaggeration) to state your beliefs.

  27. #27 toby
    March 2, 2010

    Mark E. Gillar wrote :

    “Gore and The UN IPCC should be forced to give back their Nobel Peace Prize. ”

    What a mean-spirited and spiteful post! Dragging in a Holocaust victim like Irena Sendler to try to confer a extra bit of righteousness stands out as a model of smallminded, petty demagoguery.

    I am sure Ms Sandler would disown your bitchiness, if she knew about it. I hope she gets her prize, but if it is with the help of this mindset, then it is devalued irredeemably.

    Meanwhile, what not just forgive Mr Gore for behaving with a bit of nobility, like a REAL President?

  28. #28 jakerman
    March 2, 2010

    James writes:

    >*The temperature records for the last century are broadly not contended, at least until recently. To the extent that they are, can I suggest you visit the University of East Anglia to discover the reasons why?*

    Denial and nonsense James. There is no evidence that the Warming has been exaggerated. CRU is not contradicted by GISS nor UAH nor RSS MSU, nor the sea ice loss nor biological response, nor glacial melt. You are exhibiting the denial that Sinclare addressed and you claimed he smacked too low.

    James continues:

    >*There is much debate, despite the apparent “consensus” as to what caused the warming of the last century*

    Really where? Name just 5 papers in credible journals in the last year that showed strong evidenced that AGW was not the strongest driver of recent warming. Or if last years was a bit light, name 10 credible papers in the last 2 years.

    >*For the decade that I have been following this it has become more and more apparent that the arguments, and the methods of argument, on the part of (shall we call you) proponents has been fundamentally flawed.*

    Empty words James, lacking evidence.

    James:

    >*It would seem highly unlikely that the addition to the naturally occurring CO2 in the relatively minute levels that is anthropogenic would be causing the heating that has occurred and is predicted (however incorrectly so far) to occur.*

    First point is that That you assert with out evidence that CO2 is highly unlikely assertion to cause the warming, and you make this claim without counter evidence. You also sneak in you assumption that something is incorrect, again without evidence.

    Second point is you are proving Sinclair correct buy squeezing your self under his nail.

  29. #29 Stu
    March 2, 2010

    James says

    “It would seem highly unlikely that the addition to the naturally occurring CO2 in the relatively minute levels that is anthropogenic would be causing the heating that has occurred and is predicted (however incorrectly so far) to occur.”

    And my word, so does it seem unlikely that ozone, which has concentrations of up to 8ppm in the denser parts of the ozone layer, could block the vast majority of shortwave UV radiation incident on the atmosphere. But it does. So there ya go.

    NB: I feel I have to tack a note onto the end of this (because of dunder-headedness I have encountered in the past). This argument demonstrates that radiatively active trace gases can have a significant effect on the radiation balance of the planet. It obviously doesn’t demonstrate the effect that CO2 or CH4 has, other arguments do that. The stated purpose is simply to falsify the following notion: “It’s a trace gas, so it can’t have a major effect”.

  30. #30 Stu
    March 2, 2010

    Further to the comment above, I wouldn’t call a ~35% increase in total atmospheric CO2 due to human activity ‘a relatively minute anthropogenic addition’ (slight paraphrase).

  31. #31 Raging Bee
    March 2, 2010

    There is much debate, despite the apparent “consensus” as to what caused the warming of the last century…

    So now the denialist both admits and denies a consensus, in the first half of a sentence? The Saudi oil barons should give James a gold medal for doubletalk.

  32. #32 Marco
    March 2, 2010

    @toby:
    Sadly, Irena Sendler passed away in 2008.

  33. #33 MapleLeaf
    March 2, 2010

    the concern troll appears to not have watched the entire video. Or they did, but the hard-wired denialism prevented the images and narrative from sinking in. Maybe if they actually read Rosenzweig et al. that would help.

    And the CRU temps have not been “fudged’– the troll has clearly fallen for the Limbaugh propaganda and has not bothered to check the facts, context and reality of what was said and why. Hint troll, “hide the decline” had nothing to do with any observed temperature record and refers to the divergence problem in dendro chronologies when compared with instruments. The CRU data are in agreement with the independently determined NASA GISS, NCDC, JMA, as well as the satellite data (the actual numbers do not agree with what Lawson said yesterday in London), and radiosonde data (RATPAC). Moreover, the warming in the CRU data is *lower* than in the other datasets.

    Anyhow, no amount of reason or scientific facts are going to convince the trolls so I’ll leave it at that.

  34. #34 Erasmussimo
    March 2, 2010

    I’d like to defend James against the avalanche of angry responses to his comments. Not that I agree with his claims. I’d like to point out that James represents a different class of commentator here. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to call him an “opponent” rather than a “denier”. His arguments are not in the same class as the idiotic, ill-informed crap that are usual among deniers. I realize that everybody here is so used to seeing outright lies from deniers that there’s a strong tendency to attack anybody who takes that side, so the response is psychologically understandable, but I think it’s also wrong. Although I doubt that we’ll be able to reach any agreement with James, I do think that he’ll respond to reasoned arguments with reasoned counterarguments — don’t you think that would be far more productive and interesting than the usual head-bashing that characterizes discussion on this board?

