January 2012 Open Thread

Comments

  1. #1 Lotharsson
    January 20, 2012

    Scribe, I presume the content of that interview is strongly related to [this post](http://grist.org/climate-change/2011-12-05-the-brutal-logic-of-climate-change/) (which has links to a paper and some presentations)?

    (I’m guessing pokerplyer hasn’t digested this kind of analysis though.)

  2. #2 Trent1492
    January 20, 2012

    So if I understand the lecture linked to in post #469 we have no hope of holding it down below 2c and even 4c looks like a dream so in short we are fucked. If I am wrong tell me.

    All that we can do is advocacy for drastic reductions that will keep that hole from getting deeper and registering protest with deniers so that future generations will not think we were all perfect idiots.

    What do ideologues like Poker Player think will happen to the reputation of libertarianism when it becomes clear to even the dullest dullard that Libertarianism and its allies played a crucial role in inducing suffering?

  3. #3 bill
    January 20, 2012

    Anybody know if there’s a video version of that specific presentation somewhere?

    A quick google didn’t turn any up. Anderson is obviously speaking with reference to some charts he’s displaying, and it would be ‘nice’ to be able to see them.

    Aha! I did just find this from Tyndall itself, which is pretty-well the same piece, found via the Grist link Lotharsson has given above. Takes about 1000 years to load in FF, but does get there in the end!

  4. #4 bill
    January 20, 2012

    Anderson’s forthcoming paper ‘Are Climate Scientists the Most Dangerous Climate Sceptics’ (see the presentation with slides I linked to immediately above, at about 33’20″) should be a doozy!…

  5. #5 jerryg
    January 20, 2012

    Interesting web pages
    [State of the Climate](http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/2011/12) and [GISS Surface Temperature Analysis](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2011/)

  6. #6 ianam
    January 21, 2012

    What do ideologues like Poker Player think will happen to the reputation of libertarianism when it becomes clear to even the dullest dullard that Libertarianism and its allies played a crucial role in inducing suffering?

    Unfortunately, the world doesn’t work that way. People favorable to libertarianism base their beliefs on ideology, not on libertarianism’s track record, which is abysmal and horrific — look at how deregulation led to the U.S. financial meltdown that has left 49 million Americans in poverty and another 97 million in the “low income” category. You assume an understanding of cause and effect that most people, many of whom are a lot higher on the bell curve than the the dullest dullard, do not have … else Barack Obama and the leading Republican candidate would not be nearly neck-and-neck in U.S. presidential polls. If people understood the consequences of libertarian and right wing policies and principles, they not only would not be voting for these people, they would be putting their necks under the guillotine.

  7. #7 MikeH
    January 21, 2012

    Pokerplyer and his right-wing mates claim that AGW is a green conspiracy to achieve radical social change. The irony is that their 30 years of denying and delaying is going to do exactly that.

    Unfortunately there is no guarantee that the change will be to a more sustainable and equitable society. In OZ, the Abbott right will simply install “stop the boats” as their climate change policy.

  8. #8 bill
    January 21, 2012

    People who really want to avoid scary authoritarian states ought to be doing there damnedest to bring about real change now within the framework of our existing liberal societies.

    But no: we offer them carbon markets – they don’t want carbon markets. All right then, it’ll have to be a tax (actually a market price, but anyway…) – the sky is falling! The sky is falling! Won’t someone think of the children?! We point out that the earlier we make the transition the cheaper it’s going to be, and the less impact it will have on all those things they hold most precious (i.e themselves.) No, no no – it’s nothing, or nothing! What did that supreme idiot’s father say? ‘The American way of life is not negotiable’? Substitute your national affluent white male elite of choice, and that’s the Way of The West.

    Instead we’ll get to run the experiment until things are so bad that even the thickhead Right cannot deny reality anymore; in which case they will doubtlessly ditch the whole ‘Libuuurty’ PR spin and the democratic trappings and attempt to establish themselves as our overlords in earnest. After all, it’s their rightful place; it’ll be for our own good!

    Frankly, at that point the non-idiots will have a far more pressing moral case for being the regulators of austerity – for a start, their more egalitarian and evidence-based strategies might actually work – but, sadly, history tends to follow the ‘shit floats’ rule and the dropkicks who rule then are most likely to be the heirs of the self-same dropkicks who rule now.

    I’ve said it before: do nothing about this issue, and in retrospect by about 2050 contemporary China will seem like an unattainable paradise, let alone those decadent liberal democracies that effectively barbequed the planet…

    Hey, wait; that’s the good result! You wanna see the alternative where even the autocrats (idiot or otherwise) can’t hold it together anymore, try Sierra Leone…

  9. #9 AmandaS
    January 23, 2012

    @#372:

    “Second, the Earth has been this route before. The oceans have been far warmer and far colder and more acidic (2-20X) than is projected. The memory of these events is built into the genes of all species. Virtually all ecological niches have been filled at all times. If someone could demonstrate that there were no corals, clams, oysters, or shelled of CO2, we would be concerned. The opposite is true.”

    Having studied both evolutionary genetics and coral reef ecology, this made my brain hurt. It’s just – not even wrong. The second sentence might contain kernels of truth but everything after that is painfully ignorant of any aspect of – well, genetics, evolutionary genetics, the history of species, the great extinctions, ecological niche filling, the illustrative power of the Cambrian explosion, the rise and fall of coral and coral reefs and just general ecology and species-level adaptability.

    The problem with someone being not even wrong, is that there’s just no common ground on which to start a discussion. To refute the farrago of nonsense would involve a truly enormous amount of work covering a lot of areas of science and, at the end, you’d know that you’ve made no difference. So I’m not going to try. I’m just going to devoutly hope that I never travel on an aeroplane that pokerplyer had anything to do with.

  10. #10 ianam
    January 23, 2012

    Amanda, none of that background is required. pokerplyer’s argument implies that we need not be concerned about large meteors striking the Earth, or anything else that has ever occurred before, because extant species made it here despite them. In engineering, it’s like saying that we don’t have to be concerned about anything going wrong because things have gone wrong before. Since the Hindenburg is in our memories, we need not be concerned about building and boarding an exact replica of the Hindenburg. pokerply is unreachable because of his inability or unwillingness to critically evaluate the logic of his arguments … certainly when it would threaten his ideological commitments.

