Time for more open thread.
In an interesting coincidence, Brian Dunning is here in Sydney to talk at TAM Australia, so I thought it would be interesting to go to the TAM fringe open mic night (tonight!) and talk about, oh, DDT.
> The issue was about whether there were ‘climatologists’ among the scientists
No, that wasn’t the issue.
The issue you brought up was that there are 1000 scientists who did something on something for something. Dark side.
The issue is that it’s a load of crap.
> Have Christy,Spencer,and Lindzen had their work “peer-reviewed” and published?
Well, I guess that means they MUST be wrong, since the 10,000 papers that support AGW have also been peer reviewed and published.
> The “substance” is that there is no consensus and there never has been
So why all the hue and cry about how science isn’t consensus?
If there’s no consensus in AGW, then there’s no claim to non science by association with consensus.
Yet you have many times stated that the consensus is proof of conspiracy. I guess the conspiracy doesn’t exist either by your own assertions.
(97% of people agreeing on something IS consensus, by the way. What would YOU call it?)
Wow,10,000 papers huh?Do you have the full list handy by any chance?No?Gee what a shame.
Sorry warren but you don’t make any logical sense. The argument is about substance, you have none, and neither does your beat up report.
Come back when you can challenge the consensus with science.
For clowns like warren who can’t argue the science there is [this](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/97_of_active_climatologists_ag.php) to show the scale of the consensus.
Wow,so many non facts in one post!Where to start.Actually,did I not encounter your wacko attempts at logical discourse a couple of months back?Anyway here goes.
There is no consensus and the proof is the thousands of scientists worldwide who do not sgree with the IPCC’s basic assumption about the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.
You probably should not have mentioned the “97%” thing.It was actually 97.4% but who’s counting.This result was from a sample of just 77 ‘actively publishing climate scientists’ and was in response to question 2 of the survey.More than one third of the meteorologists asked said “NO” to question 2.
Warren [this](http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html) is for you also.
[This is](http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=296) a scientific consensus, and not a PR consensus.
Then you can view [this list](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_concurring_organizations) of national science academies.
>*There is no consensus and the proof is the thousands of scientists worldwide who do not sgree with the IPCC’s basic assumption about the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.*
An other empty comment from warren. Firstly 1000 is a tiny fraction of the scientist in the world, less than a fraction of a percent of the scientific population. Secondly what assumption are you referring to?
Thirdly, you’ve made no scientific case. Your just making wild claims.
Jakerman,on the Manhattan Declaration there are 206 scientists who work in climatology or closely related fields.There are 3,805 scientists who work in closely related fields who signed the Oregon Petition.Now that is what I call ‘consensus’.As for academies,they are just political bodies beholden to government,and they dont necessarily represent the views of the rank and file in an accurate way.If they did we would not have over 31,000 signatories to the Oregon Petition.
> Now that is what I call ‘consensus’.
So the 10,000 papers and the 97% of climate scientists (who would have to be either 10,000 [Manhattan] or 127,000[Oregon]) is even more consensus and therefore even MORE correct.
And as to:
> As for academies,they are just political bodies beholden to government,
And the OISM is just a political body beholden to hidden private interests.
Compare warrenidiot’s claim:
> There is no consensus
With continued claims that it’s all a consensus by governments to fake the science (in his scrawny little brainpan).
That’s 168 soverign countries last time I looked.
That is a consensus but 10,000 scientists is not???
> This result was from a sample of just 77 ‘actively publishing climate scientists’
Oh dear, no it wasn’t warrenidiot.
Wow it was not 10,000 scientists.It was only 3146 who responded.Do a little checking before you make a fool of yourself.
As I’ve pointed out before, if global warming is an international government driven scheme for one world government, surely Copenhagen and Cancaun wouldn’t be such monunmental failures? Warren’s argument is intellectually barren. “Consensus” for Warren is when a small amount of scientists agree with him, even when they’re from the wrong field. Or retired. Or dead.
Any idiot can sign the Oregon Petition (it’s easy, even I’m on it and I’m not a scientist!)
> Wow it was not 10,000 scientists.
1.00-0.975 = 0.026
206/0.026 = ?
Go on, do some work for a change.
Ask a grown up to help if you’re stuck.
Jakerman, in the Bulletin of The American Meteorological Society a survey showed that 50% weathercasters disagreed that warming since 1950 is likely caused by humans.A survey of 51,000 Canadian scientists found that 68% disagreed that the science was settled.
Warren, I am a scientist. I attend workshops and conferences where these and related issues are discussed and debated. In all my years of research (1991-present) I have met remarkably few peers who doubt the empirical evidence for AGW. So few in fact that I think that I could count them on one hand.