    That said, now let ME roll up my sleeves and go to work on James! ;-)

    First, I like your idea of characterizing the bell curve of opinions, so we don’t argue against each others extremists instead of each other. I’ll start by declaring the centerline of proponent arguments on AGW: the IPCC AR4 reports, which you can find here:

    http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/wg1-ar4.html

    As to the extrema, I’d put Al Gore at the edge. Much of what he says is true, but he occasionally overstates his case. I see no reason to defend Al Gore when I have IPCC AR4. So I’ll ask you to confine your criticisms to statements in IPCC AR4. Another centerline source of information is the National Academy of Sciences brochure on AGW, which you can find here:

    http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf

    This isn’t so intimidating a document as IPCC AR4, because it presents the case in nontechnical language. But remember this: IPCC AR4 is the core document, the fundamental case, against which all opposing arguments should be made.

    To the extent that they are, can I suggest you visit the University of East Anglia to discover the reasons why?

    I suggest that you visit this page:

    http://www.ipcc-data.org/

    to get an idea of why the whole CRU thing is a tempest in a teapot, a trumped-up distraction from the truth.

    There is much debate, despite the apparent “consensus” as to what caused the warming of the last century, and I don’t accept that the debate is close to concluded.

    This is correct, by only in the sense that there are plenty of ignorant people who are presenting idiotic arguments against the science of climate change. If you want to get an idea of the real issues being debated, please consult the NAS brochure and/or the IPCC AR4 report. There really is a strong consensus that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the cause of the recent warming.

    For the decade that I have been following this it has become more and more apparent that the arguments, and the methods of argument, on the part of (shall we call you) proponents has been fundamentally flawed.

    Then perhaps you should actually read the arguments and methods of arguments used by the actual proponents, not the crap that you see on television. Read IPCC AR4! It’s all there for public consumption, and yet nobody ever bothers to read it — instead they complain that the scientists are being secretive. Until you’ve read IPCC AR4, you have no ethical basis to comment on the arguments in favor of AGW, because you haven’t even seen them.

    It would seem highly unlikely that the addition to the naturally occurring CO2 in the relatively minute levels that is anthropogenic would be causing the heating that has occurred and is predicted (however incorrectly so far) to occur.

    It is long been known that the earth’s surface temperature is 33ºC warmer than it would be without any greenhouse effect, and that most of that effect is due to CO2. So if 270 ppm of CO2 can raise the temperature of the earth by 30ºC, what’s so crazy about saying that adding another 100 ppm of CO2 might increase temperatures by another 5ºC?

    Moreover, this notion that “tiny things can’t have any effect” is absurd. A meteorite with mass of just one billionth that of the earth managed to destroy the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. A few hundred HIV viri on your skin, with a mass of picograms, can kill you. There are plenty of poisons a few micrograms of which can kill you. Tiny things can certainly have big effects.

    there is much debate as to what should be the figure for the “forcing effect”(?) of CO2

    Please see Table 2.1, IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 2, which presents atmospheric concentrations and changes of more than a dozen different chemicals in the atmosphere, as well as the radiative forcing of each one as of 2005. CO2 forcing is put at 1.66 W m**-2.

    I agree with you that most of the schemes I have seen for addressing climate change are pretty lame. They aren’t aggressive enough to accomplish much, and they seem more like disguised subsidies. I would much prefer a carbon tax — as do most economists. I concede that a carbon tax is politically unviable — but that’s only because people don’t understand the magnitude of the problem. So let’s talk carbon tax, OK? Do you object to a revenue-neutral carbon tax?

  35. #35 lenny
    March 2, 2010

    “And if the UN want to have countries like Australia pay countries like Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and China a “climate debt” they can leave forthwith and fornicate (it’s that which is the socialist part).

    The only thing vaguely “socialist” is the status quo, whereby the evironmental costs of emissions are shared globally, while none of the benefits are. In effect, a wealth transfer to the industrialized nations.

  36. #36 Stu
    March 2, 2010

    Erasmussimo, terrific post @34.

    I have a couple of things to say about your post though, firstly the biggest contributor to the 33C greenhouse effect is water vapour. The part due to CO2 is by no means insignificant though (see < http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/>)

    Secondly, HIV on your skin will do squat. Get in a cut though…

    Anyway, as I have already said, I agree wholeheartedly with the vast majority of your post.

  37. #37 Erasmussimo
    March 2, 2010

    Yep, Stu, those were both blunders on my part; I caught them on re-reading. Damn, I wish this blog had an edit capability.

  38. #38 Ben Breeg
    March 2, 2010

    “I’d like to point out that James represents a different class of commentator here. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to call him an “opponent” rather than a “denier”.”

