Take a deep breath, please.
Given your reluctance to hit the carriage return in your last post, I’m finding it difficult to discern the nuances of your position. However, you seem to be confabulating a desire to see coherent refutation of climate change denialism with an apprehension that such refutations actually make a difference.
If you were familiar with my postings over the years on Deltoid and elsewhere, you’d know that I am singularly pessimistic about humanity’s capacity for perception of long-term, indirect, or otherwise abstract threats. I have no doubt that denialism (of many scientific areas besides ‘mere’ global warming) has the upper hand, and that such a trait will have grim future repercussions for our species.
Seriously, read my comments here, or at Bart’s, or at Tamino’s, or at the Rabbet’s. I make no secret of my opinions that humans as a species are poorly-equipped in the intellectual stakes when it comes to decision-making much beyond the level what/where to eat/root/sleep next.
This does not mean however that I believe that we should all curl up and cop it without offering any resistance. We should offer resistance. And as I said before it’s why the professional climatologists are blogging and writing books and giving interviews. Should they give up too because of the overall futility of educating enough of the world’s excessively self-interested numpties?
It won’t stop the inevitable consequence of excessive human emissions of fossil fuels, but it might temper it to some extent. And something is better than nothing.
And if helping to make clear refutations of Laframboise a little easier to find and digest can change even one person’s mind, then I’m all for the effort, no matter how puny it might be in the overall scheme of things.
Rutan [digs in further](http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2012/01/27/open-letter-to-burt-rutan/comment-page-5), with the recent sequence starting at #208.
In one case he defends a deceptive slide as being “structured to inform rather than deceive or scare” – unlike “The Hockey Stick” which he implies is deceptively scary.
His slide contains two graphs with a handful of proxies (Loehle, Carter, Austrian cave stalagmites, Greenland lake sediments) reaching back 11,000+ years, and circles the recent (~100 yrs) global temperature on the graph and says:
“I’ll Bet You Have Never Seen These Charts
Global Temperature, The Last 11,000 Years (current, non-glacial warm period)”
And “You haven’t seen them, because they are not scary. They are not presented in an attempt to blame humans.”
At least one of the graphs is sourced to joannenova.com, so you can see where he gets some of his stuff.
Clearly he wants readers to draw certain conclusions about global temperatures from a very limited set of proxies.
Bernie and namnam, let’s all be friends and enjoy the possible good glacier news shall we? Or are you trying to misdirect? 😉
@GSW, the video shows the real climate scientist Dr Schellnhuber giving the Himalayan glaciers their last sermon, sort of. Pay attention to how he lays his hands on mother Earth. A trademark of good science – deltoid style.
The more I look at Rutan’s powerpoint deck and the more he comments over there, the more I think it could be worthy of a Deltoid or SkS post – especially since he was a WSJ op-ed signatory. It’s almost an encyclopaedic critical mass of denialism squeezed into 98 slides…
Rutan appears to have left the building, executing the “this argument is political and you’re religious” gambit on the way out.
Olaus, now that you have reappeared, please can I ask you to answer my challenge in #162. I am only asking that you justify your claims by providing evidence to support them.
If you have no evidence then your views become a faith – and you are very critical of anyone taking that path. I am sure you would not do so?
Great responses to Rutan. Reading someone of his background giving such empty replies (of the calibre one would expect from a wuwt commenter) to straightforward questioning is depressing indeed.
Lothar, to me it seems that the Himalayan glaciers have left the building.
@GWB, what’s wrong with my claim? You are loosing ground. That’s just about it. The CO2-hypothesis was kidnapped from its scientific milieu ending up in the hands of ideologists and politicians. And now it wants to go back home. Its tired of being scandalized by the likes of you.
His final comment before apparently storming off is inredibly annoying:
> When it becomes a religion, the non-believers have to be slain
I see this *all* the time. Someone makes a series of credulous errors, refuses to understand a logical refutation and then complains that the rebuttals amount to persecution. The very existence of strong and informed rebuttal is used as proof of the correctness of their position! It is a conspiracy mindset, and I honestly don’t know the correct response. Invariably I take the view that I am no longer addressing the individual in question, but anyone that may stumble across the exchange – and this is why I find overly insulting responses in the same thread hard to tolerate. If my position is associated with abuse, it loses credibility in the eyes of a passer by.
strange that deniers only appear now on open threads. I would have *loved* to hear their explanations on, let’s say, Pat Michaels’s fraud …
But I don’t despair.
to me it seems…
Oluas/Olaus, how things ‘seem’ to you is of little interest. No doubt the Earth seems flat to you, but the reality is very different.
You are loosing ground.
