November 2011 Open Thread

Comments

  1. #1 ianam
    November 6, 2011

    #88

    Appalling stupidity, not worth further comment.

  2. #2 Chris O'Neill
    November 6, 2011

    Self-professed ignoramus Duff:

    standby for incoming

    Still waiting.

  3. #3 ianam
    November 6, 2011

    He’s already admitted he didn’t want to accept AGW so he just shopped around until he found some reasons to doubt it.

    As he reiterates with

    you pick your swots and I’ll pick mine!

    But, being not just utterly dishonest but dumber than a doorknob, he can’t grasp that all the “swot”‘s agree with the statement but that it’s no more relevant than someone looking at waves of water traveling up a ramp and claiming that there’s no upward motion because, if you pick a distance less than a wavelength and the right starting point, it appears that the water is descending. You can show an idiot like Duff a picture of the water going up the ramp and they will still point you to a ramp-denial website with a graph of the tail of the wave and a negative trendline.

  4. #4 silkworm
    November 6, 2011

    Dishonest Duff is more than just a right wing twerp. He is a crypto-creationist twerp. Just look at the way he admires arch-creationist Steve Fuller.

    There is a large strain of Christian conservatism, including creationists, fundamentalists and evangelicals, that finds theological justification for denying AGW: humans cannot threaten global catastrophe; only God can destroy the planet, as he did in the past with Noah’s flood. Climatologist Roy Spencer is one of these.

    At first, Spencer set out to disprove that global warming was happening at all. Spencer published false satellite data that allegedly showed tropospheric cooling, but when these data were proven false, Spencer changed tack. Now adopting the mantle of a free market advocate – and he is in receipt of money from oil companies like Exxon-Mobil – Spencer claims that climate change is occurring, but is not human-caused. (On his blog, he states “Climate change — it happens, with or without our help.”)

    He does the rounds claiming “climate is self-stabilizing due to large negative feedbacks,” but this hides his real belief that God is behind the changing climate.

    Spencer lays out some of his his AGW-creationist theology here:

    http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2004/07/gaia-or-god.html

    Although it’s mainly an anti-Green diatribe, his opposition to environmentalism is largely theological, which he hints at here:

    For most people, either you believe that the world has been created for mankind’s use, with a certain resiliency and stability, or you believe it is just a cosmic accident, fragile, and overly sensitive to our meddling.

    The theology behind that statement is not clear, but it is spelled out in the first article of faith of the Cornwall Alliance, of which Spencer is a member of the board of advisors:

    We believe Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception. Recent global warming is one of many natural cycles of warming and cooling in geologic history.

    http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/

    The Cornwall Alliance quote makes it quite plain that the Earth’s climate systems are an Intelligent Design issue.

  5. #5 Bernard J.
    November 7, 2011

    Silkworm.

    The Cornwall Alliance’s “evangelical declaration on global-warming” raises an interesting question, to wit: when the Arctic sea ice eventually melts completely in summer, is the existence of God thus disproved by the Alliance’s own criteria?

    And if there is back-pedalling on the eventual occurrence of such melting, will there be an admission of the non-existence of God when the global anomaly exceeds 3C? 4C? 5C?

    What about when global sea level increases by 1 metre? 2 metres? 5? 10?

    At some point humans will change the ecology and the climate of the planet to such an extent that no reasonable person could claim that God is “sustain[ing the planet] by His faithful providence”. It would seem to me that the Cornwall Alliance has a priori written the obituary for Christianity’s God, as perceived by modern Fundamentalists.

  6. #6 Adam
    November 7, 2011

    I find it ironic that many creationists who refuse to accept AGW and instead support the confusion sown by Oil companies. Oil companies, of course, supply “fossil” fuels.

  7. #7 Lotharsson
    November 7, 2011

    > …will there be an admission of the non-existence of God when the global anomaly exceeds 3C? 4C? 5C?

    Of course not!

    The first rule of fundamentalist religion is that *all* evidence *always* demonstrates that your religion is correct (even if this requires refuting your own earlier claims that you (say) understood God’s will on a particular matter, preferably not noticing the contradiction).

    The second rule of fundamentalist religion is that you don’t mention the first rule – not even to yourself.

  8. #8 Jeremy C
    November 7, 2011

    Silkworm,

    The Cornwall Alliance is a response to the gathering awareness amongst conservative evangelical groups that trashing the environment is not consistent with God’s idea of stewardship. A number of evangelical leaders were put wise to the science behind AGW and the ideology of deniers by John Houghton who is also an evangelical christian.

    So obviously the deniers have to stop that taking hold.

    I find the language used by the Cornwall Alliance on their website very clever. They fill it with the sort of words and phrases certain types of evangelicals quite often respond to. You can’t overestimate how cunning deniers can be when they target specific groups.

  9. #9 jrkrideau
    November 7, 2011

    @103
    “I find it ironic that many creationists who refuse to accept AGW and instead support the confusion sown by Oil companies. Oil companies, of course, supply “fossil” fuels.”

    This is simply a misnomer as all funtementalists know. Oil actually comes from deep within the earth’s mantle and is constantly oozing upward. No “fossil” involved. I have actually heard this from a fundie a couple of years ago as he denied that there was any change of Peak Oil.

    See “Abiogenic petroleum origin” for more on this. To be fair, the generally respected 20th C scientist, Thomas Gold, espoused this theory.

  10. #10 Lionel A
    November 7, 2011

    Abiotic oil, yes I have come across this silly meme too (look up Oil is Mastery if you have some time to waste), one frequently associated with the idea that the Earth is expanding with the near fit of the Eastern coastline of South America with the West coast of Africa being the proof – an expanding jig-saw puzzle.

  11. #11 Gaz
    November 7, 2011

    The carbon tax, the prelude to a greenhosue gas emissions cap and trade scheme, was just passed by the Australian Senate and so will now become law.

    Maybe now our descendants will not judge us quite so harshly.

  12. #12 Bernard J.
    November 7, 2011

    [Gaz](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/november_2011_open_thread.php#comment-5767211).

    Hopefully so.

    And hopefully our descendants will see the climate change denialists, and the politicians and vested interests who are trying to resist appropriately pricing carbon, for the selfish, planet- and future-damaging vandals that they are.

  13. #13 Gaz
    November 7, 2011

    Don’t hold back, now, Bernard – tell us what you *really* think!

  14. #14 Chris O'Neill
    November 8, 2011

    As part of a TV news item on the passing of the Carbon tax by the Australian Senate, I noticed the most ironically named position in Australian politics that is held by Geoff Hunt. It is: Opposition spokesman for climate action.

