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

Comments

  1. #1 Lee
    April 24, 2010

    Oh god, is Brent back?!

    “What bugs me is that the whole house of cards is based on a few lousy tenths of a degree on a dodgy thermometer.”

    Brent, you either know that isn’t true – in which case it is apparent what you’re doing – or you think it is true, in which case you have just demonstrated that yo are utterly and completely clueless about the science yoo are attempting to dismiss.

  2. #2 John
    April 24, 2010

    Once anybody mentions Plimer these days they’re scraping at the bottom of the barrel. Even SamG is wary of him.

  3. #3 John
    April 24, 2010

    Well, there’s an upward trend in arctic sea ice: largest coverage in 8 years at this date. Is this also caused by Global Warming?

    Wrong*.

    A few days ago, Watts claimed that we had “more ice than any time on this date for the past 8 years”. On the contrary, in March 2010, the total Arctic sea ice volume was 20,300 km3 – the lowest March value for total sea ice volume over the 1979-2009 period.

    *Two seconds Google, two seconds cut and paste

  4. #4 John
    April 24, 2010

    Lee – Brent is a lying liar who lies. He cares not for science and all about pushing his political agenda.

  5. #5 Lotharsson
    April 24, 2010

    Two seconds Google, two seconds cut and paste

    Wow, a new record low – “4″ on the Google Debunk Index!

    Better trolls please.

  6. #6 sunspot
    April 25, 2010

    At the moment there are no Arctic-wide satellite measurements of ice thickness, because of the end of the NASA Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) mission last October. NASA has mounted an airborne sensor campaign called IceBridge to fill this observational gap.
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

  7. #7 Brent
    April 25, 2010

    Trolls, Lotharsson? The word was given a definition above in this thread.

    We are not trolls. We look you doomsday-mongers in the eye and challenge your harebrained faith in the Global Warming religion.

    You doubtless believe in every scare story that emerges, and will believe in the next one. When finally this scare story is debunked, I wonder if you, like your Jehovahs Witness cousins, will keep the faith. Faith: the holding of a position regardless of evidence.

  8. #8 Chris O'Neill
    April 25, 2010

    From the font of all knowledge:

    When finally this scare story is debunked

    And it’s being debunked this very day (click on draw graph).

  9. #9 Lotharsson
    April 25, 2010

    We look you doomsday-mongers in the eye and challenge your harebrained faith in the Global Warming religion.

    ROFLMAO! That’s the best laugh of the week! Well done!

    Shame you had to go for comedy and religious accusations rather than, well, you know, actual robust challenges to the scientific position.

    Faith: the holding of a position regardless of evidence.

    Projection: thy name is Brent.

  10. #10 Lotharsson
    April 25, 2010

    Shorter Brent 1: my evidence-free assertion that your position on the science is faith-based is not itself faith-based.

    Shorter Brent 2: I can’t answer your questions on the basis for my skepticism and which other skeptics my particular brand of skepticism invalidates – but trust me, my skepticism is not faith-based.

  11. #11 SteveC
    April 25, 2010

    Really really short Brent: Waaaahhhh!!!

  12. #12 truth machine, OM
    April 25, 2010

    Well, apart from Spencer and Soon and Baliunas and Abdussamatov and Solanki and Gray and d’Aleo and Plimer and Zagoni and Briggs and Zurayk and Dyson and Svensmark….. the SCIENCE IS SETTLED!

    As has repeatedly been pointed out, 97% of climate scientists accept AGW. That would leave … let’s see … 100 – 97 is … let me get out my calculator … 3%. Your list would be considerably too small even if those folks were all climate scientists.

    Making transparently stupid arguments is not the way to convince anyone of your position, Brent.

    Not that science works by opinion poll.

    Uh, right, the science is what you say it is and not what the vast majority of researchers in the field — the people who actually do the science — say it is.

    You so-called “skeptics” (people too stupid, ignorant, and ideological to follow the evidence to its inferentional ends) who dis “consensus” are clueless about what it is and why it matters. Consider Fermat’s Last Theorem or the Four Color Theorem. A skeptic/moron like you, Brent, might read about the proofs of these theorems and judge, in your ignorant arrogant little minds, that they don’t count as proofs or aren’t convincing; you might even declare them wrong. That would leave you lacking knowledge or even having a false belief. People who aren’t morons like you, OTOH, understand that the consensus among mathematicians, particularly among those in the relevant fields, is that the proofs are valid, and understand that consensus among those best able to judge that some technical claim is true is damn strong evidence that it is true.

  13. #13 truth machine, OM
    April 25, 2010

    You doubtless believe in every scare story that emerges

    The last time you visited that on your trip around the goldfish bowl, it developed that sunspot believes the anti-vaccine scare.

    Faith: the holding of a position regardless of evidence

    Yes, as when you say stupid stuff like the above. “doubtless” indeed.

  14. #14 truth machine, OM
    April 25, 2010

    At the moment there are no Arctic-wide satellite measurements of ice thickness, because of the end of the NASA Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) mission last October. NASA has mounted an airborne sensor campaign called IceBridge to fill this observational gap.

    It is striking how often sunspot omits material right next to the material he quotes that undermines or negates his views and claims:

    The late date of the maximum extent, though of special interest this year, is unlikely to have an impact on summer ice extent. The ice that formed late in the season is thin, and will melt quickly when temperatures rise.
    Scientists often use ice age data as a way to infer ice thickness—one of the most important factors influencing end-of-summer ice extent. Although the Arctic has much less thick, multiyear ice than it did during the 1980s and 1990s, this winter has seen some replenishment: the Arctic lost less ice the past two summers compared to 2007, and the strong negative Arctic Oscillation this winter prevented as much ice from moving out of the Arctic. The larger amount of multiyear ice could help more ice to survive the summer melt season. However, this replenishment consists primarily of younger, two- to three-year-old multiyear ice; the oldest, and thickest multiyear ice has continued to decline. Although thickness plays an important role in ice melt, summer ice conditions will also depend strongly on weather patterns through the melt season.

  15. #15 truth machine, OM
    April 25, 2010

    Maybe Slothy Twoofy and Harvey are away on holiday trying to get some sunshine onto their vitamin D deficient, lilly white, blubbery carcasses.

    I get plenty of vitamin D because I bicycle 3000 miles/year in sunny California (where the view out my window may be a bit different than yours); how about you?

  16. #16 John
    April 26, 2010

    We look you doomsday-mongers in the eye and challenge your harebrained faith in the Global Warming religion.

    Here is the noble crusader Brent looking us in the eye and challenging our “faith”:

    I’m pretty durn fascinated by this Great AGW Debate and, if I may join in here, I’d welcome a give-and-take of views.

    Whilst much of the supporting logic of the AGW hypothesis is watertight, I doubt the overall conclusion. Given that there are bright, educated, informed, sincere people on both sides, I’ll welcome energetic counterarguments but, please, no abuse.

    So yeah, challenging by lying. Funny how quickly our brave challenger turned on, well, all of that.

    Brent’s definition of sceptic is someone who believes everything Watts and McIntyre tell him.