Why anyone should take seriously a bald declaration from somebody who apparently believes that the volume in the denier echo chamber is a measure of anything connected to the real world, yet is unable to get a basic verb correct is a mystery to me.
The CO2-hypothesis was kidnapped from its scientific milieu ending up in the hands of ideologists and politicians.
You’ve repeated that particularly stupid meme several times now. Who feeds you these scripts?
Ah! I see, when you say ‘real’ climate scientist in this context, you mean the ‘End of The World is Nigh!’ type. Got it!.
Premature Last Rites indeed.
Chek, you wonder who feeds me these scripts? Big oil and the flat earth society of misogynic racist pigs – of course. 😉
Lighten up will ya, chek. Good news are coming our way. No need for hysteria-mode. Isn’t it good if the glaciers aren’t melting at warp-speed?
The real world is closing in, no matter what you believe chek. Real climate science is making progress. 🙂
Real climate science is making progress.
It’s never stopped making progress, despite the best efforts of deniers to make life difficult for Mike Mann et al.
> …of the calibre one would expect from a wuwt commenter…
He seems to get some of his material from favourite WUWT sources (check out the attributions on some of his graphs) and IIRC he has been feted over there, so it’s not surprising (once you realise he’s switched off his critical thinking and confirmation bias detectors when he gets onto this topic).
> The very existence of strong and informed rebuttal is used as proof of the correctness of their position! It is a conspiracy mindset, and I honestly don’t know the correct response.
I reckon one correct response has already been made at that point – at least for the benefit of the onlookers who are interested in following the evidence. There’s no evidence-based way to demonstrate to most conspiracy theorists that their claims are at best unsupported and at worst completely ruled out, but it is useful to demonstrate that to anyone who wants to evaluate the evidence.
As to your position “being associated with abuse”, I reckon the correct response for the benefit of onlookers is to point out that the allegations of abuse *also* do not hold water (if that’s indeed accurate), and that even if they do they have no bearing on the scientific evidence and conclusions – and appear to be a tactic to try and distract from their inability to justify their claims. Some of the other recent commenters on that thread were very good at pointing out the abysmal failure to provide solid evidence.
Got to give him marks for being just slightly ahead of the average denialist though – he eventually owned up to one false claim and said he’d found a few other mistakes. But that is offset by a huge wall of bullshit, self-delusion and empty bluster.
Chek, real climate science brakes through the unscientific wall you guys built. Good, me thinks.
The semi-religious self righteous belief system called CAGW isn’t promoting a critical scientific mindset. It promotes authoritarian behavior and scapegoating and the only good that comes with it are boosted egos of the ones pointing fingers at those who dare raising a Q.
Now, let us enjoy the new possible wellbeing of the Himalayan glaciers. Cheers (no rocks in the drink)!
I told you what I thought of patronization. I did not read further than this other than to notice that you said something stupid about carriage returns, so you’re wasting your time addressing me with your drivel.
Olaus, what is wrong with you claim is that you can provide no evidence whatsoever to support it. Therefore, it is just ideology, by your own definition.
If you disagree, stop avoiding the issue and address the challenge. After all, as a man of honour, you wouldn’t say:
“You are loosing ground. That’s just about it. The CO2-hypothesis was kidnapped from its scientific milieu ending up in the hands of ideologists and politicians. And now it wants to go back home. Its tired of being scandalized by the likes of you.”
without any evidence to support it, would you now?
For the record, use of the invented and meaningless term CAGW immediately renders one’s argument null and void.
Regardless of Olaus’s spelling failures and general ignorance and stupidity, it’s a fact that we are losing ground in the propaganda war, and the WSJ denialist op-eds and the David Rose lies about the MET office and all the rest of it reported here is a reflection of that. (This does not mean that I’m opposed to refuting denialist claims, or any of the other stupid strawmen that have been trotted out to be trampled.)
The semi-religious self righteous belief system called CAGW
That’d be the system invented by deniers and solely propagated by them, then. Well, it’s already known deniers have no evidence and therefore only rely on their beliefs.
For example your own current eager belief in press reports of the GRACE modelling of the Himalayan glaciers’ health doesn’t quite tally with your normal denier denigration of CO2 models as untrustworthy.
> The very existence of strong and informed rebuttal is used as proof of the correctness of their position!
I suggest using a poorly thought out and uninformed rebuttal and see what happens. There isn’t any actual down side to it:
1) Olaf isn’t listening to any informed debate, so the effort in informing is wasted
2) It’s much easier to use a pithy and short rebuttal, therefore a gish gallop is no longer of any use
this is why I find overly insulting responses in the same thread hard to tolerate. If my position is associated with abuse, it loses credibility in the eyes of a passer by.