  15. #16 mike
    November 8, 2011

    Hey Deltoids!

    Kinda special occasion here in Deltoid-land that deserves comment, I think.

    The Jonas thread has postively blown through the 2,000 comment mark and now registers 2,020 comments and climbing.

    Curiously, the very first comment in the Jonas thread boasted, “Deltoid, the place where trolls come to die.”

    Perhaps you Deltoids might find it interesting that all of the other Deltoid posts since 12 Sept, the date Jonas was banished to his ghetto-thread, have attracted, in total, a mere 965 comments. Yep, less than half the number appearing on the Jonas thread.

    I dunno, guys, but it looks like Jonas didn’t “die” after all. Rather, he and his thread appear to be the only signs of vitality in the whole of the Deltoid bad-lands. Indeed, it might be said that the Jonas thread has swallowed the Deltoid blog whole.

    So let me get this straight, Deltoids. You lefties can’t even construct a decent memory-hole anymore? And that used to be one of your supreme specialties. What a bunch of useless-eaters!

  16. #17 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    November 8, 2011

    mike:

    > Rather, he and his thread appear to be the only signs of vitality in the whole of the Deltoid bad-lands.

    Yep, indeed, just a mass of crawling cockroaches and maggots in mountain of garbage is a sign of “vitality” compared to those lifeless plates of food being served up in those restaurants.

    > Indeed, it might be said that the Jonas thread has swallowed the Deltoid blog whole.

    Yeah, I agree that if you keep paying attention to the cockroaches and maggots, you can get that impression…

    — frank

  17. #18 mike
    November 8, 2011

    @ no. 114

    So the Jonas thread is crawling with “cockroaches and maggots”, is it? Well, let’s just pick out some of those creepy-critters:

    Wow
    Jeff Harvey
    John Mashey
    Eli Rabett
    chek
    Bernard J (incidentally, BJ, seems to be using the Jonas thread to set up some sort of inter-net gambling operation–is that legal?)
    Neven

    And a whole bunch of other guys you’d know, frank.

    “Cockroaches and maggots”–I dunno, frank, that’s a little harsh. I mean it works and all, I’m not disputing that, but let me just say, non-judgementally, that I wouldn’t have called them that.

  18. #19 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    November 8, 2011

    Oh, them. They’re doing the work of janitors. Beneath them, I’d say.

    So what’s next? A blog thread taken over by spammers is also a sign of “vitality”?

    — frank

  19. #20 Wow
    November 8, 2011

    > to set up some sort of inter-net gambling operation–is that legal

    Only if you ascribe to government interference in the private actions of individuals and the free market necessary, mike.

    Then again you’re a greedy coward without the courage to put your money where your mouth is.

  20. #21 mike
    November 8, 2011

    @ no. 116

    “Janitors”? No, frank, janitors perform honest labor–a noble, if under-appreciated, craft. So that nomenclature doesn’t work, frank. The more I think about it, your original “cockroaches and maggots” is the best terminology after all. Add “useless-eaters” and I’ll got with it, frank.

    So, frank, maybe I misunderstood, but you seemed to make out in your last comment that you and your greenshirt soul-mates here on Deltoid are superior to janitors. Did I get something wrong there? So do you and your pals, frank, think you’re superior to janitors and their honest labors?

  21. #22 Wow
    November 8, 2011

    Yes, mike, honest work is something you can’t recognise, since you’ve never done an honest days work in your life.

    Just trolled and rolled.

  22. #23 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    November 8, 2011

    mike:

    You know, when you keep shifting your ‘arguments’ just to attack other people with no regard for consistency, it makes you look stupid. And more importantly, it makes you become stupid.

    Either you think that the “Jonas thread” is a supreme model of “life” and “vitality” unlike the surrounding “badlands”, or you think it’s a mountain of garbage filled with cockroaches and maggots. If you try to think both at the same time, your brain will explode (or maybe it already has).

    — frank

  23. #24 mike
    November 8, 2011

    @ no. 117

    You say, Wow, “…you’re [moi]…without the courage to put your money where your mouth is.” Or, just possibly, I’m smart enough not to place any bets with a welcher like you, Wow. Actually, it’s the latter, Wow.

    And then, I don’t wager as a matter of principle. Get involved with that nasty vice and you end up in the unsavory company of people like you, Wow, and BJ. Not my kind of people.

  24. #25 mike
    November 8, 2011

    @ no. 120

    frank, you are good. I gotta admit it. Can’t get over on you. O. K. you’ve forced me to it–the guys mentioned by name in comment no. 115, above, are a bunch of “cockroaches and maggots” just like you say. Happy now, frank?

  25. #26 Wow
    November 8, 2011

    > Or, just possibly, I’m smart enough not to place any bets with a welcher like you

    Thereby showing how little you read, since it was Bernard J who proposed it.

    Given your howler here, who believes you’ve read anything before coming to your “conclusions” earlier..!

  26. #27 bill
    November 8, 2011

    re #111 : ‘Opposition spokesman for climate action.’

    That’s what we call a carbondioxymoron.

  27. #28 Bernard J.
    November 9, 2011

    [Mike](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/november_2011_open_thread.php#comment-5775524):

    >I dunno, guys, but it looks like Jonas didn’t “die” after all.

    [Wanna bet](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5784133)?

    >And then, I don’t wager as a matter of principle. Get involved with that nasty vice and you end up in the unsavory company of people like you, Wow, and BJ. Not my kind of people.

    I’ve never placed a bet in my life. I’m more than willing to start though, if it means taking Jonas N and his mates to the meat of their contradictions of professional science. It is extremely interesting that the intellectual exercise of attempting to make Jonas N and his cronies stand by their claims, completely escapes you.

    Oh, and mike… if you find “unsavoury” the company of people who trust heavily peer-reviewed, and heavily tested and re-tested, science, then you’ll probably find that the company that you do keep is most undesirable indeed…

  28. #29 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    November 9, 2011

    mike:

    O. K. you’ve forced me to it–the guys mentioned by name in comment no. 115, above, are a bunch of “cockroaches and maggots” just like you say. Happy now, frank?

    But didn’t you say the “Jonas thread” is a sterling example of “life” and “vitality” earlier? So how can it also be infested with cockroaches and maggots?

    That’s the problem with you denialists — you don’t care a damn about finding the truth. The thing is, there’s a truth about the world, and we know that this truth has to abide by certain rules — you know, simple things such as ‘a single person can’t be physically be in two places at the same time’. So those of us who care about the truth also care about abiding by these rules.