  17. #17 Brent
    April 27, 2010

    Hi John.

    Changed my mind. On the Unsceptic side there are:

    (a) Watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) who desperately wish for catastrophe in one form or another, preferably caused by man, ridden with guilt, hypocritically living the same energy-intensive lifestyle as others but berating others for using the stuff.

    (b) Neoapocalypticists, the modern-day version of the “End is Nigh” sandwich-board people of yesteryear, who follow every crazed Armageddon Myth before moving onto the next’un.

    (c) Career scientists, filling their boots at the taxpayers’ expense, media-savvy enough to attribute every variation to Global Warming and calling for extra “funding” (a euphemism for the wealth created by productive members of society) to pad their seat on the gravy train.

    The educated informed and sincere people I have met on this site bear an uncanny resemblance to Jehovahs Witnesses. In both cases, when the End of Days fails to materialise, they rewrite the forecasts and carry on a few more decades. The JHs can be dismissed as an annoying fringe of nutters; the damage caused by you warmists is on a much larger scale, with government agencies and offsetting scams and commodities trading and green taxes the consequences of belief in your myth.

    But – as they say – if you can’t beat ‘em, then join ‘em. So I’ll set up my fan-powered windmill and sell the current back to the grid at a juicy markup. Like Jeff Harvey, criss-crossing the atlantic on business class, I’ll tell people it’s all for a good cause. Green and prosperous: makes perfect sense!

  18. #18 Lotharsson
    April 27, 2010

    Brent returns with no scientific argument but more revelations from his faith-based view of the world.

  19. #19 jakerman
    April 27, 2010

    Brent’s done a superb job of outing himself completely.

    If any reasonable person (which don’t include ideological extremists) read is latest rant they’d see him for what he is.

  20. #20 John
    April 27, 2010

    Aww, how cute. Brent is just trolling for a reaction now.

  21. #21 truth machine, OM
    April 28, 2010

    I think Brent believes what he writes — which reveals him to be a rather dimwitted entrenched ideologue, incapable of a shred of intellectual honesty. But then, that’s the standard profile of deniers.

  22. #22 John
    April 28, 2010

    I don’t believe he believes what he writes at all. If he were so secure in his views, why would be need to come here and try to prove us all wrong?

    Deep down he knows what’s happening, but he has to deny it because accepting global warming is letting the left win. In his view it’s a political argument, after all.

  23. #23 Brent
    April 28, 2010

    Interesting article in yesterday’s UK Daily Telegraph:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7639614/Whale-excrement-could-help-fight-climate-change.html

    And the Arctic sea ice is still above average. Don’t buy property in northern Greenland just yet…

  24. #24 chek
    April 28, 2010

    Brent said: “And the Arctic sea ice is still above average.”

    Above average what, Brent?

    Or are you merely content to draw whatever self-comforting meaning your meagre understanding affords such a vague assertion?

  25. #25 SC (Salty Current)
    April 28, 2010

    Oh, hi Brent!

    I’m still ploughing my way through the IPCC reports to try and summarise the erroneous logic. By the time I get a result this thread may well be an empy place!…

    Posted by: Brent | April 2, 2010 5:38 AM

    How’s this coming along?

  26. #26 Brent
    April 29, 2010

    Hi, Salty, and thanks for jogging my memory.

    It’s quite a big job to go through the IPCC WG1 document, but here are a few thoughts:

    1. Technical Summary p.32: CO2 is referred to as a “long-lived greenhouse gas”. I make the half-life 123 +/- 2 months, about 10 years. That ain’t long-lived. Britain’s Royal Society claims it’s ‘millennia’. Newton would be turning in his grave if he knew that his august institution had been hijacked by a generation of intellectual pygmies.

    2. Same page claims a tiny effect for solar forcing, 0.12W/m2 out of a Total Solar Irradiance of some 1600W/m2. This takes no account of the Svensmark hypothesis that solar activity affects albedo, with variations in cosmic rays causing variations in cloud cover and hence albedo. Herschel noticed a correlation between sunspot activity and agricultral productivity; the Parana River supports a sunspot/rainfall link. TSI is an oversimplification.

    3. In Summary for Policymakers, p12, it is claimed that “water vapour changes represent the largest feedback”. There is an asymmetric assumption here, namely that warmer -> more water vapour -> more greenhouse affect, but the equal and opposite must also be true, that in the event of cooling, cooler -> less water vapour -> more cooling. Scaremongers have a great sensitivity to positive feedback and a blindness to negative feedback.

    4. Same page: ‘Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty’. Unlike every doommongering IPCC statement which is rated according to a likelihood statement (from ‘virtually certain’ to ‘exceptionally unlikely’), the vast army of gravy-train pundits (700 of these hangers on) fails to grade the effect of clouds on climate (is it ‘more likely than not’, or what?). The astrophysicists will, I hope, soon give us chapter and verse. When this happens, the hijacked adjective ‘likely’ will again be used adverbially: “We climatologists likely had not the slightest understanding of the effects of the sun on weather – or is that climate? – and were likely drawing our salaries under false pretences.”

    5. Chapter 1, p101, shows a terrifying graph with a 1840-2000 timescale. This is cherrypicking. A 1750-1840 timescale would show that a new Ice Age will engulf us during Victoria’s reign.

    6. Chapter 3, p. 242 shows a decline in temperature between 1940 and 1975, during which time CO2 increased. This disproves the claimed linear relationship between CO2 PPM and temperature. The CO2 hypothesis – of a fictitious linear relationship – is false. Those who support it are as expert in the interpretation of chaotic data sets as gypsies reading tea-leaves: articulate, convincing, clever and relient on gullible punters.

    7. Chapter 3: page after page of cherrypicked graphs 1900-2000 and 1840-2000. A glance at the Aletsch Glacier graph (1500BC-2000AD) shows an unexceptional retreat since 1860. It comes and goes. Big deal. Without the underlying physics, extraoploting such graphs are vacuous numerology. The only attempt at ‘underlying physics’ in the whole document is aimed at a useful trace gas, carbon dioxide, which constitutes one part of the greenhouse effect.

    8. Chapter 4, p339: “…decline in annual mean arctic sea ice extent since 1978…” has now been halted and reversed, not that the assembled brains can be blamed at time of writing for the pesky planet’s refusal to conform to their dumb-arsed extrapolation of a brief trend.

    9. Chapter 4, p.339: “snow cover has decreased in most regions”. Whoops. Tell it to the Texans. Nearly May and I’ve got a blanket round my shoulders here in England. Global Warming my foot.

    10. Chapter 4, p 376: FAQ: “Is the Amount of Snow and Ice on Earth Decreasing?” Answer given in the IPCC paper: ‘yes’. Correct answer: ‘Is it hell, but please give us a research budget in any case.’