There certainly is broad consensus amongst the scientific community in support of the evidence for AGW and that measures should be made to deal with it. You can refer to anti-environmental bilge web sites all you like, and these wholly unscientific petitions that the denialati like to wheel out all of the time, but it does not change the fact that 95% or more of the scientific community is in agreement over this issue. If we weren’t, the denialists and the corporate lobby who support them would be recruiting more and more new scientists to their cause. But, as it is, they have relied on pretty much the same bunch of old farts over the past 20 years to promulgate their views. Given how well-funded they are, this should be seen as proof positive that the number of so-called sceptics is abyssmally small.
> A survey of 51,000 Canadian scientists found that 68% disagreed that the science was settled.
Monckton is the one who thinks the science is settled:
> …And I’m going to show you the latest science, which now doesn’t leave the question unsettled anymore this is now settled science, it is now settled science that there is not a problem with our influence over Climate. The science is in, the truth is out and the scare is over.
> — Christopher Monckton. 10/14/9 Minnesota Free Market Institute presentation
And one last point: weathermen do not count. Most of them know bugger-all about climate.
John,so you are on the petition heh?What is your last name?I would like to check.
> In 2003, the AMS issued the position statement Climate Change Research: Issues for the Atmospheric and Related Sciences:
> Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases… Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.
Funny how the AMS don’t agree with warrenidiot.
> What is your last name?I would like to check.
Wny? The OISM didn’t bother checking any of their signatories.
Hence Dr Doom is one of the signatories of the 30,000 version of the OP. As is “Dr” Gerri Halliwell.
> And one last point: weathermen do not count
It isn’t that they do not count, but that counting them as an authority is rather like counting your dog’s vet’s opinion on your own ailments.
Jeff,that is all a load of old cobblers and you know it.If you have found 95% of blah blah blah,then you obviously need to expand your social circle outside that leftwing mob you accociate with.The number of sceptic scientists is growing like wildfire.It should not be too mmany more years,in my view,before this whole scam is over.
PS You still wont agree to debate me will you?
Gentlemen, I recommend that you do not bother expending too much energy attempting to educate ‘warren’.
In the several months since he last trolled here, he has still not been able to fathom the basic convention of including a space after punctuation marks, even when it was pointed out to him on [several](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/the_co2_is_plant_food_crock.php#comment-2775720) [occasions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/the_co2_is_plant_food_crock.php#comment-2777517).
Someone as dim as that is unlikely to ever manage to grasp even the basics of actual science, especially when his own ideology colours everything that eventually does manage to percolate into the grotto that passes for his cranial cavity.
The guy is so dense that he would make osmium blush.
Just reading over another thread and this turns up:
> > Fundamentally it is per capita emissions that count
> No. Fundamentally it is the number of “capita”‘s that counts, which absolutely no one is addressing. – ‘cos that’s not really PC is it?
Odd. Seems like someone here has seen a choice of
1) kill people off
2) drive less
and has decided that everyone should drive.
Wow,how many times do you have make an idiot of yourself before it sinks in?
Neither Doom nor Halliwell are on the list you fool!
The meteorologists surveyed were all scientists guys.
*The meteorologists surveyed were all scientists guys*
How can you verify this? What do you classify as a ‘scientist’? Someone with a degree? Or have they done empirical research? Evidence?
How many actual scientific conferences and workshops have you attended in your life, Warren? How many scientific studies have you authored? Where’s the beef? Your only exceedingly feeble riposte was to claim that all of the scientists I interact with must be left wingers. This list must run into the many hundreds, if not thousands, then Warren. And, besides, I think I know a lot more scientists personally than you do.
As for a debate, its a non-starter. For one, Warren, if your comic-level book discussions on C02 were anything to go by, then I do not understand at all why you persist. Do you understand the basics of environmental biogeochemistry and stoichiometry? No. About the importance of P and N in terms of plant quality? No. Do you understand how nutrient cycles in terrestrial and marine ecosystems regulate community and ecosystem functions? No. In any debate, you’d try to drag it down to the lowest common denominator e.g to your own exceedingly limited knowledge base. Its a waste of my time, and you know it.
Bernard said: “The guy is so dense that he would make osmium blush”.
Amen. Anyone who cites the hilarious ‘Oregon Petition’ in support of anything does not deserve to be taken seriously. Bye, Warren.
> The meteorologists surveyed were all scientists guys.
One of them was probably Anthony Watts who has NO science training beyond what he may have done in High School.
He has no further education beyond that in any discipline.