    Think again Erasmussimo, he’s just your everyday common troll

    http://guttertrash.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/weekend-gab-fest-23/#comment-21179

  39. #39 MapleLeaf
    March 2, 2010

    Thanks Ben @38, Yup, James is just a common troglodyte, I mean troll. Sigh.

  40. #40 Eli Rabett
    March 2, 2010

    Eli is often asked to name a few denialists of the Greenhouse Effect, and he has some who have published papers in refereed journals: Gerlich, Tscheuschner, Chilingar, Khilyuk, Sorokhtin, Kramm of the tips of his ears.

    Go google some of those worthies and you will find multiple fan clubs. So James, let us not pretend that denial don’t deny the greenhouse effect

  41. #41 Stu
    March 2, 2010

    Hah well, he can stir the pot all he likes and it wont make a difference. We’re already a well mixed group ;-)

    James dressed up his talk in more reasonable terms than many of the ‘sceptics’ that pop up on this blog, but he didn’t make any arguments of substance (and certainly didn’t back up any of his assertions with evidence) and now his true intentions are exposed. I wonder if he’ll be back?

    By the way Ben, how did you find that link?

  42. #42 chek
    March 2, 2010

    Ben said:
    “Think again Erasmussimo, he’s just your everyday common troll

    http://guttertrash.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/weekend-gab-fest-23/#comment-21179

    Because of course, nothing is ever truly real in moronoland until you’ve bragged about it to yer “mates”.

  43. #43 Paul UK
    March 2, 2010

    re stu:
    >The stated purpose is simply to falsify the following notion: “It’s a trace gas, so it can’t have a major effect”.

    I think that you only have to ‘view’ the gases in the atmosphere from IR radiations perspective. eg. from that perspective CO2 roughly becomes about 9% of the relevant atmosphere and not a ‘trace gas’. Water vapour obviously becomes the majority gas, replacing Nitrogen.

    Once you take the IR band POV, then the picture is a lot different.

  44. #44 Michael
    March 2, 2010

    James is just another reminder of the futility of reason when dealing with the wilfully ignorant.

    After seeing a video explaining the empirical evidence shwoing some of the relevant papers, we have idiots like James saying – they showed no evidence.

    It’s just a litle bit amazing that we’re in the 21stC but there are people who wear anti-science ignorance like a badge of honour.

  45. #45 Anonymous
    March 2, 2010

    Tim, you should really not be posting links to weak stuff like this. This is the kind of stuff every sceptic will have a field day with, because it doesn’t really show the link between CO2 and runaway global warming.

  46. #46 Stu
    March 2, 2010

    Anon,

    global warming doesn’t have to be ‘runaway’ to be concerning!

  47. #47 jakerman
    March 2, 2010

    Shorter Anon:

    *This stuff hurts us, and makes the science more accessible. Please don’t show it.*

  48. #48 Anonymous
    March 2, 2010

    Stu@46:

    Runaway global warming caused by CO2 is what IPCC predicts. Everyone knows and agrees CO2 is a greenhouse gas a causes some warming, which if not enhanced by other factors in the system would not be catastrophic at all.

  49. #49 James
    March 2, 2010

    Erasmussino has me right, the rest wrong. Yes, I did refer to being here as “having fun” etc, but to define that as trolling you would need to show that my arguments are deliberately ridiculous. Gutter Trash is hardly a friendly environment for me, as I am well outnumbered in most cases. But that is my fault. I prefer rigorous debate to head nodding and therefore am attracted to environments where I am likely to be in a minority. One poster there historically links this site as proof of his arguments as regards AGW. I regard that as lacking in debating substance. I can just as easily link WUWT in the same way and we reach a stalemate. So I have a bit of a chuckle at him for that reason, and my comments should be regarded in that context. In a way, I have proven a point. Look what happens when you come in to a blog like this with a contrary argument. One or two are prepared to roll up their sleeves and engage in reasoned debate, the majority just wish to engage in abuse. So I guess in proving that point, it was a form of trolling.

    Eras, I did read the summary of AR4 at the time it was released and I will read it again to continue this debate. As to Climategate, I have never argued on the issues of “trick” or “hide the decline” but on the broader conduct of the scientists evidenced in the emails. The only issue I have with “hide the decline” is the implication that the tree ring data is unreliable after a given date so I struggle to see how it is reliable before that given date. I am open to being educated on that point.

    In terms of “tiny trace gas” the difference between CO2 and HIV is that the CO2 is already present in a natural form. Either you have HIV or you don’t. If you have, say, 380 PPM of HIV infected cells in your body injecting another hundred PPM is going to make no difference. Without treatment, you are a goner anyway. Similarly with the meteor. Your example assumes there are no other meteors. But if there are meteors of similar size belting the earth day in day out, you’d be hard pressed to argue that that one meteor, by its addition alone (leaving aside arguments about specific points of impact as that can’t be equated to CO2) caused the dinosaurs to be wiped out.

    Got a fair bit on today, so I’ll drop by later to continue.