    11. Chapter 6: page 467. A 1300-year graph, shaped like a “hockey stick” claims to show temperatures in the NH, but shows no Medieval Warm Period (dismissed on p.469) or Little Ice Age, when British ports had to contend with sea ice, fer chrissakes. Google this: “Until the onset of the Little Ice Age, the Icelanders also grew a hardy strain of barley in the north, south, and southeast of their homeland. However, the farmers had abandoned barley cultivation in the north by the end of the twelfth century. By the fifteenth century, no one grew cereal crops. Despite occasional experiments, barley did not return for eight centuries.”

    12. Chapter 9, p.729: “Anthropogenic change has been detected in surface temperature with very high significance levels (less than 1% error probability).” Oh yeah? The tossers who wrote this may well be the sons and daughters of the halfwits who were claiming the exact opposite in 1975, when temperatures had been falling for a generation.

    13. A recent study (in my house) suggests with significance levels above 97.831% that there is a bunch of scaremongering pseudoscientists earning a living from a patently not-happening catastrophe.

  27. #27 Brent
    April 29, 2010

    Chek (1324): You’re quite right to point out my inexcusable vagueness. By ‘above average’, I meant that the arctic ice area has been above the 1979-2006 mean since the beginning of April.

    Have a look at Watts Up With That: they have many good articles on the unravelling of the Global Warming myth. Pesky planet, eh?!

  28. #28 Shorter Brent
    April 29, 2010

    Here are some more errors of these intellectual pygmies. Clearly, only I am on the level of Newton. If he were alive today he would verily be a skeptic. The rest of you should be kissing my feet for adressing these problems.

    1. It is a well known fact that grapes were grown in England during the Medieval Warming Period!!!! Why is this left out?!!

    2. The graph on page 135 is clearly cherry picked. It shows the years 1534 to 2005. But had it started 1534 the warming trend would be less statistically significant than it is now! Ah ha!!!!

    3. Medieval Warming Period!!!!!! Every one knows it was warm in Europe then! Grapes!!!

    4. Pages 1-1600 show evidence of warming. Big deal. It’s all made up. I know this. My evidence is far too complex for you intellectual pygmies to understand so I won’t bother reproducing it.

    5. Token attack on funding for no reason.

    6. Um…..

    7. SCIENTISTS WHO DISAGREE WITH ME ARE TOSSERS!!11!

    8. Token ad homenim attack that proves nothing.

    9.GRAPES!!!!!!!!!

  29. #29 jakerman
    April 29, 2010

    You learn [something wrong](http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png) every day with Brent.

  30. #30 t_p_hamilton
    April 29, 2010

    Brent posts a list. Let us just look at the very first item as a sample indicative of the quality you can expect from the rest:

    “Technical Summary p.32: CO2 is referred to as a “long-lived greenhouse gas”. I make the half-life 123 +/- 2 months, about 10 years.”

    That is the lifetime of an individual molecule, not concentration of CO2, which is what causes the greenhouse effect. It is like arguing that since the lifetime of an individual player on the field is 5 minutes in a football game, and implying that the numbers on the field must be decreasing rapidly.

  31. #31 Brent
    April 29, 2010

    Marcel, is this you under yet another psedoe er… psudon…. er… false name?

    Yeah, GRAPES indeed, thank you for mentioning them! And Icelandic barley. Let’s hope that the planet does warm up a bit: those poor old Icelanders would welcome a return of agriculture.

    SaltyCurrent invited me to challenge anything dodgy in the IPCC’s report. It’s only a small list, but it’s a start. As for your crack about Newton, with a few small equations he opened up a whole universe. Will we hold Mann and his mates in the same esteem in future centuries, I wonder?

  32. #32 Bernard j.
    April 29, 2010

    [Brent](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2472935).

    You are wrong in so many ways that I seriously doubt your claims to having completed any type of higher education.

    Before we start to pick your points to mercilessly mascerated pieces, will you stand by a claim of scientific veracity of your pronouncements?

    In other words, if it is shown that your points are scientifically ill-informed/ignorant/misrepresenting of the facts/spurious, will you accept that you are speaking from your arse?

    Think carefully now…

  33. #33 Brent
    April 29, 2010

    Hi Bernard,

    I accept your challenge. If you demolish what I wrote in #1326, then I’ll declare defeat and shut right up.

    Give it your best shot.

  34. #34 John
    April 29, 2010

    Problem is Bernard, Brent believes what he wants. Is the solid scientific fact that temperature and climate are different troublesome for your political beliefs?

    Ignore it!

    Say it’s been cold in England and Texas! Yes, that’s a well thought out scientific point that can not in any way be proven wrong.

    Oh what’s this?.

    Global warming is global?

    Who knew?

    Brent’s been trolling us for ages now and he’s still yet to land a single blow.

    Pesky planet indeed.

  35. #35 truth machine, OM
    April 29, 2010

    I don’t believe he believes what he writes at all. If he were so secure in his views, why would be need to come here and try to prove us all wrong?

    The same could be asked of us. This is not a valid form of argument.

    Deep down he knows what’s happening, but he has to deny it because accepting global warming is letting the left win. In his view it’s a political argument, after all.

    He may or may not know what is happening “deep down”, but on the surface, where his beliefs lay, I think he believes that all “warmists” are leftists who fit his stereotypical view of them as expressed in #1317.

    Problem is Bernard, Brent believes what he wants.

    See? We agree.

  36. #36 truth machine, OM
    April 29, 2010

    And the Arctic sea ice is still above average.

    Extent isn’t volume, moron.

    I accept your challenge. If you demolish what I wrote in #1326, then I’ll declare defeat and shut right up.

    No one gives a fuck whether you declare that you’re an ignorant cretin — it is already obvious.

  37. #37 chek
    April 29, 2010

    Brent, your grasp of the concept of ‘global’ is akin to the Blackadder character Baldrick’s grasp of differential calculus. Same with your grasp of the state of the cryosphere and how it’s indicating increased global temperature.

    As for your ‘challenge’ given what you’ve actively failed to comprehend so far in this megathread, well let me put it like this: if McinTyre is the Baldrick figure of climate science, and Montford is his Baldrick, and in turn you’re the bookbinder’s Baldrick, Bernard would probably find it more rewarding (and get more comprehension) cutting out the middlemen and explaining climate directly to a turnip.

  38. #38 sunspot
    April 30, 2010

    So it melted, then it froze again, then it nearly melted, now its undetermined if it’s freezing again.

    Whatever !!! it’s been hotter before !!!
    This is Empirical evidence of higher temperatures than now.

    YELLOWKNIFE, NT – APRIL 2010 – High in the Mackenzie Mountains, scientists are finding a treasure trove of ancient hunting tools being revealed as warming temperatures melt patches of ice that have been in place for thousands of years.

    Tom Andrews, an archaeologist with the Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre in Yellowknife and lead researcher on the International Polar Year Ice Patch Study, is amazed at the implements being discovered by researchers.
    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/6ht

  39. #39 Stu
    April 30, 2010

    >Whatever !!! it’s been hotter before !!! This is Empirical evidence of higher temperatures than now.

    Are you aware that’s what happening now is not the pinnacle of global warming, and the worst of the impacts are still decades or more in the future? Saying that global warming is not a problem because what’s happening now isn’t alarming (although in some ways it is) completely misses the point.