Do you really think that people who are that confused about what is or is not relevant to a logical argument, people who are that quick to dismiss your points on bogus grounds, will rationally evaluate yours if only everyone is so so polite? I think this is a fantasy, and that people are more likely to be truthful criticism and justified expressions of contempt.
Olaus the priest says at 214: Now, let us enjoy the new possible wellbeing of the Himalayan glaciers.
Did you even look at Rattus Norvegicus’ very pertinent link (#196) to the NASA presser, which has the virtue of being one step closer to the source? As RN mentions, that reports that the Himalayan glaciers are still losing 4 billion tons of ice a year. That may be lower than previous high end estimates, but it does not even remotely justify the Grauniad subbies handiwork: “The Himalayas and nearby peaks have lost no ice in past 10 years”.
Further, the Indian data is excluded from their global map! The decision to do so was based on the assumption that that Indian mass loss represents groundwater abstraction. That assumption is fair for the southern area where there are no glaciers, but not the northern area, where the highlighted areas of mass balance changes include 379 spots marking glaciers. Of those 379 spots, 70% are in regions indicating mass loss, and 30% are in mass gain areas. And when you weight those results according to the amount of mass loss, you find that the total mass loss is three times as high as the total mass gain.
Of course to establish that, you need to exercise a little actual scepticism and review the published material yourself, as I did. You should try that too sometime, Olaus. It would give a lot more credibility to your posts than simply regurgitating the latest lamestream media misreport-de-jour.
In any case, the Guardian and of course, Olaus, missed the most important finding – overall the cryosphere has lost a net of 4.3 trillion tons of ice over the last 8 years.
… a poorly thought out and uninformed rebuttal … a pithy and short rebuttal …
These aren’t the same thing. I would note that my pithy demonstrations of hypocrisy, lying, and general bad faith by people like Alex Harvey are hard to answer. I believe that treating people acting in bad faith as if they were acting in good faith is a serious mistake, and the classic demonstration of this is debates between evolutionary biologists and folks like Duane Gish, which give the latter undue credibility.
… people are more likely to be swayed by truthful criticism and justified expressions of contempt.
Thank you namnam. I’ll tell GWB. 🙂
I’m sure it will not come as a surprise to you that you (read Deltoid) are one out of many perfect mugshots of a perp responsible for hijacking the CO2-hypothesis. Narrow fanatic eyes, sloping forehead, tuberous scull, crocked nose and ill sitting yellow teeth. The evidence is the fact(s) that your doomsday preachings were not based on “science is settled”. Your armageddon will end up in the same bin as the ice-age prophesy of the 70s. And its heading there – in a slow but steady pace.
And when the tipping point is reached “we” shall go back to the sources and be baffled by the ignorance of those manhandling the CO2-hypothesis for political and ideological perposes (sic). The “uncertainties” that were there all the time will be visible – again.
And let us not forget the good news regarding Himalayan glaciers!
Thank you Olaus for proving how insane you are by your cleavage to discredited 19th century ideas of appearance and criminality.
Thank you Olaus for proving how insane you are
And may I extend further thanks to Oluas/Olaus for the exceptional efforts in maintaining the image of denialism as one of rank stupidity and ignorance.
Good work! Keep it up!
> I suggest using a poorly thought out and uninformed rebuttal and see what happens.
Hmmmmmmmmm. I shall ponder that suggestion.
I don’t think I’m particularly good at that style though – but others are.
(And BTW – that came up in the context of the Rutan thread.)
Dear guthrie, you are so correct. Phrenology hold the scientific standards of climate scientology.
Viva la Himalayan glaciers!
Ah Olaus, you have responded to a simple request for evidence to support your position with a stream of invective. In so doing so you have demonstrated with aplomb that: a. you have no credible position on which to base your views other than one of ideology; and b. that you when challenged you lower yourself to the level of a 10 year old failed bully in the playground.
Your demonstration of the “foundation” (i.e. lack thereof) underpinning denialism is quite masterful, for which we are all very grateful.
The problem is that morons like Olaus are a dime a dozen among the denialati … along with people like Burt Rutan who are capable of functional intelligence but for whom the cognitive dissonance that drives denialism reduces them to lying scum no better that Olaus, so yet another demonstration by Olaus of his immense stupidity and duplicity, while it may make us feel good about being on the right side of things, doesn’t actually have any benefit for humanity at large.
> > … a poorly thought out and uninformed rebuttal … a pithy and short rebuttal …
> These aren’t the same thing
But they ARE the same thing.
(A short, poorly thought out and uninformed yet pithy rebuttal!)
“Your armageddon will end up in the same bin as the ice-age prophesy of the 70s.”
