April 2012 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Bernard J.
    April 8, 2012

    >In other words adelady, Bernerd thinks the climate has never changed and he denies the LIA and the MWP, it’s people like him that give climate science such a bad image.

    Ah, still trying to verbal people are you, Foulspot?

    If you were familiar with my comments on Deltoid (and you should be – you’ve been infesting the place long enough) you’d know that I explicitly acknowledge time and time again both the variability of climate, and the MWP and the LIA. I also acknowledge and emphasise that human-caused warming is occurring orders of magnitudes faster than has been experienced at any time in our species’ evolutionary history, and that current temperatures already surpass the maximum that was reached during the MWP.

    That means either that you are a liar, or an ignorant. Or both – the two are not mutually exclusive.

    And I’m not a climate scientist, so whatever I might say it does nothing to harm the reputation of climate science. Amongst those who are educated and not blinkered by ideology, climatology is a respected discipline. It is only amongst the ignorant, the ideologues, and the vested interests that disparagement of climatology occurs.

    It’s interesting that you feel pressured to misrepresent people so grievously. You obviously have no data with which to construct and defend a valid case of your own, so you have to invent a fantasy in order to support your ideology.

    Pathetic.

    >No doomsday scenario is happening here.

    So, you’re blind as well as being a liar and an ignorant?

    [Look harder](http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/10/september-2011-sea-ice-volume-looking-back-and-ahead.html).

  2. #2 Karen
    April 8, 2012

    Bernerds quote is from his ranting/jabbering post at #104

    “a profound alteration of hundreds of thousands of years of stable climate”

    “hundreds of thousands of years”

    “stable climate”

    ( http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/pastclimate.png )

    That chart in the link above indicates higher and lower temperatures in the past, 20 degrees Celsius from one extreme to the other, “stable climate” eh !

    It also indicates that we are overdue for a cold spell.

    Bernerd, what was the Arctic Sea Ice Volume in the year 1000 BC ?

    Here is a 1000 yr Temperature Chart from EPICA
    ( http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif )

    What do you think the thousand year temperature average would be from the MWP to the LIA ?

    One Thousand years is a very short time frame compared to your “hundreds of thousands of years” of a “stable climate”.

    Admit you were using ALARMIST rhetoric again !

  3. #3 Karen
    April 8, 2012

    “The sea ice and snow is so thick throughout this region that it is difficult to discern where land gives way to sea, especially in the low resolution image.”

    “The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) data indicate that the ice extent in the Bering Sea for most of the winter of 2011-2012 has been 15-25 percent above the 1979 to 2000 average. The past several months have included the second highest ice extent in the satellite record for the region.”

    LoL, I know, it’s the weather !

  4. #4 Bernard J.
    April 8, 2012

    Foulspot.

    You have a comprehension disability, and your piecemeal distractions and quotes are nothing but straw men.

    I am talking about the melting of the Arctic sea ice. If you don’t understand this just check my posts above.

    In this context the planet has been very stable, and for hundreds of thousands of years – yes, even though it’s been cycling through [the current ice age](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation).

    You really need to learn some lessons in context.

    So, do you know when last the Arctic was ice-free? And more importantly, do you know why an ice-free planet is of profound consequence to humans?

  5. #5 chek
    April 8, 2012

    Come now Bernard, these ‘Karenspots’ don’t have the support of a consistent narrative, just memes to be spread.

    Even entirely mutually contradictory ones like ‘global cooling’ and a disppearing cryosphere are no problem for the lo-rent intellects so motivated.

  6. #6 FrankD
    April 8, 2012

    Lets go to the videotape…(good times!)

    @118, “Karen” pointed out that in the first half of the 20th century navigable period for the west side of Svalbard went from three months to eight months in 1947. “Karen” suggested that this shows warming is not unprecedented.

    @120, I point out that in the 65 years since we have moved to a state where that coastline is navigable all year round (ie even in winter), suggesting that this shows a warming climate.

    @183, “Karen” now responds by linking to a map showing the coast was navigable in March 1985 (although as Adelady rightly pointed out the Greenland Sea (and the Barents for that matter had a higher ice extent overall than today).

    But here’s what struck me – “Karen” thinks that you can show something didn’t get worse between 1947 and 2012 by showing it got worse between 1947 and 1985 and claiming (wrongly) it hasn’t got worse since 1985. I mean…seriously…is it possible that anyone can be that stupid and still use a keyboard?

    Karen’s idiocy has consumed my finite proving-a-fucktard-is-a-fucktard time for this thread. But since “Karen” posts such self defeating links, she will pretty much save me the trouble by continuing to prove it herself. I’d say “knock yourself out”, but on past form, she would probably actually do that…

  7. #7 ianam
    April 8, 2012

    seriously…is it possible that anyone can be that stupid and still use a keyboard?

    We have the confirming evidence.

  8. #8 Mercurius
    April 8, 2012

    I wish the alarmists would stop trying to impose an ENVIROFASCIST CAVE-DWELLING ANTI-CAPITALIST ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT LED BY AL GORE.

    It’s so irresponsible the way these panic-merchants try to scare the public, all in order to bring about an ENVIROFASCIST CAVE-DWELLING ANTI-CAPITALIST ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT LED BY AL GORE.

    Stop listening to the doomsayers, or we will all end up slaves to an ENVIROFASCIST CAVE-DWELLING ANTI-CAPITALIST ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT LED BY AL GORE.

    Also, WATER VAPOUR!!! CLOUDS!!! THE SUN!!! BIBBLE!!!

  9. #9 Jeff Harvey
    April 9, 2012

    Still more devastating news for the deniers…

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17611404

    As the science vanquishes them, we can only wonder what nonsense they will spew out to defend their ever shrinking position….

  10. #10 adelady
    April 9, 2012

    As ‘karen’ says “It also indicates that we are overdue for a cold spell.”

    Just in case it has escaped anyone’s notice, that’s actually true. We are supposed to be cooling at the moment. The Milankovitch cycle is pushing us that way, and sunspots have been decidedly downish for a good while. We should be on a slow but steady move towards colder rather than warmer if natural cycles were to have their usual way.