    You, on the other hand, are just throwing out random bullshit to attack other people, and you don’t care if the random bullshit doesn’t make sense when put together. You hate the idea of truth-seeking.

    And that, my friend, is why your global warming “skepticism” is bullshit.

    — frank

  29. #30 ConnorJ
    November 12, 2011

    Steve McIntyre is dog-whistling to his readers, linking Mike Mann to the paedophile football coach, which his readers picked up on by the first comment with this gem:

    “First the Hockey Team, now the Football Team!”

    Could the deniers really stoop any lower? What sort of character assassination is it to try and link climate scientists to a child molester on the basis that they both worked at the same university?

    http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/10/penn-state-president-fired/#comments

  30. #31 Bernard J.
    November 12, 2011

    >Steve McIntyre is dog-whistling to his readers, linking Mike Mann to the paedophile football coach, which his readers picked up on by the first comment with this gem:

    >”First the Hockey Team, now the Football Team!”

    And picked up by the odious Aynsley Kellow, no less.

    Personally, I think people who try to confabulate Person A with Person B, simply because both people work at the same (very large) institution, and because it serves the confabulators’ ideological purposes to so do, are really not much better (and perhaps not any better at all), than the kiddy-fiddlers they use for the shit-smearing.

    And in case it doesn’t click for any dog-whistler sympathisers reading, I did not confabulate…

  31. #32 ianam
    November 12, 2011

    Or, just possibly, I’m smart enough not to place any bets with a welcher like you, Wow. Actually, it’s the latter, Wow.

    And then, I don’t wager as a matter of principle.

    The last sentence makes a lie of the one that preceded it.

  32. #33 mike
    November 12, 2011

    Hey Deltoids!

    Well, I see my latest foray into Deltoid-land has yielded, in reply, a rich crop of those literal-minded, dreadfully serious, can’t-take-a-joke, aren’t-I-a-smarty-pants, I’m-so-much-better-than-janitors, self-important, wonder-why-I-can’t-get-a-date, sanctimonious,idiot comments for which you Deltoids are famous. BJ was the only disappointment in that his response, by Deltoid standards, was almost that of a normal human being. But frank more than compensated for BJ’s lapse.

    But unlike the other comments I received, ianam’s bold bid (comment no. 129) to break into the inner-circle of Deltoid’s atomic-brain trust is worth a few individualized moments of my precious time.

    You say, ianam, “The last sentence makes a lie of the one that preceded it.” (again, comment no. 129). Well, I hate to break to you ianam, since I can see you’re really straining to make a good impression on your fellow useless-eaters here in Deltoid-land, but the last sentence does not make a lie of the one that preceded it. Sorry, guy–it is possible to both not wager, as a matter of principle, and to be smart enough not to make a bet with a welcher like wow.

    Let me put it in this form, ianam, since I can see that beneath your big-brain pretensions you’re actually a rather slow-witted wannabe: I don’t wager as a matter of principle, but if I ever chose to place a bet then I’m smart enough not to bet with a welcher like wow. Get it?

    You know, guys, I’ve come to expect your usual dork-ball, hyper-excited, booger-flicks in my direction, but ianam’s doofus, look-like-a-real-weener-head screw-up was a bit of a pleasant surprise. Thanks ianam–you made my day.

  33. #34 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    November 12, 2011

    OK, so to mike, the “Jonas thread” is both a sterling example of “life” and “vitality”, and a mountain of garbage infested with cockroaches and maggots, and the rest of Deltoid is nothing but “bad-lands” and a bunch of people who are “sanctimonious” and also prone to “hyper-excited booger-flicks”.

    You need to try and stop mixing so many metaphors together, because they’re turning your brain into mush.

    — frank

  34. #35 chek
    November 12, 2011

    What you have to remember Frank, is that that little brain-wank was the closest li’ll mike will get to an orgasm this year. Or next.

    I also notice he’s desperately trying to enhance his non-existent, tough, militaristic self-image with a third hand Alex Jonesism, so be careful not to mess with such an intellect.

  35. #36 chek
    November 12, 2011

    OK, I’ve reconsidered. Ha ha, great joke.

    Just as Roger Pielke Snr. might like to slip into a cocktail dress and be called ‘Muriel’ on a Saturday night, it’s not inconceivable that RP Jnr. might like to slip into a moron costume and call himself ‘mike’ sometimes.

    Very funny Roger, and btw, you’re still a disgrace to academia.

  36. #37 Lotharsson
    November 12, 2011

    Too good not to share. Peter Fitzsimmons [writes](http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/no-airs-or-graces-for-barnaby-20111112-1ncnv.html):

    > EVERY now and then in governments around the world, when issues arise in things such as the purity of water and the safety or otherwise of drinking it, we see politicians and administrators take up a glass of said water and – always smilingly – drink deep as the cameras roll. It restores public confidence and demonstrates that the politicians actually mean what they say and their word can be counted on. Right now, the issue before us is the purity or otherwise of the air. Around the world, tens of thousands of reputable climate scientists are united in their view that our air has too much carbon dioxide, which is doing terrible damage to the planet. People such as Senator Barnaby Joyce and Alan Jones, however, contend that it is all a nonsense and because carbon dioxide is ”a colourless, odourless gas”, there is no problem with it. Does it not stand to reason, therefore, that both men should be encouraged to sit outside Parliament House for an hour in a glass box filled with CO2 to demonstrate to us all that because it is colourless and odourless, there is no problem with it? And be encouraged to take into that box all other commentators who put forward that brain-dead line of argument?

  37. #38 ianam
    November 12, 2011

    mike is stupid and envious that we aren’t. And if someone doesn’t bet on principle, then they are simply lying if they say that on a specific occasion the reason they didn’t bet is because they are smart enough not to bet with a welcher. And of course in all that verbal diarrhea mike spewed, nowhere did he justify the claim that Wow is a welcher. mike, you’re a lying asshole and you will never get anyone here to think otherwise of you so you might as well stop trolling.

  38. #39 rhwombat
    November 12, 2011

    OK people. Lets just remind ourselves who and what the mike troll is: a marginally self-aware sociopathic loser, lost in the intellectual wasteland of the US Wingnutopia, desperately trying to be noticed by those he envies and fears. The repetitive puerile taunting stuff looks a lot like developmental arrest (as per lb’s spousal analysis – in fact I think he (mike) once claimed to have discussed his trolling to his therapist!) possibly at the age he developed his horror of paedophilia. Draw your own conclusions.

