P.O. Box 98199
Washington, DC 20090-8199
Global warming is caused by increased turnip production. See you all later, I’m off to get a Spectator cover.
>But did they tilt the altimetry or not?
Why don’t you show some actual skepticism and go and look for yourself.
Is that too much to ask?
>Right, I’m off now.
>Adieu, warmists, it’s been a blast.
What’s wrong Andy? [Too scared](http://i42.tinypic.com/se3cpw.jpg) to actually put your money where your very windy mouth is?
You obviously do not have the courage of your convictions, if [you won't entertain accepting any of my wagers](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/12/december_2011_open_thread.php#comment-6036433) that would test the existence (and the severity) or otherwise of global warming.
You’re the same as every other cowardly denialatus that drives by here; happy to libel professional scientists, but too lily-livered to actually stand by the rubbish that you spread.
Still, good riddance – for now, at least.
I see the writings of Nils-Axel Mörner have raised their ugly heads again, with a suggestion that there should be a ["Sealevelgate"](http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_global_warming_isnt_drowning_us_in_rising_seas/) (I hate to give Andrew Bolt extra exposure but this seems to be the easiest summary to get to).
However, if Nils-Axel Mörner wants a “Sealevelgate”, here is my [contribution](http://www.members.iinet.net.au/~johnroberthunter/www-swg/morner_emails.txt)
- a series of emails between me and Morner from 2004.
You will have to draw your own conclusion of Morner from these, but I don’t see a “true expert on sea level” – I see a prevaricating duffer who, after a year of obfuscation, provided nothing to substantiate his wild claims.
Good to see you drop in. You might find that you cop a bit of flak from some of the nutters who buzz in here – although having said that, they might also decide that discretion is the better part of valour in the case of interacting with a publishing oceanographer who is studying sea-level rise induced by climate change…
It’s a shame that Nils-Axel Mörner doesn’t exercise such discretion. That little exchange between you and him is quite revealing.
I particularly enjoyed reading John Hunter’s exchange with Morner. Some of the local arses could benefit from doing the same. Speaking of whom, I particularly enjoyed Morner’s -
one don not make trens studies on short time series
That’s sooo right, isn’t it, boys? Ah, the irony…
Morning, chaps, feeling refreshed, are you? Excellent because I bring you further ‘Good News’, although why I bother I don’t know because you’re an ungrateful lot!
Anyway, tipped off by a commenter over at my place, I can tell you that the Envistat satellite indicates that sea levels are slightly lower now than when they launched it!
The Good News from your point of view is that you can do another of those switches you’re so good at – you know, like ‘Global Warming’ to ‘Climate Change’, that sort of thing – so now you can wail about the loss of sea water which is now threatening the planet, etc, etc. Personally, and pointing no elbows at our distinguished host, I blame those Aussies using all those desalination plants!
I enjoyed your dictionary, particularly #1. In my days flogging ‘shrapnel’ as a used-car dealer I used to trade under the name of ‘Duff Motors’. Now you know why!
I feel shame for being so gullible. Now look over there!
Revealing stuff, if unsurprising . Thanks for the link.
The other meaning of the word “Duff” is Worthless, useless. As I’ve probably pointed out before, duff by name, duff by nature.
> Why have suddenly stopped my posts getting through?
They haven’t. As I understand it, moderation algorithms hold up posts with certain keywords or too many links or some such for human approval…and if approved they [appear some time later](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/12/december_2011_open_thread.php#comment-6040371) in chronological submission sequence.
Speaking of which, you (surprise, surprise) emit many standard fallacious claims in aforementioned comment.
> Similar to ‘Global Warming’ becoming ‘Climate Change’ when the warming stubbornly refused to appear…
Two errors in one half sentence! Well done!
Quick questions: when was “climate change” or “climatic change” first used in a scientific paper, and what does the “CC” in “IPCC” stand for? And which is the global average temperature’s hottest decade on record?
> …which went on to become “Climate Disruption”…
Never seen the term used before.
> Personally, being a visual animal, I like a good graph.
You appear to especially like a graph that **does not answer** Richard Simons’ question. (The trend he asked for was **up to** the year from which you assert it has flatlined (i.e. 2002 in your graph).) Which certainly would explain why you say you’re not sticking around (to respond to further critique – because perhaps even you realise you’re spouting indefensible bullshit).
> Between 1989 and 2009, the US spent $79 billion on the climate industry…
…and you (a) trusted an “Institute” which copious evidence shows is quite happy to flat-out lie, and (b) bought the implication that this was all spent on “climate change” research, right? Because we have no interest in putting up rather expensive satellites and understanding how both weather and climate work for any other reason than AGW, right?
> He’s not such a paragon of virtue and has plenty invested in the Green Machine.
Al Gore is on record stating that the profits are going to a non-profit foundation. He got plenty rich from non-green investments…and then *put his money where his mouth is* on the environmental front, including buying carbon offsets for his lifestyle, etc. rather than investing it in ventures that would line his own pockets.
So given the full set of evidence, one draws pretty much the *opposite* conclusion that you drew via cherry-picking.
> Nice graph John, but I prefer this one as it puts all the panicking about global temps into perspective…
…which (for anyone who couldn’t be bothered fixing the URL) links to a (unspecified) graph of global temperatures over 425,000 years showing it hotter than now about 130,000 years ago, and approximately 130,000 years before that, and so on.
Which reveals your deep ignorance (or denial) of the root causes of the current concern.
> Sorry I don’t know how to use blockquotes, but I’ll get along just fine.
Bloody hell. Not just too ignorant/dumb to understand what he’s talking about, but unable to learn how to use blockquotes – something that takes most people here about 15 seconds.