You mean in the Global Warming Policy Foundation?
thegwpf.org: [New Study: Russian Astrophysicist Predicts Global Cooling](http://www.thegwpf.org/science-news/4877-russian-astrophysicist-predicts-global-cooling.html)
Lars, these kinds of prophesies are cyclic. They gain momentum, peak and then lose gravity to reappear dressed up in new clothes. The samsara of climate-doomsday is a very interesting topic. Don’t you agree?
Lotharsson, thanks for engaging Rutan – I wasn’t able to write my response in a timely manner. Not sure if there’s a point now, however, seeing as he’s stormed off again.
As for his 98 slide encyclopedia, I’m working my way through it documenting all the mistakes and trying to source many of the graphs since the sources aren’t clear in most cases. It’s been illuminating to do so.
Brian, I bet many of the graphs would resonate with the longtime regulars here – if you get stuck someone may know something.
Are you considering a post about the PPT on Scholars & Rogues? I reckon it would be a doozy!
Anyone want to bet on whether he’ll be back? I’ve lost count of the archetypal dramatic exits I’ve witnessed followed by a return to reiterate essentially the same claims as if the exist never happened…
Brian, I wasn’t sure whether I’d be getting in the way of your dialogue, so apologies if I’ve helped divert your intended further conversation. I got a bit fed up with the layers of crap (and avoidance tactics), but based on past behaviour wasn’t expecting him to actually bother responding to my critique. And once he did I wanted to probe a bit and see how deep the denial went…
No worries, Lotharsson. I did just put up a response myself, but it’s hardly the in-depth thing you did. I think the exchanges with Rutan have been very interesting, if disappointing.
Whether I do a post or not depends on everything I find and whether or not I can organize in a way that’s clean. You’re right, though – it would be quite a post. Probably a series of posts, actually. Maybe with my own presentation and recorded audio, even.
But they ARE the same thing.
(A short, poorly thought out and uninformed yet pithy rebuttal!)
Yeah, I’m sure that being short and being stupid are the same thing because there are short stupid people.
Oh, wait … you just described your own rebuttal. Never mind, and well done.
Brian, that would indeed be an intriguing presentation, perhaps comparable to John Abraham’s supreme debunking of Monckton! I’m sorry if I spooked him by bringing up his ‘ancient Egyptians casting granite’ tripe, but as ever it seemed that when pressed for evidence supporting his views, he was reticent to rationally defend his point. Then again, he was probably looking for any excuse to stomp off…
I enjoyed reading your contributions, and those of Lotharsson – the difference between thorough consideration of all the data and Rutan’s tired old memes was there for all the audience to see.
> …perhaps comparable to John Abraham’s supreme debunking of Monckton!
Yep, that’s what came to my mind too as I went through some of the slides.
He’s baaaaaack (Rutan, at S&R)! Whodathunkit?
Not only is Rutan back, but at #229 he positively self-immolates. The depth of his misrepresentation of the history and of the science of global warming climatology is staggering.
If Rutan truly believes what he says then he has most assuredly proved to the world and to posterity that he has completely lost his marbles, and if he is conscious of the nature of his profoundly non-scientific claptrap, then he is, to use Marcel Kincaid’s words at #241, a very very bad man.
I’d like to add my “hear, hear!” to that of others complimenting you (and Skywatcher and Brian Aldiss) on your engagement of Rutan. I’ve been itching to join the fray, but time constraints and my keeping of an eye on the [simmering exchange with David Archibald](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/03/quantifying-sea-level-fall/#comment-886494) have stayed my hand. It’s been difficult, because Rutan is a gattling gun of denialist spraying.
And on the matter of Archild, I have a question for the readership here. I seem to remember a post specifically analysing in deep statistical detail the nature of the relationship of the oscillation of sunspot numbers with sea level over time. I thought that it was either an Open Mind or a Skeptical Science piece, but I’ve found nothing that fits the bill beyond what I’ve already posted at the WWWT thread. If anyone can point me toward such an analysis before I spend a whole lot of time myself essentially replicating it, I’d be very grateful.
Brian Angliss & Lotharsson
Having just started to dip my toes into this Rutan stuff I could not help thinking of Monckton and his manoeuvres – so many moles to whack – again. It was when I saw Rutan linking to SPPI that I realised that even clever engineers can be taken in by charlatans and start to act like them, caerbannong your calling out of Rutan in that # 136 was well due.
Thank you Brian for your perseverance in dissecting Rutan’s ‘research’ and reporting on it and Lotharsson for continuing the pressure.
It seems that Rutan has dug himself a hole and knows not how to extract himself.