  50. #50 jakerman
    March 2, 2010

    Shorter Anon (sounding a bit like James):

    *I’m gonna make up stuff about what the the IPCC say, don’t mind me.*

  51. #51 Paul Norton
    March 2, 2010

    The references early in the video to the “show me the proof” cries of the denialists reminds me of a joke from the 1970s in which a mother is exhorting her finicky son to eat his vegetables with the words “Don’t you know that millions of kids your age are strving in China and India?” to which he replies “Oh yeah? Name one!”

  52. #52 MapleLeaf
    March 2, 2010

    James, CFCs are trace gases (and measured in ppt compared to ppm for CO2) and look what they have done to the ozone hole, in the stratosphere, above Antarctica.

    Your trace gas argument is feeble and a classic contrarian myth that has been discounted repeatedly.

    Let’s cut to the chance, b/c this is essentially what it boils down to. What is the climate sensitivity to doubling CO2? And I want a reputable reference from the peer-reviewed literature to support your assertion (i.e., not Lindzen and Choi, 2009).

  53. #53 Anonymous
    March 2, 2010
  54. #54 Tom R
    March 2, 2010

    For those who need further evidence to doubt James er Sancty’s credentials as a troll.

    http://guttertrash.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/global-warming-has-stopped-says-tony-abbott/#comment-13087

    And Stu, to answer your question as to how I found that link, it is because I post over there under the name Tom R. No, don’t ask me why I used Ben Breeg here, except perhaps that Tom R is just a boring name (shrug). I typed it on the fly when blogocracy was around, and wanted to maintain it so people knew who I was (to a degree). So I guess I will revert :( to avoid cinfusion.

    As to james, his arguments usually end in the ‘you post Lambert, and I’ll post WUWT’ type rant, ignoring completely that one is based in fact, while the other is based on ??? (don’t really know yet). Or, his even better one, his mates told him it wasn’t happening, so there (the great Barrier Reef escapade).

    I guess, in the short of it, it is my fault he is here, so for that, I apologise.

  55. #55 James
    March 2, 2010

    @Mapleleaf……congratulations on the ice hockey win (I think). It was a very exciting game.

    I’m not certain why Lindzen is not a reputable scientist and would appreciate a definition of reputable.

    In any event……http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=87

  56. #56 James
    March 2, 2010

    Stu, I’m no coward and my ability to debate is restricted only by time constraints and general scientific ignorance. I acknowledge that freely but reserve my right to participate as an affected citizen who is capable of applying critical consideration of many of the issues.

    TomR has misrepresented one of my points. I am a frequent visitor to the GBR, as an enthusiastic yachtie and snorkeller. I have in the past repeatedly asserted that the parts of the GBR that I visit, and they range on a broad scale, show no visible signs of stress over a period of two decades. I can see for myself that the many predictions of Ove (whatever his surname is) are demonstrably false.

  57. #57 Chris O'Neill
    March 2, 2010

    Anonymous:

    Runaway global warming caused by CO2 is what IPCC predicts.

    No, runnaway global warming in when the positive feedback (caused by water evaporating) goes to more than 100%. This is not expected to happen until the oceans reach 60 degrees C which is not expected to happen because there is not enough carbon available.

    Everyone knows and agrees CO2 is a greenhouse gas a causes some warming, which if not enhanced by other factors in the system would not be catastrophic at all.

    I’d like to live in an ideal world too.

  58. #58 Chris O'Neill
    March 2, 2010

    James:

    I can see for myself that the many predictions of Ove (whatever his surname is) are demonstrably false.

    All right. Demonstrate it then. Tell us at least one prediction and demonstrate that it’s false.

  59. #59 Pterosaur
    March 2, 2010

    Interesting to see that James, having been smacked down (by myself) over at Gutter Trash over his assertions equating his observations with scientific observation (wrt to the GBR)brings his lunacy here.

    Nothing more than your run of the mill liar and troll really, although (slightly) more coherent than most.

    He has demonstrated (to my satisfaction at least) that he is entirely dishonest in his approach to AGW, and is incapable or unwilling to provide evidence supporting his POV.

    The only “evidence” I have ever seen to back his assertions is his standard reply of “Google Climategate” which is evidently all the evidence he requires to slander scientists/organisations such as Jones, CRU, Mann etc.,deny global warming, sea level rise, impute the peer review process, and deny the existence and relevance of data collected which supports AGW.

    I might also point out that ALL of the claims he makes wrt to AGW have been demonstrated as relying upon lies, misrepresentation and/or quote mining by many contributors at Gutter Trash, including myself, yet, while refusing to ever acknowledge his own errors, mistakes or lies, he now brings them here “to have a bit of fun”.

  60. #60 jakerman
    March 2, 2010

    Anon writes:

    >*Runaway global warming caused by CO2 is what IPCC predicts.*

    Jakerman wrties:

    >Shorter Anon [...]: *I’m gonna make up stuff about what the the IPCC say, don’t mind me.*

    Anon writes:

    >jakerman@50: Please read: http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf

    Anon, do your own homework, I say you made it your claim up. Prove me wrong, show me were the “*IPPCs predicts*” *”Runaway global warming caused by CO2″*. Cite the passage, or the page, the chart or the figure.