> This quite a nice little graph that shows current droughts in the UK are not bucking the trend of the last 120 years.
Yep. You hold up an uncited unlabeled graph, without doing any kind of trend or statistical analysis, and assert it supports your eyeball-inferred claim that no statistical difference in trend is apparent? Monckton would be proud, and your University would prefer that you don’t advertise that they passed you.
Errr, why are the denialati still all hot and sweaty over Briffa and the tree-ring divergence issue?
I mean, the scientific papers acknowledging and discussing this go back a long time, and it has never been a secret.
Are denialists inadvertently putting something in their coffee which reduces their attention span to mere nanoseconds?
>which (for anyone who couldn’t be bothered fixing the URL) links to a (unspecified) graph of global temperatures over 425,000 years showing it hotter than now about 130,000 years ago, and approximately 130,000 years before that, and so on.
Yes, after all human civilisation works on 130,000 year timescales.
>In 2011, the US will have spent about $10.6 million a day to ‘study, combat, and educate about climate change’
On satellites, you mean.
>Seeing an oil company sponsoring dire warnings of imminent death confirmed my belief about the AGW nonsense being a complete scam. Companies, charities, universities, carbon traders, and Al Gore are all making a fortune from this Global Warming nonsense and you lot really can’t (or refuse to) see through the scam.
I just wanted to highlight the above quote in case everybody missed it. Science, how does it work?
>companies aren’t your friends, they just want your cash, and they’ll say anything they want if they think it means you’ll hand over your dollars.
Oh god, the irony is delicious.
>I will leave you with a quote from a far greater man than myself…
>…the late and great Hal Lewis…
You mean the senile old man who, like you, claimed that global warming was a trillion dollar industry? This is who you are citing?
Andy, your posts are amusing in a “look what that man on the street corner is shouting now” sort of way, but deep down I feel sorry for you that you willingly accept so many lies, obfuscations, deceits and untruths.
Everything you say in your tedious posts has its roots in a right-wing meme, and you have so little skepticism that you don’t bother to check if it was correct or not as long as it supports your political ideology.
The worst part is you seem to believe your sad little conspiracy theories and don’t know that every single second-hand meme you babble has been refuted again and again. But hey, why bother with pesky things like “facts” and “evidence” when your real goal is to stop the big bad Left?
> Why have suddenly stopped my posts getting through?
Al Gore, probably.
Definitely not the software problems that this blog has had leading to double and triple posting over the last week.
Just blame it on Al Gore.
>Seems pretty flat to me. (but I’m sure you’ll find some hand-waving way to say it’s a complete fabrication)
No, but you failed to show it was statistically significant and thus failed his challenge.
I’m concerned that with comprehension abilities like yours they even let you teach children. I wouldn’t want my kids being taught maths by someone who failed to show something basic like statistical significance when politely asked.
Lionel A: ‘…This quite a nice little graph that shows current droughts in the UK are not bucking the trend of the last 120 years: http://www.groundwateruk.org/pi/cache/cache640Thamesrainfalldeficiencies.jpg (which is broken link 1, even when the complete address from your mangled effort is extracted) This graph seems to show the UK getting wetter, not drier: http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/49128000/jpg/49128164rainfall_graph.jpg (this being broken link 2, even when the complete address from your mangled effort is extracted)So Lionel, what’s it going to be – too wet or too dry? Make your mind up. Whatever you decide on, I’m sure you’ll blame it on global warming (whoops, sorry!) Climate Change
So, not only can a mathematics teacher not manage blockquotes neither can he manage to include valid (as proven in the quote above) and undamaged links. You are a disgrace to your profession. A teacher who cannot teach himself. Pah!
Now to enlighten you oh blighted one.
Global Warming describes the way in which global mean temperatures are rising with some areas experiencing temperature rises in double digits with a few, very few showing cooling but this latter aspect is limited in extent and not static.
Climate change, you may like to discover to what the term climate refers whereupon you will learn that different geographical areas, due to latitude, topology and size of landmass relative to surrounding body of water have different climates. As the globe heats up unevenly, due to increasing imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation, then the pattern of air and ocean currents become displaced from the norm. This brings on climate change such as Texas, not uniquely, is going through right now.
As to the relative drought and flood patterns of the UK, these are changing, a fact obvious to any with enquiring minds. This is of concern to many farmers and growers of other crops such as grapes. That warming is occurring is obvious – the movement in range of many species reinforces the temperature records. Species once foreign to our shores are becoming increasingly common. One time migrant visitors are beginning to settle and breed whilst others move their ranges further north.
I’ll offer similar advice as I did to the ‘used car salesman’, which boasting tells us rather allot about how much to believe the views coming from that direction. Try engaging in the Wildlife Trusts – you will learn much.
now I can understand the rather weak maths the warmists post up,
Personally, being a visual animal, I like a good graph. [link] Seems pretty flat to me. (but I’m sure you’ll find some hand-waving way to say it’s a complete fabrication)
It seems our maths is stronger than yours, judging by your apparent inability to even understand the question. At least, attempt to answer it instead of indulging in hand-waving. Use your claimed comprehensive maths education to demonstrate that current global temperatures are less than would be expected if the past trend has continued.
BTW: I too picked up a combined Math BSc, but I most certainly do not consider myself to be a mathematician.
Potholer54 has fun with rebutting a new WUWT post by Monckton, using a devastating source: Monckton himself.
I like “the Monckton Maneuver”: the climate denial equivalent of “the Gish Gallop”.
Beat me to it bluegrue. Great stuff from Potholer54 as usual, if a little light on “documentation”.
