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

Comments

  1. #1 Marcel Kincaid
    March 5, 2010

    there are a bunch of scientists with an opposing view

    Not climate scientists.

    They are not all paid by Big Oil (I’ve checked that)

    Do tell.

    a lot of them make a very good logical case

    You are no judge of that.

    They are kind of helped by the flatline temperature graph over the last decade.

    No reputable scientist would use that to make their case, even if it were true, which of course it is not — in fact, it is a immensely stupid claim. “flatline”? Bwaahahaha!!! Take a look, fool: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.svg

  2. #2 Marcel Kincaid
    March 5, 2010

    Sorry, scienceblogs breaks links (just like it says just above this edit box, I now notice). [Here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.svg) is James’s “flatline”. The only thing that has flatlined is James’s mental functions.

  3. #3 sunspot
    March 5, 2010

    looks like these guys have got a plan

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/2×5

    this confirms the warming

    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/2vb

    lotta inflated ego’s in here :)

    I’m thinkin I might have remind some about the total and monumental fuck up’s scientists have made over time,
    they thought they were right too !

  4. #4 Marcel Kincaid
    March 5, 2010

    lotta inflated ego’s in here :)

    More irony.

    I’m thinkin I might have remind some about the total and monumental fuck up’s scientists have made over time, they thought they were right too !

    There’s a difference between scientists and science.

  5. #5 Chris O'Neill
    March 5, 2010

    James:

    our lot might not have so much to work with

    If your lot have so much to work with, why do you have to shamelessly lie?

  6. #6 Dappledwater
    March 5, 2010

    “I’m thinkin I might have remind some about the total and monumental fuck up’s scientists have made over time, they thought they were right too !” – Sunspot

    You referring to Roy Spencer &, John Christy and the UAH satellite data?.

  7. #7 Marcel Kincaid
    March 5, 2010

    looks like these guys have got a plan

    Idiots citing idiots. The one intelligent comment on that TED talk, in response to claims that Gates was suggesting killing children with vaccines, is

    C’mon. no need for conspiracy nonsense here. Gates has made clear on numerous occasions his view, backed up by a lot of evidence, that the one of the best ways to reduce population growth is to improve health, especially of children. When parents are confident their children won’t die, they don’t have as many.

  8. #8 Bud
    March 5, 2010

    Brent 246 – assuming you’re still around.

    I read from your post that the continuation of the current upward temperature trend would do it for you, yes? Ok, but in that case why – even if all 10 years in the next decade were above your chosen anomaly value – would you choose to ascribe that temperature increase to rising human emissions? Why not the Sun? Or GCR? Or pirates? Whatever?

    If you doubt CO2 causes warming now, then it seems you have absolutely no reason to accept that it causes warming just because the world continues to warm in the future.

    You have your reasoning backwards. If CO2 causes warming – and we [know](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm) this to be the case and we have progressed enough to make a [reasonable prediction as to the extent of this](http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf) – then the next decade will not comprehensively confirm or refute anything. Obviously if global temperatures fall significantly outside current estimates, then we will have to find out why, but this is not something that will refute the whole scientific case that we are warming the planet any more than a temperature record complying with current estimates means all the work has been done.

    This, in a nutshell, is why being a “Popperian fundamentalist” is frowned upon. You were in effect proposing to rest the entire success or failure of a huge body of scientific work on whether or not the temperature rises above an arbitrarily determined value an arbitrary number of times as recorded by a certain arbitrary dataset. Does this not strike you as a little absurd? Popper’s falsification principle has an important part to play in science, but he was not the final word in scientific philosophy. An adjustment of predictions to fit current updated knowledge does not constitute a falsification, yet it most certainly represents scientific advancement. An incorrect prediction which is based on several theories does not indicate the falsification of all those theories. Your error comes in looking at AGW as a ‘hypothesis’ or a ‘theory’ as a whole, without component parts.

    You may respond to this by saying you don’t doubt that CO2 causes warming, but do doubt the current estimates for climate sensitivity (I haven’t seen you mention it yet though). If this is the case, then what reasons do you have for doubting the current estimates, and what arguments do you have for suggesting that we should base policy on those doubts, which you must agree are on the fringe of any discussion on the matter, rather than on the best scientific viewpoint? And do you think that the next ten years will comprehensively answer the value for climate sensitivity?

  9. #9 James
    March 5, 2010

    Hey Jeff, I thought the thing with scientists were that they were not politically motivated. Could have fooled me.

  10. #10 Marcel Kincaid
    March 5, 2010

    Your error comes in looking at AGW as a ‘hypothesis’ or a ‘theory’ as a whole, without component parts.

    Bud, you had best look at #188. Brent’s actual view of AGW is that its an “obscene fraud” and he’s furious about it.

    You may respond to this by saying you don’t doubt that CO2 causes warming

    He has clearly stated that he does doubt that; in fact, he thinks fluctuations in temperature cause fluctuations in CO2: “Whilst we all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we now know that its variations are a consequence of temperature changes, not a cause”.

  11. #11 James
    March 5, 2010

    Marcel, you can produce as many complicated graphs as you like….. and you have the hide to call me a liar. It hasn’t warmed for the last decade and you know it. Now amount of graph fudging can change that. Everyone knows it. Trenberth knows it and thinks it’s a travesty that he can’t account for it. Does it disprove AGW? Perhaps not. But it sure as hell doesn’t help your cause. Brent asked the question earlier. What if it doesn’t warm for another decade? And another after? What then? I notice you’ve all neatly avoided that question. The guts of your science, as you people have explained to me, your words, is that there is no other explanation. Well, if it continues to not warm, there must be another explanation that the scientists haven’t yet found. That’s logic, and it beats science every time.

    To Bud, ten years of no warming in the face of increasing CO2 emissions suggests that your sensitivity figure might be wrong. Another 10 years would make that certain.

  12. #12 Bud
    March 5, 2010

    @Jeff, Marcel and others.

    Several years ago, when I used to frequent a certain online discussion forum, a guy signed up with a username which flagged him as a Ayn Rand-loving market libertarian fundamentalist. The forum had plenty of them at the time, and having argued with them countless times I was pretty fed up and short-tempered with the new guy. He spouted the same old garbage, in a manner never less than cordial, and was understandably shot down every time he posted – by myself probably more than anyone else.

    After about a week I got a private message from this guy. Entitled “why is it like this?”, it was an honest and genuinely confused query as to why no-one considered Rand’s libertarianism a valid or benevolent philosophy. I confess to being a little touched, congratulated him on doing what no other Randist had done and actually asked a question with the purpose of learning, and proceeded to set out exactly the problems with her ideas. A few mails later, and he had scrapped his libertarian leanings and his Randist username.

    Of course, this made little difference to the rest of the 20 or so Rand acolytes on the forum. Some people are of course completely entrenched trolls. Sometimes it’s open to question. It’s the same on climate change. I’m aware that debate with certain individuals on here – John Archer, Dave Andrews, James et al – are impossible to debate with, and I’m also well aware that Brent may simply be a concern troll. But he has at least recognised the need to answer questions (with a little prompting, granted), which is why I carry on a discussion. To be honest, it doesn’t actually bother me if I occasionally waste a bit of time on a concern troll. I think I’ve got a pretty decent radar so as not to do it too often, and I’d rather be fooled three times than falsely accuse someone whose position could genuinely be changed once.

    That’s just my position, different strokes. If nothing else, and Brent merely goes back to places like WUWT and reinforces his position, at least we can point to this thread in future as evidence of the futility of engagement with people on the pseudosceptic camp. Even if they profess genuine scepticism.

  13. #13 Brent
    March 5, 2010

    Bud (308): You wrote: “You were in effect proposing to rest the entire success or failure of a huge body of scientific work on whether or not the temperature rises above an arbitrarily determined value an arbitrary number of times as recorded by a certain arbitrary dataset. Does this not strike you as a little absurd?”

    Well, yes, actually, it does. Having it pointed out so well by yourself is, I must confess, embarrassing.

    I wish that it were possible to convey my tone of voice to you, and it isn’t, so I will try to find the text which conveys this:

    Bud, I’m just a member of the public trying to assess within my own unfortunate limitations whether human activity is heating the world dangerously (as opposed to triviallly). I think that the question: “How best to seek confirmation of the IPCC forecasts?” is a fair one. I agree that my “three high measurements in the next decade” was dumb; that this would not be a fair test.

    Let me ask you – and I’m trying to be conciliatory here – if you were me, how best to seek confirmation?

  14. #14 Bud
    March 5, 2010

    James, it’s not my sensitivity figure, it’s from the IPCC, but thanks. The rest of your nonsense is a key example of why I cited you above as someone not worth bothering to debate with.

  15. #15 Jeff Harvey
    March 5, 2010

    Again, James is insistent on mangling science when he says, “It hasn’t warmed for the last decade and you know it”.

    For the billionth time, warming is not measured in such short term cycles because climate control is a largely deterministic process. A major forcing is required to shift a deterministic system out of short term equilibrium. Ten years is not long enough in the case of global climate patterns. At least 30 years would be the minimum baseline. And we know that the years 2000-2009 were the warmest in the past century anyway. Of course the warming has not stopped.

    As for my political motivations, call me someone who believes in social justice. If that makes me political, then so be it. But certainly, James, your views on this and AGW are what I would expect from a mediocre high school student. And that is perhaps giving them too much credit.