    I suspect his incursions into the Open Threads at chez Lambert is a form of self treatment. Anyone who is awestruck by the Jonastrolls (Ooh! Ooh! Can I join your gang? Pleeeease!), and measures impact by comment numbers should probably be pitied and ignored. Perhaps we should be gentler and more tolerant of his foibles?…Nah…lets pile on!

  39. #40 mike
    November 13, 2011

    @ 136

    *[Comment deleted. Mike, from now on please post only to the Jonas thread. Thank you.]*

  40. #41 John
    November 13, 2011

    Yes Mike, we know you have a deep seated and visceral hatred of anybody you perceive to be smarter than yourself. We know you like to deal with this by hurling juvenile abuse around to garner reactions and prove to yourself that you are superior to the “intellectuals”. We know you are a sad little man and I pity that you choose to waste your twilight years trying to protest that you aren’t a paedophile in vain on a science website.

    I notice Mike’s delivery style is identical to Duff’s – what is it with right-wing anti-intellectual trolls trying to prove that they’re actually intelligent with empty verbosity?

    I’m sure there’s a YouTube comments thread out there that’s just right for you Mike.

  41. #42 rhwombat
    November 14, 2011

    Just as a coda to mike@137, and as a case study in psychopathology for those who don’t like paddling in the troll-tank, mike posted this after being confined in the Jonas oubliette:

    @ 2239
    Hey rhwombat, get your ginzu-samurai butt over to the dictionary and look up “Pyrrhic Victory.”
    Yeah, I suspected that you were taking the discussion on the November 2011 Open Thread in a direction that you hoped would lead to my further marginalization. After all, your tactic had previously gotten me confined to the Open Threads, so it wasn’t as if I were unaware of the potential for more of the same.
    So you might wonder why I so recklessly “took your bait.” Well, to understand that, rhwombat you have to consider the curious history of my engagement with this so-called “science” blog.
    In my earliest visits with my dear Deltoids, I just randomly dropped troll-bombs intended to maliciously screw with my good buddies’ heavy-petting group-think. And, for the most part, my earliest comments were either quickly deleted or dis-emvowelled (although, most usually, their loss was immediately preceded by a flurry of awkward, undergarment adjustments by Deltoids in the organ loft). But to my astonishment a few of my “Deltoids are Dorks with Zits” comments survived–despite frantic calls by the Deltoid laity and lesser clergy to excommunicate me from the blog altogether.
    That earliest experience helped me to work up my troll-act so that more and more of my good stuff survived–either altogether or, if deleted, lost only after the comment had remained up for most of the day. Indeed, in one remarkable instance, I lost all of my October 2011 Open Thread comments to moderation. But, then, suddenly and miraculously they re-appeared as if raised from the dead (even the one where I called Bernard J. a “pompous ass blowhard”). That, if nothing else, convinced me of my “value” to this blog.
    For a while there, I was puzzled by the forbearance of the blog-master for my “juvenile” jibes aimed at Deltoid’s up-tight rectors and parvenu, front-pew burghers and their greenshirt pieties and status-anxiety. But ultimately I discovered the solution to the puzzle. In a catty little comment on Eli’s blog, the Rabbet, himself, disparaged Deltoid’s “troll parade”, indulged for the sake of running up page-view and comment counts.
    As you can imagine, rhwombat, Eli’s slip was a liberating revelation for me. I suddently realized I couldn’t loose. As long as I kept my troll-work entertaining, I estimated I could probably get in a good long run of free-wheeling Deltoid baiting before the blog-master judged the risk of losing the congregation out-weighed the benefits of a fuller collection-plate. So throwing all caution to the wind, I just had a good time, secure in the notion that when the curtain at last and inevitably closed on me, I’d have the final satisfaction of taking my not-inconsequential page-view and comment counts with me. A win either way, as I both saw and see it.
    I mean, think about it rhwombat, why would anyone choose this blog for the spectacle of a bunch of weener-head pricks, like you, rhwombat, groping up their goobers and swallowing them whole when they can get the same thing, but with better quality, at Eli’s blog? Or even at the hen-house–if you have a taste for its kinky blend of old-biddies, useless-pecker capons, and shewonk’s cutesy-wutsey chickenshit.
    No, rhwombat, sorry to burst your bubble. Deltoid’s blog-traffic in not driven by the likes of you, but by trolls like me. And us trolls win either way.
    Posted by: mike | November 14, 2011 12:16 PM

    He’s really quite interesting…a totally self-absorbed sociopath, but quite interesting in an American gothic sort of way. I don’t think he gets the bit about qualitative communication with peers – or playing well with others, I pity his therapist.

  42. #43 jakerman
    November 14, 2011

    Mikey fails to even question why he’d want to increase the hits and traffic at deltoid.

    I’m sure he can fabricate some post-hoc rationale for this.

  43. #44 John
    November 14, 2011

    He admittedly comes here to troll yet sooks like a child and invents conspiratorial stories about being silenced when his posts are routinely moderated (as many of our posts are). He also expends a lot more energy than we do but thinks he’s gained some kind of victory.

    Draw your own conclusions on this nutcase.

  44. #45 Bernard J.
    November 15, 2011

    (PentaxZ says](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5844200):

    >And so, what is then 1+1, stupid?

    and [also says](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5844130) (of the proportion of scientists who accept the human-caused global warming model):

    >It’s most certanly isn’t woting [sic], or as you call it, consensus, allthough [sic] 0.0024% really isn’t that much.

    [My emboldened emphasis]

    Astounding irony, coupled with a profound lack of self-awareness.

  45. #46 Bernard J.
    November 15, 2011

    Oops, that last was supposed to be a comment about Lomborg landing in Australia to unspruik the price on carbon.

    Somehow I copied an unedited version of my post on another thread.

    Doh.

    Can’t be bothered to rewrite the Lomberg comment. Just know that he’s here.

  46. #47 chek
    November 15, 2011

    You also have to place it in context Bernard.

    So far the Scancinavian Massive have used – amongst the paucity of references requested for their claims, Delingpole, ‘Goddard’, Monckton and ‘Nova’ as their “primary sources”.

    ‘Nuff said.

  47. #48 SteveC
    November 17, 2011

    The OO runs a piece by Bjorn Lomborg who was in Oz recently.

    Lomborg predictably says the carbon price (or “carbon tax” as Lomborg calls it) adopted here won’t do anything to fix climate change (well derr…), nor have the Euro carbon pricing schmes made any impact. This is as sensible as pointing out that it’s pointless running the first 100 yards of a marathon because there’s still 26 miles 285 yards to go.