  40. #40 sunspot
    April 30, 2010

    yeah yeah…ok

    “We could have an ice age any time,” Dr. Goldberg says, “Over the past one million years, we have experienced eight ice ages. Eighty percent of the last million years was ice age. We are lucky to live in this short inter-glacial period.”
    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/6hn

  41. #41 sunspot
    April 30, 2010

    empirical what ??????????

    Buried deep within the report is a compelling piece of evidence. In volume two, there is a memorandum submitted as evidence from Lord Lawson of Blaby, chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which was in response to four very significant questions from the investigating committee. This memo confirms the claims by many global warming skeptics that the scientists at CRU were trying to hide data and silence the skeptics. The questions asked by the investigative committee are as follows:

    (i) Have the CRU scientists been manipulating the raw surface temperature data in a way that is less than wholly objective and dispassionate?

    (ii) Have they refused dissenting scientists and/or other outsiders with a bona fide interest in global warming access to the raw data, contrary to the proper canons of scientific research and to the demands of scientific integrity?

    (iii) Have they been improperly seeking to avoid answering Freedom of information Act requests?

    (iv) Have they actively sought to prevent papers by dissenting scientists, statisticians, or other informed commentators from being peer-reviewed and/or published, again contrary to the proper canons of scientific research and to the demands of scientific integrity?

    Lord Lawson’s response to these questions is damning:

    We believe that there is compelling evidence both independent of the leaked email exchanges and arising from those emails to suggest that the answers to (ii), (iii) and (iv) above are clearly ‘yes’.

    However, Lord Lawson chooses his words more carefully in answering the smoking-gun question at the top of the list:

    Moreover, we are disturbed by the CRU scientists’ treatment of the so-called divergence problem. That is the fact that, for that period of time where both a proxy global temperature series and a recorded global temperature series are available, the two series markedly diverge. This clearly suggests either that the proxy series is unreliable or that the recorded series is unreliable (or possibly both: the point is that they cannot both be true). The CRU scientists’ attempt to hide the problem by concealing the divergence demonstrates, we believe, a lack of integrity. http://www.tinyurl.com.au/6p1

  42. #42 Dave R
    April 30, 2010

    >Lord Lawson’s response to these questions is damning:
    “We believe that there is compelling evidence, however, we’re not going to tell you what that evidence is.”

    Yes, that’s compelling evidence that Lawson and his fellow conspiracy nuts have nothing.

  43. #43 sunspt
    April 30, 2010

    hahahaha, another ex spert

    The political problems between Cuba and the United States will be resolved in 50 years when the island disappears under water because of climate change, said Carlos Pascual, the U.S. ambassador in Mexico City.
    Mr. Pascual, born in Havana in 1959, was introduced as an “expert in climate change and renewable energy” at a Forum called Green Business Expo held at a private university in Mexico City.
    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/6p4

  44. #44 Dave R
    April 30, 2010

    Shorter sunspot:

    _One person was once wrong about something, therefore anyone else who says anything I don’t like is also wrong._

  45. #45 Stu
    April 30, 2010

    It seems the diplomat was making a joke.

  46. #46 sunspot
    April 30, 2010

    Hmmm…..

    the arctic sea ice is not following the script, isn’t supposed to be VANISHING ??
    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/6p9

  47. #47 chek
    April 30, 2010

    So sunspot, if I ask you to give me the heaviest gold object you have, and I’ll replace it with a bigger, though gold plated version, by your “logic” you’ll be happy with that?

    After all it’s only the surface area that’s important, right?

  48. #48 sunspot
    April 30, 2010

    Interestingly, if you go back to the press releases on the record minimum extent in 2007 at NSIDC here:

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2007.html

    And search the entire set of release for the word “volume”, you won’t find it used anywhere that year. The volume worry is a more recent talking point that first appeared in October 2008 when it became apparent that extent wasn’t continuing to decline. They couldn’t tout another record low extent, so volume became the next big thing:

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/

  49. #49 sunspot
    April 30, 2010

    Yep, good diagnosis for warmers

    The possible mental health conditions that could be caused by global warming range from irritability to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, sexual dysfunction, and drug abuse. http://www.tinyurl.com.au/6oy

  50. #50 Dave R
    April 30, 2010

    >when it became apparent that extent wasn’t continuing to decline.

    Liar. [It is continuing to decline](http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091005_Figure3.png).

  51. #51 sunspot
    April 30, 2010

    daRv, that was a crappy graph, your being an ice denier, these are higher quality graphs and they clearly show that its bloody cold up there ! http://www.tinyurl.com.au/6p9

  52. #52 Dave R
    April 30, 2010

    >its (sic) bloody cold up there

    Straw man. Nobody claimed that it isn’t cold in the arctic.

  53. #53 sunspot
    April 30, 2010

    and antarctic ice, it’s cool.

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/6pm

  54. #54 sunspot
    April 30, 2010

    incase your vision impaired, http://www.tinyurl.com.au/6pn red line above black line, what does that tell you dave ?

    shorter daRv: der, its a weather event

  55. #55 Dave R
    April 30, 2010

    It’s the long term trend that matters, moron.

  56. #56 sunspot
    April 30, 2010

    funny thing is daRv, regardless of volume, the extent demonstrates that the trend has faltered, if the world has warmed because of CO2 then there would be a continual decline of sea ice extent, it’s not happening !

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/6p2

  57. #57 chek
    April 30, 2010

    Sunspot said: And search the entire set of release for the word “volume”, you won’t find it used anywhere that year. The volume worry is a more recent talking point that first appeared in October 2008 when it became apparent that extent wasn’t continuing to decline. They couldn’t tout another record low extent, so volume became the next big thing”

    And because you really don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, you never thought to search for the term ‘mass’.

  58. #58 Brent
    April 30, 2010

    In the Sea Ice chapter of the IPCC’s 4th report they have a ‘Frequently Asked Question’ on p.376: “Is the Amount of Snow and Ice on Earth Decreasing?”

    First word of their ‘answer’ is “Yes.”

    They are working on the 5th report now. What are the chances of them changing the ‘answer’ to “No.”?

    If they’ll be kind enough to add me to the drafting committee (on the same money as this vast army of idle penpushing fibbers) I will write: “No, but just to be on the safe side we need to work on it for another decade or two. Ask us again when we’re writing the 6th or 7th report.”

  59. #59 Stu
    April 30, 2010

    >funny thing is daRv, regardless of volume, the extent demonstrates that the trend has faltered, if the world has warmed because of CO2 then there would be a continual decline of sea ice extent, it’s not happening !

    Utterly incredulous argument. CO2 is an influence on climate, and hence sea ice. However, it is not the only influence on climate, and I’ve never seen anyone claim otherwise. What an obvious strawman argument.

  60. #60 chek
    April 30, 2010

    Brent said “I will write: “No, but just to be on the safe side we need to work on it for another decade or two. Ask us again when we’re writing the 6th or 7th report.”

    In other words, you’d lie.
    Not exactly news round here.