John Howard is preparing to show his hand on the Labor’s Carbon Tax by personally launching Ian Plimer’s new and much anticipated anti-Warmist manual for the younger reader: How to Get Expelled from School John Howard’s agreement to launch the book at this special Sydney Mining Club event leaves no doubt about his views on Labor’s duckshoving its new Carbon Tax into legislation, and of course his regard for Plimer and his courageous stand against climate propaganda.
Pass the sick bag, Alice. Link
Yes, another great effort from Potholer. The manifest failings of the WUWT crowd to confront counter-evidence also get a good showing in the second vid.
Also, on this very thread the ‘Ooh, I’m being confronted by overwhelming counter-evidence, quick, toss out another claim and hope they lose track’ technique Potholer describes is strongly in evidence. How uncanny. I guess when you case is so weak your options are always limited.
Notably, at 13′ 30″ in the first video, Potholer tells Monckton that if he thinks his statements are libellous “Great, sue me, and I’ll be happy to produce all this evidence in court.”
Now, by the logic of certain parties here, Monckton’s failure to see him in court will be an admission that Potholer’s statements are correct, will it not?
@226,Potholer has demonstrated [again]that there are two Moncktons and they’re both complete idiots…
Thanks for that link, Lotharsson. It’s now on the Christopher Monckton page at SourceWatch.
Scribe, that link came from bluegrue a couple of comments above.
If you haven’t seen it already, don’t miss the ‘Monckton Bunkum’ series at Potholer’s channel – 5 videos before these latest 2, you’ll be astonished to learn.
These are the videos Monckton’s supposedly ‘refuting’.
Just scroll to the bottom of the ‘climate change’ playlist at right.
The whole channel is highly enjoyable – let’s hear it for the Golden Crocoduck!
[Scribe](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/12/december_2011_open_thread.php#comment-6058955), your link didn’t work for me, but I read that John Howard wrote the forward for [the GWPF's new offering](http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mckitrick-ipcc_reforms.pdf) by Ross McKitrick.
So Howard was being slippery at 1:30s in [this video](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5jtiJPlv4Y)?
Ahh yes! he either was or is now being slippery, (@1:15 not 1:30 as my previously said). In 2007 he did not tell voters that the ETS was *”predicated on the rest of the world acting in a similar fashion”*. He made no mention of such a “predicates” just a promist to the electorate for an ETS.
In fact, far from waiting for the rest of the world, Howard said, *”Australia will more than play its part to address climate change”*.
But now he’s trying to provide political cover for his boy Abbott.
Howard’s ETS support was opportunistic, and launching Plimer’s book is opportunistic. Howard only cares about global warming as long as it can get him elected, or if he can use the issue to damage Labor.
As for Plimer’s book, teenagers usually demonstrate rebelliousness by drinking and taking drugs, not by disobeying the laws of science and buying books launched by conservative former prime ministers (last time I checked, Howard was not popular with anyone under the age of 40).
Howard’s ETS support was opportunistic, and launching Plimer’s book is opportunistic.
That makes me recall one journalist who claimed that if Howard had been re-elected, then we would have had an ETS at the time Rudd tried and failed to pass his ETS through parliament. Apparently that journalist had forgotten the Howard term “non-core promise”.
Lookie lookie…the schtick is flawless – again!
And Yes, I know: we shall over come.
Ah, another Petri Dish, fresh from ‘Agar the ‘Orrible…
WUWT spam? I, for one, don’t care.
David Duff #1 is right. The ‘proof’ is plane to see !
Meanwhile, back inthe real world – SkS takes on Morner.
You really can tell a lot about a movement by the calibre of person it chooses to raise to prominence.
Morner was wrong? Heavens above!
Scribe, your link didn’t work for me
Sorry, here it is fixed
Will graft some of these onto Lord Monckey’s page at SourceWatch. Ta.
Note: DemocracyNow! is broadcasting from Durban all this week.
Lookie lookie…the schtick is flawless – again
Certainly none of your best and finest have managed to do anything except whine inconsequentially about it for 13 years now.
And while we’re on the subject of emails, you’ll need to supply full details and full text of all the emails, because some very egregious splices have come to light recently which almost suggest muppets like you are being manipulated. And tellingly, not a single one was noticed by any of you fake sceptics Fancy that!
So as Bill says, nobody is interested in your sideline as a spambot for Watts, the desperate little liar with his desperate little conspiracies.
News Flash… it has not warmed since last Thursday
I’ve kept my mouth shut on the GM matter, partly because I have encountered odious industry shills in the past and know that they are largely as recalcitrant in their sticking to the factoids as are the Climate Denialati, and partly because [the current discussion on the "Stolen CRU Emails" thread](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/11/stolen_cru_emails_the_rejects.php) is off-topic, but I can’t help but ask this of Chris S…
What percentage of non-medical GM applications is not essentially a response to poor management practices? Of the GM applications that are essentially a response to poor management practices, which could not more sensibly be addressed by improving best practice, rather than by swallowing spiders?
No wonder you lot are so churlish, your elders and betters are even worse!
From Briffa to Cook:
“June 17, 2002 (5055). I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative) tropical series. He is just as capable of regressing these data again any other “target” series , such as the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbage he has produced over the last few years , and … (better say no more) Keith”
Does he not know that he is speaking of a God worshiped by, er, well, I was going to write ‘thousands’ but these days
let’s just say several dozen? And here was me thinking that Briffa was such a nice man despite all that potential dendrology on his face!
So you admit you’re not our better, Dai.
Well, we can at least agree on that.
Duff, that really shoots down “The Team” meme.
Interesting that you’re still sniffing the bins trying to find a substitute in place of your so lacking scientific argument.
Did I expect any better from you Duffer? Sadly no.