    Nonetheless his point that $100bn/ year (0.2% of global GDP) spent on funding renewable energy sources could make a significant dent in current GHG emissions is a lot more helpful than a lot of what he’s said in the past.

  48. #49 StevoR
    November 18, 2011

    Open letter to the Climatologists

    To all the climatologists (or do you prefer the term “climate scientists” now?) working on understanding the Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating (HIRGO as I prefer to call “global Warming”) that may, hopefully, be reading this :

    I just want to let you all know that you have my respect and my admiration and my thanks.

    I know you face death threats from the gibbering idiots out there just for doing your jobs and doing them well. I know you have had your patience tested and your words and integrity rudely, unjustly and tediously questioned by ignorami driven by ideology who wouldn’t know good science and reality if it kicked them in the groin.

    I think the way you’ve been treated in the (non-scientific) “debate” over the reality of HIRGO has been an inexcusable disgrace and that its long since time people gave as much respect to NASA’s (& other institutions) top climatologists they do to NASA’s top rocket scientists and flight surgeons. Plus, naturally this applies to the non-NASA climatologists from other research instititions, universities and miscellaneous other bodies around the world.

    If any climate scientists are reading this comment – please pass on my thanks and appreciation to your colleagues and reassure them all that there’s a truckload of people out there willing to listen and cheering you on. I’m just one of them.

    Thankyou again, please keep up your good work & best regards :

    – Stevo Raine

  49. #50 StevoR
    November 18, 2011

    BTW. Don’t know if this news has been mentioned yet but just in case it hasn’t been :

    Mann to receive Hans Oeschger Medal from European Geosciences Union

    UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — Michael Mann, professor of meteorology and geosciences and director, Earth System Science Center, Penn State, was awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal of the European Geosciences Union. The medal was established in 2001 in recognition of the scientific achievements of Hans Oeschger to honor outstanding scientists whose work is related to climate: past, present and future.

    See :

    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/11/michael_mann_gets_hans_oeschge.php

    For the full (?) press release & more via Greg laden’s blog.

    Congrats to Mike Mann. :-)

  50. #51 Fran Barlow
    November 18, 2011

    SteveC said:

    Nonetheless his point that $100bn/ year (0.2% of global GDP) spent on funding renewable energy sources could make a significant dent in current GHG emissions is a lot more helpful than a lot of what he’s said in the past.

    I’m not sure thst it is. It’s as impressive as saying we’d be better off spending it on preventing malaria. He has no interest in the things he says. It’s mere eyewash to cover the fact that he is calling for the biosphere to be treated as a free industrial sewer and for the burden of this remedy to the damage caused by the polluters to the commons to be borne almost entirely by … the commons.

  51. #52 Fran Barlow
    November 18, 2011

    Yes … congrats to Michael Mann. He has done us all a great service, and not merely as a consequence of good science. That hockey stick has annoyed the deniers for years. Fabulous stuff.

    Whenever I get a real crank, I point them to the hockey stick.

  52. #53 Fran Barlow
    November 18, 2011

    What sort of character assassination is it to try and link climate scientists to a child molester on the basis that they both worked at the same university?

    I don’t know, but I will say that breathing from the same pool of air as the deniers does leave a bad taste in my mouth. I’m also not sure that enemies of action on climate change stand ethically higher than child m*lesters. In the case of the latter, the scope of their potential harm is far smaller than the former, and it seems that a good many of them were victims of abuse themselves. Unless someone can show that some form of abuse addled the minds of those ranged against this critical area of public policy, I’d say the latter can indeed look down on the former.

  53. #54 ianam
    November 18, 2011

    Here is the correct Michael Mann link. (Tim, you should change the configuration for the comment box; Hardly anyone knows Markdown or pays attention to the explanation of how to make links with it.)

  54. #55 StevoR
    November 18, 2011

    David Duff | November 3, 2011 7:53 AM :

    “I view all experts in anything with cynical suspicion for the simple reason that I have lived long enough to have experienced the scientific certainties of the 1950s overturned in the 1960s and then the certainties that replaced them overturned yet again in the 1970s, and so on ad infinitum!”

    So David Duff, you do all your own electrical wiring and plumbing and brain surgery then!? If you or someone else in your family is sick you treat the illness just on your own instead of going to a medical expert a.k.a. a doctor? I don’t think so!

    There’s a reason experts are called experts and why they’re the ones who get called on for specific purposes when great expertise is needed in specific fields – like rocket engineering, neurosurgery and climatology.

    Also are you saying that as our scientific understanding of things improves, as we change and refine our ideas and applications based on those ideas, as we learn more and know better, science becomes *less* rather than *more* worthy of our trust and respect?! Really?

    “Global cooling was stamped on by the ‘Warmers’ in the 1980s but now I am beginning to pick up hints and suggestions that when the cooling comes (as it likely will in my view) it is all part of the, er, warming.”

    You know there never was much scientific talk of gobal cooling even back in the 1970s. The popular press wrote a few stories about it and that was all. Most of the climatologists even back then were well aware of Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating (HIRGO) and its likely problems to our way of life.

    When do you expect to see your “global cooling” occur or become clearly apparent exactly?

    How long must temperatures continue to climb, how many hottest years or decades do you need before youadmit you might have got thinsg a smidgin wrong?

    In the immortal words of Richard Littlejohn, ‘you couldn’t make it up’ – well, some science swots make some things up sometimes – and they are ‘very naughty boys’!

    Citations and specifics needed. What precisely have the scientists you refer to (which are who exactly btw?) made up, why haven’t these errors been exposed by peer review and what EVIDENCE do you actually offer to support your rather slanderous albeit exceptionally vague allegations there?

  55. #56 StevoR
    November 18, 2011

    @151. ianam | November 18, 2011 3:17 AM :

    Thanks for that. I tried to fix that a few times but couldn’t get the link to work via cut’n’paste. Cheers.

  56. #57 StevoR
    November 18, 2011

    A goofd, informative and enteratining source for more about the whole “they thought it was cooling in the 1970’s” myth can be found here :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M&list=PL029130BFDC78FA33&index=44&feature=plpp_video

    If the link is working right this time. (Or cut’n’paste :

    “In the 70s, They said there’d be an Ice Age” Greenman3610

    into the Youtube search box. Do we have a special different procedural thing with posting links here or something?)

    I guess most of the folks here have heard of /seen Peter “Greenman3610″ Sinclair’s “Climate Denial Crock of the Week” series on Youtube already, right? If not, I’d strongly recommend it.