  61. #61 Brent
    April 30, 2010

    Sunspot, reading about volcanoes in the IPCC report, I find that a big factor in Global Warming is “aerosols”.

    Just as we thought! Global Warming, a figment of tree-huggers’ imagination, was always a human problem. It’s aerosols like Dave R and the loathsome Marcel Kincaid who keep this great scam rolling.

    (What’s the betting that Truth Machine OMMM will emerge from the slime and croak, ‘Don’t be nasty to Marcel. I know him intimately.’)

  62. #62 jakerman
    April 30, 2010

    Brent I think your doing enough of a job on yourself without the need for intervention.

  63. #63 sunspot
    May 1, 2010

    Mmmm.

    Nature Magazine, the academic journal that introduced the world to X-rays, DNA double helix, wave nature of particles, pulsars, and more recently the human genome, is set to publish a paper in June that shows atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is responsible for only 5-10% of observed warming on Earth.

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/6qc

  64. #64 MFS
    May 1, 2010

    sunspot @ 1363:

    ROFL!

    CFP is you idea of a reliable source???

    Is it also just me or are the adverts that everyone else is getting served with that page for a ‘Hot Stocks’ scam and ’2012: The End of the Wrold’?

  65. #65 John
    May 1, 2010

    The headline alone made me crack up: 30,000 Anti-Global Warming Scientists Can’t Be Wrong.

  66. #66 sunspot
    May 1, 2010

    here’s the source if you can read it.
    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/6qh
    The adv. on that page that cracked me up is the “win a green card” sheez yud have to be desperate

  67. #67 sunspot
    May 1, 2010

    University of Turku, Department of Physics, the study shows that carbon dioxide is a significantly smaller impact on global warming than previously thought. Tulokset perustuvat muun muassa spektrianalyysiin. Results are based on, inter alia, spectrum analysis

    translated page,

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/6qi

  68. #68 Bernard J.
    May 1, 2010
  69. #69 Brent
    May 1, 2010

    What’s wrong with these pesky Finns? Looks like the writings of a chimp at the keyboard. “perustuvat muun muassa”, indeed.

    And what is “myös Climategateksi kutsuttu tietomurto, jonka seurauksena IPCC” referring to?

  70. #70 Tim Lambert
    May 1, 2010

    If you read the translated page, you find that Kauppinen’s paper has not been accepted by Nature, but merely submitted there. And the absorption spectrum for CO2 has been confirmed by satelites observations, so I don’t see how can possibly prove what he says.

  71. #71 Brent
    May 1, 2010

    Oh, would the Warmisti like to comment on items curruntly in the news?

    What are your thoughts on the attempt to pursue Mann for fraud?

    And your thoughts on green energy? I’m half way through a revealing book called The Wind Farm Scam.

    As I said when I first arrived on this site, I am fascinated by our Great Debate. Quite aside from the environmental and financial implications, my fascination stems from this: how can two groups of people (for the most part intelligent, educated and sincere) access the same data and yet draw conclusions which are diametrically opposed?

    My current thinking is that the mindset of you tree-huggers is different to normal people. Most normal people go about their daily business paying not the slightest attention to the Global Warming myth (and I’m glad to say that it has hardly featured in the UK’s election campaign), but some laymen and some scientists feel a need to challenge the basis of the IPCC’s armageddon scenarios.

    OK, I have given up trying to be polite to unsceptics. My early aspirations for a cool and mutually respectful debate foundered upon the appalling rudeness and insults.

    So far, I see the following attributes in unsceptics:

    (i)Complete absence of humour. In this, you resemble political extremists and religious fundamentalists.

    (ii)A belief in positive feedback, where us sceptics believe in negative. In both cases, the b-word is open to attack, and our intuitive feel for negative feedback (‘mister blue sky will return soon enough’, if you catch my drift).

    (iii)Concession. Reasonable people, when seeking common ground with an opponent, often use phrases such as “that’s a fair point”, or “admittedly there are exceptions to my argument”, or “yes, you’re right there”. Such give and take is part of a collective search for truth.

    Putting those three points together, I reckon that deep down you Jeremiahs know that the end of the world ain’t nigh, don’t really believe that your grandchildren will endure starvation resulting from the collapse of agriculture, perversely enjoy doom-and-gloom-mongering.

    Earlier in this thread, I tried to find pass/fail criteria we could all buy into. This was in the hope that we could resolve this great issue. Because it does need a resolution!

    If the AGW hypothesis is false, the western economies are in the process of frittering away badly-needed billions on counterproductive wind farms etc, and saddling our productive industries with a destructive tax burden. Crippling our economies is good news for our competitors. e.g., China, who are wise enough to sit on their hands.

    I hope to live long enough to see the issue resolved, but I fear that the financial benefit to the likes of Mann and Jones will keep them peddling their wares for decades to come. The vast armies of hangers-on who travelled to Copenhagen at great expense have a vested interest in keeping the gravy train rolling.

    Man we need an anti-Gore, and fast!

  72. #72 sunspot
    May 2, 2010

    Abstract: In this paper, I have resorted to basic formulas obtained from experimentation and observation by several scientists for calculating the heat stored by any substance and the subsequent change of temperature caused on a determined system. I demonstrate that the climate of Earth is driven by the oceans, the ground surface and the subsurface materials of the ground. I explain also how the photon streams from oceans, ground and subsurface materials of ground overwhelm the emission of photons from the atmosphere to the ground during both daytime and nighttime. http://www.tinyurl.com.au/6sk

  73. #73 sunspot
    May 2, 2010

    Hmmm…..empirical evi…??

    A second argument from the AGW side is that carbon dioxide behaves like a blackbody, which is absolutely incorrect because carbon dioxide absorbs but a small amount of the energy in transit and emits only a small amount from the energy stored by the molecules. To be a blackbody, carbon dioxide would have to be able to absorb electromagnetic energy from all frequency bands and all existing wavelengths, which is incongruent with reality.

  74. #74 Lotharsson
    May 2, 2010

    CO2 is referred to as a “long-lived greenhouse gas”. I make the half-life 123 +/- 2 months, about 10 years.

    Fail – as already pointed out earlier in the thread. Dunning-Kruger strikes again in the very first point Brent makes.

    This takes no account of the Svensmark hypothesis that solar activity affects albedo…

    …perhaps because Svensmark has no convincing evidence of a non-trivial effect? Funnily enough, if Svensmark has no such evidence then the scientific thing to do is to NOT give any weight to his hypothesis. Science fail.

    …but the equal and opposite must also be true, that in the event of cooling, cooler -> less water vapour -> more cooling.

    Indeed. And how does your repetition of standard scientific understanding embodied in all the climate models demonstrate that global warming is a myth? Logic fail.

    …‘Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty’…

    Logic fail – quote and subsequent argument does not prove Brent’s claims.

    This disproves the claimed linear relationship between CO2 PPM and temperature.

    Bonus double Dunning-Kruger goldfish fail! Left as an exercise for Brent, which he has almost zero chance of successfully completing even one half of the double. One would suspect Brent of POE-ship at this point, but there’s ample evidence to suggest otherwise.