Fail to the maxxx!
You have not changed at all Jeff.Still trying to pull rank instead of arguing the science.In any debate Jeff I would make you look silly.You dont know the science anyway.You have never been able to substantiate your claims with numbers.You always hide behind your so-called “qualifications”.So go ahead genius, tell us what is wrong with the Oregon Petition.I await breathlessly.
PS I attempted to interview Gleadow[Monash Uni] about her results for Cassava plants,and she ran away when I showed that her science was bogus.And she is a doctor of biology.The story made it to England, Canada, and the US.
There is a petition going around Cancun with 1000 scientists from all over the world
warren, Morano’s list has been done to death over and over again. Your main achievement here will be yawns.
warren said: “The number of sceptic scientists is growing like wildfire.”
The fact is: [survey from 2008 compared to 1991](http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html)
Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change
S. Robert Lichter, Ph.D, April 24, 2008
STATS survey of experts reveals changing scientific opinion on global warming, extent of pressure to play up or down threat.
Over eight out of ten American climate scientists believe that human activity contributes to global warming, according to a new survey released by the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The researchers also report that belief in human-induced warming has more than doubled since the last major survey of American climate scientists in 1991.
*In any debate Jeff I would make you look silly*
You think. Keep on living in your own dream world, Warren, or whoever the heck you are. You appear to be a legend in your own mind. You have no scientific expertise whatsoever so you bluster and pontificate. The fact that you know nothing about the importance of P or N in determining plant quality and regulating community structure in terrestrial and marine food webs says all I need to know. If you want to find out more about the current concern over the loss of terrestrial P, I suggest you get off your butt and read up on it. I am not going to do your homework for you. And if you think you are so damned clever, why aren’t you extolling your wisdom in scientific journals and showing where all the rest of us are wrong? All we have is your own words that real, qualified scientists are running scared from your infinite wisdom. Where are your published rebuttals? If you think your knowledge is so profound, then lets see you submit some articles to peer-reviewed journals and see how far you get. My guess is that you will get nowhere.
And, to reiterate, the OP is a farce. The paper that accompanied the original version was even worse.
> Still trying to pull rank instead of arguing the science
compare and contrast from warrenidiot’s earlier post:
He has a very Palin look to ejumacation: if you have it, you should be ashamed, it’s only those who know nothing should be able to comment.
Tiresome windbag, isn’t he.
You nailed it. He’s a Palin redux. Or ther latest manifestation of Dunning-Kruger. The less one knows the more they think they know.
Jeff,the rebuttal to Gleadow 2009 is Imai 1983,and when I showed her that paper she ordered me out of the room and called security.Now her results have been shown to be worthless.My original critique of Gleadow was reviewed and upheld by Dr Klaus E Kaiser.He then wrote an article for Canada Free Press about it.Go there and type in gleadow for the story.Now if a dumbass like me can recognize scientific BS when I see it, and can verify it,then how is it that you can not.Email Dr kaiser and see if I am wrong.
warren, with a qick search I find [this paper](http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/2/11/3572/):
>The differences in results between the studies may have
arisen from variation in experimental duration, soil nutrient availability and soil environments, the
degree of CO2 enhancement or other growing conditions. Of these studies, only the one of shortest
duration [Imai 1983] showed an increase in mass of tuberous roots. In contrast, in our recent work [Gleadow 2009], we
found that tuberous roots were smaller and fewer in number in plants grown under elevated CO2
conditions (710 ppm).
Gee, Canada Free Press vs peer-reviewed journal, which is more reliable?
Good find Tim,I was looking for Gleadow’s latest paper.If you read both you can see that she backs away from the ‘co2 caused the lower yield’ crock.Instead she makes a pathetic attempt to say that ‘experimental duration’ was the main reason for the decrease in yield.So lets take a look at the logic of what she is trying to suggest.
Imai recorded a 3 fold Increase in biomass over 3 months.Gleadow recorded an 80% Decrease in biomass over 6 months.Now just take that in for a second.That is not a different result-it is an OPPOSITE result.And what Gleadow is trying to suggest[and she said this to me in her office] is that the main reson why Imai got increased yields is because he grew the plants for 3 months less.3 Months LESS!!So in other words the tubers on Imai’s plants would have SHRUNK if he had grown them for another 3 months.What a load of crap!Her science is rediculous and bogus.
Over at Tobis’s, there’s a dedicated open thread just for one single person (Mot Relluf) – it’s hilariously LOL funny to see how that dishonorable liar incessantly whines and whinges without success…
Warren, for those of us following along at home, why don’t you include links to some of your work?