  11. #11 StevoR
    January 24, 2012

    @436. jerryg | January 18, 2012 6:41 PM :

    Hope this isn’t too far off-topic, How does one go about checking the impact factor of a journal ..

    My understanding – & I could be mistaken so please correct me if I am folks – is that an Open thread like this means that (almost?) nothing is off-topic.

    (Usual commenting policy & basic rules of discourse applies still I’m sure.)

  12. #12 StevoR
    January 24, 2012

    Couple of news items of possible interest for folks here

    * [Study plugs gap in global warming puzzle](http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/01/23/3412428.htm) by Rachel Sullivan ABC science news online – Monday, 23 January 2012.

    * [Arctic Ocean freshwater bulge detected] (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16657122) via BBC world news online.

    There’s an article on the bad Astronomy blog discussing the fact that 2011 was teh ninth hottest year -and hottest La Nina yera according toa comment there – as well but I’m not sure how many links I’m allowed in a comment somight add that separately.

  13. #13 StevoR
    January 24, 2012

    Hmm .. link done identically but didn’t work? Is it just one link at a time permitted here then? Or did I mess up?

    Anyhow – Take II :

    [Arctic Ocean freshwater bulge detected](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16657122) via BBC world news online.

    Ah, spacing issue?

    [Bad Astronomy blog post on 2011 being in the top ten hottest years on record](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/01/20/2011-the-9th-hottest-year-on-record/comment-page-5/#comment-470630)

    Link looks like it works now. I hope so.

    Chris comment #14 there notes :

    One thing you forgot to mention that helps bring the point home. It’s not only the 9th hottest year on record, but also the hottest La Nina year on record.

    Can folks here confirm that please?

    My question (as Messier Tidy Upper – # 165 – there) is there the full 130-year data-set with years listed in order of temperature from hottest to coldest to be found somewhere online?

    Or at least an extended list down to top twenty or thirty years?

    Looking at this from another angle I also wonder when the most recent “Top Ten Coldest Year” was and what that *Coldest* Top Ten Years list looks like?

    Anyone know if those are available somewhere please?

  14. #14 Lotharsson
    January 24, 2012

    > Looking at this from another angle I also wonder when the most recent “Top Ten Coldest Year” was and what that Coldest Top Ten Years list looks like?

    Depends which data set you want to use and how far back it goes – and if you can do some simple calculations. For example, here is [GISS LOTI](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt). From a quick look at that, if you use “Jan-Dec” as your “annual average”, then (possibly incorrectly) it appears that 1917 was the last of the “Top Ten Coldest Years”.

    There’s also GISS dTs, HadCrut in various forms, etc.

    You’ve got to be careful with this kind of thinking – the “top N hottest years” is a poor way to determine trend, and denialists like to pretend that it’s a good way (“it’s been cooling since 1998″, etc.) But for some people that subscribe to that kind of logic pointing out the Top 10 Coldest Years might be mildly thought-provoking.

  15. #15 FrankD
    January 24, 2012

    StevoR,

    The following is my take, but others may differ, particularly on some definitional nuance. I’ve used GISS data (132 years) throughout, but different datasets will give different results.

    >the hottest La Nina year on record…Can folks here confirm that please?

    This is sort of true but of doubtful value. La Nina’s rarely span a full year, let alone conveniently matching a calendar year, so there is little to compare it to. 2011′s anomaly was +0.52. The last full calendar year La Nina was 1999 with +0.33. Prior to that you have to go back to 1974 (-0.08) and 1975 (-0.04).

    Its easy to download, massage and sort the [GISS Land-Ocean Temperature dataset](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt), but a summary follows.

    Hottest Calendar Year(all anomalies +)
    2010 (0.63), 2005 (0.62), 1998 & 2007 (0.58), 2009 (0.57), 2002 & 2003 (0.56), 2006 (0.55), 2011 (0.52), 2001 & 2004 (0.48), 2008 (0.44), 1997 (0.41), 1995 (0.39), 1990 (0.36), 1991 & 2000 (0.35), 1988 & 1999 (0.33), 1996 (0.30). The top 20 hottest are all in the last 24 years. These are followed by 1987, 1981, 1983, 1994, 1989, 1980, 1944, 1993, 1973, then 1977, 1986 and 1993 tied on 0.13.

    The hottest 12 month period was June 2009 to May 2010 at +0.67.

    The most recent Top 10 Coldest year was 1917. FWIW, the coldest year in the last fifty was 1964, coming in at number 35 (-0.21), and in the last thirty, 1982 at 85 (+0.05). The full top ten coldest are 1890 & 1907 (-0.40), 1917 (-0.38), 1887, 1897, 1904, 1909 (all -0.35), 1893, 1908, 1910 (all -0.34).

  16. #16 adelady
    January 24, 2012

    ” Can folks here confirm that please? ”

    There’s a nice graphic here on NOAA’s State of the Climate Report. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2011/13

  17. #17 stephenk
    January 24, 2012

    and the other thing about Adelady’s chart, roughly since the mid 70′s after every La Nina the temperature never goes that low again.

    (yeah I know 1992/3 an El Nino did and 1999/00 double el Ninas, but I said roughly!).

  18. #18 V. infernalis
    January 25, 2012

    DeSmogBlog just had a post today about how the Institute for Public Affairs basically manufactures all the talking points that get repeated in our beloved Australian and other papers:

    This analysis shows that the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian neoliberal think tank, has used its access to the media as a news source to influence the public discussion on climate change in Australia. The rhetorical vision expressed by the IPA is one of hostility towards climate scientists and the scientific consensus on climate change; the IPA’s hostility is based on its opposition to proposed government regulations aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

  19. #19 John Mashey
    January 26, 2012

    And over at Hot TOpic, do see: Puppets on a string: US think tank funds NZ sceptics.
    However, that also shows Heartland sent money to various other places in “South Asia and Pacific,” a geography that might include Oz as well.
    I note Heartland-IPA connection.

  20. #20 David Duff
    January 27, 2012

    Good Lord, are you lot still here? Look, I have tried to break the news to you gently but you force me to repeat myself – it’s over! – finished! – everyone’s gone home, you’re on your own! – no-one believes any of that global warming stuff anymore! Not your fault, you did try but perhaps its items like this that spoiled your party:

    Multiple indicators show global temperatures headed down this month, and fast” and “The new Dr. Ryan Maue reanalysis based global temperature anomalies has declined dramatically this month – almost a full degree Celsius!