    Tell it to the Texans. Nearly May and I’ve got a blanket round my shoulders here in England.

    Another Dunning-Kruger goldfish fail. Prediction: highly likely Brent will not be able to explain why.

    …but shows no Medieval Warm Period (dismissed on p.469) or Little Ice Age, when British ports had to contend with sea ice…

    As for the previous quote.

    The tossers who wrote this may well be the sons and daughters of the halfwits who were claiming the exact opposite in 1975…

    …for different – and correct – reasons. Dunning-Kruger again.

  75. #75 Lotharsson
    May 2, 2010

    Complete absence of humour.

    Your inability to see or understand it does not mean it’s not there.

    Come to think of it, that applies to more than humour…

  76. #76 Lotharsson
    May 2, 2010

    I explain also how the photon streams from oceans, ground and subsurface materials of ground overwhelm the emission of photons from the atmosphere to the ground during both daytime and nighttime.

    Haven’t bothered looking at the link as sunspot has been reliably wrong, and this sounds like a quote from a link mined from another thread where someone with a complete misunderstanding of atmospheric science and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics think they’ve discovered a basic glaring flaw in AGW.

    They haven’t.

    A second argument from the AGW side is that carbon dioxide behaves like a blackbody…To be a blackbody, carbon dioxide would have to be able to absorb electromagnetic energy from all frequency bands and all existing wavelengths, which is incongruent with reality.

    Are you really this poor at comprehension, gullible or desperate that you need to resort to quoting people attacking completely made up “science”? Or are you running out of POE inspiration?

    Other “skeptics” argue that the CO2 absorption bands – which are clearly shown in heaps of relevant literature – are so narrow and easily saturated as to be incapable of significantly affecting climate – a hypothesis that is completely incongruent with the “blackbody” argument. (Feel free to denounce the majority of “skeptics” for being suckered by the “non-blackbody absorption bands” red herring. Please make a list and post it here…)

  77. #77 John
    May 2, 2010

    Dear Brent,

    A response:

    OK, I have given up trying to be polite to unsceptics.

    Was that before or after you lied to us?

    (i)Complete absence of humour. In this, you resemble political extremists and religious fundamentalists.

    Because we don’t sit around composing limericks like the retirees at Bishop Hill’s? It’s rubbish. There’s nary a thread here that doesn’t contain multiple references to Monty Python.

    As I’ve pointed out earlier I’ve delighted in taking the piss out of you.

    (iii)Concession. Reasonable people, when seeking common ground with an opponent, often use phrases such as “that’s a fair point”, or “admittedly there are exceptions to my argument”, or “yes, you’re right there”. Such give and take is part of a collective search for truth.

    Please see the above comment.

    Brent, you only want us to “agree” with your points because they are traps designed to trick us into admitting that global warming is a hoax. Except we won’t and it isn’t. We don’t have to concede that you have good points, because you don’t.

    I know how frustrating it must be for you that your personal beliefs don’t meld with the science, and no amount of wordplay, lying, misrepresenting or “mutual concessions” will make it otherwise.

    I’m so happy that you’ve finally admitted to being the conspirtorial tin-foil nutcase I revealed you as way back at #188.

    Until you return with another pissy, sobbing farewell comment,

    John.
    xx

  78. #78 Lotharsson
    May 2, 2010

    A belief in positive feedback…

    …with that belief grounded in…well, actually, let’s leave that as an exercise for an apparently mystified uncomprehending Brent. Seriously, Brent – if you can lay out the case why almost all of the climate scientists believe there’s a net positive feedback at work you might start regaining at least a smidgin of the reputation you worked so hard to denigrate. Bonus points for outlining why “skeptics” think net negative feedback is at work – and double bonus points for pointing out the evidence that supports this argument and avoiding – or calling out – the previously proffered evidence for this position that has NOT stood up to scrutiny.

    Me – I bet you slide on to the next talking point instead, or at least unskeptically trot out the usual talking points in this particular topic.

    Reasonable people, when seeking common ground with an opponent, often use phrases such as “that’s a fair point”, or “admittedly there are exceptions to my argument”, or “yes, you’re right there”.

    You…er, left out a really key bit.

    They only do this when the opponent actually has a fair point. When the opponent only has lies, distortions, blatant misunderstandings, incorrect logic, unsupported assertions, conspiracy theories, untestable propositions, redirection from the argument at hand to some other argument…and the like, then reasonable people DO NOT say “yep, that’s right”. Not unless they’re backing away slowly looking carefully from side to side and feeling behind them for the door handle. In which case their may be a certain amount of irony in their statements.

  79. #79 sunspot
    May 2, 2010

    Slothy = Dunning-Kruger again !
    poor slothy, you really want the world to burn just so you can be right don’t you, that’s endemic in here. Willing it to happen won’t work !

    The problem with the AGW idea is that its proponents think that the Earth is isolated and that the heat engine only works on the surface of the ground. They fail to take into account that incoming heat from the Sun is transferred by conduction from surface to subsurface materials, which store heat until the incidence of direct solar radiation declines, explicitly during nighttime.

    At nighttime, the heat stored by the subsurface materials is transferred by conduction towards the surface, which is colder than the unexposed materials below the surface. The heat transferred from the subsurface layers to the surface is then transported by the air by means of convection and warms up. The upwelling photon stream affects the directionality of the radiation emitted by the atmosphere driving it upwards, i.e. towards the upper atmospheric layers and, from there, towards deep space. This process is well described by the next formula:
    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/6sk

  80. #80 Lotharsson
    May 2, 2010

    I tried to find pass/fail criteria we could all buy into. This was in the hope that we could resolve this great issue.

    And people gave you some, and then suggested that you could look at the exact same criteria from the perspective of starting (say) 20 years ago instead of waiting another 20 years – if you were serious.

    You weren’t. And trying badly to spin it now doesn’t change that.

  81. #81 sunspot
    May 2, 2010

    Brent, all the lie’s will be revealed,
    it’s not only Mann’s funding, once the ball starts rolling the climate geeks will shit their duds and will spill the beans on each other.

    Washington Post

    In fact, reasonable contenders for possible major climate-forcing candidates, such as clouds and cosmic rays, are minimized or ridiculed by the author. Regarding the offering of a cosmic-ray effect on climate (by Henrik Svensmark of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish Space Research Institute), Mr. Hansen simply dismisses the carefully documented, straightforward proposal as “an almost Rube Goldberg concoction.”

    Furthermore, it’s apparent that only those who agree with Mr. Hansen are “relevant scientists” or even “scientists.” He is kind enough to refer to those in disagreement as simply “contrarians.”
    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/6sr

  82. #82 Lotharsson
    May 2, 2010

    The problem with the AGW idea is that its proponents think that the Earth is isolated and that the heat engine only works on the surface of the ground.