  57. #58 Chris O'Neill
    November 18, 2011

    Duff and dumber:

    Global cooling was stamped on by the ‘Warmers’ in the 1980s

    How dare those ‘Warmers’ stamp on global cooling before it started warming up. What did they think they were doing? Making testable predictions? How dare they.

  58. #59 StevoR
    November 18, 2011

    For climatologist Ben Santers good five minute takedown of the “Global Cooling” myth see :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5D7P2qbKCs

    @51. David Duff | November 4, 2011 7:06 AM :

    My, er, science is validated and will soon be the basis of a consensus! Remember I warned you about this months ago: “An asteroid the size of an aircraft carrier is set to pass closer to Earth than the moon – the nearest anything this big has come to our planet in 35 years.”
    Read more:(link cut for brevity.) So don’t worry about losing your ‘end-of-the-world-is-nigh’ scenario because there are always plenty more to follow!

    Actually astronomers such as Phil Plait the astronomer who runs the execellnt ‘Bad Astronomy’ blog have been well aware of that – and have debunked the non-scientific scare-mongers for instance here :

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/11/07/just-to-be-clear-asteroid-yu55-is-no-danger-to-earth/

    NASA has also done some debunking of various psuedo-science internet nonsense fears over Comet Elenin, eg. see :

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/comet_elenin.html

    (Worth scrolling down for some of the questions and answers there.)

    In a nutshell, such rocks and icy dirtballs fly past the Earth all the time, no big deal although often provide a chance to do some interesting science on them. There is a small risk of bolide (collective term for impacting bodies inclusive of comets and asteroids alike) impacts causing massive destrcution but its really not something to lose any sleep over and any astronomer will tell you as much.

  59. #60 StevoR
    November 18, 2011

    @63 David Duff | November 5, 2011 7:22 AM :

    Oh, and Ian, have you heard the one about the fat, black, quadraplegic lesbian . . . ?

    No?

    Well, go on then, lets hear it!

    It doesn’t sound like a overly promising joke to me but I guess you’ll surprise us with your clever, er, humour and you’ve got me curious now. So .. what’s the punchline please tell?

  60. #61 frank -- Decoding SwiftHack
    November 18, 2011

    Two more tidbits of information on the 2009 cyber-attack on CRU:

    http://ijish.livejournal.com/39025.html

    — frank

  61. #62 chek
    November 18, 2011

    So .. what’s the punchline please tell?

    Er … that is Duff’s punchline, StevoR. There’s no more to come from that particular source.

    Allow [genius comedian Stewart Lee](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0i0RXMvzMs) to explain – starting at about the 6 minute mark if you’re pushed for time, or never bother with foreplay…

  62. #63 ianam
    November 19, 2011

    Do we have a special different procedural thing with posting links here or something?)

    Look at the instructions just above the edit box. it accepts “markdown” syntax, which turns _stuff_ into _stuff_, so URLs containing underscores don’t work. You can use markdown to enter URLs, but the most reliable way is with html; e.g., for http://www.scienceblogs.com/deltoid, enter <a href=”http://www.scienceblogs.com/deltoid”>http://www.scienceblogs.com/deltoid</a&gt;

  63. #64 Lotharsson
    November 19, 2011

    > …so URLs containing underscores don’t work.

    And I’m pretty sure this is due to a bug in the parser. There doesn’t seem to be any fundamental reason why it couldn’t disable italics & bold detection within the context of a detected URL.

    But it’s been that way for years…

  64. #65 Tim Lambert
    November 19, 2011

    It’s not a bug in the parser — it’s a misfeature in Markdown. Unfortunately John Gruber isn’t interested in fixing it (or the other really annoying one where the numbered lists get renumbered).

  65. #66 ConnorJ
    November 20, 2011

    I’m currently discussing the IPCC draft report that was released today and was wondering if anyone could help me in finding anything the IPCC might have said in the AR4 about climate signals and variability noise over the next 2 -3 decades?

    Something that confirms this isn’t some shocking new revelation:

    Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame.

    Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame is uncertain. For projected changes by the end of the 21st century, either model uncertainty or uncertainties associated with emissions scenarios used becomes dominant, depending on the extreme. Low-probability high-impact changes associated with the crossing of poorly understood climate thresholds cannot be excluded, given the transient and complex nature of the climate system.

  66. #67 Lotharsson
    November 20, 2011

    Misfeature sounds like a good word for it. It craps on the user experience, and should not exist.

  67. #68 SteveC
    November 20, 2011

    This post by SheWonk (Policy Lass) on a certain Auditor’s despicable recent behaviour is well worth the read:

    http://metaclimate.org/2011/11/15/denialist-porn-chum-a-new-low/

    This Auditor took allegations of child molestation against a Yale academic and somehow attempted to link this to Michael Mann. Apparently the comments at this Auditor’s site are something else again, and comments at Deep Climate’s Open Thread suggest Watts and his cronies have risen to the chum that a certain Auditor spread on the waters.

    IMO another appalling example of why certain Auditors and award-winning blogs deserve all the flak they get.

  68. #69 SteveC
    November 21, 2011

    Posting this in the Open Thread, but should really belong to Tim’s TAWoS series.

    Jay Rosen over at ABC’s The Drum on why News Corp Is Bad News.

    News Corp is a huge company, but it is not a normal company. However, it does not know that it’s not a normal company. In fact, it denies this observation. In this sense denial is constitutive of the company and its culture. To work there, you have to share in this pervasive atmosphere of denial…

    And Rosen on the News Corpse’s brand of climate change denial:

    The Australian is a force for climate change denialism. But it does not know this about itself. Outsiders do know it, and they regularly point it out. The Australian reacts not by defending its actual stance on climate change but by trying to destroy those who accurately perceive it. The attempt at destruction is typically rhetorical but sometimes other methods are used, like threatening a lawsuit. The impression given is of a bully or thug. But that’s really an after-effect of denial. Denial, I think, is the key to understanding the company.

    Rosen goes on to mention other aspects of its corporate thuggery, including Julie Posetti (remember Mitchell’s threat of a lawsuit against her, simply because she accurately reported what he said in a public speech? As a refresher, see Chris MitchellGate).

    But for me, the money quote is this:

    Strangely, I do not think that News Corp people like Rebekah Brooks, James Murdoch and Chris Mitchell are being insincere when they pledge allegiance to the values of serious journalism. On the contrary, they believe that this is what their newspapers are all about. And this is the sense in which denial is constitutive of the company, a built-in feature that cannot be acknowledged by any of the major players because self-annihilation would be the result.

    (emphasis added)

    That last analysis by Rosen fits – it is certainly a basis for its extraordinary and consistent stance on climate change.