    So, James, my advice is to take your simplistic posturings elsewhere, perhaps to one of the many anti-environmental sites that will welcome you with open arms. They revel in ignorance, so you will be well placed.

  16. #16 Dave R
    March 5, 2010

    James @ 310:

    It hasn’t warmed for the last decade

    Another blatant lie from James. That claim has already been [shown to be false](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2324402). Repeating it again without addressing the rebuttal will not make it true.

    What if it doesn’t warm for another decade? And another after? What then? I notice you’ve all neatly avoided that question.

    Another blatant lie from James. That question has been answered several times in this thread, for example #127 and #232.

    The guts of your science, as you people have explained to me, your words, is that there is no other explanation.

    Another blatant lie from James. The mechanism by which the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming was understood long before we had added enough to make a measurable difference.

  17. #17 Dave R
    March 5, 2010

    Brent @ 312:

    Let me ask you – and I’m trying to be conciliatory here – if you were me, how best to seek confirmation?

    [Asked and answered](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2322840).

  18. #18 James
    March 5, 2010

    Well Gents, it’s been fun, yes, I even quite enjoyed the mindless abuse.

    Like Tamino and his code, you simply can’t be straight, let alone polite. Thanks to Stu and Eras for trying. It’s a pity that what could have been a sensible and illuminating discussion got drowned out by a bunch of hysterically screaming extremists. But I guess I got my answer. You can’t make a case for AGW and that’s clear. Remember it’s the “A” in AGW that’s important (which is why the 29,500 pointers is meaningless and I’d love to know who sat down and counted them and whether ice loss that has trapped all those boats in the Baltic is one of them).

    I’m not running away. I’m away for a wedding anniversary this weekend then start a project next week with work so I won’t be available to interrupt your fierce head nodding.

    And Tim, if you’re an “academic” then God help academia.

    Marcel, get help.

  19. #19 Neil
    March 5, 2010

    “I’m not running away.”

    Seems like you are.

    Can’t help yourself, can you?

  20. #20 Bernard J.
    March 5, 2010

    [James at #310](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2324470).

    Your misrepresentation of the last decade’s temperature trajectory has already been called by Bud, Jeff Harvey and Dave R.

    In case the message is slow to reach your brain, after issuing from the monitor in front of you, you might consider spending some time pondering [the points posted here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/02/open_thread_43.php#comment-2318876). Of course, the same delay in comprehension is bound to operate, but perhaps if you sleep on it, the import may eventually sink in.

    Do share your insights with us when they finally deign to visit your chugging brain.

  21. #21 Brent
    March 5, 2010

    Dave R (232): You wrote: “I’m not a climate scientist. I accept the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that human caused global warming is a real and serious problem. That’s the only sensible position a layman can take.”

    Maybe you’re right. One accepts the word of experts in many domains, such as an oclogist diagnosing your lump, or your garage mechanic telling you that the electronic diagnostics declare a faulty sensor, without contesting it and saying that we know better.

    I think that the newfound availability of so much info on the internet tends to make many of us dig in areas previously reserved for the elite. Our forefathers accepted the experts’ views more easily than this generation does.

    Whilst I do have a technical background, maybe I have to accept that the IPCC’s forecasts must be accepted as the best we’ve got without scepticism; and sigh “what the hell do I know?”

    In my industry (automotive), when I audit a production process needing to run at, say, 150C, I’ll ask: “How do you know we’ve got the right temperature?”, they reply “This temperature gauge”, I ask, “How do you know the gauge is accurate?”, they say, “From this current calibration certificate”, and I say, “That’s good enough for me, thank you!”

    The sarcastic brethren will now hoot, “This dumb-arse thinks that global warming confirmation is a mere matter of temperature measurement, as if the planet were his welding machine!”

    So, guys, would you have me declare: “My previous desire to seek confirmation of the AGW hypothesis was misplaced. Climatology is the domain of specialists, and to go in search of confirmation is a perfect example of armchair science. Verification is beyond the layman’s capability. I’ll just have to defer to the experts.”?

  22. #22 Bernard J.
    March 5, 2010

    Aw heck, I missed James by that much.

    Hopefully he’ll at least have read [my previous post](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2324543) before departing – this would give him at least a week then to turn the crank and see if his brain can churn out a considered response…

  23. #23 Chris O'Neill
    March 5, 2010

    James:

    It hasn’t warmed for the last decade

    Liar.

  24. #24 Anonymous
    March 5, 2010

    Brent please state in precise terms what you want to verify.

  25. #25 Michael
    March 5, 2010

    Brent;

    In my industry (automotive), when I audit a production process needing to run at, say, 150C, I’ll ask: “How do you know we’ve got the right temperature?”, they reply “This temperature gauge”, I ask, “How do you know the gauge is accurate?”, they say, “From this current calibration certificate”, and I say, “That’s good enough for me, thank you!”

    And how do you know that piece of paper actually means what it says it means??

  26. #26 sunspot
    March 5, 2010

    Most Alaskan Glaciers Retreating, Thinning, Or Stagnating
    ScienceDaily (Oct. 6, 2008) — Most glaciers in every mountain range and island group in Alaska are experiencing significant retreat, thinning or stagnation, especially glaciers at lower elevations,
    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/2xa

    but wait………………

    Mass Loss from Alaskan Glaciers Overestimated? Previous Melt Contributed a Third Less to Sea-Level Rise Than Estimated

    ScienceDaily (Mar. 3, 2010) — The melting of glaciers is well documented, but when looking at the rate at which they have been retreating, a team of international researchers steps back and says
    http://www.tinyurl.com.au/2xb

    hmmmm………astounding

  27. #27 Michael
    March 5, 2010

    James;

    You can’t make a case for AGW and that’s clear. Remember it’s the “A” in AGW that’s important

    No, there’s just the hundreds of pieces of science that you’ve been directed towards.

    Nevermind, as you said on another site, you just come here to “stir”. Learning or understanding simply aren’t a part of the equation for you.

  28. #28 Pterosaur
    March 5, 2010

    The hypocrisy of trolls such as James who “cry foul” about “abuse”, but are happy to slander researchers such as Mann, Jones, Briffa on the basis of the “climategate” beatup, and anyone who disagrees with their delusions is certainly instructive, if more than tedious.

    His hypocrisy is only challenged by his dishonesty and arrogance, IMHO, although his ignorance is in the race too.

    I have spent thousands of words, explaining why (e.g) he is wrong to equate his personal “observations” with scientific methodology, but he is apparently unable to process information contrary to his POV.

    I fear I may have (in some small part) played a role in bringing him here, as I have used links to this site to expose many of his “arguments” as the rubbish they are – hence his rage, I guess, and trolling here (where, funnily enough, he tries to mount the same “arguments”.)

    Thus demonstrating his honesty and search for information.

    Sorry about that.

    James is incapable of having a “sensible and illuminating discussion”, which is why I can’t be bothered engaging with him any more.

  29. #29 jakerman
    March 5, 2010

    The headline to [SS's link](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100302123124.htm) is Mass Loss from Alaskan Glaciers Overestimated? Previous Melt Contributed a Third Less to Sea-Level Rise Than Estimated.

    Which means:
    1) the glaciers are still melting; and

    2) a larger than expected fraction of current [sea level rise](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise) is due to ocean heat content causing thermal expansion.

  30. #30 Dave R
    March 5, 2010

    Brent @ 320:

    So, guys, would you have me declare: “[...] I’ll just have to defer to the experts.”?

    Yes, since you’ve apparently just dismissed the more direct method of assessing it that was suggested in #127, without providing any reasoning whatsoever for that dismissal, despite being asked several times.

  31. #31 Jeff Harvey
    March 5, 2010

    James has followed my advice and left. Given he was way out of his depth on the science (and politics) here, his presence will not be missed.

    He wrote: “You can’t make a case for AGW and that’s clear”.

    The case has been made time and time and time again in the empirical literature (which James has apparently not read) and in the latest IPCC report (which he has either not read or does not understand). Next thing you know James will be claiming the moon is made out of green cheese and will taunt us for failing to disprove it.

    As Marcel said, by being polite to those who are mangling science we are providing them with some sort of legitimacy. I do not mind politely discussing environmental science with those who are clearly seeking the truth, but I have no time for those in the denial camp (like James) who parade their ignorance here and package that as “informed discussion”.

  32. #32 Brent
    March 5, 2010

    Dave R (250):
    You referred me to a couple of sites which provide useful analysis: at Opinionations and at OpenMinds. Sorry I haven’t responded quicker; I have a life outside this debate ;-)

    Can I ask for you help here?

    The Opinionations chappie writes that “Forcing per doubling of CO2 is 4W/m2 [Hansen et al. 2005].” Does this imply that a doubling of CO2 from the current 385 to 770PPM would add 4W/m2, and from 770 to 1540 another 4W/m2, and from 1540 to 3080? If so, am I right in thinking that the forcing effect would ‘level off’? (I understand that higher PPM increases the greenhouse effect, so ‘levelling off’ refers only to the CO2-insolation ratio, not to temperature, and that 24W/m2 changes can be catastrophic.)