C’mon, chaps, give me a break! If I came over here and told you that Mann was producing “self-opinionated verbage” (which he frequently does!) you would all jump up and down and then, after running through a check-list of ‘Nasty Things to Say to Deniers’, you would accuse me of political venom/scientific ignorance/being Rightwing/in the pay of Big Oil (I wish!) but now you have it from ‘one of your own’!
My question is simple – like me – do you agree with Briffa?
> C’mon, chaps, give me a break!
Arm? Leg? Neck?
> (which he frequently does!)
Ah, and you know this because you decided it was, yes?
> you would accuse me of political venom/scientific ignorance/being Rightwing/in the pay of Big Oil
Well, you ARE guilty of political venom and ignorance. We may posit reasons why a rational person would do so so openly, but we admit that you may not be a rational person.
This just in: Scientists argue, Watts’ spambot faux shocked.
News at 11.
A couple of days ago I downloaded the FOIA2011.zip file and made a couple of random guesses at the password on the all.7z in hopes of being “lucky”. I wasn’t.
But it got me to thinking. What purpose does it serve by being there? I know that professional deniers know that Global Warming is happening and have looked closely at the consequences in order to set up contingency plans for future events. My gut feeling is that all.7z is one of those contingency plans for climate related events they expect to happen in the next couple of years. My further gut feeling is that since we don’t know if the encrypted information in all.7z has been tampered with, we cannot say for sure that all the emails in all.7z are unchanged. To say that they are unchanged could be stepping into a dangerous trap.
@Wow and Chek:
You must have missed it in your rush to attack but there was a really, really easy question to answer, especially to swots like you:
> but there was a really, really easy question to answer
And why would it need to be answered?
You, for example, never have bothered answering questions.
And unlike you, I agree with Science.
Duff, you have no credibility whatsoever.
On this very thread your own heroes – Morner and Monckton – have been thoroughly de-panted in a manner that goes way beyond your pathetic quote-mining efforts. Monckton in particular is left in tatters.
And you? You just run and hide.
Yep, you sneak away, then slink back when you hope the coast is clear to chuck around some other sordid nugget that will turn out to have been confected specifically to chum for morons.
Either respond on Morner and Monckton, or sod off. Your own thread is long overdue, as you are every bit the Dunning-Krugerite waste of space and time to merit one.
Or, better yet, just sod off altogether. You are a man without substance.
I, for one, am fed up with playing bad-faith ping-pong with third-rate hacks who – in the complete absence of any genuine case – resort to contrived and dishonest character assassination with the kind of shallow, infantile and malicious glee displayed by some creepy 12-year old boy dismembering insects.
Their antics are just one long, sordid smear in the gusset of humanity. Some day I hope they will be held to account.
In the meantime, this is the situation we are stuck in, in no small part due to the unfortunate proliferation of such as these -
Actually, to be honest, nobody over here is paying any attention to science.
>Actually, to be honest, nobody over here is paying any attention to science.
It’s the political version of the fallacy of the false compromise. Such a position may be politically expedient in the short term, but with respect the the laws of physics there is only one correct answer.
Governments around the world are singularly insistent on offering the wrong answers. It moves me to wonder if perhaps one day there will be a Retribution Movement…
Duff, after all the evidence presented to you in this thread, *do you believe Morner*?
bill, you [speak](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/12/december_2011_open_thread.php#comment-6094983) the truth. And [again](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/12/december_2011_open_thread.php#comment-6095435).
And John’s question is appropriate for Duff.
> …bad-faith ping-pong…
That’s an excellent description.
> John’s question is appropriate for Duff.
As is: does Briffa in 2011 think the quote attributed to Briffa in 2002 is at all relevant to today’s science? (And if not, don’t you think it smells of desperation that the best you can do is quoting a moot opinion?)
It’s also interesting to note Duff transparently attempting to play off one (perceived) authority against another.
One might speculate that Duff is a bit of an authoritarian follower himself which leads him to (a) adopt beliefs based on his chosen authority rather than evidence, (b) think that attacking an authority is likely to prove useful, and (c) likely to fail to comprehend that such a tactic has no impact on those who weigh the body of evidence.
Tell you what, chaps, I’ll answer yours if you’ll answer mine!
As mine came first, it’s over to you:
Do you agree with Briffa’s assessment of Mann’s work?
> As mine came first, it’s over to you…
As yours is moot due to subsequent developments, you should go first.
Bet you don’t.
> like me – do you agree with Briffa?
So, since Briffa agrees with the IPCC reports and you agree with Briffa, you agree with the IPCC reports too.
No. Neither would Briffa (now) agree with Briffa (then).
You are quoting Briffa 2002 talking to Cook 2002 and Esper 2002. At the time they had their own rival reconstructions and disagreed with some elements of Mann, and in particular, got jack of him touting his as the best. Heated scientific dispute, oh noes, its all a scam! Except that, over the following three years, all three of them agreed that Mann’s multi-proxy reconstruction was as good as, or better than, the other alternatives (Cook, Esper, D’arrigo 2004, Mann, Briffa et al letter to JoC 2005). So Briffa was wrong then (except, perhaps, for his frustration at Mann’s vocal defense of his own work). Perhaps if these emails contained any current content we could reassess the question. But they don’t, so we can’t. But you agree with this, so we can say that you are 6-9 years out of date.
>Tell you what, chaps, I’ll answer yours if you’ll answer mine!
What are you afraid of, Duff? Why are you such a simpering coward when it comes to actually stating a scientific opinion?
>What are you afraid of, Duff? Why are you such a simpering coward when it comes to actually stating a scientific opinion?
Not only is David Duff a simpering coward when it comes to actually stating a scientific opinion, he is also one when it comes to putting his money where his unscientific mouth is.