I too was once an aeronautical engineer at a mostly practical level but with qualifications. I do not have quite the cachet that Rutan has but I always have enjoyed finding out what makes things tick having primed myself by reading many of the books and other sources from the stalwarts of climate science – my library reflects the scientific bent with its growing climate science section. Perhaps Rutan could do with a ‘reading list’.
I don’t think he sees any need to extract himself; he considers himself entirely in the right, and treats all criticism as further confirmation that there’s a massive conspiracy to promote fraud and a need to destroy him because he’s working to expose it.
From Rutan’s Wikipedia page:
“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 [ Anthropogenic global warming (AGW)]. My bias is based on fear of Government expansion …”
Gee, what a surprise.
… and the observation of AGW data presentation fraud – not based on financial or any other personal benefit.
Of course he’s never observed any such thing … Burt doesn’t seem to quite grasp the concept of “bias” and its consequences for the reliability of one’s observations. As for “financial benefit”, he’s screaming “They’re trying to rob me!” like every other whacko libertarian.
…. I became a cynic; My conclusion – “if someone is aggressively selling a technical product whose merits are dependent on complex experimental data, he is likely lying”. That is true whether the product is an airplane or a Carbon Credit.”
I’m sorry, is someone trying to sell Burt a carbon credit?
Just because someone is good at designing airplanes doesn’t mean they’re smart.
Olaus, do you believe the global warming debate is over? Do you believe that your “side” has won?
Dear John, I believe that proper science and common sense will have better possibilities to reach the public. Your apocalyptic ramblings and faiblesse for distorting science are loosing ground. Good. As I have said many times before, the CO2-hypothesis is interesting and deserves something better than shaking tents and speaking tongues.
I ran across this interesting lecture today. It shows that history can learn us a lot about how little we learn from history. Many of the observations/signs that (today) have been put forward as evidence for global warming, are put forward in the lecture held in 1953.
Olaus apparently did not know there was warming taking place prior to 1953…
Olaus may want to read the IPCC report, he might actually learn something.
“Many of the observations/signs that (today) have been put forward as evidence for global warming, are put forward in the lecture held in 1953.”
Because it *had* been warming during the first half of the century, as is well known. What matters are the causes, and the paper you cited was very hesitant to put forth an explanation for the warming that was seen then. Nobody claims it was all due to rising GHG’s during the first half of the 20th century – what I have usually seen is about half is attributed to solar foring. We can dismiss with confidence however known natural factors like the Sun as a source for the warming in the last 35 years or so, for the simple reason they are not moving in the right direction. A Sun that has slightly cooled over the last 50 years is not a likely candidate as an explanation for warming. The same goes with the oceans – they should be cooling if they are the source of a warming atmosphere. They aren’t – they’ve gained heat.
You are the one who needs to be “learned a lot” about the history of the field you ridicule.
Alas Olaus it appears that you have much to learn not only about the causes of climate change per se but also in the history of our knowledge about same.
Here is a list of reading matter which you should take time studying:
The Discovery of Global Warming – Spencer Weart
Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change – Elizabeth Kolbert
Global warming: Understanding the Forecast – David Archer
That Archer title above has academic standard lecture support at: Open Climate Science 101
The Long Thaw: How Humans are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate – David Archer
Principles of Planetary Climate – Ray Pierrehumbert
The Rough Guide to Climate Change – Robert Henson
Climate Change: A Multidisciplinary Approach – William James Burroughs
Burroughs is particularly useful for its, as implied in the title, multidisciplinary approach – puts GCRs and Svensmark in their place. Could do with an update though.
The Warming Papers: The Scientific Foundation For Climate Change Forecast – David Archer & Ray Pierrehumbert
That last is important for its containing papers by Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius, Guy Callander, Roger Revelle, Bert Bolin and others including James Hanson and thus is indicative of the historical length of our knowledge. Even the ancient Greeks had some prescient ideas on this subject.
Now it is no surprise to me that those who have been engaged in research in those fields associated with oceanography are prominent amongst the exponents of the anthropogenic signature on climate change and thus a primer on oceanography is recommended reading.
The study of such as Oceanography (ISE): An Invitation to Marine Science by Tom Garrison will reveal how wide ranging that subject is and also its tremendous relevance to the holistic study of Earth’s systems – chemical, physical and biological.
The above is not an exhaustive list but here is a longer list, but still not exhaustive . It is up to those who wish to argue the case against anthropogenic climate change to familiarise themselves with relevant material and not keep regurgitating denier myths – such a habit will make you bulimic. Bulimic in the sense of wasting your credibility.