    Cor, who’da thunk it?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/26/what-in-the-world-is-going-on-with-global-temperatures/#more-55473

    Still, I know your lives must be feeling rather empty without an ‘end-of-the-world-is-nigh’ scenario and as usual I am eager to help:

    Scientists are trying to find a way to protect Earth from the giant rocks which travel around the Milky Way.“[...]
    The project though is a little late as a chunk of rock 400 times the City of London is set to hurtle closer than a rock of its size has in a very long time.
    The asteroid labelled ‘(433) Eros’ measures 19 by 8 by 8 miles and is set to pass by next week.
    Despite its massive size, the cosmic rock shouldn’t be too cause too much of a threat as it is on a circular path far outside the moon’s orbit.
    A smaller bus-sized asteroid is also set to pass extremely close to Earth today.
    The asteroid 2012 BX34, will pass within 36,750 miles of Earth at about 3:30 p.m. Friday, tweeted astronomers with NASA’s Asteroid Watch program.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2092626/Europe-developing-asteroid-shield-But-won-t-time-19-mile-wide-monster-hurtling-past-Earth-week.html#ixzz1kez5M84Q

    Don’t say I don’t try to help because you are ever in my thoughts!

  21. #21 chek
    January 27, 2012

    Ah, welcome back [Toss, you old duffer](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6218347). I’ve been waiting for the chance to ask your opinion of the way Watts promotes and protects [liars, shysters and cheats.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/more_fraud_from_pat_michaels.php)

    Well? Speak up man…

  22. #22 Chris O'Neill
    January 27, 2012

    are you lot still here?

    It’s that broken record again.

  23. #23 lord_sidcup
    January 27, 2012

    global temperatures headed down this month

    At least this is an advance on Duff’s usual ‘it’s cold today’. Not much of an advance mind.

  24. #24 lord_sidcup
    January 27, 2012

    On more interesting matters and relevant to 488, I wonder how Lord Lawson and his team of practiced liars are getting on? [Will we find out today who funds them? ](http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/bid-to-out-the-money-behind-the-voice-against-climate-change-20120126-1qjfp.html)

  25. #25 lord_sidcup
    January 27, 2012

    Seems like we might have to wait a while yet on the GWPF funding FOI tribunal. Leo Hickman tweets “judgement could take 4 weeks”.

  26. #26 David Duff
    January 27, 2012

    To be honest, Chek, I am never very enthused by people who toss the words “liars, shysters and cheats” around whilst grappling with a genuine difference of opinion on a scientific matter. And for what it’s worth (not much, I suspect, in your case) Watts and McIntyre frequently make efforts to remind their commenters to avoid ‘ad hominems’ and insults. Can’t say I have seen much of that over here!

  27. #27 lord_sidcup
    January 27, 2012

    The Request Initiative (the people seeking the name of the GWPFs seed donor) press release is worth reading:

    [Lord Lawson should name funder of climate sceptic think tank, judge told](http://requestinitiative.org/2012/01/lord-lawson-should-name-funder-of-climate-sceptic-think-tank-judge-told/)

    Lawson says:

    We are absolutely clean. I would be very happy to see the names of all our donors published, I can assure you, it would be very, very good…

    Yet, to my knowledge, they haven’t named a single one the donors who gave them nearly half a million pounds in their first year.

  28. #28 Ian Forrester
    January 27, 2012

    duffer the puffer said:

    And for what it’s worth (not much, I suspect, in your case) Watts and McIntyre frequently make efforts to remind their commenters to avoid ‘ad hominems’ and insults. Can’t say I have seen much of that over here!

    There are very few ad hominem comments found in Deltoid (except from liars like duffer the puffer) because it is not an ad hominem comment when one calls some one who consistently lies, cheats and uses other dishonest means to try and deny well accepted climate science a liar, cheat or denier.

    duffer the puffer’s ability to understand the intricacies of the English language seems to be as low as his scientific ability, and no, that is not an ad hominem.

  29. #29 Composer99
    January 27, 2012

    Duff is “never very enthused by people who toss the words “liars, shysters and cheats” around whilst grappling with a genuine difference of opinion on a scientific matter”.

    See, there’s your problem right there, Duff. When you look at the outright falsehoods continually propagated by the likes of Michaels, Monckton & Watts (by the way, I notice you didn’t bother to show up on the thread where Michaels’ specific misdeeds were discussed), then going around thinking there is a “genuine difference of opinion” is just rank ignorance.

  30. #30 David Duff
    January 27, 2012

    So would your apparently beloved phrase “liars, shysters and cheats” include each and every one of these?

    Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

    Whose views are summed up thus: “Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of “incontrovertible” evidence.

  31. #31 lord_sidcup
    January 27, 2012

    Duff – since you are so anxious to change the topic, can I take it you concede that Watts promotes “liars, shysters and cheats”?

  32. #32 Ian Forrester
    January 27, 2012

    duffer the puffer asked:

    So would your apparently beloved phrase “liars, shysters and cheats” include each and every one of these?

    Yes, everyone on that list falls into the “liars, shysters and cheats” description, which anyone who has even a little bit of knowledge of science would know. The fact that you cannot see this is more proof that you are ignorant, arrogant and dishonest.

  33. #33 David Duff
    January 27, 2012

    Thank you, Mr. Forrester, I will now have even greater pleasure in forwarding your remarks to the gentlemen concerned. They and their lawyers will find it interesting, I should think.

  34. #34 ianam
    January 27, 2012

    So would your apparently beloved phrase “liars, shysters and cheats” include each and every one of these?

    Either that or willfully ignorant. And there’s certainly plenty of lying, shystering and cheating by these folks when their statement is so ideologically driven … it’s not about science, but rather about ignoring science because they don’t like what they think are its economic implications. The nature of their statement establishes them as not acting in good faith … just like you.

  35. #35 ianam
    January 27, 2012

    They and their lawyers will find it interesting

    They and their lawyers will think you a buffoon and will resent your wasting their time. The rest of us think you’re an asshole. If I were Tim, I would permanently ban you from this site for making legal threats.

  36. #36 ianam
    January 27, 2012

    And for what it’s worth (not much, I suspect, in your case) Watts and McIntyre frequently make efforts to remind their commenters to avoid ‘ad hominems’ and insults. Can’t say I have seen much of that over here!