    The OpenMinds site takes us through a statistical analysis. Either side of the GISS ‘actual’ temperature trend (in black) are confidence limits (in red). I assume these are 97% 0r 99% confidence limits, although he doesn’t state it.
    He writes: “When the lower confidence limit (the lower red line) is above zero, we have some confidence that the trend rate is definitely positive.” Now, the lower red line sinks below zero in 1996. Am I right in saying that this tells us that we can be confident that there was a warming trend up to 1996, but that more recent data has such wide confidence limits that no conclusion can yet be drawn?

    This approach is indeed useful, and I’m grateful. When sceptics say, “the earth started cooling in 1998″, the OpenMinds approach proves such declarations to be premature, and possibly just-plain-wrong.

  33. #33 Brent
    March 5, 2010

    Michael (324):
    You ask whether calibration certificates are to be trusted.

    Whoa, steady now, there’s no place on this website for people who are sc…. (try again) sce….. (try again) sc…

    Sorry, I can’t say that heinous word. They just are, OK?

  34. #34 Dave R
    March 5, 2010

    Brent @ 331:

    You referred me to [...] Opinionations

    I’ve no idea what Opinionations is.

    Either side of the GISS ‘actual’ temperature trend (in black) are confidence limits (in red)

    You want to be looking at the first link in #127, which addresses your question directly. [Here is the link again](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/).

  35. #35 Chris O'Neill
    March 5, 2010

    Brent:

    am I right in thinking that the forcing effect would ‘level off’?

    No, the logarithm function is unbounded. BTW, atmospheric CO2 is growing faster than exponentially with time, so the CO2 forcing is growing faster than linearly with time.

  36. #36 Brent
    March 5, 2010

    Anonymous (323): You asked “Brent please state in precise terms what you want to verify.”

    I will, but first let me explain why. Imagine a history of this time being written a century hence. I can imagine three different ones:

    (i) From today’s perspective in 2110 it seems unimaginable that the unfolding catastrophe fell foul of the infamous “Denialisti”. Climatology had proven the greenhouse effect; demonstrated that fossil fuels were raising atmospheric CO2 concentrations; warned of positive feedback beyond 450ppm. And yet the politicians failed to act, partly due to the denial movement. As if orchestrated by perverse Fate, the IPCC disbandment in 2015 coincided with the rapid escalation of temperatures. These led to a major de-gassing of the oceans and tundra, and the vicious circle of positive feedback was unleashed. By mid-century, the human race had retreated to three zones separated by the Great Cancer Desert and the Great Capricorn Desert.

    (ii) By mid century it was clear that the painful decarbonisation of the world economy had just – and only just – prevented the Earth reaching tipping point. The catastrophic warming of the 2020s (whose death toll is still disputed but lies between 50 and 150 million) was the final spur to action. The scientists now vindicated, the politicians, armed with their new mandate, took swift and draconian action with almost unanimous public support. Fossil fuel consumption was reduced by a remarkable x%, and PPM at last began to subside.

    (iii) From today’s perspective in 2110, belief in the IPCC’s projections may seem the height of gullibility. Unlike their electorates which (the polls tell us) became ever more dubious in the century’s second decade, governments continued to frame policy according to IPCC advice until, in 2030, xxxx

    I can think of several comic endings for ‘xxxx’, but humour doesn’t go down well in this nest of po-faced miseryguts.

    To answer your question, Anonymous, “In the event that the causal relationship between rises in CO2 PPM and global temperatures are trivial, upon reaching what set of quantifiable parameters should the AGW hypothesis be declared refuted?”

    And its opposite: for “trivial” substitute “as per IPCC AR4″, and for “refuted” substitute “confirmed”.

  37. #37 Brent
    March 5, 2010

    Dave R (334):
    My apologies. Somebody else referred me to
    http://opinion-nation.blogspot.com/
    and I mixed it up with the OpenMind/YouBet that you recommended at
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/

    I have some work to do, so will be offline for a while. It might be worth your while looking at the opinion-nation site with its statistical analysis and tell me what you think?

  38. #38 Dave R
    March 5, 2010

    Brent @ 337:

    It might be worth your while looking at the opinion-nation site with its statistical analysis and tell me what you think?

    I don’t think it’s worth wasting any of my time doing your homework for you. If you want to dispute mainstream science then the burden of proof is yours. If you’re not prepared to shoulder that burden, the answer you’re looking for is [here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2324613).

  39. #39 Jeff Harvey
    March 5, 2010

    Brent,

    Your third ‘scenario’ is a non-starter. For instance, climate change is just one of a series of human effects across the biosphere. Every indiactor of the health of natural systems is in decline (e.g. we have lost about 35-40% of the capacity of freshwater, marine and forest ecosystems since 1970). If our species continues to simplfy nature at the rate we are now, there is every possibility that few of us will be around in 2110 to look back over the accuracy of the IPCC predictions.

    Nature has tipping points, just like the climate control system does. A wide range of critical ecosystem services emerges from nature over variable scales of space and time as a result of a stupendous array of interactions involving individuals, populations and communities of organisms. These interaction network webs reinforce ecological stability and from these emerge provisioning services upon which human civilization rests. Lose these services and we are in serious trouble.

    Given the warning of potentially serious consequences regarding human actions (including climate change), it is prudent to act now to avoid the possible serious repercussions of inaction. No one alive in 2110 would seriously look back and mock our current concern over AGW and other human threats to the environment, unless we sat back and did nothing in the hope that all would turn out well when the evidence grew that it would not.

    Essentially, given what we do know, continued procrastination is, in my view, the sprint of folly.

  40. #40 Chris O'Neill
    March 5, 2010

    Brent:

    humour doesn’t go down well in this nest of po-faced miseryguts

    Just let us know how you react to being lied to.

  41. #41 Katharine
    March 5, 2010

    “So, guys, would you have me declare: “My previous desire to seek confirmation of the AGW hypothesis was misplaced. Climatology is the domain of specialists, and to go in search of confirmation is a perfect example of armchair science. Verification is beyond the layman’s capability. I’ll just have to defer to the experts.”?”

    Yes, you idiot, because you’re not trained in climatology, the same way I’m not trained in physics and even if I think I understand a paper’s explanation I’ll still defer to the opinion of the physical community.

    Climatology is more complex than you yobs think.

  42. #42 Katharine
    March 5, 2010

    “Nature is unforgiving. Once critical ecosystem services break down as a result of a diverse and ongoing human assault, then there will be profound consequences for our species. There is no way around it. At present we are living off a one-time inheritance of natural capital and are spending it like there is no tomorrow. On top of that, we are altering critical biogeochemical cycles (and climate), forces that operate over very large spatial and temporal scales. As ecologist Peter Vitousek said back in 1994, there will be effects of human activities on ecosystems across the biosphere. We are already entering a period of consequences. Against this background are people like yourselves who are happy to see humanity fiddling while Rome burns. You appear unconcerned that there are likely to be serious repercussions over the current global experiment that humans are conducting on systems of immense complexity but which sustain us. Climate change, given its scale, is likely to exacerbate many of the other stresses induced on nature by humanity.”

    Indeed. Too many humans think they are important to the universe. Humanity is only important to itself.

    Earth will do with humanity as the fundamental constants of physics and the chemistry and biology produced therein and their actions within the ecosystem please.

    The universe doesn’t give a shit about life. It’s already nearly gotten rid of it twice.

  43. #43 Brent
    March 5, 2010

    Katherine (341): “…. you idiot [-] you yobs…]”

    Whoa! Steady girl! Here am I conceding that laymen must sometimes defer to experts, and you agree with me and abuse me at the same time. Blimey! Reminds me of Kincaid whose vicious vituperative rants so enliven the proceedings here. I asked him if maybe a girlfriend would calm him down a little; get rid of some of that angst.

    Er…. have you two met? No?
    Er…. Kincaid, c’mon over here, there’s somebody I’d like you to meet. I wonder if you may have something in common…

  44. #44 Brent
    March 5, 2010

    Sorry, mis-spelled your name. Katharine with an A.

    Ah, now weren’t the Cathars a sect of angry heretics who burnt true believers at the stake?

  45. #45 Brent
    March 5, 2010

    Dave R:

    Thanks for the link to the YouBet page of the OpenMind website,
    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/
    Nice one.

    The author proposes some clear-cut criteria for this Great Debate, based solely on annual average GISS temperature in coming years. (Call it AAGISST?)

    He proposes:
    (i) If on two occasions, AAGIST anomaly > 0.75C – Warmists win.
    (ii) If on two occasions, AAGISST anomaly < 0.35C – Denialists win.

    Now some participants here have counseled against such simple criteria, saying that it’s misplaced ‘Popperian Fundamentalism’, that the immense efforts of Climatology cannot be reduced to such a simple test. I can’t argue with that.

    So let’s call this a ‘side bet’, just between you and me. It may take a few years to produce a result, and you and I count for nothing, so it’s just for our own personal benefit, yes? Deal?

    (Er… Dave, would you be Professor Sir David King by any chance? I can picture you at the IPCC rostrum in 2015, the press photographers a-snapping, saying, “Your majesties and presidents, five years ago I had a friendly bet with a bloke called Brent. He won. Let’s disband this IPCC and spend the money on a massive programme of endangered species protection.” Dave, they’ll carry you on their shoulders, cheering you. Daily Mirror: ‘King for King!’. Independent: ‘King says Emperor Has No Clothes’ Times: ‘Official: Global Warming Scare Over’. Guardian: ‘Our Last Remaining Reader Goes Carbon Neutral, Buried in Hermetically Sealed Coffin’.