After all, if he believes that consensus climatology is wrong, Duff should be wetting his pants to collect [ten thousand euros from me](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/12/december_2011_open_thread.php#comment-6036433).
Over the last month or so that I have been challenging various Denialati with my wager, not a one has actually had the spine to detail scientifically why they will not accept my offer. I suspect that doing so would involve them staring down the barrel of hard scientific fact, and the cognitive dissonance would [make their brains explode](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MhgnMX73Pw).
What are you afraid of, Duff?
What Duffer’s afraid of is having an opinion or worse, forming one. As is seen time after time on his visits here, he’s not equipped with the tools to form an argument let alone pusue one, so he struggles to maintain his studied supercilious detachment in imitation of what he imagines his Spectator-reading social superiors might do.
This intellectual bargain-basement, barrel-scraping smear game that the deniers are reduced to playing on account of their having no other weapons at their disposal really is the end game for them, and readily suits the chortling stupidity that is Duff. He’s their perfect archetype.
While it may still play with know-nothings like Duffer who seeks to reduce complex situations to sound bites that he can file away internally as his reference For All Time, even the mainstream press acknowledges (by its lack of reaction) that after crying wolf once, the deniers have nothing there. You really have to wonder at the child-like grasp of the world for simpletons fed to the likes of Duff by Watts and the gang.
Given the intense rivalries between say Oppenheimer and Teller we can only speculate on what a theoretical theft of emails from say Los Alamos in 1946 may have ‘revealed’. No doubt Duffer would still be proudly spambotting plenty of provided, well-chosen partial quotes ‘proving’ that atomic fission was a myth tailored to fit increased Big Government/mankind’s penchant for endtime fantasies/delete as appropriate.
Well, FrankD made a reasonable effort whilst ‘Wow’ remained true to his, er, lawyer-like agility by misrepresenting my question. Even so, fair play to Frank so I will answer the question posed by John as whether or not I “believe Morner”.
First, I would make clear that in my approach to the whole question of AGW and its ancillary subjects, ‘belief’ is not a word I would use in this or any other scientific controversy. Unlike so many here, I am not part of “a cause”! I have frequently confessed my own relative scientific ignorance, relative, that is, to those who specialise in it. However, as a reasonably intelligent, well-read man I try my best to understand these things – particularly when I see politicians picking up hypotheses and running with them because I know that will cost me money!
I can only tell you in absolute honesty that when, several years ago, I began to take an interest in this particular subject I had no views one way or the other. I read widely on both sides of the debate. I may be wrong, after all I have a lifetime’s experience of being wrong about many things, but at no time have I ever been completely convinced by the totality of the ‘warmer’ argument. I have always based myself on the premise that the earth’s climate is in a constant state of flux, thus, I have never doubted that temperatures may, repeat ‘may’, have increased in the last few decades. I stress ‘may’ because every investigation into the means of actually measuring *global* temperatures shows them to be, as we used to say in the motor trade, more than a bit hooky! It is now clear from the e-mails that not even the protaganists were convinced by each other’s efforts to find trustworthy proxies for past events. If any of you, today, are still convinced by Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ graph then please let me sell you a really low-mileage, one old lady owner, Ford Cortina – a real bargain – honest!
Everything the ‘warmer technicians’ come up with as a definitive graph to show historical temperature trends are based on ‘computer models’. If you trust computer models knowing the truth of how they can be manipulated, then again, I have just the car for you and, honestly, you can trust me! I’m afraid that far too many people who know just as much about the various esoteric topics within the discipline as your ‘heroes’ have come to different conclusions. They are not allcrooks or scallywags o rinthe pay of Big Oil, any more than your lot are in the pay of Big Government A cacophony of mutual slagging off then ensues, but the fact is that, as in a court case, the ‘deniers’ have established a reasonable doubt, in my opinion (not worth much), a better than reasonable doubt.
Science, as I understand it, has to be more or less water-tight. It is obvious – and in fact should be even more obvious to you who are on the receiving end – that your theories *may* be well founded but so are the doubts. Consequently, no one but a fool (so that let’s out the politicians, then!) would actually take drastic, expensive action to follow your precepts.
Finally (you will be glad to read), in answer to your question I do not “believe” in Morner but I would take his his description of global sea levels, provisionally, as likely to be more accurate than those forecasting huge and dangerous rises.
Sorry, one more ‘finally’. I do not pretend to scientific expertise but I do know a bit about human nature and behaviour. The crude, vituperative, shrill nature of the response of ‘warmers’ to even a hint of doubt (do you ever read yourselves?) instantly puts me in mind of members of extreme Left or Right wing ‘groupuscles’, or even, various extreme religious sects. The behaviour is startlig similar and only adds to my doubts concerning their “beliefs”.
It is obvious – and in fact should be even more obvious to you who are on the receiving end – that your theories may be well founded but so are the doubts.
Could you give us just one example of a doubt that you feel is well-founded, because I can’t think of a single one?
P.S. Remember to include the evidence you’ve seen that justifies your doubt.
For those uninterested in the inconsequential bloviatings of an utter ass; back in the ‘real’ world -
His nickname is “George W. Obama.” Obama’s negotiator, Todd Stern, will be here today. They have kept the exact same principles and negotiating stance as President George Bush did for eight years. Obama has carried on Bush’s legacy. So, as skeptics, we tip our hat to President Obama in helping crush and continue to defeat the United Nations process. Obama has been a great friend of global warming skeptics at these conferences.
Marc Morano, Durban.
Duff when provided [this link](http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1153) writes in reply:
>I do not “believe” in Morner but I would take his his description of global sea levels, provisionally, as likely to be more accurate than those forecasting huge and dangerous rises.