>*Warren, for those of us following along at home, why don’t you include links to some of your work?*
Because Warren is all about noise and PR and nothing about truth seeking.
So Warren, I’m still waiting for a credible rebuttle to the scientific sampling [that found via two different methods that](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2989730) 97% or 98% of climate scientist agree with the core science.
Listing a bunch of dishonest petitions that include names like Michael J. Fox and Girm@ Orressengo is no challenge to proper a scientific comparison.
Nor is writing of all the National Academies of science convincing in the slightest. The denial you exhibit smacks of ideological corruption. What values are you trying to protect when you pursue this bankrupt argument?
A recap, warren has a history of [editing quotes to change their meaning](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/09/steven_schneider_and_the_skept.php#comment-2784644) in order to make less than honest arguments.
And to be kind we could deduce from [other attempts](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/08/the_co2_is_plant_food_crock.php#comment-2777089) at argument that warren is scientifically illiterate. If we were not being so generous our conclusions about warren would be very ugly.
Jakerman,on the Manhattan Declaration there are 206 scientists who work in climatology or closely related fields.
I suggest taking a look at what these people consider ‘closely related’. Good for a laugh.
>*What Gleadow is trying to suggest[and she said this to me in her office] is that the main reson why Imai got increased yields is because he grew the plants for 3 months less.3 Months LESS!!So in other words the tubers on Imai’s plants would have SHRUNK if he had grown them for another 3 months.What a load of crap!Her science is rediculous and bogus.*
What load of crap indeed. Warren I see from your ill conceived conclusion we are correct to be generous and allow for the likelihood you are scientifically illiterate rather than simply dishonset. But I remain open on that question given your editing of the Schneider quote.
Hey, I saw a while back (Mass Extinction #6, yr comment #85)that you eat oats for breakfast, Bernard J. And then I noted your comment #222, above, that you addressed to warren: “…he has still not been able to fathom the basic convention of including a space after punctuation marks…” Rather unexpectedly, you further tormented poor warren in your comment, Bernard J, (and here’s where it gets a little weird) by taking us all on a tour of one of warren’s bodily cavities, blushing osmiums and all.
Now all that got me thinking, Bernard J, that, like, what with your “retentive” (I’m sure you know the indelicate Freudian phrase that applies, so I don’t have to say it right out, I hope, Bernard J) “Mr. Grammar Priss” kick re-engaged and what with your oat-based diet that you’re you’re looking at, you know, like a potential and very personal Anthropogenic GHG catastrophe, if you don’t watch out.
I mean, at your age an oat-burner like you has to be careful about combining flatulence (especially when mixed with bile) with “retentiveness.” I mean, like holdin’ back all that gas pressure, well, you could, like, ‘splode, man! Probably need to give up the grammar business for a while–it’ll help you “loosen-up”–and, also, you’ll probably want to take a break from the oats too–if nothing else, it’ll improve your disposition, I’m sure.
>*I suggest taking a look at what these people consider ‘closely related’. Good for a laugh.*
Like I pointed out to Warren this number 206 even if it were 2,006 or 20,006 would still be a tiny fraction of scientist in relevant fields. Its a joke. Warren needs to address this question of [statistical sampling](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2991908).
Mike,I have been trying to think who Bernard reminds me of,with his unhealthy obsession about literary form and all that.Last night it came to me.Do you remember that episode of Seinfeld where Elaine breaks up with her boyfriend because he would not use exclamation points on his notes to her.And then Gerry says to her,”I have heard of relationships breaking up for a lot of reasons,but not punctuation!”.
That is Bernard.So how about it Bernie,with how many girlfriends have you gone sour because they did not use “a space after punctuation marks” ?
No science from Warren nor mike.
MartinM,I fail to see what you are getting at mate.
Is physics[James Hansen]a related field?
Is mathematics[Michael Mann,Gavin Schmidt]a related field?
Is chemistry[Michael Oppenheimer]a related field?
Is engeneering[Steven Schneider]a related field?
Is geography[Mark Serreze]a related field?
Is palaeontology[Tim Flannery]a related field?
PS Flannery’s undergrad degree was in English!!He has never[by his own admission] published a peer-reviewed paper in a climate related field.So by your own standard,would you describe him as “credible” ?
Warren we’re[still waiting](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2992343), let us know when you’ve got something of substance.
Jakerman,your childish desperation is obvious mate,and you are out of your depth.Now shush up and let the adults talk.
Both studies that you mentioned had very small sample sizes[77 subs in one,and 500 odd subs in the other, from memory] and as far as I have heard,they also had questionable methodology,ala Naomi Oreskes.