    Oh, and here’s a question to the assembled brethren: “Have you personally taken any steps whatsoever to reduce your carbon footprint by a significant amount? If so, please give some indication in kWh per annum, litres of vehicle fuel per annum, and aircraft passenger-miles.”

  46. #46 Katharine
    March 5, 2010

    X(

    Here’s the preceding two paragraphs:

    “In my industry (automotive), when I audit a production process needing to run at, say, 150C, I’ll ask: “How do you know we’ve got the right temperature?”, they reply “This temperature gauge”, I ask, “How do you know the gauge is accurate?”, they say, “From this current calibration certificate”, and I say, “That’s good enough for me, thank you!”

    The sarcastic brethren will now hoot, “This dumb-arse thinks that global warming confirmation is a mere matter of temperature measurement, as if the planet were his welding machine!”

    The rest of your post does say, in fact, that one must occasionally defer to experts. However, your post about the industry you work in tells me a few things:

    1) You make poor analogies. The issue with what you’re saying is that the climate is changing, but not at the same rate everywhere. In addition, a number of factors must be taken into account; the weather, the human contribution to global warming, and what would have happened had we not contributed to global warming.

    To compare this to the relatively simplistic task of CALIBRATING A GAUGE shows how much you don’t understand about science. (What’s your background? Engineering? They don’t teach engineers much about the scientific method, if I remember correctly. I mean, they’re the subjects of the Salem Hypothesis.)

    2) Part of being scientific is releasing your results to others so that they can evaluate them, knowing full well that any individual human may be subject to their own biases. Doing this decreases, generally, the likelihood that an individual’s own biases will interfere.

  47. #47 Katharine
    March 5, 2010

    Call me ‘girl’ again and I’m going to get ugly.

  48. #48 Brent
    March 5, 2010

    Jeff Harvey (339):
    Jeff, thanks for that. What you wrote is measured and intelligent.

    The other threats that you mention are indeed serious, distressing, and in need of urgent action. I’ll just pick out one phrase you wrote:

    “e.g. we have lost about 35-40% of the capacity of freshwater, marine and forest ecosystems since 1970″

    and of course you said plenty more which resonates.

    My view (and I think this is shared by many Denialists, barring the extremist fringe) is that many urgent nature conservation tasks and anti-pollution tasks are being impeded – not assisted – by global warming hysteria. I would urge people to separate out the global warming issue from the general (and laudable) green agenda.

    My reason for spending time on this site is to assess the AGW hypothesis from ‘inside’, listening to sincere, educated, well-informed people who (apart the abusive ones) argue their case passionately and also with dispassionate evidence. From ‘outside’ it appears that the AGW believers are a bunch of crazy tree-huggers, neoapocalyptic doommongers, egged on by corrupt scientists with a seat on the gravy train. A bunch of ‘watermelons’. So I’m glad to be here and size up the psychology. The caricature is way out.

    Although I have endured quite some abuse, (I think a ‘troll’ is a malicious participant in a conversation attempting to disrupt or deflect progress; some call me this) I have benefited from this contact: I now see more clearly how logical the AGW hypothesis is, and understand how believers see sceptics as anti-nature barbarians, as blinkered, selfish fools trying to hold back the noble endeavour of carbon reduction, as bad people, as spoilers.

    Now, although I doubt the AGW hypothesis, I’m prepared to see it validated and (if this happens) be compelled to (sheepishly) reverse my position. But validation depends on the events of the next few years. Until then the jury’s still out (or rather, this bloody juror, me, is voting ‘unproven’).

    If the graph shoots up, I’ll be crapping myself and I’ll find a job within cycling distance, and maybe resuscitate my failed Carbon Capture business. The over-intellectual brethren here say that you can’t measure global warming with a thermometer – that is Popperian Fundamentalism.

    You say “Given the warning of potentially serious consequences regarding human actions (including climate change),…”
    Jeff, delete the last three words and I’m with you all the way! In my view, the monies which COULD be spent combating deforestation, combating rhino poachers, combating mercury pollution is frittered away on this issue-that-never-was, and future generations will sneer at us.

    You mention ‘tipping points’ and ‘ecological stability’. Can you help me out here? May I query this? (Marcel Kincaid: keep you big rude nose out of this. We’re talking like grown-ups here.)

    The expression ‘tipping point’ is of course familiar to me as an engineer, and I understand unstable equilibrium. But I understand ecosystems have embraced stable equilibrium out of Darwinian neccessity. Can you cite me some examples of tipping points? One such would be ‘minimum breeding population’. Are there others? At present I think of the term as hyperbole.

    As for ‘ecological stability’, I read about wild swings in some species (locusts, lemmings, in briefly-blooming deserts). Has there in the past been ‘ecological stability’, or isn’t nature characterised by constant change and adaptation, often with vast population swings over a variety of timescales?

  49. #49 Michael
    March 5, 2010

    Brent;

    ou ask whether calibration certificates are to be trusted.
    Whoa, steady now, there’s no place on this website for people who are sc…. (try again) sce….. (try again) sc…
    Sorry, I can’t say that heinous word. They just are, OK?

    Such faith Brent. You know that they are just approximations of temp., don’t you?? Good ones, mind you, but based on all kind of scientific theories (gasp!).

    It’s been previously noted by others (John Mashey I think) that technicians (engineers being the archetype) are particularly prone to an errorneous type of doubt over AGW. The classic symptom is references to techincal procedures, such as calibration, ISO processes etc, as if the scientific production of new knowledge is a by-the-numbers process leading to a precise outcome. This is the kind of thinking that led Steve McIntyre down the garden path, where he remains off with the fairies.

    This technical approach is to scientific discovery what Photoshop is to the Sistine Chapel.

  50. #50 Brent
    March 5, 2010

    Katherine (346):

    Salem Hypothesis: Never heard of it before, but reading the definition gave me a right old shock! I’m grateful to you. ma’am. And it certainly gives me pause for thought.

    Engineering is an accumulation of human ingenuity founded on maths. Science, on the other hand, is a work of discovery, not of invention, although creativity and imagination are an asset. Two very different mindsets indeed, and I imagine your point is: ‘Engineers, having reached almost total mastery of their field, are prone to straying into other areas where their ignorance is comical and their certainty a positive liability.’ Scary thought. Plank in own eye?

    Before engineering I had two unhappy years at London Uni doing physics. Quantum mechanics especially was my downfall. Maths too hard.

    OK, maybe I am being thick, but please be patient: Why is it so dumb to want to validate global warming with a thermometer (yeah, yeah, with due regard to statistical technique)?

    There are those who sneer “Huh, that’s just Popperian Fundamentalism.” They’re a bit quiet at the moment, but in case they’e lurking, here’s a question:

    “Is the expression Popperian Fundamentalism used solely by slippery customers who like to wriggle out of giving a straight answer to a straight question?”

    And, for those same people, I’ll ask again: “If my thermometer isn’t capable of testing global warming, pray tell, what other falsifiability criteria (as insisted on by WG1 section of the AR4) do you propose?”

    Katharine, you also say “Part of being scientific is releasing your results to others so that they can evaluate them”, and somebody was recently saying here that great reputations are won in science not by conforming but by leaps which overturn the prior state of the art. These two concepts together speak of honesty being at the heart of science.

    Would you therefore please comment on Roy Spencer’s recent work on the Urban Heat Island effect? If most of the GISS thermometers are truly undercalibrated (figure of speech) by a degree, the Great Debate over a piddling half-degree will be over in a very short time and, with the integrity you describe, the scientists will be bailing out of the AGW movement like a flock of seagulls.

  51. #51 Brent
    March 5, 2010

    Michael (349):
    Somebody else made your very point, and it certainly draws blood. I hope I am not as narrow as the Salem Hypothesis description. Twenty years ago I was reading, in French, a book on scientific method, and I reckon that my engineering career has benefited from the rigorous approach I have imbibed from a lifelong interest in science.

    You wrote: “This technical approach is to scientific discovery what Photoshop is to the Sistine Chapel.” Ouch!

    May I say that I’d much rather be attacked in a dark alley by somebody carrying a Salem Hypothesis than by Marcel Kincaid’s vocabulary. He must have keyboard shortcut to “idiot” and “fool”.

    Michael, please block your ears now. I’m going to insult somebody and I don’t want you to hear.

    Kincaid: You is one great big blithering Ctrl F2

  52. #52 Chris O'Neill
    March 5, 2010

    Brent:

    So let’s call this a ‘side bet’, just between you and me. It may take a few years to produce a result, and you and I count for nothing, so it’s just for our own personal benefit, yes? Deal?

    It’s a brave man who would bet that this trend has suddenly come to an end, especially one who couldn’t be bothered to check realclimate for CO2′s logarithmic forcing.

    By the way Brent, you still haven’t told us how you react to being lied to.

  53. #53 Lee
    March 5, 2010

    Brent asks:

    “Why is it so dumb to want to validate global warming with a thermometer (yeah, yeah, with due regard to statistical technique)?”

    Why on earth do you think it isn’t already validated by thermometer??