    Why do I think you are wrong? Cos I’ve read what [climate scientist write](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/runaway-tipping-points-of-no-return/):

    >People often conclude that the existence of positive feedbacks must imply ‘runaway’ effects i.e. the system spiralling out of control. However, while positive feedbacks are obviously necessary for such an effect, they do not by any means force that to happen. Even in simple systems, small positive feedbacks can lead to stable situations as long as the ‘gain’ factor is less than one (i.e. for every initial change in the quantity, the feedback change is less than the original one). A simple example leads to a geometric series for instance; i.e. if an initial change to a parameter is D, and the feedback results in an additional rD then the final change will be the sum of D+rD+r2D…etc. ). This series converges if |r|<1, and diverges (‘runs away’) otherwise. You can think of the Earth’s climate (unlike Venus’) as having an ‘r‘ less than one, i.e. no ‘runaway’ effects, but plenty of positive feedbacks.

  61. #61 James
    March 2, 2010

    Geez, and here come the troops….. Where’s Adrian?

    Pterosaur you have “smacked me down” much as a fly to an elephant. You have already mischaracterised one of my arguments. “Google Climategate” only as far as I am concerned has related to the inappropriate conduct of a certain group of scientists and only in relation to the treatment of data and their relationships with other scientists, particularly as regards the peer review process. I use the Great Barrier Reef as an example of just one climate scare that is self evidently false. You cannot tell me something is dying when I can see for myself that it is not.

    If, perhaps, you could point out one lie that I have relied upon, please do so. If you can point out once that I have refused to acknowledge a demonstrated “error, mistake, or lie” please do so. Otherwise, please allow us adults (Eras etc) to debate the issues.

  62. #62 Pterosaur
    March 2, 2010

    James,

    it’s all on record, I’ve justified every claim I’ve made here (at Gutter Trash) and I simply can’t be bothered with your lies any more.

  63. #63 jakerman
    March 2, 2010

    >*I use the Great Barrier Reef as an example of just one climate scare that is self evidently false.*

    No James you use the Great Barrier Reef as an example of what you say is is self evidently false.

    Most here differ from yourself in that many here require evidence rather than accept what you claim through mere assertion.

  64. #64 James
    March 2, 2010

    Pterosaur, you want me to substantiate scientific arguments, despite my repeated admission that I am no scientist. I can argue only on the basis of reason and logic. To whit, my original argument on this subject is about the positioning of the sceptical argument in the posted video.

    Yet, you come on here, attack my character, accuse me of lying, twice, then refuse to “be bothered” to substantiate your accusation in the forum in which it was made (never mind that you have also failed to do so in the forum in which you have claimed to). Back up your serious charges, Pterosaur, because no matter what side of the debate you stand on, to fail to do so would make you a fraud.

  65. #65 Anonymous
    March 2, 2010

    @60:

    Runaway, as in so big (after being amplified by factors other than CO2) that it is going to have catastrophic effects (i.e. it has run away from what we can control and tolerate).

    So, coming back to the original post, this video does not in any way establish the link between CO2 and global warming that will run away from us. For that to be true, it would have to show evidence that other factors in the system act the way it was predicted by IPCC. However, such evidence is not in the video (possibly because it doesn’t exist).

    PS. Only the far alarmist fringe suggest an out of control positive feedback loop (what you understood I meant by plain use of the word runaway).

  66. #66 jakerman
    March 2, 2010

    Anon, stop contradicting yourself, you just had it confirmed that you are using the wrong term yet you opt to keep using it.

    >*So, coming back to the original post, this video does not in any way establish the link between CO2 and global warming that will run away from us.*

    You were the joker who claimed it should be trying to establish such a link. I called you on your folly.

    Your post is utter nonsense, you arn’t close to discussing the science nor what the IPCC say or need to say.

  67. #67 MapleLeaf
    March 2, 2010

    James, you are weaseling mate. I asked for a “reputable reference from the peer-reviewed literature to support your assertion”

    You gave me a link to a denialist blog. You fail.

    This from the denialist blog:

    “The best estimate for climate sensitivity is about 0.4 C for a CO2 doubling”

    OMG! I had no idea that we had doubled CO2 by the 80s ;) Dr Hoyt is of the mistaken belief that the sun is responsible for pretty much all of the warming.

  68. #68 James
    March 2, 2010

    Maple Leaf, there are five papers listed in that blog which give a climate sensitivity figure of less than the IPCC. Again, what constitutes “reputable”. On your criteria, it would seem to eliminate anyone who holds a view different to those to which you adhere?

  69. #69 Anonymous
    March 2, 2010

    @65:

    Strong words. And still no evidence for the claims…

  70. #70 jakerman
    March 2, 2010

    Anon, looking past your persistent use of misleading terms I will address a question that I hope you are asking:

    >Can we establish the link between CO2 and global warming that is going to have catastrophic effects?