    References? You really think scientists haven’t thought about this? Not the ones looking below the surface of the sea, not the ones measuring the heat flux from the earth’s core, not any of the others thinking about how the earth retains and re-emits heat? (Given you bandy about “Dunning-Kruger” when you demonstrably don’t know what you’re talking about, you might…)

    The heat transferred from the subsurface layers to the surface is then transported by the air by means of convection and warms up.

    You realise that convection is already an integral part of climate science? As is outgoing longwave radiation emitted from the surface, which you’ve completely left out? So what you’re saying is so far completely described by the science you deride, even though your description is woefully incomplete?

    The upwelling photon stream affects the directionality of the radiation emitted by the atmosphere driving it upwards, …

    ROFL! How exactly does it “modify the directionality of atmospheric radiation” – in ways that are inconsistent with current atmospheric science – which you might be surprised to learn takes into account an “upwelling photon stream” – although it’s normally called something like “outgoing longwave radiation”? Or did you just cut and paste this from somewhere despite not understanding the argument?

    Cue subject change in 3…2…1…

  83. #83 MFS
    May 2, 2010

    Brent @ [1358](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2476152),

    You say: “on the same money as this vast army of idle penpushing fibbers

    Do you have any kind of substance to back up calling the authors of the 4th IPCC report a bunch of liars? If not then what cause do you have to complain we aren’t being polite, or have no humour? Would you expect such from a crowd that knows some of them personally, and may indeed include some of them? If so you’re dumber than I thought.

    Towards the end of [your rant](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2478594), you state: “I fear that the financial benefit to the likes of Mann and Jones will keep them peddling their wares for decades to come

    Do you know how much a scientist on the salary of a University or Government Institution earns? How much do you think said scientist could earn producing solid science disproving AGW (if that were possible), on the employ of the fossil fuel industry? Logic fail.

  84. #84 sunspot
    May 2, 2010

    ‘Concluding, atmospheric gases do not cause any warming of the surface given that induced emission prevails over spontaneous emission. During daytime, solar irradiance induces air molecules to emit photons towards the surface; however, the load of Short Wave Radiation (SWR) absorbed by molecules in the atmosphere is exceptionally low, while the load of Long Wave Radiation (LWR) emitted from the surface and absorbed by the atmosphere is high and so leads to an upwelling induced emission of photons which follows the outgoing trajectory of the photon stream, from lower atmospheric layers to higher atmospheric layers, and finally towards outer space. The warming effect (misnamed “the greenhouse effect”) of Earth is due to the oceans, the ground surface and subsurface materials. Atmospheric gases act only as conveyors of heat.’ http://www.tinyurl.com.au/6sk

    Slothy why don’t you try to invent a CO2
    thermos flask.

  85. #86 Stu
    May 2, 2010

    Ok Sunspot @1384, so you’ve been taken in by Nasif Nahle.

    For starters, this is an obvious case of selectively applied scepticism (also known as confirmation bias). Do you want to apply some scepticism to Nahle’s article? Ok, then let’s explore the concept of induced, or stimulated, emission.

    Induced emission is a real physical process. It’s how lasers work (it’s an acronym – light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation). A photon is absorbed by an atom which has an electron in the right quantum state. The photon causes the electron to drop to a lower energy state, emitting another photon with the same phase and direction as the first… while the original photon seems to carry on unchanged. So you get two photons moving in the same direction and with the same phase as the first (hence the amplification part).

    However, nowhere in his paper does Nahle demonstrate that induced emission of photons from GHGs occurs in the atmosphere. Does the atmosphere behave as a laser? Is it supposed to be self evident? If so, then I invite answers to the two following questions:

    1) If this occurs in the atmosphere, why is the observed outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) much less than the amount of longwave radiation emitted by the surface? Shouldn’t the intensity of the OLR be greater than the OLR emitted by the surface, due to the amplification effect? Or if not more, it should at least be the same!

    2) Nahle says

    >At nighttime, the heat stored by the subsurface materials is transferred by conduction towards the surface, which is colder than the unexposed materials below the surface. The heat transferred from the subsurface layers to the surface is then transported by the air by means of convection and warms up. The upwelling photon stream affects the directionality of the radiation emitted by the atmosphere driving it upwards, i.e. towards the upper atmospheric layers and, from there, towards deep space.

    My question is this: why, then, do we observe a downward flux of longwave radiation at the surface? This flux is nearly constant throughout the day, particularly when skies are clear. Consider this plot of radiation measured by the meteorology department at Reading University, where I studied until last year. April 10th 2010 was a sunny day, as you can see from the fairly smooth global solar radiation curve (you can select it from the dropdown menu). The little wiggles are occasional cloud.

    There is a downward flux of longwave of around 300W/m2 all day and night. According to Nahle, that shouldn’t be there. WUWT?

  86. #87 Bernard J.
    May 2, 2010

    To the unwary…

    The last three posts by Sunspot link to “Biocab”/Nasif Nahle.

    For those who are familiar with NN, no more need be said.

    For those who are not so acquainted, Nahle comes from the peculiar stable of people who apparently have scientific qualifications, but who demonstrate ‘understandings’ of science (especially beyond their own fields of education) that spectacularly and bizarrely contradict the fundamental underpinnings of disciplines in which they imagine that they have more competence than the experienced professionals who work in the disciplines.

    The bottom line: an ignorant non-scientist quoting a Dunningly-Krugered pseudo-expert, in a manner that builds no credible argument from any first principles.

    The simple response: walk around it; you don’t want to step in this one…

  87. #88 Bernard J.
    May 2, 2010

    Dang.

    Pipped by Stu whilst taking a break to feed toddlers.

    Still, one gets a very clear idea…
    ;-)

  88. #89 Stu
    May 2, 2010

    Heh sorry Bernard, though I am quite pleased with my post so if you come across some denidiot presenting Nahle’s article as evidence, feel free to link to it.

    I guess that, like Khilyuk and Chilingar’s paper comparing all CO2 emissions over geological time to anthropogenic emissions, the errors in NN’s article are so glaring (this isn’t the first line of argument I’ve made against this article) that anyone who cites it can simply not be considered a sceptic in the true sense of the word. As Tim said, “their mistake is so large and so obvious that anyone who cites them either has no clue about climate science or doesn’t care whether what they write is true or not.” Change the first part to ‘His mistakes are’ and apply at will to NN.

  89. #90 luminous beauty
    May 2, 2010

    >_The upwelling photon stream affects the directionality of the radiation emitted by the atmosphere driving it upwards_

    I don’t think Nahle quite understands what he has discovered here. What this suggests is a mechanism for harnessing Maxwell’s Demon. He shouldn’t be wasting his time arguing against warmists, he should be working to refine this principle in order to make billions and billions of bucks in the energy biz.

    Oh, wait…

  90. #91 Brent
    May 2, 2010

    Lotharsson (1380), you say that the 20-years-ago timescale is the correct starting point.

    Dr. James Hansen predicted in 1988 that New York’s West Side Highway would be underwater in 20 years. Is it?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/22/a-little-known-but-failed-20-year-old-climate-change-prediction-by-dr-james-hansen/

    John (1377): You take issue with my claim that none of you Armageddon Fundamentalists are capable of conceding a fair point to your opponents. Here’s an example of what I would find reasonable: “Yes, Hansen’s forecast was wide of the mark. At the time it seemed reasonable, but we must concede that we lose some credibility.”