    And we’re not. We’re moving rapidly in the other direction. So much so that it’s likely we’ll skip the next couple of icy periods (loooong after we’re gone).

    I wonder why.

  11. #11 Karen
    April 9, 2012

    @ #202 Bernerd said,

    Karen, sweetheart, “You have a comprehension disability,”

    Bernerd I see where your lack of comprehension stems from, lack of knowledge.

    you said “I am talking about the melting of the Arctic sea ice.”

    so was I Bernerd, I even showed you @ #197 that the sea ice may be low in one region and high in another, most regions are on the mean, that means normal Bernerd, that seems to be where your having a bit of trouble keeping up.

    Here, this might explain it to you, maybe?

    The map below shows the regional seas that make up the Arctic Ocean, along with other geographical features. NSIDC scientists often refer to the different seas within the Arctic Ocean when they discuss sea ice extent. ( http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/map-of-the-arctic-ocean/ )

    So now you know something new Bernerd, the Arctic ocean has regions “that make up the Arctic Ocean”.

    When you ask “So, do you know when last the Arctic was ice-free?”

    Are you asking about a particular region or the combined regions that make up the entire Arctic ocean that differ and vary from one another because of altering regional weather patterns ?

  12. #12 Bernard J.
    April 9, 2012

    Foulspot.

    Stop playing silly games.

    [This link](http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/10/september-2011-sea-ice-volume-looking-back-and-ahead.html) shows what is happening to the Arctic ice. The parameter that I am discussing is describing by the graphics there. As it seems to be escaping you still, the melting of ice described there preludes a world in which humans are not at all well-adapted. That is the type of “variation” to which I refer, and it is certainly the type of variation that has not been experienced by the planet for millenia.

    So, when do you think this magnitude of melting last occurred? And when do you think it will happen again?

  13. #13 Bernard J.
    April 9, 2012

    For those interested, Richard Dawkins has just debated George Pell on [the ABC's Qanda](http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/).

    Pell Gish-galloped to a fine degree, and whilst he had a few hits a jetlagged Dawkins missed many easily-summoned dismissals of Pell’s childishly flawed logic. The entire program is worth a point-by-point analysis/rebuttal, and a gargantuan task it would be.

    It’s astonishing to see how poor the thinking is that a theologian like Pell operates by. Think climate change denial, extended version…

  14. #14 Betula
    April 9, 2012

    Bernard @210…

    I checked out your link and made a few observations:

    I noticed your link refers to the PIOMAS model with a link to it’s website. The “Model Validation and Uncertainty” section states…”Comparison of winter total volumes with other volume estimates need to account for the fact that the PIOMAS domain currently does not extend southward far enough to cover all areas that can have winter time ice cover. Areas in the Sea of Okhotsk and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence are partially excluded from the domain”

    Information without all the information…

    Isn’t this what Karen was talking about @210 when she asked…”Are you asking about a particular region or the combined regions that make up the entire Arctic ocean that differ and vary from one another because of altering regional weather patterns?”

    And did you notice the link to sea ice extent and it’s statement on future predictions?
    “Projecting such trends into the future is purely a what-if exercise, interesting as conjecture but not grounded in physical understanding.”

    So the models consist of incomplete data and the future projections are pure guesswork based on this data…

    And do I detect a hint of bias in the following statement?

    “actual ice volume can be expected to vary randomly around this tendency in the future as it has in the past, producing periods of faster decline or temporary recovery”

    Based on our guesswork derived from our incomplete models, we have speculated that future ice volume can vary randomly in one direction only, and that is with “faster decline or temporary recovery.” Never let it be said that we would use our lack of understanding and incomplete models to speculate about future random periods of “temporary decline or faster recovery”…flat out impossible.

    Silly games indeed.

  15. #15 Hasis
    April 9, 2012

    Betula quotes PIOMAS:

    Comparison of winter total volumes with other volume estimates need to account for the fact that the PIOMAS domain currently does not extend southward far enough to cover all areas that can have winter time ice cover.

    And there was me taking it from what Bernard actually wrote (e.g. in #180) that he was refering to minimum future ice-cover conditions…which tend to occur in the summer!

    Silly old me!

  16. #16 Mikem
    April 9, 2012

    @211. Just watched the recording. Some of Pell’s comments made my head implode. Nothing unexpected there. Deh stupid……it burns.

  17. #17 Bernard J.
    April 9, 2012

    [Betula](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/april_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6255407).

    The only sensible thing that you said was your summary sentence of your overall post:

    >Silly games indeed.

    The rest of your post is an exercise in pointing into the distance and yelping “look, over there!”. Are you really trying to pretend that there is not a serious net melting of ice in the Arctic?!

    Seriously, buy a clue. [Hasis](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/april_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6255417) is very kindly trying to help you along…

  18. #18 Bernard J.
    April 9, 2012

    To follow on from [my post and link above](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/april_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6255361), the direct link to the Dawkins/Pell discussion is [here](http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3469101.htm).

    Ensure that a head-vice is mounted and that a rubber apron is secured before watching.

  19. #19 Rattus Norvegicus
    April 9, 2012

    Jeff,

    The paper you refer to so (Shakun, et. al.) so worried the deniers that it has spawned a cottage industry over at Watts’ place trying to show it is wrong. They are scared.

  20. #20 Anthony David
    April 10, 2012

    The ABC’s “I Can Change Your Mind About…Climate” web survey has been swamped by the denialati with the vast majority “Dismissive” of the subject. Take a few minutes please to make your view known.

  21. #21 ianam
    April 10, 2012

    Silly games indeed.

    Betula, you’re a moron. The ice volume is only varying randomly in one direction because it’s melting because of the heat. Even if you don’t believe that (because you are ignorant, stupid, and blind … just what do you think the blue line on that PIOMAS graph of Arctic sea ice volume shows?), certainly the people who wrote that article and posted that graph do, so they aren’t playing silly games, they are just making a statement consistent with what they believe (which, unlike a blithering cretin like you, is based on the evidence, as shown in that graph).