What is Morner’s description of global sea levels? Morner writes that:
>*[sea level] have remained roughly flat ever since .”*
Inspite tidal gauge measurements and satelite measurements of sea level rise over that period. Duff opts instead for Morner’s *”description of global sea levels”*.
Duff thus reveals himself as a raging denier of evidence in favor of a shonky story teller.
Duff has such a lack of self awareness that in support of his postion he evokes the claim that:
>*Science, as I understand it, has to be more or less water-tight.*
What a contradiction, Duff rejects the water tight case for our observed rising sea level in favor of a conspiracy story lacking evidence.
What a load of waffle, finally culminating in Duff’s wide eyed acceptance of conspiracy theories over evidence.
Duff, tell me how you can believe Morner’s projections are more accurate when his current observations are already devastatingly wrong?
>I have never doubted that temperatures may, repeat ‘may’, have increased in the last few decades.
Good lord, you just contradicted yourself *halfway through your own sentence*.
>The behaviour is startlig similar and only adds to my doubts concerning their “beliefs”.
I have the same reservations about chuckling old men who think they are too smart to learn anything, that the world is exactly the way it was in the 50′s, and that progress is nothing more than a left wing conspiracy to extract their precious money.
“…the world is exactly the way it was in the 50′s, and that progress is nothing more than a left wing conspiracy to extract their precious money.”
Perhaps if someone suggested that we revert to 1950′s tax rates they might have a bit of a rethink. And get them talking about something else for a while.
70% top tax rate in the USA, 75% in Oz, would really set the cat among the pigeons. Even though the world turned just the same back in the 50s, 60s, 70s.
The other point I want to make here is you have not come in good faith. You came here to troll, so don’t complain that people are impolite to you and it’s *our* fault you can’t accept the science.
You came here to boast (mutiple times) that the theory was over and we should all go home etc. Those are not the words of someone expressing a few doubts. Those are the words of a zealot who has made up his mind and you received the treatment you deserved.
> Unlike so many here, I am not part of “a cause”!
Wow, me neither! And yet I still point out that you indulge in logical fallacy, ignore evidence and make unjustified claims. Fancy that! One can be outside of “a cause” and still disagree with someone else who is not part of “the cause” too!
> I have always based myself on the premise that the earth’s climate is in a constant state of flux,…
…as do climate scientists, who are nevertheless deeply concerned about the causes and magnitude of the current ‘flux’. In that case, you raising ‘constant flux’ is entirely irrelevant.
> …I have never doubted that temperatures may, repeat ‘may’, have increased in the last few decades.
Well, except that the very word ‘may’ implies some form of doubt.
> … every investigation into the means of actually measuring global temperatures shows them to be…more than a bit hooky!
You are claiming facts not in evidence. Denying, in other words.
(Hint: see those shaded regions surrounding the curve on many of the temperature reconstruction graphs? Any idea what they mean?)
> If any of you, today, are still convinced by Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ graph…
Thus do you appear to deny the existence of a dozen or so other reconstructions, using different methods and proxies, all in broad agreement. Par for the course for you, I’m afraid.
> Everything the ‘warmer technicians’ come up with as a definitive graph to show historical temperature trends are based on ‘computer models’.
Liar, liar, pants on fire. Again. Apparently you don’t even understand the difference between a statistical procedure and a computer simulation. Why, it’s like you’re confidently pontificating on something you don’t understand. Dunning & Kruger would be proud!
Never mind that you interact with products and services heavily influenced by ‘computer models’ every day.
> Science, as I understand it, has to be more or less water-tight.
Nope. Especially not when it is a major fact in risk assessment and mitigation:
> Consequently, no one but a fool … would actually take drastic, expensive action to follow your precepts.
You are the unwitting fool here – you have risk management completely and utterly ass-backwards. No-one but a fool would wait until the argument is “water-tight” that he is going to drive straight into a cliff before taking action. No-one but a fool would wait until there is a bush fire in their neighbourhood before buying fire insurance for their dwelling. And only fools waited until there were only a handful of ‘skeptics’ who were unable to substantiate their ‘reasonable doubts’ about the claim that tobacco was causing all sorts of diseases before stopping smoking.
The science just has to be good enough to do effective risk management. And it clearly is, even if you are clueless about risk management – and science.
> The behaviour is startlig similar and only adds to my doubts concerning their “beliefs”.
Funny, you never make those observations about ‘skeptics’, who have the kind of ‘shrill’ response you tone-troll about here if you challenge them on their core beliefs, or point out that skeptic A claims something that utterly contradicts skeptic B.
That suggests that ‘tone’ does not provide a good guide to the veracity of beliefs. In which case, you’d better start trying to assess the evidence instead…
…except that you acknowledge you don’t have the skills for that, although you contradict yourself by implying that you do when you confidently assert that you think a fringe position that is unsupported by evidence is more likely than the mainstream scientific position.
So let me reiterate Richard Simons’ request:
> Could you give us just one example of a doubt that you feel is well-founded, because I can’t think of a single one?
> P.S. Remember to include the evidence you’ve seen that justifies your doubt.
And let me elaborate: the well-founded doubt, if proved accurate, should have a *sufficiently large* impact on climate science that it would significantly change our understanding – and our response to climate change. You know, something that would affect the action that politicians might take if they were doing evidence-based risk management.
Bet you can’t.
This new Denial Crock Of The Week video is timely. The subject? The deniers’ obsession with the hockey stick.
PUT UP OR SHUT UP
really if you wont put money where your mouth is you are just a TROLL or a PAID SOCK PUPPET
So go away.
Manne’s rather good dissection of denialism at the ABC, called How can climate change denialism be explained?
I have a lifetime’s experience of being wrong about many things
What a surprise.