As for the Oregon Petition,neither MJ Fox nor Oressengo are on it, you Dropkick!
Warren, they are peer reviewed studies, and their sample size is sufficient to establish a clear consensus. In opposition to this you have nothing.
Your little boy rhetoric is transparent, and not substitute for rigorous evidence.
And I add your dismissal of the National Academies of Science is laughable.
Carry on Warren. try and find some substance to support your wild rants.
For those who are curious, it seems that warren is, by the nature of his claims, [Timothy Wells](http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/26669.html).
…you further tormented poor warren in your comment, Bernard J, (and here’s where it gets a little weird) by taking us all on a tour of one of warren’s bodily cavities, blushing osmiums and all.
Yes, it is becoming a little weird, because you seem to be implying a body cavity other than the one to which [I refered](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2990060) – the inside of warren’s skull… assuming that said object actually is possessed of a cavum.
I’m sure you know the indelicate Freudian phrase that applies…
Oh yes, I certainly do. And if you want to parade your psychological issues on Deltoid, by all means do so, but take care that you do not project them upon other folk.
And on the matter of percolating psychological issues, I note that you still haven’t been able to calm down and let go of my swipe at your poor grammar. It’s been months, dude – get over it. I guess that this explains your ironic projection of biliousness, on top of your obsession with other people’s “bodily cavities”.
Warren, BTW if you think you are more cleaver [than the NAS reviewers](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2991908) perhaps you can specific how big a sample size is required for statistical significance given the findings published.
Nice find BJ, so [these tactics](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2991998) are those of one Tim Wells.
In other news,I am sure you have all heard that the cold weather in Europe is setting record lows again.[What ever happened to the ‘snow is a thing of the past’ forecast for Britain made in the year 2000] Now ofcourse,we all know that weather is not climate,but this is now 3 years in a row for tough winters.Things are beginning to stretch a little me thinks.I play tennis with a guy who has a Russian wife,and they said to me just a week ago that the Russkies are predicting the coldest winter ‘EVER’ this time around.We will see,but it is cetainly off to good start.
>*I am sure you have all heard that the cold weather in Europe is setting record lows again.*
[Warren is a moron](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Record-high-temperatures-versus-record-lows.html).
Still [waiting Tim Wells](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2992584) (aka warren), have you got anything?
So how about it Bernie,with how many girlfriends have you gone sour because they did not use “a space after punctuation marks” ?
I dated girls who had at least a moderate degree of intelligence and/or education.
Now, could you at least attempt to demonstrate either – or both – and improve the quality of your understanding of science?
Apparently even Cancun has set a record low[10 C] during the festivities of COP 16.What with the blizzard and everything at Copenhagen last year,you guys just cant seem to catch a break on this ‘warming’ thing.Maybe Al gore was in town again.
>Now ofcourse,we all know that weather is not climate
You’ve demonstrated numerous times here that you do not, cretin.
Warren (aka Tim Wells) is [still a moron](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2992621).
So Wells, I see you [have nothing](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2992630) but empty rhetoric. My hypothesis gains more confirmation with your evasion.
Bernie,what is it,specifically, about my ‘understanding of science’ that is troubling my dear?
>*what is it,specifically, about my ‘understanding of science’ that is troubling my dear?*
Too many choices, but lets [start here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2992584).
>the IPCC’s basic assumption about the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.
So, Timothy Wells is apparently one of those “very few” morons who denies the existence of the greenhouse effect, which embarrasses his fellow travelers so much that they [keep](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/the_empirical_evidence_for_man.php#comment-2314267) [claiming](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/10/14/exclusive-michael-mann-responds-to-rep-barton/#comment-319588) he’s only a straw man.
Hey, Bernard J, could I take advantage of your super-sized erudition, for just a second or two. I’ve been trying to figure out a Latin phrase, but it has me completely stumped. So could you please reach into that grab-bag of “prig”-lets of yours and provide me with a good idiomatic English translation of the phrase: “Yo Mater!”
Mike, how did BJ embarrass you so much as to provoke your current unedifying display?
Jake,the point is that,even assuming that those surveys are accurate for the sake of the discussion,one then also has to fairly acknowledgethat there is a huge body of dissenting scientists on the other side.In that case,an objective observer would conclude 2 things.First there is no ‘consensus’,and second the science is not ‘settled’.
Bernie,what is it,specifically, about my ‘understanding of science’ that is troubling my dear?
It’s almost complete absence.