  22. #22 ianam
    April 10, 2012

    @`#`218

    Unfortunately for Ms. Rose, Mr. Minchin is a dimwit and an intellectually dishonest ideologue, as is clear just from the snippets of the arguments he gives in that clip, which have nothing to do with science: We’re slandering deniers, so there’s no AGW! It would mean changing industry, so there’s no AGW!

  23. #23 John
    April 10, 2012

    Karenmackspot says:

    >It also indicates that we are overdue for a cold spell.

    I thought your argument was we are already in the midst of the cold spell, but Al Gore was fabricating false temperature records in conjunction with NASA and the reverse vampires.

    Some consistency, darling, please!

  24. #24 MikeH
    April 10, 2012

    Anthony @ 218
    I would be inclined not to participate. It is difficult to beat the deniers at that game – they are mostly retirees with plenty of time on their hands. Better to let them stooge the survey – a 90% result dismissive of climate science is like some tinpot dictator being elected with +90% of the vote – everyone laughs.

    This more of the same old crap false balance from the ABC

  25. #25 Jeff Harvey
    April 10, 2012

    RattusN,

    *The paper you refer to so (Shakun, et. al.) so worried the deniers that it has spawned a cottage industry over at Watts’ place trying to show it is wrong. They are scared.*

    That the deniers would try and debunk the Nature paper was as expected. But note how they won’t write a rebuttal in Nature; the deniers never do that or appear to even try. What they do is attack papers in the top journals by blog, where there is no peer-review. WUWT is a master at this kind of thing. In my years as a scientists I have met deniers in many areas of environmental science, denying not only climate change but other forms of pollution, high extinction rates, the impacts of losing tropical forests, the extent of coral reef destruction etc. Essentially, many of the climate change deniers fall into the broader camp of cornucopian anti-environmentalists who deny that human activities pose a threat to natural systems. But one thing they have in common is to hate much of the science in peer-reviewed journals, to make a big noise in attacking many of these articles on the internet, but rarely if ever writing their own rebuttal and submitting it to any of these journals. They would argue that it won’t get in; the fact is that in virtually every instance they know their science is shoddy and that their article won’t withstand the scrutiny of peer-review.

    The internet is a great thing, but it has its downsides too. It has enabled science to largely bypass peer-review and to give some aura of credibility to some of the most appalling garbage you could imagine. It has also enabled those who fall solidly in the ranks of the Dunning-Kruger study to profess vast expertise in fields they have never studied formally at a university. One just has to read some of the stuff written by the climate change deniers on Deltoid to see that.

  26. #26 ianam
    April 10, 2012

    I’ve been on the ‘net since it consisted of 4 hosts attached to IMPs (I wrote OS software for one of those hosts), back when ARPA built its network so that the university scientists it funded could communicate more effectively. It’s a great thing that it has expanded its user base to the whole world, but one of the double-edged consequences is that it has given us a window into the minds of the mentally bankrupt and corrupt.

  27. #27 Monty
    April 10, 2012

    I’ve been over at WUWT trying to suggest that Pat Frank send his latest “final nail in the CAGW coffin” for peer review in the scientific literature. Guess what? He’s reluctant to do this!! I wonder why?

  28. #28 Jeff Harvey
    April 10, 2012

    Note also that Willis Eschenbach, who apparently has never published a peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal in his life, is now weighing in attacking the Nature paper on WUWT. Note also that he won’t go anywhere near a peer-reviewed journal with his garbage – instead, like pretty much all of the deniers, he’s content to spew out his nonsense on a contrarian web site.

    A couple of years ago Eschenbach wrote a cringe-inducing article on biodiversity and extinction rates on WUWT. It seems like many of the deniers show no constraints in wading into many fields outside of their competence when anti-environmental blogs provide a forum for them.

  29. #29 MikeH
    April 10, 2012

    A Nature [interview](http://blogs.nature.com/from_the_lab_bench/2012/04/06/old-news-for-carbon-dioxide-new-threats-for-climate-change
    ) with Jeremy Shakun worth reading.

    What is even more sobering is that today, humans have brought CO2 levels up another 100 part per million more.

    “So we have done just as much,” Shakun said. “And in a century, we are looking to go up, going on as we are, by several hundred more. So 100 parts per million to end an ice age, and we are talking about people bringing it up many times more… this is NOT small potatoes what we are talking about here, what we are doing with CO2. This is big stuff, big changes.”

  30. #30 MikeH
    April 10, 2012

    …is the best thing that’s happened to this blog since I was banned.

    I will agree that you being banned was a good thing. So keep us all happy and p-ss off.

  31. #31 Bernard J.
    April 10, 2012

    Hey, Fatso, does Tim Lambert know that you are violating his ban?

    Tsk, tsk.

    And what’s so special about a bloke who pretends to be a woman, and who can’t string any scientific coherence together at all? Is it because he’s tresspassing too, and has thus far been able to avoid being put back in the box?

    And whilst you’re here, what do you think will be the minimum Arctic sea ice extent (or sea ice volume – I prefer that measure anyway) during the 21st century? If you manage to come up with a figure you would actually be the first of your bleating brethren to do so, after the months of prevarication in which they have indulged.

    And please provide some testable basis with which to back your estimate. After all, this is a science blog and we expect you to produce science, rather than the ideology and manure that characterises your corner’s position.

  32. #32 StevoR
    April 10, 2012

    There an interesting news item in the latest issue of ‘New Scientist’ magazine – April 7th 2012, page 5, top of the “60 seconds” column – on the Heartland Institute losing GMH sponsorship – just in case folks hadn’t seen it.

    There’s also apparently something on page 7 about plans for drilling for oil in the Arctic & an item by Chris Mooney on brains and politics and implications thereof or something like that. Reading that mag. now, myself & haven’t actually read those last two items yet but thought I’d let y’all know.

  33. #33 StevoR
    April 10, 2012

    @218. Anthony David | April 10, 2012 1:28 AM :

    The ABC’s “I Can Change Your Mind About…Climate” web survey has been swamped by the denialati with the vast majority “Dismissive” of the subject. Take a few minutes please to make your view known.

    Thanks for that link – looks like it will be a potentially really good doco.

    Did their survey there and turns out I’m in the “Concerned” class FWIW. Probably because I put down a few “don’t knows” & must admit it could have done with some other options but pretty reasonable as on-line web surveys go.