    Fit a line to warming since 1975 (the modern warming era – there is very good statistical support for beginning in 1975) or since the turn of the last century, 110 years ago – both are positive slope, with statistical significance. Ask if the temperatures over the last 5 years – or 10 years, or 8 years, or even the last 1 year – are statistically distinguishable from what is expected given the continuation of that trend line. The answer, of course, is “no.” I’ll also point out that recent temperatures are now back ABOVE that trend line.

    Warming, at approximately this rate and time course, has been predicted for at least a couple decades now. For a century, if you accept the early estimates. Those predictions continue to be validated. So, why, precisely, do you need to wait for more warming, and what, precisely, is your reasoning for needing more ‘thermometer’ data? How many more years of data do you need, and why?

  54. #54 Brent
    March 5, 2010

    Oh, Michael (349), another couple of points:

    -As I’m sure you understood, I was mocking that guy’s scepticism over my acceptance of a calibration certificate. An interesting idea was raised by Australian blogger Jo Nova: she suggested that the opposite to scepticism is “unscepticism”. But here we reach the limits of the words. The majority here would define AGW sceptics as “those who are immune to evidence, due either to prejudice or financial interest or from being maliciously antisocial”. And the label “unsceptic”, were we to adopt it, would mean: “those who unquestioningly accept the doomsday scenario of the Hockey Team, who consider scepticism a vice rather than a virtue; people of ‘faith’ which is defined as ‘holding a viewpoint regardless of contrary evidence’.”

    -Steve McIntyre: Can we please compare our thoughts on him? Me first, if I may: I see Steve as a dogged pursuer of scientific integrity. Admittedly he has no research of his own; his contribution is one of ‘policing’. Using his statistical expertise, he has unearthed malpractice. The title of his website includes the word ‘Audit’, which is an essential part of ensuring integrity in other domains such as accounting and quality assurance.

    Now, feel free to contest any of the above. You say ‘with the fairies’. I am sure that you have grounds for saying such a thing, and I’d welcome your further comments. If the guy has a screw loose, well I’ll have to stop admiring him.

  55. #55 Dave R
    March 5, 2010

    Brent @ 354:

    Steve McIntyre [...] has unearthed malpractice

    No he hasn’t you liar.

  56. #56 Dappledwater
    March 5, 2010

    Steve McIntyre [...] has unearthed malpractice – Brent

    No he hasn’t you liar. – Dave R.

    Sure he has Dave. McIntyre was looking in the mirror when he unearthed it.

  57. #57 Brent
    March 5, 2010

    Chris O’Neill (340, 352):
    Sorry I didn’t reply to your question, “Just let us know how you react to being lied to.” I’m afraid I didn’t quite know how to respond. Short answer: Don’t like it!

    Are you referring to the fact that I entered this website claiming to have an open mind and failed to admit that I had a current position, stated on other sites? That, since I have lied to people here, how would I like the same treatment? Chris, if I had arrived at Deltoid saying “Now Hear Ye – Stand aside, peasants, I know better than you!”, I’d have caused an unproductive shouting match.

    Thanks for your earlier “No, the logarithm function is unbounded.” So, exponential growth – or faster – of CO2 will not result in backscatter reaching an asymptote then; it’ll carry on climbing.

    You recommended visiting the RealClimate site for more background on CO2 forcing. It’s not that I couldn’t be bothered before, it’s more a question of time and knowing quite where to look. But I will – thanks for the tip.

    Oh, and thanks for the link to a Holzhauser interview in 2005. Until now I’ve only looked at his papers and his graphs, not his opinions (didn’t know he had spoken out).

    “The Aletsch is so big it reacts slowly,” says Holzhauser. “But what we’re seeing already augurs a tragedy.”

    The keyword for me is “augurs”: this verb refers to the future, and it’s a recurring theme here that past behaviour is all very well, but forecasts are only forecsts until the time comes. When the time comes, they’re either “spot on” or “bollocks”, and I prefer to wait and see. Given that Holzhauser’s figures show a shorter glacier 2000 years ago, I’m surprised he predicts a “tragedy”, but he DID say it, and I’ll be trying to find out why.

  58. #58 John
    March 5, 2010

    When Brent says:

    Can we please compare our thoughts on him? Me first, if I may: I see Steve as a dogged pursuer of scientific integrity.

    he means:

    I reckon that [Steve's] tenacity in demanding scientific rigour is of great importance, and will be celebrated in future accounts of science at the millennium.

  59. #59 Dave R
    March 5, 2010

    Shorter Brent @ 357:
    _We must wait until it’s too late. Trust me I’m an unqualified idiot._

  60. #60 Chris O'Neill
    March 5, 2010

    Brent:

    Why is it so dumb to want to validate global warming with a thermometer

    I must have missed something somewhere but where do you get the idea that global warming is not being measured by thermometers?

    If most of the GISS thermometers are truly undercalibrated (figure of speech) by a degree, the Great Debate over a piddling half-degree

    You appear to be making a basic mistake in not realizing that warming is detected from changes in anomalies and doesn’t rely on absolute temperature measurement. (BTW, GISS doesn’t operate its own set of thermometers.) Your attitude is preventing you from learning these basic facts from places such as realclimate.

  61. #61 Chris O'Neill
    March 5, 2010

    Brent:

    The majority here would define AGW sceptics as

    Just because someone calls themselves a “sceptic” doesn’t necessarily mean they are. Plenty of self-described AGW sceptics are quite gullible. Just calling yourself a sceptic is rather arrogant.

  62. #62 Chris O'Neill
    March 6, 2010

    Brent:

    Sorry I didn’t reply to your question, “Just let us know how you react to being lied to.” I’m afraid I didn’t quite know how to respond. Short answer: Don’t like it!
    Are you referring to the fact that I entered this website claiming to have an open mind and failed to admit that I had a current position, stated on other sites? That, since I have lied to people here, how would I like the same treatment? Chris, if I had arrived at Deltoid saying “Now Hear Ye – Stand aside, peasants, I know better than you!”, I’d have caused an unproductive shouting match.

    False dichotomy. It is not necessary to say “Now Hear Ye – Stand aside, peasants, I know better than you!” in order to avoid lying.

    You recommended visiting the RealClimate site for more background on CO2 forcing. It’s not that I couldn’t be bothered before, it’s more a question of time and knowing quite where to look.

    It doesn’t take very long to just read their articles without the comments. Perhaps in particular, the CO2 problem in six easy steps, is a good overview but browsing the index for particularly interesting points is a good way to find something interesting.

    forecasts are only forecsts until the time comes. When the time comes, they’re either “spot on” or “bollocks”, and I prefer to wait and see.

    So you’d rather wait for the tragedy to occur just to make sure the forecasts are correct. What a clever strategy that is.

    Given that Holzhauser’s figures show a shorter glacier 2000 years ago, I’m surprised he predicts a “tragedy”, but he DID say it, and I’ll be trying to find out why.

    Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the glacier has lost 3 kilometres in 140 years and is now retreating faster than at any time in history. At this rate, it won’t be very long before it’s the shortest it’s been in 125,000 years.

  63. #64 Michael
    March 6, 2010

    Brent;

    Steve McIntyre: Can we please compare our thoughts on him? Me first, if I may: I see Steve as a dogged pursuer of scientific integrity. Admittedly he has no research of his own; his contribution is one of ‘policing’. Using his statistical expertise, he has unearthed malpractice.

    McIntyre’s basic premise is the technician/engineer approach misapplied to science.

    And while the ‘audit’ term is thrown around, it’s misapplied as well. McIntyre doesn’t look at climate science papers in general, he has focussed on those that are particualrly well known, hence his obsession with Mann. It’s also quite clear that McIntyre has been looking to find evidence of what he already believed to be true – that there is some kind of fraud in climate science. This is his second basic premise.

    It seems never to have crossed McIntyre’s head to ‘audit’ papers that claim the scientific concenus is mistaken.

  64. #65 Brent
    March 6, 2010

    Chris O’Neill (360 etc):
    As you recommended, I have begun reading the Realclimate site. (Hey, there’s a lot to take in!)

    The Hockey Stick page refers to a 1999 paper by Jones et al., which I have accessed. It’s pretty readable! One doesn’t feel as out of one’s depth as when reading a quantum physics paper!

    (It’s at: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html)

    Now, Jonesey writes: “from over 3000 station records that have been corrected for non-climatic errors, such as station shifts and/or instrument changes (Jones 1994).”

    He doesn’t explicitely refer to any Urban Heat Island effect, or write “…such as adjacent disruptive heat sources” but, in fairness, this can fall within the statement “… have been corrected for non-climatic errors…”

    Can you help me here? Are you aware of literature where the Hockey Stick has been adjusted for UHI?

    Let me put it rather more provocatively: If Jones has written somewhere: “The thermometer at Chicago airport is in the selfsame position since 1936, when there was the occasional Gypsy Moth half a mile away. The fact that it today sits in the exhaust Gases of an Airbus 380 might be relevant, but we assume not,” it may damage the Hockey Stick’s authority.

    With less irony, let’s put it straight: It is suggested that the Urban Heat Island effect may have skewed earthstation temperatures in recent years. If this effect is real, to what extent should the CRU/Hadley Global and Hemispheric Temperature Anomaly data be amended?

    Ref: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/graphics/glnhsh.png

  65. #66 Brent
    March 6, 2010

    John (358):
    You compared a recent comment I made about Steve McIntyre to an older one on some other site.