>*one then also has to fairly acknowledgethat there is a huge body of dissenting scientists*
Come on [gold fish](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2992343), shake yourself awake:
>Like I pointed out to Warren this number 206 even if it were 2,006 or 20,006 would still be a tiny fraction of scientist in relevant fields. Its a joke.
People, here’s my recommended course of action when it comes to “warren” and “mike”.
Dave,calm down and stop being so immature.No one denies the greenhouse effect or that CO2 has increased in the atmosphere blah blah blah.The assumption that the IPCC makes is that CO2 has caused most of the warming we have had in the last 150 years.That assumption is neither demonstable nor observable.The main case for attribution rests on default.IE We cant explain it any other way.This not a scientifically defensible position.As long as we continue to have a poor understanding of the climate system[which we have],we will no have no way of attributing specific climate changes to specific drivers.
Bernie,you disappoint me.I thought you going to humour me with some specifics.Dang!
Reply to yr question #265
I want to make clear at the outset that this is my last post on this thread since I don’t want to get “dis-emvowelled” for excessive comments. So I’m using up my last comment, Jakerman, to answer your question.
It seems that Bernard J considers the phrase, “fungus-among-us”, a phrase I employed to devastating effect in another blog, to be defective English. Bernard insists on the locution, “fungus-amongst-us.” See the difference? So when Bernard J cites my “poor grammar” he’s talking about the above. Pretty amazing stuff, huh?
I love the guy, despite what he thinks.
Bernard wrote,”I dated girls with…intelligence…education”
And did you learn your lesson?
[I was very specific](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2992701).
Bernard wrote,”I dated girls with…intelligence…education” And did you learn your lesson?
I learned many lessons. It’s what happens.
You could learn some yourself. In science.
Wow, mike, BJ’s point must have really cut you deep. Sorry to read about that.
Tim Wells, you still got nothing, and are [still scientifically illiterate](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2992725).
What you call indefensible is actually supported by multiple lines of evidence. Try again, but with substance next time.
It seems that Bernard J considers the phrase, “fungus-among-us”, a phrase I employed to devastating effect in another blog, to be defective English. Bernard insists on the locution, “fungus-amongst-us.” See the difference?
Mike, it seems to have sailed over your head, but I pointed out your grammatical inconsistency because you had, yourself, complained of a similar ambiguity of meaning in someone else’s post just before your own. Unfortunately, your post seems to have been binned, otherwise I’d link to it in order to point out this hypocrisy of yours that started the whole thing in the first place, and to which you have obviously remained oblivious for all of the months that you have been stewing over the matter.
Bernie,surely I must know something.The queensland university of technology let me graduate.
The problem jake is that there is no evidence that demonstrates that CO2 has caused the warming we have observed.It is an IPCC assumption only.
>*The problem jake is that there is no evidence that demonstrates that CO2 has caused the warming we have observed.It is an IPCC assumption only.*
You’re incompetent Tim Wells. [Here is some of the evidence](http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm) you are in denial of.
Britain is having the coldest December for 100 years so far.Minus 15 C in Scotland and minus 13 in England. I wonder whether it will continue?
>*Britain is having the coldest December for 100 years*
Tim Wells [is a moron](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/plot/gistemp/mean:240/plot/gistemp/last:240/trend) and has the [memory of a goldfish](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2992621).
Jake,that may be so,but you will notice that they cannot attach an emperically derived number to it.The results of both Lindzen[Erbe] and Spencer[Ceres] refute the idea that the warming is anthropgenic.
Bernie,surely I must know something.The queensland university of technology let me graduate.
A university that shall remain nameless saw fit to give Girm@ 0rrsengo a PhD.
So what is your point?
The point Dear Bernie, is that I know more about the science than you do.
Your comment #276
Man-o-Man, Bernard J, you’re causin’ me to risk another comment!
In its simplest form, Bernard J., you’re full of it. Didn’t happen the way you said. Did happen the way I said. And any Deltoid who wants to check it out, can confirm my claim by referencing the Stoat Blog’s post “Can’t think of any more amusing Curry jokes” of 30 October 2010 comments #’s 46, 64, 71, 87, and 89. The only comment in our exchange, Bernard J, that was “binned” (you’ll recall now that I’ve refreshed your memory), was the one in which you tried your hand at trash-talking and showed yourself to be a shambling dork in such matters. I was embarrassed for you. And as I recall you even issued a public apology for the spectacle you made of yourself (comment #89).
You kinda led with your chin on this one, Bernard J. I mean, like there’s a public record and all that readily exposes your little “fib.”