  34. #34 Robert Murphy
    April 10, 2012

    “Karen is the best thing that’s happened to this blog since I was banned.”

    That’s like saying gonorrhea is the best thing to happen to you since you came down with syphilis.

  35. #35 Karen
    April 10, 2012

    Barnerd I gave you my sea ice forecast @ # 136

    Do you prefer the volume measure because the sea ice extent is above average ?

    Arctic Sea Ice 433000 sq kms below average, that is only slightly below the 1979 to now average.

    Antarctic Sea Ice is 452000 sq klms above average, that suggests that the global sea ice extent is 19000 sq klms above average.

    Couldn’t you work that out ? Or did you and you just kept it quiet ?

    Isn’t that fantastic Barnerd :)

    Glowbull Warming has stopped :)

    By the way, how accurate do you think that volume graph is, it looks a bit dodgy to me.

    I suppose…. given that there is a 95% consensus, climatologically speaking, that that the AGW evidence is so much in favour of your ice melting hypothesis, or should I say your mystical vision of a future burning cryosphere, that your confidence levels will permit you to offer me and who ever else wants to kick in, a wager with the odd’s of 95:1, we put $1 in the pot and you kick in $95, winner takes all.

    Oh, of coarse we will have to work out the finer details.

  36. #36 Karen
    April 10, 2012

    I’ve just had quick add up of my bingo winnings, I have about $4500, so you will need to throw in $427500, I’m sure others would like the opportunity to have a wager with you so I will pass the word around and see what I can do, meanwhile you could see if fat Al and mikey would like to kick in alongside you.

  37. #37 lord_sidcup
    April 10, 2012

    Karen the Credulous #149:

    Western Hudson Bay polar bear numbers “stable,” Government of Nunavut survey shows

    I have a reading assignment for you:

    [Scientist Responds To Misleading Polar Bear Coverage](http://mediamatters.org/blog/201204090004)

  38. #38 StevoR
    April 10, 2012

    @234. Karen | April 10, 2012 10:17 AM :

    I suppose…. given that there is a 95% consensus, climatologically speaking,

    Actually that’s close but its 97-97% of climatologists that agree with the Global Overheating consensus position.

    What they’re finding though is that the Arctic sea ice is melting much faster than they expected.

    See : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRc_9nNTZg0

  39. #39 StevoR
    April 10, 2012

    ^ Especially watch the graph at the 2 minute 30 second mark on that above clip – 2011 Arctic Ice Minimum on youtube by Greenman3610.

    its 97-97% of climatologists

    Oops that’s 97-98% of climatologists following the HIRGO consensus. (Human Induced Rapid Global Overheating)

    Source : http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

  40. #40 John
    April 10, 2012

    There you go. Thread closed. Karenmackspot has graciously conceded that the odds of an ice-free summer are heavily – no, *overwhelmingly* – in Bernard’s favour.

    Whatever led to this stunning reversal?

  41. #41 Gingerbaker
    April 10, 2012

    I would like to explore something a bit different, as re-explaining science to people who are either morons, paid shills, reflexive contrarians or simple borderline personality sufferers is getting b-o-r-i-n-g.

    And more importantly, it is an enormous waste of time and energy. The science is settled on this. Can this be emphasized enough? It is time to move forward and damn the torpedoes, as there are literally billions of people and millions of species depending on people of rational mind to take necessary action.

    I would like to talk about the people who are in the way of progress, who are deliberately stalling the reforms certainly necessary to sustain civilization as we know it, and possibly the very existence of humanity itself. These are people of enormous political and economic power who have manipulated the very bulwarks of democratic society for their own ambitions.

    These are people who not only sneeringly disregard the consensus opinion of virtually every qualified expert in the field, but who have cravenly sustained massive propaganda campaigns to further their global global objectives. These are people who will have blood on their hands. Blood on their hands to a scale almost unknown in the entire history of the human race.

    These are the Adolph Hitlers of climate change denial. Make no mistake about it.

    And so I would like to ask a question:

    Would it be ethically wrong or ethically mandated to kill people like this to protect humanity?

    There is, it seems to me, no other way to stop them. They have the legal right to fund propaganda networks, overwhelm our election system with legal donations, escape litigation in almost any court. There is no other way to influence these people, and they are killing humanity on a truly dreadful scale.

    In WWII, it was considered completely ethical to carpet bomb cities, to plot to assassinate Hitler even if that meant a hundred innocent bystanders would perish in the explosion. The stakes for us are actually much higher than losing to Hitler.

    It is time to redirect the national conversation about global warming away from arguing about scientific facts, and toward a discussion of the ethics of consequences for climate denial up to and including arrest and even vigilante assassination.

  42. #42 Betula
    April 10, 2012

    Gingerbaker @ 240 wonders if it would be ethically wrong to kill people who disagree about a hypothetical speculative future scenario….vigilante assassination.

    Nuff said.

  43. #43 Gingerbaker
    April 10, 2012

    Hypothetical? Speculative?

    If business as usual continues, we will hit 1000ppm CO2 by about 2100 according to MIT.

    Do you think you could find a single qualified scientist who would say that when the earth eventually heats up to that forcing, that billions will not almost certainly die?

    You deniers have one thing in common – you never have an answer for where all the heat that the extra CO2 past 280 ppm will go. To you it is just “speculative” and “hypothetical” to suggest that there will be undeniable ramifications of this CO2 build up. The plain fact of the matter is that that extra heat will not magically disappear. It will warm the planet, and that much heating will make it impossible for billions of people to survive.

    If you can not explain how the laws of physics are going to be magically averted, and the planet will therefore NOT heat up beyond redemption, you need to STFU and get out of the way. Or consider yourself partly responsible.

  44. #44 Gingerbaker
    April 10, 2012

    “Gingerbaker @ 240 wonders if it would be ethically wrong to kill people …”

    That is correct. I am wondering if it is ethically wrong to imprison or kill people who, left unchecked, will be the cause for billions to die.