    To address this question first answer me this, do you accept the evidence that greenhouse gases cause global warming?

  71. #71 jakerman
    March 2, 2010

    Anon responds:

    >Strong words. And still no evidence for the claims…

    Not sure why you bothered, are you that unwilling/unable to move away from your nonsensical erroneous hand waving terminolgoy? Never mind, I’ve tried to [help you out of your road block here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2317934).

  72. #72 jakerman
    March 2, 2010

    >*there are five papers listed in that blog which give a climate sensitivity figure of less than the IPCC.*

    James your sources citing of 5 papers does not mean the data supports his claims. [Your source](http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=87) is out of date and misses the [corrections by Lyman](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mystery-of-the-vanishing-ocean-heat.html), the [updates by Levitus](http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm) and your source [completely dodged Domingues](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/ocean-heat-content-revisions/).

    [This data](http://www.realclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/synthrepfig1.jpg) is compelling.

  73. #73 MapleLeaf
    March 3, 2010

    James,

    Nope. Sorry. Oh now your moving the goal posts to the references of said blog post. I searched each of the PDFs for “climate sensitivity”.

    Levitus paper was about OHC, no hits for “climate sensitivity”
    Lyman, alleged recent ocean cooling in upper ocean 2003-2005 (later found to be b/c of a problem with sensor on Argo floats), no hits for “climate sensitivity”
    Gouretski and Koltermann, XBT issues, no hits for “climate sensitivity”
    Ellis, Cloud amounts and dymanics. Conf. abstract, not peer-reviewed. Did not bother.
    Hansen 2005, does not try and calculate climate sensitivity, the climate model’s equilibrium sensitivity (which they used) to doubled CO2 is 2.70C.
    Hansen 1985, estimates sensitivity of ~3C for doubling CO2, same as mean value of range predicted by IPCC (2.0-4.5C) in 2007.

    For a reputable papers on climate sensitivity:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Working-out-climate-sensitivity.html
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm
    (see papers referenced therein which speak directly to calculating climate sensitivity).

    Also, for a thorough review of the Earth’s energy imbalance read Murphy et al. (2009, JGR-A).

    You have failed yet again to answer my question.

    PS: I know of a paper or two which claim sensitivity is lower, but they have all been either refuted or challenged by their peers. I would tell, but thought it best for you to find them.

  74. #74 Michael
    March 3, 2010

    MapleLeaf,

    Do you really think James could manage to find his own arse even with a flashlight?…… well, maybe if it was posted on a denialist blog, then he might.

  75. #75 Marcel Kincaid
    March 3, 2010

    First, I like your idea of characterizing the bell curve of opinions, so we don’t argue against each others extremists instead of each other.

    It’s a fundamentally dishonest idea that is based on a false equivalence and a mistaken notion that reality and rationality are “moderate”. An honest exercise would put “completely right” at one end of the curve and “completely wrong” at the other, with people who are half right in the middle. On that curve, Gore would be toward the “completely right” end, Bolt would be at the “completely wrong” end, and James would generously be about halfway down the “completely wrong” end.

  76. #76 Marcel Kincaid
    March 3, 2010

    my ability to debate is restricted only by time constraints and general scientific ignorance

    Isn’t that a fact.

    I can argue only on the basis of reason and logic.

    Reason and logic, of which you are also generally ignorant, aren’t particularly useful for addressing empirical matters when one is unfamiliar with, or in denial of, the evidence.

  77. #77 Marcel Kincaid
    March 3, 2010

    Runaway, as in so big (after being amplified by factors other than CO2) that it is going to have catastrophic effects (i.e. it has run away from what we can control and tolerate)….PS. Only the far alarmist fringe suggest an out of control positive feedback loop (what you understood I meant by plain use of the word runaway).

    Uncontrollable catastrophic effects can occur in the absence of an out of control positive feedback loop, so your comments, full of equivocation, are fundamentally dishonest. Catastrophic effects can also occur even if we can control them (and especially if we can but fail to).

  78. #78 Marcel Kincaid
    March 3, 2010

    I use the Great Barrier Reef as an example of just one climate scare that is self evidently false. You cannot tell me something is dying when I can see for myself that it is not.

    You’re a fucking idiot.

    http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/200917/3529/Dying-coral-reef-shows-signs-of-spectacular-regrowth

    David Wachenfeld, chief scientist at the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, told the program he was heartened to see damaged corals respond.

    “It’s incredibly heartening to see how quickly a really healthy coral reef can respond,” he said.

    “But of course at the same time it’s somewhat sobering because it makes us realise that reefs do have to be very healthy to survive impacts of climate change, and also indicates to us that we only have a certain amount of time to do something about climate change if we want to keep coral reefs around the world,” Wachenfeld continued.

    There those scientists go, scaring people with their sober talk.

  79. #79 James
    March 3, 2010

    Marcel, what a polite and dignified way to enter a debate. You must be just so proud of your capacity to refrain from resorting to abuse.