    It isn’t worth anything because their commenters are a pack of ignoramuses and liars and their statements are false, whereas over here we know things and tell the truth … substance over form, matey.

  37. #37 ianam
    January 27, 2012

    perhaps its items like this that spoiled your party

    Perhaps you should look up the word “fluctuation”, moron. As pointed out repeatedly to that other cretin, Alex Harvey, temperatures go up and down — no one disagrees — but the trend is upwards. So every time you say something like this you further reconfirm that you are incredibly stupid and that you are incapable of learning anything … certainly nothing that challenges your denial, you pathetic bore.

  38. #38 Dave H
    January 27, 2012

    @Duffman

    Every one of those people put their name to an article that lied about Kevin Trenberth. It also lied about De Freitas, claiming that he was “factually correct”.

    So yes. Liars.

  39. #39 Ian Forrester
    January 27, 2012

    duffer the puffer boasted:

    Thank you, Mr. Forrester, I will now have even greater pleasure in forwarding your remarks to the gentlemen concerned. They and their lawyers will find it interesting, I should think.

    Please do duffer the puffer since it will be great fun to see those lying scum bags squirm in court as their lies are listed one by one.

    You either haven’t read the article or are so stupid and dishonest not to see that the article you cited is full of lies, red herrings and ignorance.

    They did get one bit right though:

    Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word “incontrovertible” from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question “cui bono?” Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”

    I followed the money and found this:

    Chevron – $26.9 billion 2011 profit.
    Conoco Philips – $12.4 billion 2011 profit. You can go to Climate Progress to see for yourself.

    It will be interesting to complete the listing of all major oil and coal companies and see what the total is. Certainly enough to tell lies to keep it coming.

    How much do you think those 16 dishonest scientists get from all those billions? Hey, maybe even you get some. I honestly don’t think anyone can be as stupid and dishonest as you without getting something in return.

  40. #40 adelady
    January 27, 2012

    “I honestly don’t think anyone can be as stupid and dishonest as you without getting something in return.”

    Ultra depressing newsflash. Probably not.

    I doubt he gets anything out of it other than the satisfaction of displaying to the world that he is wiser, stronger, better – who knows – than the rest of us.

    This is what you get when you combine smart aleckry with gullibility – all driven by a need to ignore stuff you really don’t want to know.

  41. #41 Chucky
    January 27, 2012

    No wonder this blog gets hardly any hit’s,
    it’s sort of like the flat earthers blog where nobody goes.

    Here’s a newsbite suckers.

    No Need to Panic About Global Warming

    There’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.

    In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

    Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

    The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have…….

    read on and weep…………

    ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html )

  42. #42 adelady
    January 27, 2012

    The Wall Street Journal may not be the best source available for scientific information.

    Some enterprising people have done the hard yards and “found” the ‘missing’ heat. http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL048794.shtml

    Lo and behold, just as missing small change is always found behind the couch cushions, the previously unmeasured heat was found right where everyone said it would be – in the oceans.

    If you don’t get the full flavour from the abstract of Church et al’s paper, it’s helpfully first on the agenda and top of the page here http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture-global-warming.html

  43. #43 FrankD
    January 27, 2012

    Duff @ 495:
    >I am never very enthused by people who toss the words “liars, shysters and cheats” around whilst grappling with a genuine difference of opinion on a scientific matter.

    which implies that Duff uses a poster’s politeness as one of his criteria for evaluating an argument. In effect “X is rude, so I ignore him.”

    That is the very [definition](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) of an ad hominem fallacy.

    Ironic buffoon is ironic…

  44. #44 FrankD
    January 27, 2012

    And here was me thinking that Chucky was a faintly entertaining doll given an evil soul through the power of voodoo. Turns out he’s just another boring zombie troll.

    Misquoting Trenberth for the 19746th time? Really? Is that the best they can do these days? :/

  45. #45 Chucky
    January 28, 2012

    adelady, if all you have is a paper that is hiding behind a paywall and is chock full of uncertainties then you don’t have much !

    You should be embarrassed for linking to skepticalsuckers.com, the lies that they spew forth are completely laughable.

  46. #46 adelady
    January 28, 2012

    Perhaps something from right here on ScienceBlogs would be more appealing. No pesky references to scientific papers.

    Can’t get the link to work – just copy this text for a search
    “Two incontrovertible things: Anthropogenic Global Warming is Real, and the Wall Street Journal is Political Rag”

    and you’ll get there.

  47. #47 Lars Karlsson
    January 28, 2012

    It’s funny how that WSJ opinion piece refers to the stolen email by Trenberth, and not the actual journal article that he spoke of in that email. If those ‘concerned scientist’ (like so many other ‘skeptics’) prefer a stolen email to a published article, it surely says something about their intellectual and moral standards.

  48. #48 Marco
    January 28, 2012

    It’s funny to see people refer to Ivar Giaever, trying to use his Nobelprize to give more credit to their ideas. Reminds me of one Kary Mullis, who is happily used by the HIV/AIDS denial community to gain support for their idea that HIV does not even exist. I’m sure the WSJ will soon publish an Editorial or Opinion Piece in which they will point to the many scientists, including Nobelprize winner Kary Mullis, that believe HIV does not exist. Right, WSJ?

    Note that John Nielsen-Gammon also had something to say about the editorial standard at WSJ when it comes to climate change.

  49. #49 Chris O'Neill
    January 28, 2012

    No wonder this blog gets hardly any hit’s

    Why do so many fact-denialists not know what an apostrophe means?

    the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated

    So is the Wall Street Journal the source of this “great exaggeration” meme being regurgitated around the internet? The fact is that global temperature has risen at 0.17 deg C per decade in those 22 years compared with the computer model forecast of 0.2 deg C per decade. The only great exaggeration is the exaggeration of the difference between 0.17 and 0.2.

    At least Chucky is good for regurgitating great denialist exaggerations.

  50. #50 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2012

    > Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now.

    Ah, yet another unoriginal troll who doesn’t know how to compute a trend.

    And isn’t aware that 2011 was the warmest La Nina year ever.

    And then goes on to conflate annual global average temperatures with Trenberth’s e-mail about having insufficient data to balance the radiation budget – apparently unaware despite numerous explanations that Trenberth **wasn’t** implying that the warming trend had stopped.

    Better trolls, please!