    BTW, they don’t “disagree” about a “scenario”. They have no bona fides to disagree – the science on this is overwhelming. They don’t “disagree” – they simply don’t give a shit about anyone else. Why should they be allowed to kill billions of people? They are certainly guilty of crimes against humanity. That their crime is occurring in slow motion, as opposed to, say, a military massacre of a village, makes their crime no less heinous.

  45. #45 ianam
    April 10, 2012

    Nuff said.

    About what? You’re just the sort of moron who would infer from Gingerbaker’s comments that AGW is false. And you’re just the sort of dishonest feces stain on humanity who comments on Gingerbaker’s post rather than respond to the substance about the decline of Arctic sea ice volume, which is not hypothetical or speculative, it is observed.

    In WWII, it was considered completely ethical to carpet bomb cities

    Gingerbaker, this passive voice is as dishonest as anything that comes from garbage like Betula or Foulspot. You cannot establish mass murder as being ethical merely by universalizing the ethics of mass murderers who justified their mass murder as preventing other mass murder.

  46. #46 ianam
    April 10, 2012

    Who would you put to death, Gingerbaker? Evey member of Hitler Youth? Every German who called a Jew vermin or took their property or merely stood by as the crimes happened?

    If you think that killing people like Betula is justified, do you also think that killing everyone who drives a car or doesn’t turn out the lights is justified? It’s one thing to criticize the morals of garbage like Betula and Foulspot, or much worse garbage like Monckton and Morano, but what you are doing is in another category and is itself morally condemnable.

  47. #47 Dave H
    April 10, 2012

    I call sockpuppet on Gingerbaker. Comes out of nowhere, says unhelpful and morally repugnant things, leaps to a tasteless Nazi comparison.

  48. #48 Twiggy
    April 10, 2012

    Gingerbaker most likely wants someone on this forum to appear to agree with his stupid and contemptible ravings so that he can go back to some denialist site and point to the radical warmists who want to kill people they disagree with.

  49. #49 Bernard J.
    April 10, 2012

    Foulspot:

    >Barnerd I gave you my sea ice forecast @ # 136

    All you did was say:

    >My prediction for arctic [sic] ice is, more then less then lesser then morer and morer and then lesser ect [sic].

    which, granted, is about as much science as you are capable of.

    Note however that it does not address my question, which is “what will be the minimum Arctic sea ice extent (or volume, for the brave) during the 21st century?”.

    In case you don’t yet comprehend Lola, you were expected to provide a numerical value. Yes, I know that will require you to use your fingers and even your toes for that weird counting/numbers thing that grown-ups do, but that’s just the way it is.

    And as for:

    >given that there is a 95% consensus, climatologically speaking, that that the AGW evidence is so much in favour of your ice melting hypothesis, or should I say your mystical vision of a future burning cryosphere, that your confidence levels will permit you to offer me and who ever else wants to kick in, a wager with the odd’s of 95:1, we put $1 in the pot and you kick in $95, winner takes all.

    it seems that you completely and entirely miss the point of my odds. If you are so convinced that the planet is not warming, you should be convinced that the chance of an ever lower record minimum extent/volume is proportionately lower. If you are correct, taking a lower value for minimum is a higher risk to me than it is to you, and hence you should be putting more on the table in support of your claims.

    That you are attempting to reverse the nature of my wagers either shows that you actually have no belief in your own nonsense, or that you don’t understand the logic of odds calculations – or both.

  50. #50 bill
    April 10, 2012

    I seriously doubt anyone here is likely to fall for the gingerbaker ruse of getting some warmist to appear to subscribe to utterly contemptible ideas, and then to cut and paste the results across the Deniosphere.

  51. #51 Betula
    April 10, 2012

    Gingerbaker @242 asks the following:

    “Hypothetical? Speculative?” and then follows it with this: “If business as usual continues”…

    That’s right Ginger, “IF”.

    Sounds like a hypothetical to me.

    Now, if you will excuse me, I must go kill myself…

  52. #52 bill
    April 10, 2012

    Since we’re apparently in the ideological area; ah, Fox – ‘There’s another civil rights group in town – the National Socialist Movement‘.

    What can you say? The Stupid über alles!

  53. #53 adelady
    April 10, 2012

    Oh dear, Arctic ice still.

    Here’s a couple of not so pretty pictures. This one for the current end of winter, ice should be at maximum thickness (‘cos the sun’s not over the horizon yet for much of the region) from one well-established group. Note the size and shape of the multi-year ice map, and the vast regions where the ice is 2 metres or less thick. http://www.aari.ru/odata/_d0015.php?lang=1&mod=0&yy=2012

    And for the much beloved historical data. This one for both end of summer and end of winter. Not this year obviously, only up to 2010. But the trend is pretty clear. Once again note the size and shape of the multi year ice and first year ice on the maps in the first 2 comments here. http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/04/another-source-of-info-on-myi.html

    If you want to play with the animations yourself, the maps are here – http://polarbear.colorado.edu/IceAge.html

  54. #54 John
    April 10, 2012

    >I call sockpuppet on Gingerbaker. Comes out of nowhere, says unhelpful and morally repugnant things, leaps to a tasteless Nazi comparison.

    This.

    Come on trolls. I know we are a useless group of putzes who swallow whatever Al Gore says, but you’re going to simply have to try harder.

  55. #55 John
    April 10, 2012

    Incidentally, here’s a neat animation that shows visually the record breaking US heatwave and proving, per Karenmackspot’s argument, that global warming is happening.

  56. #56 Mack
    April 10, 2012

    I think Gingerbaker is genuine, just suffering a hellish dose of Koolaid.

  57. #57 bill
    April 10, 2012

    I’m always ready to credit the opinion of someone who believes CO2 is a harmless trace gas that cannot influence the climate. I rather think you missed your opportunity to point out ‘it’s plant food’ there. Learn anything from those comments and links provided? Didn’t think so.

    Let’s face it – you’re wasting your time, guys; your little fishing trip has failed.

  58. #58 Rattus Norvegicus
    April 11, 2012

    On that Fox news link, I went after them over the weekend and over the course of a couple of hours it changed from “Civil Rights Group” to “White Rights Group” to “Neo-Nazi”. I thanked them when they made the final change and fleshed out the story. Funny who people seem to have forgotten what the NS in NSDAP stands for.