    Although I used entirely different words, the sentiment then was identical to the sentiment yesterday.

    If you are suggesting that:

    “as a dogged pursuer of scientific integrity”

    is inconsistent with

    “tenacity in demanding scientific rigour”

    well maybe you should (expletive self-censored by writer).

    If Steve McIntyre is a bit loopy I’ll be obliged to withdraw my admiration for him, but my current view is that I’d like to buy a cottage by the sea with him and have babies.

  66. #67 Brent
    March 6, 2010

    Chris O’Neill (352):

    You wrote: “It’s a brave man who would bet that this trend has suddenly come to an end”

    http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/bet3.jpg

    And, yes, that’s very well put, Chris! The graph, showing a steady rise from 1975 to 2008, invites the eye to extrapolate it ever-upwards. Yes, I am offering to ‘surrender’ if the black dots go into the red zone twice.

    For those who accused me of being a ‘troll’, I hope that the above proves my sincerity. I came here believing I was right but prepared to be proved wrong. I believe in Popperian Falsifiability.

    Guys, if you are right I will change my mind, and encourage other sceptics to embrace the truth I took too long to see.

  67. #68 Brent
    March 6, 2010

    Lee (353):
    Lee, I see the logic in what you say, and can see that within the 110-year timescale the trend looks like – well, a trend (!). And what do we do with trends? We extrapolate them.

    You ended with: “How many more years of data do you need, and why?”, and I see the frustration behind those words. Somebody less polite than you might equate ‘wait-and-see’ with ‘we can spin this out indefinitely until our wicked plan to destroy the world succeeds’.

    Here’s my answer:

    (i) I don’t doubt that it started getting warmer around 1975. So what? Even Phil Jones of UEA accepted that it had been getting cooler before that. So what?

    (ii) I don’t even doubt that it’s been getting warmer since 1860. The Aletsch Glacier has been getting shorter since then. So what? Before that it had been advancing over people’s pastureland (and a team of Catholic priests were wheeled in to halt the advance). So what?

    (iii) The ‘so what’ sounds a bit cocky, so let’s put it more dispassionately: There is plenty of evidence that temperatures have been oscillating down the ages, long before industrialisation and long before 1975. I see no reason to be more alarmed by the past three decades of warming than the 1910-1940 warming.

    (iv) The IPCC forecasts can only be confirmed by comparison with actual temperature measurements, which lie in the future. We should know in the next decade (or, at least, I for one will concede the warmist case). Had we been having this conversation 20 years ago, maybe I’d be a Warmist today. But we are where we are, in 2010, and today I say, “Wait and see.”

    (v) There is reason to believe that the GISS temperature graph is skewed by the Urban Heat Island effect. I am trying to assess whether any such skewing has already been taken into account, whether it is contested by, say, the CRU, and whether the Hockey Stick needs to be revised. Somewhere above I refer to an interesting new paper on UHI by Roy Spencer of Alabama Uni. If he’s right that the UHI signal swamps the piffling half-degree that is alleged to be dragging us to Armageddon, then the Jeremiahs who insist that we’re all doomed will have to find a new scare story.

  68. #69 Bernard J.
    March 6, 2010

    [Brent](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2327470).

    You should really acquaint yourself with the [updated proxies used in hockey stick reconstruction](http://dx.doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.0805721105). If it becomes too much like quantum physics, the [wiki summary](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#Updates) might help.

    Ask yourself what these have to do with urban heat islands, and ask yourself why it matters anyway when [Menne et al](http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf) have destroyed the basis for the hysteria over the UHI ‘effect’ on the global temperature record.

  69. #70 Bernard J.
    March 6, 2010

    Addendum: the Menne et al paper is focussed on US temperatures of course, but the aforementioned hysteria is extrapolated to the globe from a US basis…

  70. #71 Chris O'Neill
    March 6, 2010

    Brent:

    Are you aware of literature where the Hockey Stick has been adjusted for UHI?

    You seem to be unaware that the “Hockey Stick” usually refers to reconstructions of paleoclimatic temperature that go back to times before the instrumental record was extensive enough to make it possible to estimate global temperature anomaly. The instrumental record, which covers the time when UHI became significant, is too short to make a shape that looks like a whole hockey stick. So UHI and the “Hockey Stick” have nothing directly to do with each other.

    As regards UHI, the estimate of long term trend in global temperature completely avoids UHI because it is solely dependent on non-urban temperature measurements. Tamino dealt with this issue in a couple of his articles about the GISS estimate. So find those articles to learn something about it.

  71. #72 Chris O'Neill
    March 6, 2010

    Brent:

    (i) I don’t doubt that it started getting warmer around 1975. So what? Even Phil Jones of UEA accepted that it had been getting cooler before that. So what?

    There was only 0.1C of cooling in the 30 year trend to 1975 and 0.6C of warming since then. And all this was after another 0.5C of warming had occurred in the previous 30 years. You are ignoring the fact that the warming that has occurred is ten times as much as the 1944-1975 cooling.

    (ii) I don’t even doubt that it’s been getting warmer since 1860. The Aletsch Glacier has been getting shorter since then. So what? Before that it had been advancing over people’s pastureland (and a team of Catholic priests were wheeled in to halt the advance). So what?

    Weren’t you paying attention above when I said:

    “Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the glacier has lost 3 kilometres in 140 years and is now retreating faster than at any time in history. At this rate, it won’t be very long before it’s the shortest it’s been in 125,000 years”?

    Holzhauser says that’s it’s currently shrinking at up to 1 kilometer per 20 years. Just tell us how much shorter it was in the historical past and you’ll arrive at an estimate for how long it will be before it’s the shortest it’s been in 125,000 years.

    (iii) The ‘so what’ sounds a bit cocky, so let’s put it more dispassionately: There is plenty of evidence that temperatures have been oscillating down the ages, long before industrialisation and long before 1975. I see no reason to be more alarmed by the past three decades of warming than the 1910-1940 warming.

    That’s because you’re ignoring cause. A large part of the 1910-1940 warming was caused by a temporary increase in insolation and a reduction in atmospheric particulates. None of these things have happened since 1975.

    (iv) The IPCC forecasts can only be confirmed by comparison with actual temperature measurements, which lie in the future.

    What on earth are you talking about? Forecasts were being made in the early 1980s. These have been largely confirmed with actual temperature measurements.

    Had we been having this conversation 20 years ago, maybe I’d be a Warmist today. But we are where we are, in 2010, and today I say, “Wait and see.”

    So you think that because you’ve been asleep for the past 20 years, the rest of the world should also act as if it’s been asleep for the past 20 years too? Pull the other one.

    (v) There is reason to believe that the GISS temperature graph is skewed by the Urban Heat Island effect.

    No there isn’t. Urban temperature records are adjusted to have the same long-term trend as nearby rural records in calculating global average.

    Somewhere above I refer to an interesting new paper on UHI by Roy Spencer of Alabama Uni. If he’s right that the UHI signal swamps the piffling half-degree

    His paper is about estimating UHI, NOT about whether UHI has any influence over global average temperature estimates which it doesn’t.

    that is alleged to be dragging us to Armageddon, then the Jeremiahs who insist that we’re all doomed will have to find a new scare story.

    Give it a break. You sound like an ideological nutcase.

  72. #73 Lotharsson
    March 7, 2010

    Now some participants here have counseled against such simple criteria, saying that it’s misplaced ‘Popperian Fundamentalism’, that the immense efforts of Climatology cannot be reduced to such a simple test. I can’t argue with that.

    Not sure if this was answered between when I read it and the bottom of the thread.

    You’ve misread or misrepresented my comment, and not just in this particular quote. Go back and read my comment *carefully*.

    What is “the hypothesis” that you referred to that my comment addressed? *A*GW, no?

    What is the hypothesis that the test at Open Mind assesses? *GW*, no?

    I’m fine with the Open Mind test, because you *can* measure GW with a thermometer providing you distinguish signal from noise.

    But that does not let you falsify AGW *until* you separate out the other warming/cooling effects. That concept should be understandable to someone who did a couple of years of Uni physics.

  73. #74 Lotharsson
    March 7, 2010

    A large part of the 1910-1940 warming was caused by a temporary increase in insolation and a reduction in atmospheric particulates. None of these things have happened since 1975.

    This quote embodies precisely the kind of issue I was trying to point out to you in my response to your musings on falsifying “the hypothesis”, which you seemed to acknowledge and then forget shortly afterwards.

    Imagine “the hypothesis” was “pressing on this accelerator will accelerate this car”. Can you falsify it by observing 60 seconds without acceleration? Sure, at least for the specific scenario the car is in. Imagine it’s pointed up an incredibly steep hill, or on a road with no friction between the tires & road. You can even observe *negative* acceleration in some cases.

    But is this the right hypothesis when you want to predict what impact the accelerator will have on the car under future scenarios – like, say, with decent grip on a flat road, or even going down a hill? Of course not!

    A more useful hypothesis for prediction, and more similar to AGW, would be that “pressing on the accelerator leads to *more* acceleration than *not* pressing on it”. Do you see why?

  74. #75 Brent
    March 8, 2010

    Bernard (369): I’m grateful to you for the link to the Menne paper.