And I’m not “stewing” about anything. You’re a portentous prig and I like screwing with you when you deserve it. That’s all.
warren ((http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2990494), (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2990692)),
>”Now if a dumbass like me can recognize scientific BS when I see it, and can verify it,then how is it that you can not.”
>”Her science is rediculous(sic) and bogus.”
You’re a moron warren.
If you knew the first thing about science you would ask:
Was Gleadow’s experimental temperature the same as Imai’s? (they were not)
Was their daylength the same? (We cannot tell, Gleadow did not include this)
Did they use the same soil composition? (unlikely)
Did they use the same level of all essential nutrients? (unlikely)
Did they use the same irradiance? (unlikely)
Did they grow the same cassava strain? (unlikely)
Was the experimental design the same in all other aspects that could potentially influence growth rate? (no)
Since Gleadow’s experiment was plainly not an attempt to replicate Imai’s (She did not even cite Imai, and she should, which is the only major problem I see in her paper), you cannot directly compare the results. To attempt to do so, when a ‘no’ answer to any of the above questions could explain the different result, is to plainly demonstrate your woeful lack of knowledge on the issue, and how poorly equipped you are to pass judgement.
You did not even try to address the fact that CO2-enriched cassava is far more toxic than when grown under current levels.
[By the by](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2989698):
>”There is no consensus and the proof is the thousands of scientists worldwide who do not sgree(sic) with the IPCC’s basic assumption about the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.”
>”No one denies the greenhouse effect or that CO2 has increased in the atmosphere blah blah blah.”
You are a liar warren.
And learn to write. I wonder how you got to be a journalist…
Another denialist [shows the substance of their argument](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2992863)…
Tim Wells writes:
When [shown he is wrong](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2992825), Tim Wells simply shift argument to nonsense:
>*that may be so,but you will notice that they cannot attach an emperically derived number to it.
This does no way conflict with evidence that AGW is occurring due to our adding CO2, as I said there are [multiple line of evidence](http://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html) supporting AGW. That you set an impossible standard says more about you than our understanding.
Tim Wells goes on to make up more rubbish:
>*The results of both Lindzen[Erbe] and Spencer[Ceres] refute the idea that the warming is anthropgenic.*
They do no such thing, [when reviewed](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/) they don’t even stand up to scrutiny.
Tim Wells, I’m happy to inform that Lindzen is so embarrassed by is 2009 paper that he got upset when a debating opponent raised it. He thought that because he had acknowledged the serious errors in that it should be out of bounds for critique.
Not so it seems, denialist like you still bring it up despite what Lindzen was arguing about disappearing it from debate.
As you cobble together your reply to my comment #285, Bernard J, could you please quote for me the portion of your Stoat comments that addresses “ambiguity” in my use of “fungus-among-us” (I know, Deltoids, how silly this exchange sounds, but I’m dealing with Bernard J). Let me repeat, please quote the portion of your Stoat comments (as in a comment by you, Bernard J) that speaks of “ambiguity” in any form with respect to my comments (Hint: you won’t find any such thing to quote).
As for your possibly fib-based or possibly delusional recollection of a Stoat comment by me that discussed “ambiguity” with another commentator, well, that’s all news to me. I certainly don’t remember such a discussion. The closest I ever got to pointing out someone’s “ambiguity”, that I can recall, was when I invited one of Stoat’s more obnoxious pests to “Bite me!” Unfortunately, that colorful comment, that I put a lot of thought into, was “binned” just like the one where you tried to talk like some fern-bar bad-ass.
Okay, I’ve had my little say and await with anticipation your rejoinder, Bernard J, ol’ man.
Dessler [video explaining his paper](http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/09/science-cloud-feedback-likely-positive/) in cloud feedbacks.
MFS,it appears that you do not understand the scientific method.The major variable WITHIN both experiments was the CO2 concentration.That was the effect that was being studied.The differences in methodology are very likely irrelvant as the MAIN variable WITHIN both studies was CO2.Gleadow showed a big decrease in yield;Imai showed a big increase in yield.Now IF,both methodologies were VALID in terms of their efficacy to obtain meaningful data,then it naturally begs the question,”Why do we have OPPOSITE results?” Generally in science this kind of result would smell very much like an error of some sort-either in the methodology OR in the data processing stage.[I actually put this question to Gleadow and she angrily dismissed it].Slight differences in method for studying the same variable should give slightly DIFFERENT results-not OPPOSITE results.So there is the delemma-how do we find out which is the most likely study to have made an error or whose result are less convincing?The only thing we can do is look at other work done on this particular variable[CO2]in regards to it’s effect on crop yieldsIE The same aim as that of the 2 studies.So we go to people like Kimball who was cited in both studies,and who found that in 430 prior observations,the average increase in yield was 33%.BUT,Cassava is a root/tuber plant so we should also look studies on those kinds of crops.Again we find that the yields are almost always increased.Eg Potato,Konjack etc.