  51. #51 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2012

    A post at Washington Monthly about [that WSJ regurgitation of various denialist talking points](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_01/wsj_offers_climate_change_deni035040.php).

  52. #52 Chris O'Neill
    January 28, 2012

    Dumb:

    “The new Dr. Ryan Maue reanalysis based global temperature anomalies has declined dramatically this month – almost a full degree Celsius!”

    Cor, who’da thunk it?

    Not only that, but the world is about to go into the great global cooling period of 2001-2014, the likes of which the world hasn’t seen since 1957. We know it’s been the longest time in recorded history since a cooling period like that one but that’s all about to end, any day now. You’ll see. I’m holding my breath.

  53. #53 Lotharsson
    January 28, 2012

    And Greg Laden [on the WSJ](http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/01/two_incontrovertible_things_an.php):

    > That second list of [250+] scientists…is attached to a letter about the shoddy and ignorant ways in which science is being treated by the press and by climate change denialists. That letter was sent to the Wall Street Journal but rejected. The letter was later published in Science.

    Of course, since it wasn’t in the WSJ, but merely in the far less relevant journal Science, Duff can pretend it doesn’t exist, eh what?!

    Laden also links to two other posts about the WSJ article, and writes:

    > The Wall Street Journal is trolling, and it is shameful. Almost everything they say in their piece is an out and out lie, easily falsified with even a cursory examination of the evidence. In fact, their piece is so bad that this is what we can say about the “16 scientists” who signed this letter: They are idiots. If any of those individuals actually read this piece as published and put their name on it, their credentials as climate scientists have just evaporated. If they were not climate scientists or working in some related field such as palaeoclimate or atmospheric chemistry or what have you, they should have known better and their ability to make even the simplest of judgements is now in serious question.

  54. #54 MarcusJ
    January 28, 2012

    Er, Chucky…

    these aren’t the deltoids you’re looking for…

  55. #55 Lars Karlsson
    January 28, 2012

    In the case of a signatory like “forecasting” expert J Scott Armstrong, his ability to make even the simplest of judgements has already been thoroughly discredited. If Armstrong signs something, it is safe to assume that it is tripe.

  56. #56 bill
    January 28, 2012

    Why do so many fact-denialists not know what an apostrophe means?

    Come now; Chucky is not illiterate – his parents were married.

  57. #57 ianam
    January 28, 2012

    just as missing small change

    Or missing socks. According to morons like Chucky, those socks never existed in the first place … their mates were bought as singles, worn as singles, and went into the laundry as singles.

  58. #58 StevoR
    January 29, 2012

    Something I saw in today’s Weekend Australian that may be of interest. In the editorial “Activists burn national goodwill along with flag” on page 23 :

    “As Meryl Tankard Reist, Ian Plimer or Andrew Bolt can attest, the modern illiberal Left seems to care little for free speech unless thatspeech echoes tehri views.”

    Um .. WHAT!?

    Have we done something unfairly nasty to Ian Plimer that I’m unaware of or somehow censrored him from expressig himself?

    Really? When?

    I must’ve missed it.

    Anyone got a clue what the blazes the Oz is on about there?

  59. #59 StevoR
    January 29, 2012

    Something I saw in today’s Weekend Australian that may be of interest. In the editorial “Activists burn national goodwill along with flag” on page 23 :

    “As Meryl Tankard Reist, Ian Plimer or Andrew Bolt can attest, the modern illiberal Left seems to care little for free speech unless that speech echoes their views.”

    Um .. What!?

    Have we done something unfairly nasty to Ian Plimer that I’m unaware of or somehow censored him from expressing himself?

    Really? When?

    I must’ve missed it.

    Anyone got a clue what the blazes the Oz is on about there?

    ***

    PS. Apologies if this comes through twice, may be having trouble here.

  60. #60 Lotharsson
    January 29, 2012

    StevoR, it looks like the same gambit the Christian Right uses in the US – they (apparently quite eagerly) claim the mantle of persecution and/or censorship because they get criticised or because they aren’t allowed to (say) promote pseudo-science in the school curriculum.

    I note that it is said that the ability to make distinctions is a mark of intelligence, and that conflation is a key tool of the sophist.

  61. #61 Dave H
    January 29, 2012

    Is Duffmeister going to admit those WSJ signatories lied about Trenberth?

  62. #62 John
    January 29, 2012

    >So would your apparently beloved phrase “liars, shysters and cheats” include each and every one of these?

    Yes.

    Speaking of “liars shyster and cheats”, Duff, I haven’t forgotten that you abandoned the site after you were unable to tell us why you believed Morner’s projections were more accurate even though his observations were wrong.

    Isn’t it funny that deniers who shriek “there is no consensus!” and “97% of climate scientists is an appeal to authority” are always so quick to post their own appeals to authority. Where’s your *skepticism* Duff?

  63. #63 John
    January 29, 2012

    >Thank you, Mr. Forrester, I will now have even greater pleasure in forwarding your remarks to the gentlemen concerned. They and their lawyers will find it interesting, I should think.

    Duff can’t argue the science so he starts issuing legal threats to his critics. Stop me if you’ve heard this one before.

    While we are on the subject of dobbing naughty schoolboys, Duff, I wonder if you’ll be dobbing in Watts commenter “IAmDigitap” for this masterpiece:

    >That Tamino character’s obvious lack of grasp of what he thinks is proven by the fact he thought Mike Mann’s math, was real.

    >DO I N.E.E.D. T.O. S.A.Y. ANYTHING M.O.R.E. about that HICK?

    >Do I need to REMIND you people, that HE THINKS a TREE: is a TREEMOMETER?

    >Gentlemen, – and here I’m actually speaking to the mods: just because I point out this clown tried to do such torturous lying through mathematics that I no longer even bother looking for any sense to his WILLFUL FRAUDULENCE

    >that doesn’t mean, what I’m saying’s irrelevant. THERE ARE PEOPLE COMING HERE WHO HAVE NEVER HEARD of the LOON-SPEAK these F.R.A.U.D.S. have BARKED to FLEECE the PEOPLE of the world.

    >These people are c.r.i.m.i.n.a.l.s.
    They are CRIMINALS.

    >Look: I myself went into the two way telecommunications equipment troubleshooting, calibration/repair maintenance etc business: that’s the electronic engineering associated with transmitting electromagnetic energy through the atmosphere: capturing it, and analyizing it for quality, etc.