    It shows(for others’ benefit here) the Urban Heat Island effect to be trivial by comparing ‘well-sited’ earthstations with ‘poorly sited’ ones, and finding only a tiny difference. We see photos comparing airports ‘then-and-now’, which give credence to the UHI notion. But ‘might feasibly skew the data’ ain’t ‘has skewed the data significantly’, and so this paper says we can discard the UHI effect and continue to trust the GISS/CRU/HAD data.

    If you have seen Spencer’s recent work on UHI, would you say that they contradict each other, or would that be comparing apples and oranges?

    Chris O’Neill (371): You wrote: “The instrumental record, which covers the time when UHI became significant, is too short to make a shape that looks like a whole hockey stick. So UHI and the ‘Hockey Stick’ have nothing directly to do with each other.”

    I was under the misapprehension that the Hockey Stick was just that: a paleo reconstruction with actual measurement data in recent decades. Bernard linked to a Mann paper and a supporting PDF file:

    http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2008/09/02/0805721105.DCSupplemental/0805721105SI.pdf

    This PDF shows (pp 21 & 22) some spectacular hockey sticks, with the recent red line going through the roof. The red line is labelled “CRU Instrumental Record”.

    Isn’t this what all the concern is about? That directly measured temperatures have in recent decades risen to unprecedented levels as evidenced by older direct measurements and by paleo proxy?

    (Chris, I’m not ignoring your #372; time limitations at the moment.)

  75. #76 Chris O'Neill
    March 8, 2010
    the ‘Hockey Stick’ have nothing directly to do with each other.

    Brent:

    I was under the misapprehension that the Hockey Stick was just that: a paleo reconstruction with actual measurement data in recent decades.

    Arguments about the “Hockey Stick” are normally centred around the potential inaccuracies in the part of the reconstructions before AD 1600, especially parts before AD 1450 and especially still parts covering the Mediaeval Warm Period. These issues are not the same as the issue of UHI. Although UHI could hypothetically affect the hockeystick shape, the former was a serious scientific issue while the latter was never a serious issue. So the “Hockey Stick” has never been adjusted for UHI because it was produced using data that had already been corrected for UHI. Before you start any consideration of the “Hockey Stick” you need to come to the realization that notions that the instrumental global temperature record (e;g. GISS’s) are contaminated by UHI are absolute garbage.

  76. #77 Chris O'Neill
    March 8, 2010

    My first quote in 376 should have been:

    UHI and the ‘Hockey Stick’ have nothing directly to do with each other.

  77. #78 Brent
    March 8, 2010

    Chris O’Neill (372):
    I have an important point to concede here: I followed the link you kindly supplied to the OpenMinds site, and find the following:

    “…Gavin Schmidt (via email) has reminded me that the last step of NASA GISS adjustments — the correction for urban heating — uses data from nearby rural stations (like Orland) to apply a correction to non-rural stations (like Marysville). Hence in part, the urban heating correction applied to Marysville depends on the trend at Orland.”

    This answers my question nicely, and I’m grateful.

    On the subject of the Aletsch Glacier, you wrote that maybe I wasn’t paying attention when you previously wrote, “maybe it has something to do with the fact that the glacier has lost 3 kilometres in 140 years and is now retreating faster than at any time in history. At this rate… [-] ..Holzhauser says that’s it’s currently shrinking at up to 1 kilometer per 20 years. Just tell us how much shorter it was in the historical past and… ”

    It would be unfair to Holzhauser to subject his marvellous graph (with its turning points and gradients) to more analysis than he intended. Whilst the last 200 years of advance and (much more) decline are from direct measurement, he shows previous rates of decline similar to the 1860-to-today period which are probably intelligent guesses. I started doing a quick calculation of decline rates and then abandoned the attempt as over-interpretation. Yes, he said what he said about unprecedented rate of retreat. I don’t see it in his graph, but he has a vast knowledge. Er, his paper is therefore just the tip of the iceberg ;)

    To the minima he shows at 1300BC and 100BC (shorter than today) he added a big fat question mark, which is admirable. So, yes, if the 150-year trend continues for a few more decades it will reach (to our best knowledge) a record low.

    You wrote: “Give it a break. You sound like an ideological nutcase.” Maybe you’re right; maybe I will!

    I have learned a lot from these discussions, and many people have clarified the (joined-up) thinking behind the AGW hypothesis. I’m not quite there yet, but the case for AGW is (in my opinion (which counts for nothing)) stronger than I had figured.

    In putting counterarguments, my intention was to put people to the test. Now that the vile shut-up-you-fool-it-just-is-brigade has withdrawn, I see a core of reasoning educated people who accept the hypothesis on its merits.

  78. #79 Eli Rabett
    March 8, 2010

    Ahem, there is a second order UHI effect in the hockey stick. Tree growth is calibrated against the instrumental record, if UHI made the instrumental record have a higher trend than was really the case, then all of the proxys would have too high a sensitivity, and the temperature anomalies in the past would have been also too high. In other words, any UHI effect if corrected for would flatten the handle of the hockey stick

  79. #80 Brent
    March 8, 2010

    Lotharsson (373,374): You wrote:
    “But that does not let you falsify AGW until you separate out the other warming/cooling effects. That concept should be understandable to… ” and “Do you see why?”

    Well, yes, I do. What you say about other forcings potentially masking the radiative forcing of CO2 makes perfect sense, as does you analogy to a vehicle accelerating/decelerating.

    And so there is the potential in the next few years for lower world temperatures which would in no way invalidate the AGW hypothesis. When I wrote something like: “Lotharsson was right: it IS ‘N’ years!”, there was an element of humour, and I wasn’t suggesting that you were being slippery or trying to delay the day when the AGW hypothesis can be refuted.

    This is an infernally complex issue, and who knows when it can be resolved? Oh for a time machine or the elixir of life, to be able to look back on today.

    I have to accept that the AGW hypothesis has an internal consistency and logic, and that its proponents are more rational than I had thought.

    I haven’t yet thrown in the towel, though. I shall continue to dig, to examine the prism from many angles. I suspect that astrophysics may hold the key, although the carbon boys have a working hypothesis. Just yesterday I heard that the flow of a certain S.American river correlates well with sunspot cycles. Other such revelations may well emerge.

    Hey, maybe the sunspots are caused by the river!

  80. #81 P. Lewis
    March 8, 2010

    Just yesterday I heard that the flow of a certain S.American river correlates well with sunspot cycles. Other such revelations may well emerge.

    That might be because sunspots possibly correlate with rainfall. Google.

  81. #82 Dave R
    March 8, 2010

    Brent @ 380:
    >who knows when it can be resolved?

    This was answered for you in #372.

    >Just yesterday I heard that the flow of a certain S.American river correlates well with sunspot cycles.

    They did not show a correlation with sunspot cycles. (The paper in question is [here](http://www.iafe.uba.ar/httpdocs/reprint_parana.pdf)).

    Interesting though how the “correlation is not causation” meme is [trotted out](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2319763) in cases where it’s a straw man, but not where it’s relevant.

    It’s very easy to find out why the sun can be ruled out as the cause of the recent global warming. If you want to show that you are willing to learn you can post those arguments in your next reply, along with any objections you have to them.

  82. #83 Chris O'Neill
    March 8, 2010

    Brent:

    This is an infernally complex issue

    Calculating the forcing caused by CO2 (and comparing it with other forcings) is not infernally complex. Estimating the temperature rise from this forcing is not infernally complex, it’s just not very accurate. Estimating the detailed consequences of this temperature rise is infernally complex but some of them are absolutely catastrophic.

  83. #84 Brent
    March 8, 2010

    Dave R (382): Thanks for a copy of the Maunas paper on the Parana River.

    When you say, “did not show a correlation with sunspot cycles”, have you read the passage where the authors write:

    “For the last century, we find a strong correlation with Sunspot Number, in multi-decadal time scales, with larger solar activity corresponding with larger streamflow.”

    Tell me, do you think this interesting info on solar activity worthy of consideration in the wider debate about AGW?

  84. #85 ts
    March 8, 2010

    In putting counterarguments, my intention was to put people to the test.

    So it’s about people rather than science? Wouldn’t reading the many comments at this blog and elsewhere have established what these people are like? It seems to me that supporters of AGW — which includes every reputable scientific organization, and 97% of climate scientists — have already been put to the test over and over again.

    Now that the vile shut-up-you-fool-it-just-is-brigade has withdrawn

    That characterization does not seem accurate to me; all the comments I’ve seen, even the most hostile, provided some sort of factual support, rather than “it-just-is”.

    I see a core of reasoning educated people who accept the hypothesis on its merits.

    And why didn’t you see that before? There was vast amounts of evidence of it.

    I have to accept that the AGW hypothesis has an internal consistency and logic

    That’s what you said in your very first post, but it isn’t so much about “internal” consistency as it is about the supporting evidence.

    its proponents are more rational than I had thought

    In your first post you wrote “there are bright, educated, informed, sincere people on both sides” — so you didn’t really believe that of the science community (which is the side that supports the AGW)? You should look into how you came to, and sustained, your erroneous belief against considerable evidence.

    This is an infernally complex issue, and who knows when it can be resolved? Oh for a time machine or the elixir of life, to be able to look back on today.