Now given also the vast number of studies on plants other than crops,which show the same results of incresed biomass,then we can safely conclude that Imai’s results are consistent with the mainstream science and Gleadow’s results are not consistent with it.
PS MFS,only the leaves of cassava are more toxic,not the economically valuable roots.
Thanks for the Dessler article Jake,it is a good one.All I can say is,”the debate goes on”.
>*All I can say is,”the debate goes on”.*
Not where you were claiming it was. The debate is right up where the IPCC said it was.
I play tennis with a guy who has a Russian wife,and they said to me just a week ago that the Russkies are predicting the coldest winter ‘EVER’ this time around.
Is that this denialist scam?
Chris,yes it very well may be.They did not tell me the source of their information.It appears that there isn’t any substance to it then.
Don’t waste your time debating with Tim Wells. He does not understand the basics of C or N-based plant allelochemistry or of the simple fact that if you increase concentrations of atmospheric C, plants with C-based allelochemicals will invest more in defense, in both roots and shoots. Many of these compounds are synthesized in root tissues and delivered to above-ground shoots either systemically or locally. At the other end of the spectrum, plants with N-based allelochemistry may be forced to reduce investment in defense as N is shunted from plant tissues in favor of increased C. Moreover, at the moment, the depletion of P from terrestrial ecosystems is of profound concern. Much of it is ending up in aquatic systems where a lot is not recycled.
At the larger scale, there are bound to be competetive asymmetries in the effects of increasing atmospheric C on terrestrial communities. Given the scale of the atmopsheric experiment humanity is conducting, it is ludicrous, as Wells does, to try and extropolate primary productivity, systemic resistance, resilience and stability on the results of (mostly) small scale greenhouse experiments conducted in microcosms. These greenhouse experiments exclude consumer-level interactions, and thus are ecophysiologically flawed. Most of the studies that Wells posted up here a few months ago were done in greenhouses where abiotic conditions were strictly controlled; there were also no biotic constraints. Researchers like Rick Lindroth, who have worked in this field for years, always warn of the potentially deleterious consequences of rapidly increasing atmospheric concentrations of C on the structure, health and functioning of natural ecosystems. As I said above, the effects will be asymmetrical: some species will do very well, others less well and still others poorly. This will lead to shifts in dominance hierarchies amongst plant species and it is likely that natural systems will be greatly simplified, thereby making them more prone to collapse.
What I am doing here is invoking standard ecological theory (this goes back to the times of pioneering ecologists like Odom, Elton, Hutchinson, Gleason, and others) by integrating the effects of one parameter (C02) on a suite of above- and below ground processes in complex adaptive systems. Pretty much the entire community of plant and population ecologists would agree with me that it is impossible to conclude that increasing C02 levels in the atmosphere will yield net benefits for nature and for humanity. This is voodoo science. I have a colleague here who did his PhD on plant insect interactions under increased C02 and I discussed with him some of the comments made by Curtin and Wells on recent Deltoid threads, and he was, lest I say, shocked at the simple correlations they have drawn.
When Wells writes, “Jeff,the rebuttal to Gleadow 2009 is Imai 1983″, he cannot be serious. A rebuttal published 26 years earlier?
Lastly, note how hypocritical Wells is. He cites the OP as an example where scientists are challenging the AGW orthodoxy, then later argues that some weathermen, most who probably have basic degrees and have never done any research in their lives, are ‘scientists’. Then later, he accuses me of ‘not knowing the science’ in a field that is related to the one I have worked in as a scientist for the past 10 years. Basically what Wells is saying is this: “Any qualification, no matter how shoddy, matters if you agree with me and makes you a scientist; by contrast, those who disagree with me, no matter how qualified they are and what their pedigree is in science, are not really qualified scientists and are to be dismissed”. How else can one sum up his position?
[Timothy Wells](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/11/open_thread_56.php#comment-2992725) aka “warren”:
>No one denies the greenhouse effect
You’ve effectively denied it several times here, for example [this thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/ian_plimer_lies_about_source_o.php#comment-1642284) and [this thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/monckton_caught_making_things.php#comment-1628960) both from May 2009 and [this one](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/09/john_mashey_recommends_climate.php#comment-1958182) from September 2009 in which [you were banned](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/09/john_mashey_recommends_climate.php#comment-1958528), hence your new alias.
Current ye@r *
Leave this field empty
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.