    >But my father – who just died a few months ago God bless ‘im – was first, a Chief of Police for a number of years; THEN, he worked for the I.R.S. as an enforcement agent.
    Bullshitters don’t get far with me.
    Not if it has to do with the part of the universe mankind’s detected so far.

    >And this Tamino _ _ _wipe is nothing more, than an ASSISTANT in a FUNDING FRAUD SCAM.

    >Every single one of us who has worked with instrumentation and mathematics KNOWS; that if WE BROUGHT THAT (TAMINO/MANN/HANSEN/BRIFFA) kind of MATH to OUR BOSS

    >WE WOULD BE FIRED, and OUR BOSS would TELL OTHERS IN (whatever industry we worked in) THAT THEY SUSPECTED YOU/ME OF B.E.I.N.G. A. F.R.A.U.D.

    >It’s past unconscionable, it’s CRIMINAL.
    And we need to see to it that people are fired and/or hung from yard arms.
    Period.

    >Sorry for the scathing ad hominum but LOOK AT THAT SO-CALLED ‘ANALYSIS’.

    >It’s OBVIOUSLY – knowing the OTHER things he SAID HE THINKS IS REAL when it’s OBVIOUS he SHOULD KNOW BETTER:

    >nothing but SCAM
    scam
    SCAM.

    I would hate it if Duff’s campaign to rid the internet of potentially defamatory comments only extended one way. Of course, you – David Duff of Dorset – are a liar, a shyster and a cheat.

  64. #64 John
    January 29, 2012

    >Thank you, Mr. Forrester, I will now have even greater pleasure in forwarding your remarks to the gentlemen concerned. They and their lawyers will find it interesting, I should think.

    Duff can’t argue the science so he starts issuing legal threats to his critics. Stop me if you’ve heard this one before.

    While we are on the subject of dobbing naughty schoolboys, Duff, I wonder if you’ll be dobbing in Watts commenter “IAmDigitap” for this masterpiece:

    >That Tamino character’s obvious lack of grasp of what he thinks is proven by the fact he thought Mike Mann’s math, was real.

    >DO I N.E.E.D. T.O. S.A.Y. ANYTHING M.O.R.E. about that HICK?

    >Do I need to REMIND you people, that HE THINKS a TREE: is a TREEMOMETER?

    >Gentlemen, – and here I’m actually speaking to the mods: just because I point out this clown tried to do such torturous lying through mathematics that I no longer even bother looking for any sense to his WILLFUL FRA*DULENCE

    >that doesn’t mean, what I’m saying’s irrelevant. THERE ARE PEOPLE COMING HERE WHO HAVE NEVER HEARD of the LOON-SPEAK these F.R.A.*.D.S. have BARKED to FLEECE the PEOPLE of the world.

    >These people are c.r.i.m.i.n.a.l.s.
    They are CRIMINALS.

    >Look: I myself went into the two way telecommunications equipment troubleshooting, calibration/repair maintenance etc business: that’s the electronic engineering associated with transmitting electromagnetic energy through the atmosphere: capturing it, and analyizing it for quality, etc.

    >But my father – who just died a few months ago God bless ‘im – was first, a Chief of Police for a number of years; THEN, he worked for the I.R.S. as an enforcement agent.
    Bullshitters don’t get far with me.
    Not if it has to do with the part of the universe mankind’s detected so far.

    >And this Tamino _ _ _wipe is nothing more, than an ASSISTANT in a FUNDING FRA*D SCAM.

    >Every single one of us who has worked with instrumentation and mathematics KNOWS; that if WE BROUGHT THAT (TAMINO/MANN/HANSEN/BRIFFA) kind of MATH to OUR BOSS

    >WE WOULD BE FIRED, and OUR BOSS would TELL OTHERS IN (whatever industry we worked in) THAT THEY SUSPECTED YOU/ME OF B.E.I.N.G. A. F.R.A.*.D.

    >It’s past unconscionable, it’s CRIMINAL.
    And we need to see to it that people are fired and/or hung from yard arms.
    Period.

    >Sorry for the scathing ad hominum but LOOK AT THAT SO-CALLED ‘ANALYSIS’.

    >It’s OBVIOUSLY – knowing the OTHER things he SAID HE THINKS IS REAL when it’s OBVIOUS he SHOULD KNOW BETTER:

    >nothing but SC*M
    sc*m
    SC*M.

    I would hate it if Duff’s campaign to rid the internet of potentially defamatory comments only extended one way. Of course, you – David Duff of Dorset – are a liar, a shyster and a cheat.

  65. #65 Bernard J.
    January 29, 2012

    [John](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/01/january_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6219616).

    Given that Tamino’s identity is in fact common knowledge, that’s some pretty serious libelling that the WWWT moderators permitted to be posted on the thread. For posterity, in case they get a bit nervous about the wisdom of having let it through, [it's preserved in amber here](http://backupurl.com/ybvrqg), at time-stamp “January 28, 2012 at 1:36 pm”.

    I think that at the very least a permanent public apology is required.

  66. #66 Lotharsson
    January 29, 2012

    [Questions from Tamino](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/some-questions-for-rutan/) for one of the signatories cited by Duff.

    Do you think Duff or Rutan himself will have reasonable answers rather than merely repeating debunked claims?

    (Note that Tamino’s post is riffing off an [exchange between Brian Angliss and Rutan](http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/01/27/open-letter-to-burt-rutan/) where Rutan’s first comment (@4)references “data presentation fr@ud”. Seems likely that the Rutan graph Tamino cites would fall under that umbrella.)

    And if you read the comment itself it reveals a bingo card full of denialist talking points and other interesting claims, including:

    > …none of the predictions of IPCC since their first report in 1991 have been supported by measured data.

    > …the planet has cooled after 1998 in spite of the CO2 content increasing.

    > Modeling is more correctly a branch of Engineering …

    (!)

    > …To claim that the entire system of atmospheric temperature moderation has been described by the fluctuations of atmospheric CO2 content while excluding the other obvious factors such as atmospheric water vapour content, solar flux and orbital mechanics is just nonsense.

    > …If we doubled the atmospheric content of CO2, young pine trees would grow at twice the rate and nearly every crop yield would go up 30 to 40%. We, the animals and all land plant life would be healthier if CO2 content were to increase.

    > …You can easily tell if someone is a true environmentalist, i.e. an advocate for a healthy planet – he is one who is happy to hear the news that the arctic ice content has stabilized.

