Time for another open thread.
Just saw this posting on [Desmog]
> Amusing, but I cannot take Maher seriously until he applies this same point to the vaccination issue. He’s just not consistent in approach.
Funny, but I still don’t get how people can see some statement as wrong just because they don’t apply it elsewhere.
Yes, it is hypocritical. And I guess that could make you dislike Bill and count his expertise for little.
But it doesn’t make him wrong here. It just means he could apply it to himself.
The Guardian is [reporting](http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/oct/25/climate-fools-day-sceptics-parliament) on a gathering of climate cranks in London tomorrow:
You really couldn’t make this up:
>US publisher, Stairway Press [which sells Andrew Montford’s Hockey Stick Illusion in the US], have chosen the Climate Fools Day gathering in Westminster to make the inaugural presentation of the “Ernst-Georg Beck Award for Scientific Integrity and Competence” (BASIC). Piers Corbyn gets the US$10,000 award for “his untiring efforts both as a climate skeptic and for his outstanding success in long-range weather forecasting”.
I was just reading that. What a bunch of misfits and what an utter hoot. The [Ernst-Georg Beck](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/10/more_nonsense_about_co2.php) award has got to be a joke, surely?
Does anyone know, is Piers Corbyn still a Marxist and a campaigner for squatters rights? Just curious.
How lovely – a climate conference without a single climate scientist amongst them.
I expect they’ll be swapping conspiracy theories all day – some might even be climate related.
Do these people have any idea how ridiculous … no, I suppose not.
OK, the latest effort at Climate Etc takes it to the level of farce.
Judith now assumes the role of martyr.
Anyone thinking about [taking a bet on the Arctic sea ice](http://i51.tinypic.com/28utcer.jpg)?
More to the point, anyone game to predict what another breaking of the sea ice record would mean to the Denialati?
It means there’s another recovery next year…
But it’s fun watching the shenanigans on the Intrade betting on the Arctic.
< Friday night rant >
OK, this is completely left-of-field compared to the general focus of Deltoid, but bear with me.
There’s been a lot said about how the tobacco lobby tried in the past to obfuscate the state of general public knowledge and understanding of the risks of smoking. Vested interests convinced many smokers and regulators that there was doubt about the science that indicated a link between tobacco and cancer, and hence that there was not a firm basis for giving up the habit or for controlling it. As a consequence many people chose to believe that they didn’t need to kick the habit, either because they thought that there was no danger, or – through the miracle of perceived personal invulnerability – that they as individuals would avoid being affected.
Many years were spent by many health professionals trying to counter this wrong notion, and even today there exists a sizable proportion of people who are willing to put off facing the bottom line in the matter. [This ad](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWtgZE4h-Io) however is the best effort that I have seen to put a perspective on the subject that might actually cause people to think beyond their immediate habitual inclinations…
Many Australians and some USAdians will have seen it, but there may be readers of Deltoid who have not. If it leads to one further person rethinking their tobacco habit for the link having been posted here I’d be pleased, but in fact my rhetorical question is…
…why is it that humans do not have a similar concern for the well-being of their decendants in the context of global warming, simply because the threat happens to be not as rapidly-acting or as directly targeting as is tobacco, even when the ultimate result will be inestimably more grim?
Are we that welded to the status quo if it means that we remain wallowing in milk and honey, that we can’t be buggered thinking about the well-being of the cows and the bees that are keeping us thus, or about future generations who might not even have the opportunity to experience the metaphorical produce of these similarly-metaphorical bovine and apine benefactors?
< /Friday night rant >
In a truly startling moment, The Weekend Australian today reports on climate change and – well, doesn’t fling poop at the fan. They’ve got the red book that the Department of Climate Change prepared for the government post-election and have just – reported what it said. Including the fact that it’s freaking scary and economically reckless to keep going the way we are and that all indicators are that we’re heading for worst case projections. It also says that all natural causes have been investigated for warming and dismissed and that scientist who say AGW is not happening are not persuasive.
Not only DOESN’T The Australian then go on to get Bob Carter or Ian Plimer to pooh-pooh the red book, it makes no editorial comment within the article AND Stephen Lunn writes a short piece talking about how Australia may regret the 1997 Kyoto concessions considering how poor the prognosis for Australia is. It doesn’t even paint the DCC as full of pinko commie ecomentalists.
I am experiencing severe cognitive dissonance at this point.
I’m trying to work out what their nefarious motives are and coming to the weird conclusion that – maybe they don’t have them. If anyone can work out what these very strange and almost unique stories are doing in The Australian, please let me know.
I need a cup of tea and a good lie down.
Yep, agree entirely AmandaS … today’s Australian was like dropping into some sort of alternate universe.
Quick question for the Internets:
Has anyone come across a graph that looks like this thumbnail?
Re. 104: Frank, that graph has identical features as Phil Jones’ Figure 2.21 from TAR, but with two added plots.
First graphic: http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/11/mcintyre-provides-fodder-for-skeptics/
While I was looking, though, I came across this: R-Bloggers – Global Temperature Proxy Reconstructions ~ now with CO2 forcing
August 26, 2010 By apeescape
Anyone seen that before?
Tom Fuller update:
He continues his descent into madness at mt’s by giving the following pathetic comment:
You’re (Tobis) a bad guy. That’s the politest way of expressing it.
As for why, ready your own fucking post.
I wonder how much lower can he go?
Thanks! Right now it seems that the figure is most similar to that in Briffa et al. (2001), but there are still some differences (perhaps Osborn tweaked it a bit for the purposes of the presentation).
Just read one Outraged Of Kingston comment on the Guardian website:
> I have looked into it, way more than I should. Look at what’s going on in this article. The Global Warming Alarmists have started making indoctrination tools for children.
> They pay for bed-time-nightmares to scare the children.
But, funnily enough, these same people have NO PROBLEM in indoctrination of children by religions nor about the scare stories of Hell.
OK, so [I’m just baiting her now](http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/24/overconfidence-in-ipccs-detection-and-attribution-part-iii/#comment-7148), but gosh I’d like to hear her answer…
I am a little puzzled about your apparently novel interpretations of probablism and of statistical confidence.
Perhaps you might humour me and offer your analysis of the probability that the 2010 land/ocean index, as determined by GISS, say, will be greater than the index for 2005. As we currently await only the October to December results, perhaps you could also describe to us how one might determine the confidence in the previous analysis given that three quarters of the year’s data are already in.
More interestingly, I would be most intrigued to know of your interpretation of what the 2010 result will mean in a climate change context, and of what confidence (and how derived) one can ascribe to said interpretation given all significant factors involved.
I’d be especially delighted to see the working.
Curry’s [sidestepping yet again](http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/24/overconfidence-in-ipccs-detection-and-attribution-part-iii/#comment-7153).
She’s definitely no Tamino.
Judith Curry has decided to go all the way with the conspiracy angle- it’s all IPCC corruption, scientists chasing funding money and persona ambition…..besides Judith the Pure of course.
Hilarious reading if you can stomach that kind of thing.
Michael, it was…erm….”interesting” reading. I really don’t know what her intentions are, but essentially tarnishing all of the IPCC authors AND claim she wants to restore credibility of climate science is, well, contradictory.
The comment section is even worse. I thought WUWT was bad, but it seems Climate, Etc attracts the more ‘intelligent’ crackpots…
Current ye@r *
Leave this field empty
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.