    Even the Jehovahs Witnesses have the decency to say, “Yes, all right, the second coming did not in fact happen as we said it would. 1999 came and went without a new Messiah, but just you wait! He’ll be back in 2015 for certain!”

    Maybe a form of Group Therapy is called for. If we put Global Warmists in a room with Hypochondriacs and Millennium Cultists maybe you would discover the deep sadness which rules your lives, and maybe snap out of it.

    I just discovered this website which investigates your common ethos with your bible-bashing colleagues: great photos!

    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/01/end-nigh-religious-language-global-warming-failing.php

  91. #92 John
    May 2, 2010

    We don’t have to concede to you. You are a conspiracy theorist with no real desire to understand the science as long as it clashes with your personal beliefs, as expemplified by your downright refusal to accept that climate and weather are different. If you conceeded that point you might have to admit that, gosh, we are right!

    You knew all along that you were putting forward rubbish theories. We’d shoot the obvious crap down, you’d concede a point you knew was wrong all along, and then you’d expect us to concede in return.

    And we didn’t.

    This is why you are acting like the petulant child you are.

    You have no intention of finding common ground with us. As you yourself said “You have to understand your enemy in order to destroy them.”

    This is what we are to you. The “enemy” who must be “destroyed”. And you wonder why we won’t play your little games?

    Furthermore, the science does not hinge on what James Hansen says. He is one out of hundreds (or is it thousands?) of climatologists who agree on one central thing – that we are warming the planet. Even if we had stooped to your level (in the gutter) and conceeded your little point, guess what? The science would still stand.

    Your sad method reminds me of the creationists who attack Darwin as opposed to actually challenging the theory of evolution. Mann! Jones! Gore! Hansen!

    Nobody cares what you “find reasonable” because you are not a reasonable person. You are fringe nutter standing on the street corner shouting incomprehensibly at passers by.

    It’s so pathetic to watch somebody waste thousands of words and not land a single scientific blow.

  92. #93 John
    May 2, 2010

    Oh, and Brent? The Messiah never came but the planet continues to warm…

  93. #94 luminous beauty
    May 2, 2010

    >_Here’s an example of what I would find reasonable: “Yes, Hansen’s forecast was wide of the mark. At the time it seemed reasonable, but we must concede that we lose some credibility.”_

    If it can be shown that Hansen actually did make such a forecast, not relying on some writer’s hazy ten or eleven year old memory of an informal conversation, but rather a first hand contemporaneous record, then, yes, you might have a point. However, Hansen is consistently on record as saying such an increase of sea level is only likely in a centennial time frame, not 20 (or 30) years, and there is zero corroborating evidence for Reiss’ second hand account.

    That some activists might rhetorically appeal to a religious ethos does not necessarily mean that they share that ethos. That some activists might make such an appeal does not mean that all who accept the scientific basis for AGW agree with making such an appeal. You are compounding false analogy and dicto simpliciter fallacies.

    Unfortunately for your false prophesy assertions, on the scale prescribed by 95% statistical confidence levels, global temperature and sea level continue to rise with no credible scientific theoretical cause other than anthropogenic forcings and no credible scientific theory for why anthropogenic forcings shouldn’t be causing these and other well observed changes in the global climate system and concomitant and consilient eco-system changes.

  94. #95 Lee
    May 2, 2010

    @Brent:

    “Dr. James Hansen predicted in 1988 that New York’s West Side Highway would be underwater in 20 years. Is it?

    Oh good god…

    Brent, in 1988 THERE WAS NO WEST SIDE HIGHWAY!!!!!
    The original elevated West Side highway demolition was completed in 1986, after a portion of the aging decaying steucture failed in 1973 and a cement truck fell through it.

    A temporary ‘highway’ was routed along West Stree and 12 Avenue.

    Approval of a new West Side Highway was not given until 1993, construction begun in 196, and construction of the new West Side Highway was not complete until 2001.

    The article of that piece, is quoting someone who interviewed Hansen 20 yeas agao, and who cliams that in that interview 2 decade ago Hansen made claims about the impact of flooding a highway THAT DID NOT EXIST IN THAT FORM AT THE TIME OF INTERVIEW!!! And the flooding claims are at odds with hansen’s published work at the time.

    Yeah, that’s credible.

  95. #96 J Bowers
    May 2, 2010

    1395 Lee on the West Side Highway.

    Oh my stars! Thankyou ever so much! :-D

    A link for those interested. The amount of times I’ve had that 1988 “quote” thrown at me…

    http://www.nycroads.com/roads/west-side/

  96. #97 Brent
    May 2, 2010

    Was it Jim Hanson or Jim Henson?

    Hey, I just heard about a lottery they do in Alaska. People bet on the thaw-date of a certain river, the Nenana.

    They have records going back to 1917. The ice usually melts around 5 May. This year it was 26 April. The two earliest breakups were in 1998 and 1940, and the latest 1963.

    http://calderup.wordpress.com/

    If youse guys are right, the 1998 record should soon be broken (well, should already have been broken…. it takes a lot of patience to be a Global Warming True Believer). I imagine you’ll be buying tickets for early April.

    Jeff Harvey says it’s been ten degrees warmer than normal in the region. (Or is that dodgy data… there has been some controversy recently about minus-20C being mis-reported as 20C. Oops!)

    The Nenana is one more proxy refusing to conform to the Gore Hypothesis. Pesky planet. Warm, damn you!!!

    It’s still looking like a few lousy tenths of a degree on a dodgy thermometer, a scare story, a myth. And we’re blowing how many billions on zero-yield windmills? Hey, Jeff, you’re well clued up on birds aren’t you? Do you have any statistics for us on bird casualties from windmills?

  97. #98 chek
    May 2, 2010

    Actually it’s Jim Hansen but thanks, you continue to illustrate your moronic level and standards of research and background knowledge admirably.

    Hey! Have you heard about a competition were Tony Watts and Andy Montford see who can get the most number of cretinous zombie repeater conspiracy bots signed up by 21/12/12?

    No? Oh, well.

    Never mind Brent – you’re always pretty clueless about everything else anyway.

  98. #99 Brent
    May 2, 2010

    Hot news: April’s CET (Central England Temperature) result has just emerged from the UK Met Office.

    At 8.8C, it’s been cooler than April 1865, when it was 10.6C.

    We had the heating on this morning. Brrr!

  99. #100 Stu
    May 2, 2010

    >Hot news: April’s CET (Central England Temperature) result has just emerged from the UK Met Office.

    >At 8.8C, it’s been cooler than April 1865, when it was 10.6C.

    Mmm that cherry you picked sure tastes good Brent. Unfortunately you neglected to mention that April 2010, at 8.8C, was 0.7C warmer than the 1971-2000 average. Oh.

    Even when it’s warmer than average, it can feel chilly. You and I live in a pretty cold country Brent – get over it already!