    (Tamino asks Rutan for evidence of this apparent claim…)

    If I ever express the urge to do so, please remind me not to place my life in Rutan’s hands by traveling in his spacecraft.

  67. #67 John
    January 29, 2012

    Lotharrsson, Tamino’s critique of Rutan is pretty devestating. Dobber Duff will ignore it.

    Here is what Rutan is quoted as saying on Wikipedia:

    >I put myself in the (those who fear expansion of Government control) group, and do not hide the fact that I have a clear bias on AGW. My bias is based on fear of Government expansion and the observation of AGW data presentation fra*d.

    Do you know what, I actually give him kudos for admitting upfront that he’s an anti-government crank, instead of pretending (like fake skeptics such as Duff always do) that he’s on some kind of noble mission for scientific truth.

  68. #68 Lotharsson
    January 29, 2012

    > I actually give him kudos for admitting upfront that he’s an anti-government crank instead of pretending … that he’s on some kind of noble mission for scientific truth.

    True there (but not on the Angliss post), where he claims “data presentation fr@ud” (without demonstrating it) which seems like an attempt to *also* claim the mantle of a noble mission for scientific truth. (Claiming that mantle is also the modus operandi of WUWT despite numerous and repeated egregious failures to live up to it, so he’s in like-minded company there.)

  69. #69 Lotharsson
    January 29, 2012

    [Speaking of Rutan's engineering abilities](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/some-questions-for-rutan/#comment-59002) (and I don’t know what evidence backs up this claim, but if accurate it would reinforce my concern about the possibility that he applies a similar approach to space flight as to climate science):

    > …Rutan doesn’t understand spaceflight any better than he understands climate. It is only by the luckiest of coincidences that he has survived this long.

    > He is where he is today because he relies on luck rather than analysis to circumvent risk…

  70. #70 Lotharsson
    January 29, 2012

    Another commenter on Tamino’s post points out that [Rutan's graph claims to be based on full-globe data, yet he dubs it a "summer heat recovery" graph](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/some-questions-for-rutan/#comment-59016) – apparently unaware that (for the portion of the year in question) it is *winter* recovery for half of globe that he claims to be “analysing”.

    And I’m still astounded that he discusses “percentage temperature increases” (without using the Kelvin scale) *at all*. (Imagine how badly such a fundamental mistake could affect materials analysis for a spacecraft…)

    The DKE is *strong* in this one.

  71. #71 A
    January 30, 2012

    David Rose is at it again.

    Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

    Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

    By David Rose

    Last updated at 5:38 AM on 29th January 2012

    http://tinyurl.com/724xv4s

  72. #72 Amoeba
    January 30, 2012

    The above comment was mine.

    I don’t know what happened there, the box contained my name, but when I posted it, it didn’t. Presumably, some sort of keyboard fumble.

  73. #73 J Bowers
    January 30, 2012

    David Rose has a new piece in the Daily Mail that’s being picked up elsewhere.

    Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again

    The authors of the studies he cites (UKMO, CRU, NASA) eventually contradict his predetermined narrative, so he switches to Svensmark as his expert to cite. Spot the trickery.

  74. #74 J Bowers
    January 30, 2012

    Whoops, missed A’s comment earlier.

  75. #75 ianam
    January 30, 2012

    The following comment has a up/down rating of -57. People who claim that the truth will out are simply wrong. Humanity is irrational and it will result in the demise of civilization. Oh well.

    The Met Office did not say any of the above. They have issued a statement today, some of which i have squeezed into the allotted word space below: “…..This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading. “…what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.” “although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures…” So once again – a load of complete and utter tosh from the Sunday Mail.

    - Leslie Graham, Auckland, 29/1/2012 20:43

  76. #76 lord_sidcup
    January 30, 2012

    The following comment has a up/down rating of -57. People who claim that the truth will out are simply wrong. Humanity is irrational and it will result in the demise of civilization. Oh well.

    It is usually the case that the best comments on the Mail website having the lowest rating. There is the reason Mail readers are considered a paragons of stupidity here in the UK.

  77. #77 lord_sidcup
    January 30, 2012

    Here’s a link to the Met Office response to David Rose:

    [Met Office in the Media](http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/)

    Rose has, of course, been up to his old trick of selectively quoting:

    Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.

    For the Met Office this is an exceptionally strong response.

  78. #78 Bernard J.
    January 30, 2012

    So, [RealClimate has a thread on the IPCC's AR4 attribution determinations](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/the-ar4-attribution-statement). If it’s not already been mentioned to Jonas N, perhaps one of the folk who still visit the asylum might direct him to it, and invite him to repeat there his claim that the IPCC “made up” their estimates.

    I’m absolutely sure that he won’t have the guts to do so…

    And whilst he’s there he (and all his Denialist buddies) should carefully read [Alastair McDonald's delightfully succinct summary of the probability of human contribution to the current global warming trend](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/the-ar4-attribution-statement/comment-page-1/#comment-226081).

  79. #79 Chris O'Neill
    January 30, 2012

    The following comment has a up/down rating of -57. People who claim that the truth will out are simply wrong. Humanity is irrational and it will result in the demise of civilization.

    Amazing really. Reminds me of when I just state a plain fact and denialists give it a negative rating.

  80. #80 chek
    January 30, 2012

    From a first time look at Mail’s comments it’s actually quite surreal. The most barking mad comments (mostly from Americans about an hour ago) are on the ‘best rated’ tab with many hundreds of recommends, while the more sensible ones are ‘worst rated’… with many hundreds of votes down.

    Not sure how static those posts are, but the snapshot I saw was an apt confirmation of the topsy-turvey, la-la land reputation of the Mail and its readers. A ‘serious’ paper only in the sense that you may find yourself thinking something has gone seriously wrong with the staff and their readership.

    And those home made graphs just scream shonky.

  81. #81 Lars Karlsson
    January 30, 2012

    [From the Rose article](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1kxRmV8h6):
    > ‘World temperatures may end up a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more,’ said Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute. ‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’
    He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming.

    Just how would Svensmark justify the claim about ‘a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more’? It seems like a very spectacular claim.

  82. #82 J Bowers
    January 30, 2012

    @ 549 chek

    They’re organised, and the Mail is the closest thing you’ll find to a Tea Party newsletter on this side of the Pond.