I have the books mentioned above, and have studied them as well as others, but then I have had substantial scientific education at different stages of life and delight in continuing study of the works of Feynman (and others on quantum physics/QED) as well as books on organic, non-organic and physical chemistry also Dawkins, E O Wilson and Jared Diamond amongst many others. Perhaps you should try this too.
Guys, who said anything about a non-existing warming period prior to 1953? You really try hard to misdirect. 🙂 The point is that the same signs/observations didn’t have a politicized and ideologically manhandled hypothesis to lean on, hence armageddon wasn’t a sales pitch.
Real climate science still don’t fully understand what causes climate change. The uncertainties are enormous. And in the light of the warming “hiatus”, the “missing heat”, lack of accelerating sea levels, Himalayan glaciers again not melting as fast as the robust science claimed, etc…the potency of CO2 as a prime mover regarding the latest global warming period seem to be perhaps…well…ehrm…exaggerated?
Olaus Petri, why don’t you stop giving excuses to be ignorant and actually read some of the dang literature?
“A trend is a trend is a trend.
But the question is: will it bend?
Will it alter its course
Through some unforeseen force
and come to a premature end?”
“Climate is not stable — Fact.
Climate will change — Fact.
Climate change is caused by natural phenomena — Fact.
Climate has changed before and will continue to do so — Fact.
Humans are causing climate change — Lie.
We can stop climate change if we stop driving and flying — Lie.”
Lin Zhen-Shan & Sun Xian
Humans are causing climate change today: Fact.
You see, the NATURAL result of burning hydrocarbons in our atmosphere is CO2. And the natural effect of CO2 is to change the global temperature.
Since weather is driven by the global temperature and climate is merely the aggregate “expected” weather, this naturally causes global climate change.
Wow, yes it is. But the million dollar question is my how much. I suspect the numbers are hugely exaggerated.
Dear Frank, Lionel and Robert, I know you deltoids behave strange when they are reminded of the uncertainties in real climate science. 🙂
“Guys, who said anything about a non-existing warming period prior to 1953? You really try hard to misdirect. :-)”
Speak for yourself. You’re the one who pointed to a study from the early 50’s talking about retreating glaciers and implied it meant we’re ignoring scientific history. It showed no such thing.
“The point is that the same signs/observations didn’t have a politicized and ideologically manhandled hypothesis to lean on, hence armageddon wasn’t a sales pitch.”
They had only a handful of the observational data we have now. Only a small part of the puzzle was known then. It was known that if GHG’s rose temperatures would rise, all things being equal, but there were a lot of things we take for granted today missing from the equation. How much CO2 was rising wasn’t even know at the time. There were no temperature reconstructions going back centuries. No ice core data. No satellite data. No knowledge of a cooling stratosphere. No computer models. That’s not true today. Misdirection like yours might have worked back in the 50’s, but there’s too much known now for scientists to take those arguments seriously now.
Olaus Petri and Peter continue to give excuses for remaining ignorant. Maybe they’re afraid that their minds will become impure and polluted just by knowing what’s written in the IPCC-cited scientific papers. Oh, their beautiful minds!
frank, where and when have I given any excuse for ignorance?
> > Olaus Petri and Peter continue to give excuses for remaining ignorant. Maybe they’re afraid that their minds will become impure and polluted just by knowing what’s written in the IPCC-cited scientific papers. Oh, their beautiful minds!
> frank, where and when have I given any excuse for ignorance?
When you cut-and-pasted quotes instead of actually trying to read the scientific literature? But I guess you’re too ignorant to even realize you’re ignorant.
Hack or leak? Diagram of IP addresses known to be involved in SwiftHack 1.0 or 2.0 (except blog IPs):
Peter, with one exception, your supposed quote of what Lin Zhen-Shan & Sun Xian have said is supported quite well by the IPCC.
The one exception, and something that also contradicts the papers of these two, is the claim that humans are not causing climate change.
Dear Robbie, I speak for myself, and you spoke on behalf of me. And all by yourself you made deductions, climate scientologist style, which naturally were out of line.
We know more now, but not enough. What we do know is that the CO2-hypothesis is a hypethesis – and for obvious reasons.
If the CO2-hypothetis had been kidnapped in the 1930s (by the likes of some deltoids) the result had been the same. But remember, the authoritarian minds then in power were occupied making ideology and politics of other scientific theories.
“Dear Robbie, I speak for myself…”
That’s for sure. You certainly don’t speak for science or scientists.
“And all by yourself you made deductions, climate scientologist style, which naturally were out of line.”
Nope, I was right on target. Your subsequent comments confirm it.
“We know more now, but not enough.”
Says you. We know enough to count out natural causes for most of the recent warming. People like you will never be satisfied with any answer except “it’s not Co2!”. You ignore what is known and embrace the ever decreasing uncertainty as an excuse to hide your head in the sand.