  69. #70 StevoR
    November 21, 2011

    @159. chek | November 18, 2011 5:40 PM : Thanks for that.
    & thanks to ianam | November 19, 2011 12:59 AM too. See those instructions now.

    Incidentally, I did think of one (& only one) possible punchline that makes that “joke” maybe sorta funny~ish :

    Qu. : Heard the one about the fat, black, quadraplegic lesbian?

    A. Turns out it was Osama bin laden / Jerry Falwell / Pat Robertson / Andrew Bolt / Rupert Murdoch /etc .. in a past life!

  70. #71 StevoR
    November 21, 2011

    In case its of interest saw this :

    http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3370857.htm

    on Lateline t’other night & there was something I half-caught on the radio news (891 – Radio national?) this morning about a report on the rapidly closing window we’ve got to keep temp rise under the critical 2 degrees before I had to rush off the work. Broadcast circa 8.15~30 am approx. in Adelaide, SA. Anyone else here hear the full thing?

  71. #72 Bernard J.
    November 21, 2011
  72. #73 lord_sidcup
    November 22, 2011

    Breaking news – a clear attempt at derailing the upcoming climate summit (as if that were necessary):

    [‘New release’ of climate emails](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15840562)

  73. #74 Bernard J.
    November 22, 2011

    This [second release](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15840562) completely blows out of the water the ‘whilstleblower’ canard.

    It is clearly a deliberate campaign to discredit, to the advantage of vested interests, action to curb harmful carbon pollution. I wonder how many laws aroundthe world have been broken by the players in this action?

  74. #75 chek
    November 22, 2011

    Having checked over at Watt’s, McinTyre’s and Bishop Dill’s and a selection of the usual suspects, it goes without saying that they’re all wetting themselves with excitement, although some it has to be said, with more reserve than others. But the trusty ol’ hygrometer would be overloading in all cases.

    Interestingly, those who normally like to style themselves as such prim sticklers for propriety, seem to have overlooked that they’re handling stolen goods. The stench of astounding if unsurprising hypocrisy is almost tangible. Again.

  75. #76 StevoR
    November 23, 2011

    @169. Bernard J. | November 21, 2011 3:22 AM :

    Skeptical Science commented about this last week.

    Okay, thanks.

    Btw. Phil Plait, the Bad Astronomer, has a good post up on his blog here :

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/11/22/climategate-2-more-ado-about-nothing-again/

    taking down the “Climategate” reheat which could be worth a look.

  76. #77 Bernard J.
    November 23, 2011

    [StevoR](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/november_2011_open_thread.php#comment-5931192).

    It’s good to see that reason is strapping its laces quickly this time.

    I’ll make a prediction though…

    >”Climategate III – this time it’s really real. Really. It’s the actual real stuff, how those nasty Scientists are trying to scam us with Really Nasty Climatology, and look, we found some words, ‘the probability…’, which just goes to show that they don’t really know what they’re talking about. Really.”

  77. #78 Bernard J.
    November 23, 2011

    Speaking of hysterical denialati who see scientific monsters hiding under the bed of The Public Good, the ABC’s PM program reported today that ACMA has smacked Alan Jones and 2GB around for biased commentary on several matters, and it noted that Jones is being scrutinised on his pronouncements on issues relating to human-caused global warming.

    About bloody time.

  78. #79 Wow
    November 23, 2011

    > seem to have overlooked that they’re handling stolen goods.

    It’s also amusing (in a not very amusing, but rather scary way), that this is also when PFC Bradley Manning is getting after a year and a half of torture, his court date for handing over stolen goods to Wikileaks.

  79. #80 Bernard J.
    November 23, 2011

    Heh.

    I didn’t even have time for the ink to dry on [my prediction](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/november_2011_open_thread.php#comment-5932156) before I saw that WTFUWT had about a gazillion updates on the Climatgate 2.0 emails – “[[t]hey’re real and they’re spectacular!](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/22/climategate-2-0/)”.

  80. #81 Michael
    November 24, 2011

    The Oz hasn’t disappeared enough behind the paywall.

    Just look at this latest tripe;
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/climate-forecasts-exaggerated-science-journal/story-e6frg8y6-1226205464958

    Great headline – “Climate forecasts ‘exaggerated': Science journal”.

    Notice the quote marks around exaggerated.

    So what do the authors actually say when they aren’t being verballed in the headline?
    “Now these very large changes (predicted for the coming decades) can be ruled out….Professor Schmittner said it had been very difficult to rule out these extreme “high-sensitivity” scenarios….we are pretty confident that these high climate sensitivities can [now]be ruled out….the results imply less probability of extreme climatic change than previously thought”

  81. #82 Bernard J.
    November 24, 2011

    Australia’s former conservative Prime Minister John Howard has outed himself as an ongoing denier of science. So much so that he wrote this for McKitrick’s latest screed, as reported (in edited form) [by WUWT](http://backupurl.com/o2rn1r):

    >I am an agnostic when it comes to global warming. That is why I had no difficulty in proposing in 2007, when I was Prime Minister of Australia, an emissions trading system, predicated on the rest of the world acting in a similar fashion, and designed to protect Australia’s trade-exposed industries.

    >Since then two events have intervened to reinforce the caution which should be exercised by my country in this area. The collapse of the Copenhagen Summit means that actions by major emitting nations is, to say the least,
    highly unlikely. Moreover, the global financial plunge has highlighted the folly of any nation taking action which harms its own comparative economic advantage.

    >Professor McKitrick’s report focuses on the reporting procedures of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The intellectual bullying, which has been a feature of the behaviour of some global warming zealots, makes this report necessary reading if there is to be an objective assessment of all of the arguments. The attempt of many to close down the debate is disgraceful, and must be resisted.

    >Ross McKitrick has written a well-researched and articulate critique of the IPCC’s methods. It deserves careful study, especially by those who remain in an agnostic state on this issue.

    Remember, this is the man who is a mentor to Tony Abbott. Howard speaks of disgracefulness: he should consider how disgraceful it is for a former politician – with no scientific training – to use rhetoric in order to obscure scientific truth, and especially scientific truth that has profound implications for the survival of future generations.

    Howard was always a master at stirring the lizard brains of unthinking lay folk. If only he was as skilled in realising that his fundamentalist ideologies, and not the conduct of a whole discipline of science, are the problem in this matter.