  83. #83 Amoeba
    January 30, 2012

    The David Rose / Daily Fail work of fiction is preserved here:
    http://backupurl.com/vnc1gf

  84. #84 ianam
    January 30, 2012

    It is usually the case that the best comments on the Mail website having the lowest rating. There is the reason Mail readers are considered a paragons of stupidity here in the UK.

    Here in Santa Barbara, home of the environmental movement, every time there’s a press release from UCSB that touches on global warming, there’s a horde of denialist comments that are indistinguishable from those in the Daily Mail, and the same is true for the Guardian, Scientific American, or just about any other public comments section. The proportion may be higher than average in the Mail, but you’re burying your head in the sand if you think the phenomenon is peculiar to its readers.

  85. #85 ianam
    January 30, 2012

    P.S. lord_sidcup, note all the denialist posts even on the Met Office blog page that you linked to. Talk about the denialati being organized misses the mark … people don’t have to be organized to absorb and disseminate propaganda.

  86. #86 ianam
    January 30, 2012

    Bernard J., we’re not supposed to discuss that person or his thread outside of the thread.

  87. #87 frankis
    January 30, 2012

    To the credibility of the Wall Street Journal on economic commentary:

    “Yale Economist: Op-Ed Includes “Complete Mischaracterization Of My Work”

    WSJ Op-Ed Cited William Nordhaus To Argue Against Government Action On Climate. From the Wall Street Journal op-ed:

    Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

    A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. [Wall Street Journal, 1/27/12]

    Nordhaus: “This Is A Complete Mischaracterization Of My Work.” Nordhaus stated via email:

    This is a complete mischaracterization of my work. I have repeatedly called for restraints on CO2 and other GHG emissions. The most beneficial policies are ones with a modest near-term and sharply rising carbon price. The weasel word is “nearly,” which allows them to make an inaccurate and misleading statement. [Email exchange, 1/27/12]

    http://mediamatters.org/research/201201300008

  88. #88 Lotharsson
    January 30, 2012

    > Just how would Svensmark justify the claim about ‘a lot cooler than now for 50 years or more’?

    Perhaps the same way that John McLean justified the claim that 2011 would be cooler than 1956?
    ;-)

  89. #89 Lotharsson
    January 30, 2012

    Alex Harvey [appears](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/the-ar4-attribution-statement/comment-page-1/#comment-226104) on the attribution thread at RealClimate advancing (if I’m not mistaken) similar implications (expressed as questions) as he did here some time back.

    Gavin has some responses.

  90. #90 Lotharsson
    January 30, 2012

    And speaking of that WSJ Op-Ed touted so eagerly by Duff, before apparently running away from critique, Dana has a [response](http://skepticalscience.com/examining-the-latest-climate-denialist-plea-for-inaction.html) up at SkepticalScience.

  91. #91 Lotharsson
    January 30, 2012

    And for fans of McLean’s particular brand of schtick, go view the animated graph in Fig. 2 of Dana’s response – and wait for the McLean projection to show up :-)

  92. #92 bill
    January 30, 2012

    Yeah, that McLean thing is beautiful. Anyone know if his promised analysis of what happened in 2011 has appeared yet? I predict a discreet no-show; I don’t believe any data can be tortured into anything even resembling that prediction.

  93. #93 Lotharsson
    January 31, 2012

    Amidst a thread full of WUWT acolytes, Angliss responds to Rutan’s comment ([scroll down to comment #99](http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/01/27/open-letter-to-burt-rutan/)) with some additional critique. Rutan responds at #126 indicating that he won’t respond further because he’s busy and “…this ‘debate’ has moved fully away from the type of discussion the public should expect from professional scientists.”

    Rutan doubles down on the “scientists are lying to get grant money” gambit, along with ClimateGate as reason to invalidate various data sets, “computer models aren’t reliable” and touts a large PDF from SPPI entitled “Surface Temperature Records: Policy-Driven Deception?” by D’Aleo & Watts and marked prominently as “Updated Aug 27 2010″ predicting that “alarmists … will not be willing to engage in of the data therein, nor its analysis and conclusions”. (Yep, *that* document.)

    Albatross at #127 points out the blatant hypocrisy – and proceeds to discuss the data, analysis and conclusions in that PDF by pointing out that Watts himself, amongst others, has subsequently helped refute some of the claims in the SPPI PDF. And skywatcher does much the same at #128. And additional commenters continue the critique including caerbannog.

    The Dunning-Kruger remains strong in this one.

    (And I bet you don’t see those points being prominently made at WUWT!)

  94. #94 Lotharsson
    January 31, 2012

    And be sure to read comment #137 on that thread, by Glen Tamblyn – 6-7 pages of specific critique of Burt’s claims and slide deck.

    Ouch!

  95. #95 Lotharsson
    January 31, 2012

    Wheat yield reductions appear to be [worse than previously thought](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21399-wheat-will-age-prematurely-in-a-warmer-world.html) as temperatures in India rise, which has worrying implications (and not just in India).

  96. #96 JRC
    January 31, 2012

    Lotharsson, yes I totally agree that #137 by Glen Tamblyn is a must read.

  97. #97 SteveC
    January 31, 2012

    Thanks to Bernard J and Lotharsson for the pointers to the RC thread on AR4 attribution statements. Gavin Schmidt’s article takes Curry & Webster’s 2011 paper (and Curry’s impenetrably dull circumlocutory bloviation) on the subject and drives a bus through the gaps, and as a result words like “most” and “very likely” resume their usual, commonly-understood and perfectly ordinary meanings.

  98. #98 Billy Bob Hall
    January 31, 2012

    I’m with David Duff. It’s been freezing here… and more to come if cycle 25 is as predicted.
    Well my warmy friends – who’s looking through ‘the round window’ now ?

  99. #99 Neven
    January 31, 2012

    And those home made graphs just scream shonky.

    They are GWPF-made. David Rose works for GWPF.

  100. #100 Chris O'Neill
    January 31, 2012

    Wheat yield reductions appear to be worse than previously thought as temperatures in India rise, which has worrying implications (and not just in India).

    I’ve sometimes wondered what could happen to wheat yields in the warmer growing areas of Australia; the Darling Downs in particular. The thing that’s useful about wheat is that it’s a crop that grows in relatively dry places. Once it becomes too hot for wheat there are very few crops that can be grown instead so the land would then become only useful for grazing.