  59. #59 ianam
    April 11, 2012

    I seriously doubt anyone here is likely to fall for the gingerbaker ruse of getting some warmist to appear to subscribe to utterly contemptible ideas, and then to cut and paste the results across the Deniosphere.

    You, Dave H, Twiggy, and John are being silly, reactionary, and unperceptive and are suffering from your own form of cognitive dissonance. Gingerbaker has posted occasionally at Pharyngula and is genuine, and what he/she posted here is not something that could plausibly be written by a denier even as bait — and to what end? Some other denier could cut and paste Gingerbaker’s comments to the Deniosphere with the same effect. No, Gingerbaker’s reaction to the threat of GW and its potential costs, while quite irrational, is also quite understandable of someone who genuinely believes that billions will die. Like denialists, you don’t believe this simply because you don’t want to.

    “Hypothetical? Speculative?” and then follows it with this: “If business as usual continues”…

    That’s right Ginger, “IF”.

    And what’s to stop business as usual from continuing, cretin, especially when feces stains like you oppose any change? Business is likely to continue as usual unless Gingerbaker has his/her way.

    Sounds like a hypothetical to me.

    So does “The sun will rise tomorrow if it doesn’t wink out of existence”, because you’re an imbecile, too stupid to distinguish between a subjunctive and a hypothetical, and you’re a feces stain on humanity, too dishonest to admit that, if something would be the consequence of business as usual, then it should be expected.

    Now, if you will excuse me, I must go kill myself…

    I’m all for it. It would spare us the debate about whether we would be justified in doing it to you ourselves.

  60. #60 MikeH
    April 11, 2012

    You, Dave H, Twiggy, and John are being silly, reactionary, and unperceptive and are suffering from your own form of cognitive dissonance.

    Overreach ianam.

    My initial reaction to Gingerbaker’s post never having encountered him before was similar to the others – that he was a provocateur. Turns out he is just a fool.

    For GB’s benefit – the people he fantasises about bumping off are just the street dealers for denialism. They are not exceptionally bright and are easily replaced.

    Here is some insight on the “big fish”.

    “A cap on carbon emissions designed to limit warming to 2 degrees C. will mean sovereign states and public corporations must strand 80% of their $27 trillion of proven (global) reserves and related assets, a loss exceeding $20 trillion”

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/03/29/454476/a-message-from-a-republican-meteorologist-on-climate-change/

    The way to fight this vested interest is to convince a majority of the world’s population that climate change is real and it is going to affect them – not just a poor peasant in a third world country.

    Turns out that most of us – the 99% – do not have a direct stake in a carbon future anyway. We do however have a stake in a stable climate.

    “Three systems theorists at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich have taken a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide and analyzed all 43,060 transnational corporations and share ownerships linking them. They built a model of who owns what and what their revenues are and mapped the whole edifice of economic power.

    They discovered that global corporate control has a distinct bow-tie shape, with a dominant core of 147 firms radiating out from the middle. Each of these 147 own interlocking stakes of one another and together they control 40% of the wealth in the network. A total of 737 control 80% of it all.”
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceupbin/2011/10/22/the-147-companies-that-control-everything/

    Forget the childish fantasies GB and join your local climate action group.

  61. #61 Mikeh
    April 11, 2012

    @259
    See what I mean about not exceptionally bright. As I recall el Gordo was banned for serial stupidity.

  62. #62 Jeff Harvey
    April 11, 2012

    *My money is on global cooling and you all know why*

    Because, fatso, you are an idiot…

  63. #63 Fran Barlow
    April 11, 2012

    FWIW I think Gingerbaker is a little too articulate and well informed to be a denier troll. One should never say never — one has to grant the possibility that someone who is a complete ethical bankrupt might be able to ignore their own logic in pursuit of a different agenda — but on balance, I am going to guess that he/she really believes what he/she is saying.

    That doesn’t make it right though. Gingerbaker is probably sincere but what(s)he proposes is no less criminal and repulsive for that. The entire aim of mitigation is to protect human civilisation and its usages. We had to burn the village to save it comes from the ethical antecedents of the denier movement and has nothing at all to do with us.

    We will, as a species, act rationally, and foreclose disaster, or we will, as a species, suffer the consequences of failing. It’s as simple as that.

  64. #64 Karen
    April 11, 2012

    I did a quick search and yep, it’s spreading like wildfire !

    Hansen and Schmidt of NASA GISS under fire for climate stance: Engineers, scientists, astronauts ask NASA administration to look at empirical evidence rather than climate models

    We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

    The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

    As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate…………..

    read on…….

    ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/hansen-and-schmidt-of-nasa-giss-under-fire-engineers-scientists-astronauts-ask-nasa-administration-to-look-at-emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/ )

  65. #65 Neil White
    April 11, 2012

    Karen (#263)

    And not one of the signatories has any credibility in this area. Lots of engineers and astronauts. The very few (3?) who have any science credentials at all are geologists or in other non-relevant areas.

    Ho Hum

    Neil White

  66. #66 StevoR
    April 11, 2012

    @239.Gingerbaker | April 10, 2012 1:20 PM : Ever heard of Godwin’s law?

    See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

    Which notes :

    ..there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison [To nazis -ed.] is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.[8] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin’s law. It is considered poor form to raise such a comparison arbitrarily with the motive of ending the thread. There is a widely recognized corollary that any such ulterior-motive invocation of Godwin’s law will be unsuccessful.[9] Godwin’s law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one’s opponent) with Nazis.

    So, yeah, don’t go there.

    I’m not sure if you are doing this deliberately to provoke and cause trouble or end this thread. (Hint : its called the April open thread meaning it is going to last all month most likely.) Or if you really don’t know and are just new to the net & discussing things generally.

    But whatever the case, again, don’t pull a Godwin online. Don’t go there – ever. Its bad form and generally frowned upon. Its also a logical fallacy and in virtually every case a hyperbolic, unimaginative, ridiculous comparison to make.

    Now to answer your question :

    “Would it be ethically wrong or ethically mandated to kill people like this to protect humanity?”

    Yes, it would be ethically very wrong.