    Go back to my original post on the subject. Guess what, it says nothing of the science but it speaks to the way the presenter in the video has couched his opponents arguments. In my view, he has misrepresented the mainstream sceptical argument. I have explained why. Despite repeating a number of times now that I am not arguing the science, which is not to say I accept it, I continue to cop vulgar abuse from the likes of you for being ignorant re science.

    Your contribution above confirms what I have seen for myself. The GBR is healthy. That is all I have ever argued back at the other blog and it would appear that I am right.

    So, Marcel, in deference to my friends over at the other blog who consider that I am deficient in the area of personal abuse, cop this…..Go fuck yourself you intellectual midget.

  80. #80 Marcel Kincaid
    March 3, 2010

    So I guess in proving that point, it was a form of trolling.

    Indeed, a scientific illiterate coming to a scientific forum for the purpose of having a debate is a case of trolling.

    In terms of “tiny trace gas” the difference between CO2 and HIV is that the CO2 is already present in a natural form.

    Did you even watch the video, moron? CO2 from natural and anthropogenic sources can be distinguished, and the increase is due to the latter; the fact that CO2 is already present in a natural form is irrelevant. Who are you to talk about “the relatively minute levels” of anthropogenic CO2 and the likelihood that would cause the heating that has occurred when you admit that you’re scientifically illiterate? You whine that you’re being asked to substantiate scientific arguments, despite your repeated admission that you’re no scientist, that you can argue only on the basis of reason and logic. Fine, asshole, give us your deductive proof that the levels of anthropogenic CO2 are insufficient to produce the indicated level of warming.

  81. #81 Marcel Kincaid
    March 3, 2010

    You must be just so proud of your capacity to refrain from resorting to abuse.

    A fucking piece of garbage like you deserves nothing but abuse. The catastrophe to come is on the heads of scum like you.

  82. #82 Stu
    March 3, 2010

    Calm down Marcel! Quadruple posting :-0

    James, I never called you a coward. I merely wondered whether you’d be back. And you are.

    I’d appreciate it if you’d respond to MapleLeaf’s post @73 if nothing else, as those’re good points.

    And answer me this: are reason and logic always going to help? I have come across a great deal of scientific results that are counterintuitive. You have to go where the evidence leads, not just to what ‘feels right’.

    As an example, what is your answer to the following question

    Which is better news for the magnitude of global warming over the next century: that aerosols have a large or a small cooling effect?

  83. #83 Marcel Kincaid
    March 3, 2010

    Your contribution above confirms what I have seen for myself. The GBR is healthy. That is all I have ever argued back at the other blog and it would appear that I am right.

    As I said, you’re a fucking idiot, and a grossly dishonest one. What my “contribution above” says is

    Southern parts of the massive reef, which is a popular tourists attraction, have been badly damaged in recent years from global warming and subsequent warming sea temperatures.

    But this you deny; you say it is false; you say it is a “scare”. You are filth, you are scum.

  84. #84 Marcel Kincaid
    March 3, 2010

    Calm down Marcel!

    Don’t patronize me. I’ll post as many times as I choose to.

  85. #85 Stu
    March 3, 2010

    You will until the filter catches you for flooding. I’m amazed it doesn’t put posts with gratuitous swearing in for moderation, TBH.

  86. #86 el gordo
    March 3, 2010

    Just love this new robustness in the debate, but I’ll throw a bucket of cold water over everyone.

    The snowiest decade in US history has just been recorded. Is that weather or climate?

  87. #87 Marcel Kincaid
    March 3, 2010

    Guess what, it says nothing of the science but it speaks to the way the presenter in the video has couched his opponents arguments.

    First, you’re lying, you did speak to the science. Second, you lied both about the content of the video and about what “sceptics” say. In fact, it’s hard to find a truthful statement in that post. You say the video is a crock, but any honest and intelligent person can see that the video presents evidence to support its contentions, including its contentions about skeptics and deniers — it provides visual evidence of their written claims, as well as video of flaming assholes like Dan Lungren (with whom I am all too familiar as a Californian).

    So fuck off and die, scumbag.

  88. #88 Marcel Kincaid
    March 3, 2010

    You will until the filter catches you for flooding.

    Thank you ever so much for your concern.

    I’m amazed it doesn’t put posts with gratuitous swearing in for moderation, TBH.

    My swearing is not gratuitous. And I hardly find it amazing — not everyone is so immature as to recoil at common expressive language.

  89. #89 el gordo
    March 3, 2010

    Green pill, anyone?

  90. #90 Michael
    March 3, 2010

    Just in the nick of time, el gordo wafts in with some non-science.

    We could try to present some facts, but if we mention that increased snowfall is expected under warming conditions, poor el gordo wil have a fit.

  91. #91 Tom R
    March 3, 2010

    sancty, I think it is obvious to all here now that you are nothing more than a troll trying to hone his argumentative skills for your law degree, and AGW just happens to be the field you have chosen. It is hardly surprising that the comments get more heated, as it becomes more obvious you are not sincere.