“What we do know is that the CO2-hypothesis is a hypethesis – and for obvious reasons.”
Says you. Scientists call it a well tested and verified theory, which it is.
“If the CO2-hypothetis had been kidnapped in the 1930s (by the likes of some deltoids) the result had been the same. But remember, the authoritarian minds then in power were occupied making ideology and politics of other scientific theories.”
Ah, the Nazi/Commie accusation. How quaint. Pulling a Godwin is no way to make an argument.
As I said, misdirection and evasion. Nothing of substance from you and your side.
With a statement such as this:
Dear Frank, Lionel and Robert, I know you deltoids behave strange when they are reminded of the uncertainties in real climate science.
you reveal that you are so ignorant that you don’t have a clue as to how little you know.
That is why I suggested a reading list so that you could attempt to redeem yourself but no you amply confirm how stupidly, ideologically blinkered you are. BTW. That is not an ad hominem but a statement of fact. You are the Wendy Wright of climate denial. Hint, Richard Dawkins had her measure .
“But the million dollar question is my how much.”
Around 3C per doubling.
Can I have my million, now?
Olaus, you seem obsessed with political and religious, not scientific, reasoning.
Don’t you find it a bit hypocritical to accuse us of believing ideology over science when you are convinced it’s all a left-wing scam but can’t provide any scientific evidence? You say that Co2 hypothesis is up for debate but you haven’t provided any evidence to support that. You say that the “co2 hypothesis” “deserves something better than shaking tents and speaking tongues”. That’s a very *religious* view that betrays an enormous understanding of what the theory actually is.
Then you cite well-known uncertainties as if they are smoking guns. That’s not very scientific. That’s like saying uncertainties in what we know about human evolution disprove it – again, an awfully *religious* view, wouldn’t you say?
It seems to me here that only *you* are driven by ideology and relgion.
Some of you will find Rutan’s #253 amusing.
This is bad. Alarmist Potholer54 looks at the recent Nature of glaciers and concludes that global warming is a hoax.
Still waiting timbo, for a collective apology from you guys for wasting our time and money for the global warming hoax… Any time.
Dear Robbie, crying “says you” isn’t a strong argument. 🙂
Johnnie where have I claimed that the CAGW (call it what you want) is a scam or conspiracy? I’m sure there are some foul play (on both sides of the fence) but the phenomenon climate hysteria is best explained by the sociology of religions/knowledge. And that I have claimed many times.
The rest is as usual something you invent to make your imaginary dichotomous world stay intact.
Lotharsson @ 271
Rutan has had his fingers so badly burnt in his encounter with actual climate science (well done BTW) rather than the parody that he picked up from denier blogs that he has had to resort to invoking “famous” friends as his main argument.
Kind of ironic that his unknown “famous” friend invokes the old climate science = religion tripe.
frank, the (your) problem is that the IPCC science is actually pseudoscience. So what’s then the meaning reading that rubbish?
wow, says who? You? Strange then that the temperature hasn’t risen the last decade despite a continuing, linear rise in CO2 levels. Strange indeed.
Peter, but climate scientology has an answer to that – somewhere and somehow it is accounted for. 🙂
Soon the vow will bring us some comforting words from his lower hemispheres assuring us that we are right wing nuts and that the CO2-hypothesis is robust, etc. Yawn….
Bernard J., Rutan bemoans the fact that no one “willing to bet on the near-term climate crisis predictions”. However the way he’s framed it sounds problematic – he’s probably hoping for favourable weather and won’t take a bet over a long-enough term to distinguish signal from noise.
Anyway I mentioned you’ve been looking for people to take on your science-based wagers…
Errr . . . You might just like to go back and watch Potholer’s video again. So should anyone else who thinks he concludes global warming is a hoax. So should anyone who would like to get a clear idea of what the Jacob, Wahr and Pfeffer paper really said. As always, Potholer is accurate, edifying and amusing.
Maybe the moderator’s will allow John to withdraw his comment to save embarrassment.
MikeH, apart from appealing to anonymous authority, he now seems to be re-executing the “you’re religious and I’m leaving” manoeuvre that worked so well for him the time before 😉
we are right wing nuts who wallow in our own ignorance yet believe that [compounding that with our own stupidity](http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm) will somehow make climate science look bad.
Corrected that for you Oluas/Olaus.
Neil, I’m pretty sure John’s comments were ironic 😉
MikeH, there were several commenters responding to Rutan (and some of his likeminded supporters) with great points including RW, skywatcher, and of course Brian Angliss himself.