    No it isn’t okay to kill people for saying stupid things, even really, really horrible, hateful, destructive stupid things.

    There are better ways to deal with them than killing.
    I can think of quite a few – if you are being serious here then put a bit of effort in and I’m sure you’ll think of a number of other possibilitries as well. Apart from anything else if there wa sthedetahsentence for saying stupid things the executioners would never catch up to the number neeeding their services!

    Incidentally, FWIW, I used to be a climate contrarian myself once. I’m pretty sure I’m not the only person who has changed their mind on this issue over time and with increasing knowledge either. Would you want me dead already?

  67. #67 StevoR
    April 11, 2012

    Typo. D’oh! That’s :

    Apart from anything else if there was the death sentence for saying stupid things then the executioners would never catch up to the number needing their services!

    For clarity.

  68. #68 Jeff Harvey
    April 11, 2012

    Blotspot,

    Where are the climate scientists in the ‘petition’? Astronauts? You have got to be kidding me? These people are a joke.

    Moreover, look at the infantile poll that accompanies the article on WUWT. Should James Hansen be fired? Is Watts serious?!?! This is beyond the pale. It shows precisely what we should have known all along: that there is no depths of fecal matter to which the deniers will not stoop. I wish Tim would send you back to your hole where you belong.

    How appalling of Watts to put such utter repugnant bilge up on his ‘scientific’ web site. Its clearly all about advocacy. Why does he just not come out and say that he, like 99% of the other deniers, is a free-market absolutist who despises any form of government regulation. Moreover, how many qualified scientists do you see who stoop to this basal level of discourse? Howm many university web sites or scientific bodies have petitions where voters can decide whether Watts or other deniers deserve to have a forum for their crap? Seeing this kind of childish stuff makes me appreciate what it means to be a trained scientist and not a wannabe. I certainly despise those who are distorting it to bolster their own political agendas. Its as if the deniers cannot but wear their anti-scientitic hatred on their sleeves. What a sordid, sick, twisted lot you all are.

  69. #69 StevoR
    April 11, 2012

    @259. el Gordo | April 11, 2012 2:43 AM :

    ‘We do however have a stake in a stable climate.’
    Is that an oxymoron? My money is on global cooling and you all know why. {Link snipped}

    Well El Gordo I clicked on your link and got :

    ERROR 404PAGE NOT FOUND
    You may not be able to find the requested page because of:

    -An out-of-date bookmark/favorite
    -A search engine that has an out-of-date listing for us
    -A mis-typed address
    -or a broken link
    We think navigating to our site’s homepage will better help you on your search.

    Looked like a NASA webpage. So, no, I don’t know why. Can you try to explain a summary of your reasons in simple english in your own words please?

    They’d better be pretty durn good reasons to go against the 98 out of 100 expert climatologists though!

    In fact of the very, *very*, few dissenting qualified climatologists I don’t think I’m aware (from memory) of any that aren’t saying the planet is heating up – even Lindzen and Patrick Michaels (right name /spelling?) conceed that much debating only the extent and severity of the process.

    Couple of analogies to consider

    - If 98 out of a 100 doctors told you you had a medical problem and needed to have surgery would you really ignore them based on the other two?

    - Do you often bet on 100 : 1 horses and see them win?

    I would be betting with the majority and here – that we will be warming over the next few decades and NOT cooling.

    We’ll see I guess in time. Thermal inertai means we’re locked into some serious overheating I’d say.

  70. #70 Billy Bob Hall
    April 18, 2012

    Delingpole rules OK.

    James Delingpole is the gun.
    :-)

  71. #71 Monty
    April 19, 2012

    Adelady: yes, BP is based on the start of radiocarbon dating. But if Loehle was basing his reconstruction of MWP climate against mid-20th century rather than the end of the 20th century, then it makes a difference. I also recall from an old RC post that he used very few proxies towards the end (I must try and dig out his paper!).

  72. #72 Betula
    April 19, 2012

    John @422..

    “When he knows he’s wrong he sinks into deranged strawman arguments. A real man would admit it and move on”

    John believes I’m wrong about Gingerbaker advocating murder,because he merely “advocated a discussion” about advocating murder.

    Gingerbaker apparently doesn’t know if advocating murder is wrong, so he/she decided that a discussion to consider advocating murder is needed…. this is a tough decision afterall.

    So here we have Gingerbaker with this gift of being able to know the future, yet has to ask for guidance on the ethics of murder. This is truly an amazing mind.

    My biggest mistake was not realizing that a discussion about advocating murder shouldn’t include a discussion about whether the person wanting to discuss the advocating of murder is actually advocating murder.

    Of course, I wasn’t the first to fail with such logic. Here’s ianam @243:

    “You cannot establish mass murder as being ethical merely by universalizing the ethics of mass murderers who justified their mass murder as preventing other mass murder.”

    And again @342:

    “As I said, you advocated it (or at least offered it for consideration) as a means to prevent it.”

    Now, you would think that John would get his panties all tied up in a knot trying to get Ianam to admit he/she was wrong. But he doesn’t.

    The difference being, even though ianam is against the advocating of murder through discussion, he/she at least agrees that the idea of mass murder would be effective in stopping business as usual.

    Here’s ianam @257:

    “Business is likely to continue as usual unless Gingerbaker has his/her way”

    So Ianam gets a pass from John et al, because the basic Deltoid ideology remains intact.

    I apologize for believing that the consideration of mass murder was akin to advocating mass murder. Perhaps it was the definition of advocate that confused me:

    ad·vo·cate (dv-kt)
    To speak, plead, or argue in favor of.

    Apparently Ginerbaker wasn’t speaking or arguing in favor of murder when he/she said this @239…

    “Would it be ethically wrong or ethically mandated to kill people like this to protect humanity? There is, it seems to me, no other way to stop them.”

    Once again, much to my chagrin, I apologize and rid myself of this subject.

    Meanwhile, in the frozen wastelands of the Deltoid mind, the mice keep spinning their wheels while shouting “Polar bears are dying because of the climate change, they are nearly all wiped out!”.

    Prove it.

  73. #73 chek
    April 19, 2012

    Nobody has the time to waste engaging with ignorant idiots, Betula.