  82. #83 Hank Roberts
    November 28, 2011

    I know Tim C. and his socks have kept trying to get back into your good graces here, but I wonder if anyone’s looked at http://ace2011.org.au/ACE2011/Documents/Abstract_Timothy_Curtin.pdf

  83. #84 Bernard J.
    November 29, 2011

    Future Fund chairman [David Murray doubts the scientific evidence for climate change](http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3378644.htm), and in the process completely mangles logic on a number of other topics. Watch and weep.

    Albert Bartlett would, most assuredly…

  84. #85 Chris O'Neill
    November 29, 2011

    Future Fund chairman David Murray doubts the scientific evidence for climate change

    Yes, he gets sucked in by the old denialist meme (they’re all getting old these days):

    Well, it’s not clear to me which comes first: temperature or carbon – carbon dioxide. I’m not sure which does come first.

    Sucked in by total bullshit:

    There is much evidence to say one way or the other.

  85. #86 jakerman
    November 29, 2011

    >DAVID MURRAY: I don’t think there is sufficient evidence to take the sort of risks that are being taken around the world.

    I.e. we should take action only when we have a spare planet to run a control experiment on. And the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence without such is just not enough.

    >DAVID MURRAY:I’ve always thought that with the global population growing as fast as it is, that there would be real pressure on energy prices and people would correct automatically by using energy much more sparingly and that would start to self-correct – if there’s a problem.

    I.e. the population would switch from oil back to coal as oil is depleted (then crash when that is depleted).

    ALI MOORE: What evidence do you look at to counter the other evidence that there is climate change? Is there something in particular that you focus on?

    >DAVID MURRAY: Well, the extremeness of the claims is one thing. For example, people talked about the ocean rising by seven metres, which is just an astounding level.

    I.e. 7m is extreme thus it can’t be [true](http://www.princeton.edu/step/people/faculty/michael-oppenheimer/research/Kopp-et-al-2009-Global-and-Local-Sea-Level-During-the-Last-Interglacial-.pdf).

    >DAVID MURRAY: The science talks about 20 to 30 centimetres. So these exaggerated claims.

    Time frame David, over what time frame? Or Post 2100 means never?

    >DAVID MURRAY: When people make a movie and get on a ladder to get to the top of the chart, that’s Hollywood, it’s not science.

    So [BAU emission growth](http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_co2.html) isn’t projected to push the CO2 concentration to 550ppm by 2050 [because of ladder used in presenting the science?](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tkDK2mZlOo)

    >DAVID MURRAY: And when scientists start arguing amongst themselves, as we’ve seen with some of these reports, that is not good. Science is meant to be above all of that with true scientific method. So that really bothers me. And the claims are unreal and …

    Unless all the scientist are not arguing then it is not science? Not allowed to argue about anything David? So 3% disagreeing on the fundamental cause means that 3% wins?

    ALI MOORE: Are all the claims unreal?

    >DAVID MURRAY: Well, it’s not clear to me which comes first: temperature or carbon – carbon dioxide. I’m not sure which does come first. There is much evidence to say one way or the other. So, when I look at all this, I become extremely concerned and I become concerned at the cost of mistakes.

    So David you think the rising temperatures might have made us burn and emit 29,000,000,000 tonnes of CO2 per year?

  86. #87 Wow
    November 29, 2011

    Maybe we need to get one person to disagree with the “3%” (actually, it’s 1%, 2% are undecided, but not against the proposition).

    That means that the minority of one who says that the minority 3% is wrong, being even more of a minority, is right.

    Then, since it’s impossible to get less than one person, they’re impossible to refute.

    Teh stupid can be used for good as well as evil.

  87. #88 wilful
    November 29, 2011

    185 comments in, I suspect this question wont get much of a look in. But, I can cross my fingers: could someone please recommend to me a christmas present book for my father, who watches the Bolt Report and thinks climate change is probably a bit dodgy.

    I’m happy to wind him up a bit (beats arguing with him), but I don’t want to buy him The Weathermakers, or An Inconvenient Truth. What else is highly accessible, credible but not patronising?

  88. #89 dexitroboper
    November 30, 2011

    [Barrie Pittock’s book](http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/6010.htm)

  89. #90 wilful
    November 30, 2011

    thanks dexitroboper. Probably too dense and scientific for him. He’s a retired lawyer, doesn’t mind some complex ideas, but hasn’t read anything technical in a while.

  90. #91 Dave R
    November 30, 2011

    @wilful,

    How about _What’s The Worst That Could Happen?_ by Greg Craven. (Critical review [here](http://planet3.org/2011/07/27/book-review-whats-the-worst-thing-by-greg-craven/)).

  91. #92 Wow
    November 30, 2011

    Spencer Weart’s book is also available as print. Or Merchants of Doubt that goes into other elements, so it won’t look like you’re trying to beat him up over Climate change: he’ll see that the same problems existed for years about the Tobacco industry. By going in to other examples of the same deceit it will be harder to ignore as just another element of the orchestrated “climate scam”.

  92. #93 FrankD
    November 30, 2011

    Wilful,

    Hansen’s _Storms of my Grandchildren_ fits your requirements – does not talk down to the reader, but not to densely sciency. OTOH, Hansen may be seen as just another fellow traveller. I thought it was a good read, except that Hansen gets a bit preachy about some of the policy options; very “these are the only things that will work” where there are other options and his own preferences are not without problems.

    Chris Mooney’s _Storm World_ is a pretty good read, although it lacks the authority of Hansen. Its rather more limited in its scope, and has some niggly errors that the hard-core rejectionist is likely to fixate on.

  93. #94 wilful
    November 30, 2011

    Thanks folks. I was thinking the Hansen book (I’d support his work financially) but you’ve guessed right, it probably is too much ‘fellow traveller’. I’ll look at all of those suggestions.

  94. #95 Bernard J.
    December 2, 2011

    >It seems my ‘propaganda’ and ‘espionage’ comment rather hit a raw nerve, judging by some of the vitriolic comments that people have typed up.

    Eh? What’s “vitriolic” about my question?

    >The UEA isn’t a private institution, it’s a public one, so there should be full public disclosure of the emails.

    So why aren’t all university emails immediately uploaded to the respective institutional web pages? Why can’t Joe Public just walk in off the street and demand access to every computer and hard drive on campus?

    The rest of Andy’s spiel is just froth and bubble – a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    Speaking of… from where did the current gloop of numpties emanate? And if they’re so convinced that the 20th century temperature rise is nonexistent, what physics do they rely on to explain such nonexistence? And what of the non-dendrological ‘hockey sticks’? Are the numpties aware of just how many ‘hockey sticks’ there are? And how do they explain the ‘blade’ in each ‘hockey stick’?

Current ye@r *