“Dear Robbie, crying “says you” isn’t a strong argument. :-)”
Making claims with no evidence is worse. Your assertions that climate science is just a hypothesis mean less than nothing, as are your claims that we “don’t know enough” about it. You don’t, but other people do. Don’t assume your deep ignorance is shared by everybody else. And of course your attempt to link climate science with Nazi and Communist regimes was a pathetic ad hominem attack. And you want to say *my* argument was weak? You “skeptics” don’t know how much laughter you provide us. 🙂
“Strange then that the temperature hasn’t risen the last decade”
A trend isn’t the difference between two end points, dear.
The trend over the last 10 years is positive.
The trend over the last 20 years is positive.
The trend over the last 30 years is positive.
But if you wish to proclaim that it hasn’t, “Says who?” say I. You? Where are your calculations? Someone else? Where are theirs?
Lets also do the maths here.
20ppm increase over 10 years. Prior concentration 370ppm, therefore this would be a 5% increase. That’s around a 0.06 doublings or 0.18C.
Given that any one year can be 0.3C different from the mean even absent an underlying trend, this means there as been no statistically significant cooling in the last 10 years.
Or to put it in terms you deniers understand: there has been no cooling in the last 10 years.
>Johnnie where have I claimed that the CAGW (call it what you want) is a scam or conspiracy?
It’s implicit in the name of the website you enthusiastically comment at, “The Climate Scam”. If you don’t want to get fleas, don’t lie with dogs.
So far in this thread you have repeatedly mocked the idea that anyone could consider the “Co2 hypothesis” established without giving any evidence otherwise. Unfortunately, I require a little more than your religious faith to establish my views.
Olaus, can you show us one study that proves the climate has a low sensitiity to Co2? Easy!
> Olaus Petri and Peter continue to give excuses for remaining ignorant. Maybe they’re afraid that their minds will become impure and polluted just by knowing what’s written in the IPCC-cited scientific papers. Oh, their beautiful minds!
> frank, the (your) problem is that the IPCC science is actually pseudoscience. So what’s then the meaning reading that rubbish?
So you have zero idea what the IPCC-cited research actually says, but you ‘know’ that it’s all wrong. What an idiot you are.
Stop giving excuses for your ignorance and actually learn something.
[That](http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2012/01/18/1948550611434786.abstract) seems to explain some things…
And [this](http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_02/further_evidence_that_ignoranc035307.php) seems to explain some more (and looks similar to earlier research some of you have no seen).
Dear John, apparently you are some kind of peeping Tom, monitoring my whereabouts on the net. Sorry to brake it to you, but you have a problem distinguishing between valid arguments and the sensations of euphoria you get while stalking me.
It’s a rather creepy hobby you got there Johnnie. Can you please stop?
No, peeping tom would require viewing you in meatspace.
Please get your definitions correct. The change should do you good.
PS it’s break, not brake.
Wow, your contribution is as usual of sub-human standard. When somebody write “some kind of” s/he isn’t trying to get a definition correct. I strongly suggest that you get back to your field of expertise: eating bananas and running around naked.
Instead of actually reading up on climatology, Olaus Petri prefers to spend his time lobbing insults.
Why do these ignoramuses like ignorance so much?
> Why do these ignoramuses like ignorance so much?
It’s all they have. So it’s either be wrong (INCONCEIVABLE!) or laud ignorance and label it “skepticism”.
PS it’s rather amusing to see olaf there whine about sub-human intelligence after giving so clearly an account of his inabilities…
Dear Frankie, I read and what I find is that Deltoid/climate scientolgy isn’t on par with what real climate science says. There the uncertainties exists. And the uncertainties is the future, not the opposite.
I hope you get your act together (and don’t start to stalk people carrying sound skepticism (like John) or develope wow’s tourettes).
> what I find is that Deltoid/climate scientolgy isn’t on par with what real climate science says
And how would you know that, when you’ve steadfastly refused to read a single word of the scientific literature cited by the IPCC?
> I read
No you didn’t.
But at least I see you realize that ignorance isn’t something to be proud of (which is why now avoid talking about it). Now you just need to take a next logical step and actually read up on some actual climatology. Like, say, the abundant literature that’s referenced by the IPCC reports.
Stop remaining ignorant.
OP you really have become the Wendy Wright of denial.
Go on prove me wrong by providing incontrovertible evidence that we have climate science wrong. Go on you must be able to ‘provide one evidence’ (a quote from ignoramus Wright btw).
Have you any idea as to how many scientific disciplines have provided their own individual lines of evidence for recognising that we have a problem with an overheating earth?
Have you dipped into that reading list yet? It would be useful if you made a start.
It’s called willful ignorance.
New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.
Happy new year!