    It has been resolved — the science community has reached consensus. And over and over again you ignore the consequences of postponing action based on that consensus with your “We should know in the next decade” and “Wait and see” and “Oh for a time machine”. This isn’t just some debating game where the object is to get the maximum number of people to agree with one side or the other — or worse, to get you to agree, although you seem to view it that way. Rather, the goal is to make a best possible determination from the available facts and to implement policy consistent with that — “wait and see” is not a rational response. And I agree Chris O’Neill that “the piffling half-degree that is alleged to be dragging us to Armageddon, then the Jeremiahs who insist that we’re all doomed will have to find a new scare story” makes you sound like an ideological nutcase. Certainly to start out with “Whilst much of the supporting logic of the AGW hypothesis is watertight, I doubt the overall conclusion” and then to end up with “I have to accept that the AGW hypothesis has an internal consistency and logic, and that its proponents are more rational than I had thought. I haven’t yet thrown in the towel, though.” as if your views had progressed seems rather nutty to me.

  85. #86 Brent
    March 8, 2010

    May I please ask the assembled brethren: “Have you personally taken any steps whatsoever to reduce your carbon footprint by a significant amount? If so, please give some indication in kWh per annum, litres of vehicle fuel per annum, and aircraft passenger-miles.”

  86. #87 ts
    March 8, 2010

    This was answered for you in #372.

    It’s very odd that Brent says “Had we been having this conversation 20 years ago, maybe I’d be a Warmist today.” but thinks that, today, one must wait and see. Had Tamino offered his bet in 1997, anyone who took it up would have lost, and the trend since then, including today, has been entirely consistent with that. Treating today as a different matter is cherry picking, pure and simple, and as Tamino noted in http://deepclimate.org/2010/03/02/round-and-round-we-go-with-lindzen-motl-and-jones/ , the deniers have admitted to their cherry picking — to quote Luboš Motl, “1995 is the earliest year when the statistical significance of the trend from that year to 2009 safely fails” — but there’s always some such earliest year, for any trend.

  87. #88 ts
    March 8, 2010

    #386

    Ad hominem irrelevancy. While the answer is yes for me, asking me to provide detailed statistics can only be a product of bad faith.

  88. #89 Dave R
    March 8, 2010

    Brent @ 384:
    >When you say, “did not show a correlation with sunspot cycles”, have you read the passage where the authors [made that claim]

    Yes, but that’s not what they showed. Read what they did with the data, not just what they claim in the abstract.

  89. #90 Brent
    March 8, 2010

    ts (386): I know it’s putting you on the spot, but given your acceptance of the AGW hypothesis, have you personally taken any steps to reduce your own carbon footprint?

    I do wonder whether the unsceptic fraternity have niggling doubts that the sequence of logic we’ve just been discussing actually culminates in a confirmed hypothesis. I recall my children having doubts about the existence of Father Christmas and then, for a few years, becoming less questioning (not more) until reaching the same conclusion as me on his existence. (I won’t ask your view; it would be rude.)

    I have yet to meet a single person who has done anything more than a token effort towards carbon reduction.

    Dear reader, if you also take zero action (other than changing the odd lightbulb), could it be that deep inside you don’t actually believe? And, dear reader, if you are a genuine unsceptic (that is, you buy the whole Inconvenient Truth package) doesn’t your inaction suggest that you are indulging in h

  90. #91 Dave R
    March 8, 2010

    390: goto 388.

  91. #92 ts
    March 8, 2010

    have you personally taken any steps to reduce your own carbon footprint?

    I already answered that, but your poor reading comprehension is well-established.

    I have yet to meet a single person who has done anything more than a token effort towards carbon reduction.

    Your beliefs about your personal experience would be irrelevant because of the limited sample space and your evident difficulty in accurately assessing evidence, even if it weren’t irrelevant to the scientific questions.

    Dear reader, if you also take zero action (other than changing the odd lightbulb), could it be that deep inside you don’t actually believe?

    Many things could be. For instance, you could be a radical denier and ideological nutcase who continues to attempt to defraud the readers here with your phony concessions about internal consistency and saying you’re “not quite there yet” and that the case for AGW is stronger than you had figured and that those here are reasoning educated people who accept the hypothesis on its merits, all the while believing quite differently. Or perhaps not, and there’s some other explanation for your patent contradictions.

  92. #93 ts
    March 8, 2010

    doesn’t your inaction suggest that you are indulging in h

    Assuming that was “hypocrisy” chopped off, I offer you:

    Ad hominem tu quoque

    Ad hominem tu quoque (lit: “You too!”) refers to a claim that the source making the argument has spoken or acted in a way inconsistent with the argument. In particular, if Source A criticizes the actions of Source B, a tu quoque response is that Source A has acted in the same way. This argument is fallacious because it does not disprove the argument; if the premise is true then Source A may be a hypocrite, but this does not make the statement less credible from a logical perspective. Indeed, Source A may be in a position to provide personal testimony on the negative consequences of the stated action.

    Ad hominem is a fallacy of irrelevancy; hypocrisy is merely a human weakness that is neither here nor there in re the scientific issues. And even then, the charge is entirely speculative and based on limited personal experience, not any facts about the people you are accusing. But you just keep digging that hole deeper and deeper, to the point where no reasoning educated person could find you credible.

  93. #94 Brent
    March 8, 2010

    ts (388)You wrote that my question about one’s actions backing up one’s words was “Ad hominem irrelevancy. While the answer is yes for me, asking me to provide detailed statistics can only be a product of bad faith.”

    So that’s a “yes”. If you’re reluctant to reveal your current mileage compared to previous (and remember, you have the cloak of anonymity here), well can you give me rough figures for somebody you know? Keep it simple: litres, kWh and air miles.

    I assume that you ‘offset’. Have you looked into precisely what tangible effect your hard-earned offsetting money has? I know it’s distasteful to talk about concrete actions, but it’s beginning to look like, well, you know, like the Judean People’s Front.

    No disrespect, but methinks the ge

  94. #95 ts
    March 8, 2010

    P.S.

    I have yet to meet a single person who has done anything more than a token effort towards carbon reduction.

    Attempting to educate people about the science of AGW is itself a non-token effort toward its amelioration. But to start enumerating all the significant ways in which people who accept the reality of AGW work to address it would be to play Brent’s ridiculous game that is fooling no reasoning educated person.

  95. #96 ts
    March 8, 2010

    No disrespect

    You’re a pathetic clown and I’m done with you.

  96. #97 John
    March 8, 2010

    I do wonder whether the unsceptic fraternity have niggling doubts that the sequence of logic we’ve just been discussing actually culminates in a confirmed hypothesis.

    No. The “unsceptic fraternity” think you’re a troll, and every second you’re here trying to expose non-existent “niggling doubts” you’re simply digging yourself into a deeper hole.

    When you arrived here I exposed you pretty quickly, and have remained suspicious of your motives ever since. I suspected you were just going to do the concern troll act here and then post back your buddies that you had bamboozled us with your superior intellect and questioning.

    Theory proven correct. Posted just yesterday at Bishop Hill:

    I’ve had a long debate with unsceptics over on the Deltoid site, and asked the following question: “May I please ask the assembled brethren: ‘Have you personally taken any steps whatsoever to reduce your carbon footprint by a significant amount? If so, please give some indication in kWh per annum, litres of vehicle fuel per annum, and aircraft passenger-miles.’ ”

    So far nobody has replied.

    To the tune of “I Believed in Father Christmas”

    They said that the world was warming,
    They said we were going to fry,
    They gave us the direst warnings,
    Repent for the end is nigh

    And I believed in global warming
    I fell for a big fat lie
    But listen up folks
    It’s only a hoax
    A joke and a pig in a poke

    They priced up our carbon footprints
    They filled us with guilt and sin
    Indulgences sold to order
    To offset the mess we’re in

    And I believed in global warming
    I fell for a big fat lie
    But listen up folks
    It’s only a hoax
    A joke and a pig in a poke

    Aloft with their sacred powers
    The priests read the runes of old
    The kings from their iv’ry towers
    Went off on a quest for gold

    And I believed in global warming
    I fell for a big fat lie
    But listen up folks
    It’s only a hoax
    A joke and a pig in a poke

    You’re a joke Brent.

  97. #98 Brent
    March 8, 2010

    Dammit, we just lost a good man there in ts. Sorry. What a stupid crack I made about Judean People’s Front.

    Would anybody else like to continue his logic? I think it goes like this (but blame him, not me, if I don’t do it justice):

    The science is settled, and CO2 is bad. Yes, it’s gross hypocrisy to bleat on about carbon footprints and at the same time keep the central heating on, and drive to work, and fly off on holiday, but the fact that one is a goddam hypocrite (and SUCH a hypocrite that one may decline a casual audit even under anonymity) has no bearing on the laws of physics.

    There’s maybe a latin expression for “I’m just one bloke; my actions are so insignificant that a change in my behaviour will have zero benefit on the world and yet bollix up my lifestyle”. But you can bet that these selfsame CH’s are careful not to throw batteries in a ditch or put sump-oil in the gutter. Why doesn’t such good individual behaviour extend to carbon footprints? Could it be that the CHs do not truly believe?

    Our departed friend stood up for his hypocrisy, and deserves credit for such honesty. Would any other Carbon Hypocrite like to explain their apocalypse fear and their Range Rover simultaneously?

  98. #99 ts
    March 8, 2010

    You’re a joke Brent.

    Actually he’s much worse.

  99. #100 John
    March 8, 2010

    And so finally the true Brent comes out.