David, you are dimwitted, pig ignorant, and most important, totally devoid of intellectual honesty. You have no idea how to evaluate evidence, and so what you accept or reject is entirely a matter of its emotional appeal. As a consequence, your assessments are completely unreliable, your judgments utterly irrelevant … no sensible person has any reason to consider them, and every reason to ignore them.
>… I will answer the question posed…
But then he doesn’t:
>I would take his his description of global sea levels, provisionally, as likely to be more accurate than those forecasting huge and dangerous rises.
Morner is more likely to be right than some unspecified person forecasting huge but unspecified rises. That’s not an answer, or at least, not to the question that was asked. Stipulating that “believe” would be better expressed as “concur with”, what is your answer to John’s question? Just with regard to the matters discussed on this thread, you needn’t defend his dowsing arsehattery. So lets try again…
Do you concur with Morner’s conclusion that sea level has not risen since 1970? Do you concur with his “Sealevelgate” conspiricy theory? Do you concur with his “estimate” that sea level rise will be no greater than 20 cm’s by 2100?
These are very simple expansions of John’s very simple question, and require no handwaving or bloviating. I dignified your question with a yes/no answer, and provided an explanation of the basis for that. Kindly do the same, if as you say “fair play” comes into it.
Simple stuff, David. Are you up for it?
>…as we used to say in the motor trade, more than a bit hooky! It is now clear from the e-mails that not even the protaganists were convinced by each other’s efforts to find trustworthy proxies for past events. If any of you, today, are still convinced by Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ graph then please let me sell you a really low-mileage, one old lady owner, Ford Cortina – a real bargain – honest!
Ah, all is explained – Duff is a former used car salesman.
It puts into very clear context the extraordinary cognitive dissonance and refractoriness to real scientific fact that he displays.
…and also his projections concerning other people’s honesty, or lack thereof, and manipulative self-interest.
Monbiot has now published in the Spectator itself, refuting Morner’s nonsense.
He even gives a handy introductory couple of paragraphs explaining why his refutation will have no impact on the likes of Duff, or, one suspects, the Spectator readership, for that matter.
I’m under orders from the ‘Memsahib’ so I might be a bit busy today but, be sure, like that old rascal MacArthur, “I shall return”!
Oh, but in the meantime, thanks to those many of you above who proved by demonstration the accuracy of my description of you as “crude, vituperative, shrill”.
> “I shall return”!
No need on our account, Dai.
I don’t suppose it would ever occur to you that vomit-making, phoney contrivances such as, “I’m under orders from the ‘Memsahib’” and your anachronistic Colonel Blimp act in conjunction with your freely admitted intellectual dishonesty might have something to do with those reactions you find disagreeable? Or maybe it’s just that the import of your own words hasn’t penetrated the exoskeleton of your beliefs yet.
Rather “crude, vituperative, shrill” than “credulous and wilfully stupid” any day.
>Simple stuff, David. Are you up for it?
Pathetic. This might be the best example I’ve ever seen of the “I can’t admit I’m wrong, so I’ll just pretend that I have to be somewhere else” crock, seen so many times on Deltoid of late. Future examples might be referred to as “Duffs exit”.
But DaiDai’s byebye frees me to remark on something I originally passed over:
>Good lord, you just contradicted yourself *halfway through your own sentence*.
Spectacular, isn’t he? I never saw a man get through a day so fast.
‘Shrill’!? From a shill? Will will will*…
*as they say in New Zealand
So what? That’s no more relevant than our hair color.
David Duff appears to be leading an admirable one man campaign to improve standards in science. He has set the bar impressively high: “Science, as I understand it, has to be more or less water-tight”. We must assume from here-on in that he will only cite work that is demonstrably watertight. If at any stage anyone can demonstrate that this is not the case then he will clearly not rely upon it. Given that it is easy to show that Morner’s latest protestations are not watertight, Mr Duff (being a man of honour and his word) will obviously cease to rely upon is work to support his case.
I feel that it is important that henceforth we endeavour to point out to Mr Duff whenever we believe the science upon which he is basing his argument is less than watertight (it would be rude not to, and Mr Duff is very keen on manners). I am slightly fretting about what he will have left, but we will worry about that in due course.
I wonder if Mr Duff could also kindly outline for us some current science that he thinks is watertight? For example, the aviation industry relies upon equations that are based on Newtonian mechanics, but we know that this is not watertight (indeed it is definitively wrong). I assume that he will not fly any longer? The computer industry relies upon Quantum Theory (transistors cannot work without it), but that is not watertight (and may well indeed be wrong), so presumably he will cease to use his PC (which may reduce the number of posts, admittedly). And recent observations suggest that even General Relativity is not watertight, so I assume that Mr Duff is reminding the physics community that they need to up their game.
So Mr Duff, can I politely request that you provide an example of a cutting edge current research area that you believe is “more or less watertight”? Just so that we know how high the bar is set, of course. We clearly need to understand where the gold standard lies. Please do ensure that it is a current research field (i.e. something in which a peer reviewed publiation with new data has been published in this current year) so that we can compare your gold standard with climate research.
Yours in anticipation!
Good lord, you just contradicted yourself halfway through your own sentence
David “Duff by name, duff by nature” Duff has learned self-contradiction at the feet of the master, Ian Plimer. See Plimer vs Plimer.
GWB’s nemisis…..I’m sure Duff will say the best science comes from the oil drilling industry. BP is a prime example of water tight science, because no water leaked out.
Well Duff did say ‘more or less watertight. Presumably, he will countenance science that is less than watertight. What would be more than watertight would be interesting to know, but I fear he won’t point to any exemplars of that.