    Your initial post over here was both dismissive and abusive. You began by calling what was a very informative post about the basic science of AGW a crock, purely on the basis that it didn’t address your particle form of denialism (well,todays version anyway). Your continual rehash of ‘no sceptic would’ was a totally infantile attempt to try and put all deniers onto the same supposed intellectual level of yourself, which, as was soon pointed out, they are not.

    The “Bolshevik Plot” is not what you refer to in your opening tirade, it is specific dig at the insane accusations labelled at Copenhagen to impose a world government. You can try and twist it to suit your own argument, but that doesn’t change what it is. And to link that with a free market ETS is, well, lame.

    You top it all of by making pathetic allusions to the failed climate gate smear. So, the replies you got were quite restrained IMO. But then, they just haven’t got to know you better. I do note that after that dibber dobber Ben busted you, that changed very dramatically.

  92. #92 Marcel Kincaid
    March 3, 2010

    You top it all of by making pathetic allusions to the failed climate gate smear.

    He topped his topping off with this immense idiocy:

    I use the Great Barrier Reef as an example of just one climate scare that is self evidently false. You cannot tell me something is dying when I can see for myself that it is not.

    It’s hard to find more intellectually obtuse “skepticism”.

  93. #93 James
    March 3, 2010

    Marcel, I’ll quite happily respond to your posts in person in a bar. Or a park. Or wherever. Other than that, what you write are the irrelevent rantings of a lunatic, and a pea hearted one at that.

    Stu (can I call you Disco?)I’ll be happy to respond to Maple Leaf’s post when I can get a handle on his definition of “reputable”. It’s a fair question and I’ve asked it twice now. Why is Lindzen not reputable? Clearly, I am not equipped, and I happily admit that, to engage in a back and forth scientific debate off the top of my head. But logic does come into it. Like it or not, it’s laypeople like me that have to make the decision whether we are going to vote for and support your position or not. You simply can’t expect us to just “believe”. I know there are plenty of people who are qualified and honestly believe that AGW is a serious concern. I know there are others who are hitching a big financial wagon to the issue. Same goes for the sceptical side. There are qualified people who think it’s a crock. And there are vested interests who don’t want it to be so. For my part, I stand to gain substantially financially if an ETS is introduced in Australia. But that’s not the point.

    As to your other question, let me get back to you. I suspect the answer has something to do with whether I think Global Warming is a problem or not.

  94. #94 James
    March 3, 2010

    TomR, the term “crock” comes from the title on the video. It is a play on words and hardly abusive in that context. I stand by my words on “Bolshevik Plot”. It was put in to mock and characterise all sceptics, and was therefore unfair.

    As to a “free market ETS” there is no such thing.

  95. #95 jakerman
    March 3, 2010

    While someone called Marcel appears to have punched the self-destruct button and gone into total breakdown, I find my self giggling in the corner with el gordo and his green pill joke. How odd!

    By the way, el gordo, 10 years is pretty good, but no climate, nor is the US global. The models are not as conclusive on precipitation trends as temperature. Some place will get more, some less. But these outcomes have lower certainty than for temperature.

  96. #96 Marcel Kincaid
    March 3, 2010

    I’d like to point out that James represents a different class of commentator here. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to call him an “opponent” rather than a “denier”. His arguments are not in the same class as the idiotic, ill-informed crap that are usual among deniers.

    Here is James/Sancty’s characterization of this video, posted at guttertrash:

    My comments are in relation to the video, described as “empirical evidence”. It is nothing of the sort, just a bunch of assertions. None of it is evidence, none of it is linked to evidence, hence I felt quite comfortable describing it as a crock.

    Read that carefully, then watch the video again, and tell me that this isn’t radical denialism.

  97. #97 Tom R
    March 3, 2010

    Spoken like a true bolshevik lol

  98. #98 jakerman
    March 3, 2010

    Amidst it all Marcel makes many valid points. Unfortuantly James is saved from need to to be held to account by these valid points because rage gets top billing, thus letting Jame’s multiple misrepresentation slip out the side door for a quiet exit.

    Marcel, sorry that I poked fun. I have a shocker every so often, so should’t make fun when others take their fair quota of angry venting.

  99. #99 Marcel Kincaid
    March 3, 2010

    While someone called Marcel appears to have punched the self-destruct button and gone into total breakdown

    I have not self-destructed or broken down, silly; try reading my posts more carefully.

    what you write are the irrelevent rantings of a lunatic

    No, that would be you — one surely must be a lunatic to dismiss this video as “just a bunch of assertions” and claim that none of it is linked to evidence. What I write is substantive rebuttal of your lies, along with apt characterizations of the sort of person who indulges in them.

  100. #100 Marcel Kincaid
    March 3, 2010

    Unfortuantly James is saved from need to to be held to account by these valid points because rage gets top billing, thus letting Jame’s multiple misrepresentation slip out the side door for a quiet exit.

    This is nonsense and ad hominem. One always needs to be held to account for their lies and misrepresentations, regardless of the tone of their critics.

1 2 3 18

Current ye@r *