What we need to now is how much less than watertight things can be before they fail the Duffer test and how he measures this shortfall. Perhaps we need (gasp) a model for working this out — we could call it the Duffer model — for measuring the shortfall and offering a rationale for his own plimsoll line.
If nothing else, the Duffer Model should be watertight — more or less.
Now I must ask you children to be quiet today because last night’s dinner was, shall we say, festive and I am walking wounded!
I would like to thank ‘GWB’ for his polite response even if I sense that it was written through gritted teeth, if you follow my meaning. He seems surprised at my phrase indicating that science is “more or less watertight”. I grant that was perhaps a less than specific description, so let me explain it.
In my view science, as opposed to technology (the application of science) must have one critical condition – it must be able to forecast future events. Thus, Newton’s laws tell us that if we have sufficient data we can forecast with accuracy the momentum and position of matter. No one, I think, would argue that Newton’s laws have proved their efficacy – and accuracy – ever since he first proposed them. However, they are not (yet) totally comprehensive. At the sub-atomic level (so far) it has proven impossible to integrate them into quantum theory thus producing an over-arching theory. So, that, along with other examples in physics and chemistry, is what I call ‘science’ whose main characteristic is that it is almost, repeat almost, invariant in being able to forecast events and/or their outcomes – hence my somewhat careless phrase “more or less”.
Now let us turn to what I call ‘technology’ which is the attempt to use science to explore the world we live in. Perhaps the oldest and therefore the most ‘respectable’ is biology. But of course, biology is not a science. It can make no definitive forecasts. For example, even the most highly respected Darwinists cannot tell us which species will exist in 10,000 years, let alone which species will be produced. Newton, on the other hand, will tell you exactly where the planets will be.
It is precisely this confusion between technology and science which lies at the heart of the dispute over global climate. Uneasily aware and slightly embarrassed that they are not real scientists, the climate technicians attempt to inflate their mundane tasks into something much larger and grander than it actually warrants. When real scientists, like Freeman Dyson, express some doubts they are offended and then seek, by fair means or foul, to instil a certainty into their prognostications which quite simply will not bear the weight.
If you seek proof of my contention that climate science is only technology, let me ask you if you believe that the ‘forecasts’ of Dr. Mann have proved accurate?
Now I’m afraid I must leave you and retire to a dark room with an aspirin!
Is there some rule of thumb for how much of an open thread a person has to consume before being granted his own topic?
I’m not sure what other factors need to be integrated, but certainly Duffer is scoring consistently and impressively on the fu*kwit scale.
Not gritted teeth at all. It is rather fun to demonstrate (politely) that denialists are without credibilty, although that is usually rather easy. And indeed, you rather nicely demonstrate this in your response. With the greatest respect you are quite wrong when you say: “Newton, on the other hand, will tell you exactly where the planets will be”. Even a High School student is aware of the three body problem (although clearly you are not), which means that this is not possible. Given that this means that even basic physics cannot predict the future, by your definition this is not a science. That would leave you in something a pickle, one would think?
So once again, I ask you to provide an example of a cutting edge science field that you feel is “more or less watertight”.
And finally you say: “let me ask you if you believe that the ‘forecasts’ of Dr. Mann have proved accurate?”. You are clearly inferring that you do not believe that they have been accurate (or do you mean reliable?). Given your admirable crusade for scientific integrity, I am sure that you wuld not make such a statement without “more or less watertight” evidence to support it. I think we would all be grateful if you could let us see your analysis.
> Newton, on the other hand, will tell you exactly where the planets will be.
Apart from, say, Mercury. You really are ignorant of science and history, aren’t you?
Thank you, you make my point better than I could. Of course, we shoot rockets at the moon precisely because Newton’s laws are so precise. The three-body problem, particularly at the quantum level is proof that not even science is totally watertight – to quote a phrase!
As to your faith, I use the word after due consideration, in Dr. Mann’s forecasts here are some quotes:
“In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and
the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling. We also comment that they
were attempting to draw attention to the discrepancies in MBH98 and MBH99, and not to
do paleoclimatic temperature reconstruction.”
“In our further exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature
reconstruction, we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of
coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the
area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not
be as independent as they might appear on the surface.”
“It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely
heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical
community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results
was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much
reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent.”
I could go on, I could find others, but the only result will be that you will produce *your* favourite authors, and then the whole thing descends into ‘he said, she said’ tedium. Please don’t come back and tell me the Wegman and his uncle plus his entire family are in the pay of Big Oil, or whatever, there’s a good fellow!
I note with respect that you have dodged my question, so I will pose it for a third time: I ask you to provide an example of a cutting edge science field that you feel is “more or less watertight”.
As for the Mann question, I asked for YOUR analysis, not one recycled from a report. And incidentally your challenge was “let me ask you if you believe that the ‘forecasts’ of Dr. Mann have proved accurate?”. Your example is for palaeoclimate reconstruction, not a climate forecast.
We can leave the extraordinary isssues with the Wegman Report to one side (but I wonder how this squares with your crusade for scientific integrity). Your choice of evidence is remarkable!
So to summarise Mr Duff, please can we have:
1. Your examples of more or less watertight cutting edge science; and
2. Your own analysis of Mann’s climate forecasts,;
We are all looking forward to your words of wisdom.
“Please don’t come back and tell me the Wegman and his uncle plus his entire family are in the pay of Big Oil”
He almost certainly is, however the relevant point is that
Wegman is a con artist and serial plagiarizer. (How about just this once, you demonstrate that you can google things yourself instead of demanding that we do it for you?)
Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.
Past time for more thread.
Sorry it’s late, I blame the carbon tax!
Do you think the alarmists who predicted doom because of the carbon tax will shut up?
By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.