    Of course, you might not be.

    But you’d have to prove it.

  74. #74 Wow
    April 19, 2012

    “Prove it.”

    Prove that melting arctic sea ice won’t cause the polar bears to have to swim further and thereby drown more frequently.

    We have a causation.

    Prove that it cannot cause polar bear deaths by drowning.

  75. #75 ianam
    April 19, 2012

    he/she at least agrees that the idea of mass murder would be effective in stopping business as usual

    I agree because it’s an obvious, objective fact. If, say, we murdered all the teachers, that would kind of put a ding in the usual business of education, wouldn’t it? But that I simply note that consequence of murdering teachers doesn’t mean I advocate murdering teachers … as opposed to GingerBaker, who obviously is advocating putting people to death when he suggests rethinking the morality of doing so and offers justifications for doing so.

    So I think John is wrong here, but the reason he gives me a pass but not you is because you’re a troll sack of lying feces who denies science simply because you don’t like the unfortunate consequences of what the science tells us. And as I said, while I’m very much opposed to anyone killing you, I wouldn’t bat an eye if you decided to do yourself in.

  76. #76 Betula
    April 19, 2012

    ianam @432

    What exactly is it that I have denied?

  77. #77 Wow
    April 19, 2012

    “What exactly is it that I have denied?”

    That polar bears can drown because the ice retreating from global warming means they have too far to swim.

    Oh, and everything to do with climate science.

  78. #78 Betula
    April 19, 2012

    Wow @431
    “Prove that it cannot cause polar bear deaths by drowning”

    A lot of things COULD cause polar bears to drown. C’mon, you can think of a few…

    The questions are…Have they drowned? How many have drowned? What was the cause of drowning?

    Please provide links stating climate change as the direct cause of any polar bear drowning.

  79. #79 Jeff Harvey
    April 19, 2012

    Betula logic:

    We know tropical forests are disappearing at a rapid rate and we know that with them their biodiversity – in particular endemics – also will face extirpation. But much of what we know is based on projection estimates. That is to say, we know that if you cut down a million hectares of contiguous rainforest in Brazil the forest-dependent biota will disappear along with it. That is a projection and we know from past experience that it is prety accurate. Betula, who must still be in his diapers, would argue in 1900: how many Bengal Tigers have disappeared because of the loss of Indian forest habitat? In 1900, the population of tigers in the Indian subcontinent was estimated to be somewhere around 100,000. The forests had only started to be destroyed at that time. So Betula, sitting in his crib, would say that there is no problem, even though the tiger habitat would largely disappear in the coming years. Now there are approximately 1300 tigers left in India. Projections of their demise in 1900 would have been accurate, taking predictions of the future loss of their habitat into account.

    I already demolished Betula’s banal argument regarding polar bears by showing that projected losses of sea ice will decimate their numbers because they are habitat specialists, like tigers in India are wet forest specialists. Given there status at the terminal end of the food chain, the effects will also be lagged because they are highly k-selected animals. A study in Nature (1994) by Tilman and May discussed a process known as the ‘extinction debt’ in which they argued that changes in the landscapes and natural habitats of North America wrought by white settlers in the 17th and 18th centuries may still be rippling through ecological communities three centuries later, and in particular towards the end of three and four trophic level food chains. In other words, there can be lengthy intervals between cause (habitat destruction) and effect (manifestations on the demographics and population ecology of the native biota) that take decades or even centuries to play themselves out. They emphasized these effects at the end of long food chains, which means apex predators. Polar bears are finished if the loss of Arctic ice is anywhere close to predicted estimates. They will linger for awhile, and their demise will take time, but they are finito. All I can add to that is to say that I hope the IPCC and climate science community are wrong. Betula is one of those nincompoops who thinks that cause-and-effect relationships are instantaneous or virtually so. All I can say to most reader of deltoid is to forgive him for (a) his willful ignorance, and (b) failing to grasp any of this which I wrote before in this thread. He is clearly a very shallow individual who has never been near a science room in his life.

    Finally, what anti-environmental dupes like Betula state is that they want 100% concrete evidence of a process. Without that evidence, they argue that there is no problem. As I have also said before, this is like trying to win a pissing match with a skunk. Similar logic by deniers has been used to downplay a wide range of anthropogenic stresses on natural systems. Its one of their tried-and-trusted strategies when the growing body of empirical evidence begins to overwhelm them.

    Now Betula, be a good boy now and go away. Your arguments are as shallow as a tiny puddle.

  80. #80 Betula
    April 19, 2012

    Wow @434…

    I asked what it is that I deny and this is what I get:

    “That polar bears can drown because the ice retreating from global warming means they have too far to swim.”

    Wow, is this really how you interpret the things people say? I never denied any such thing.

    Think about it, you’ve been arguing with yourself this entire time.

  81. #81 Stu
    April 19, 2012

    Just to make sure everyone sees the utter bankruptcy here:

    I apologize for believing that the consideration of mass murder was akin to advocating mass murder.

    And you’d be totally right, if the verbs “advocate” and “consider” were anywhere close in meaning. Which they’re not. So yes, apology accepted.

    But wait…

    ad·vo·cate (dv-kt) To speak, plead, or argue in favor of.

    Ah! That narrows it down. You either do not know what “consider” means, or you are an intellectually dishonest douchecanoe whose only hope is that others are as dumb as he is.

    The pool is hereby open. I am taking 10:1 on douchecanoe.

    Perhaps it was the definition of advocate that confused me:
    ad·vo·cate (dv-kt) To speak, plead, or argue in favor of.

  82. #82 ianam
    April 19, 2012

    What exactly is it that I have denied?

    I had specifically in mind these words from the comment I responded to:

    this gift of being able to know the future

    They sum up your stupidity, ignorance and dishonesty about science, of which you have offered many detailed denials of what science predicts.

  83. #83 ianam
    April 19, 2012

    “Prove that it cannot cause polar bear deaths by drowning”

    A lot of things COULD cause polar bears to drown. C’mon, you can think of a few…

    Here you demonstrate your stupidity by engaging in a straightforward logical fallacy. That a lot of things could cause polar bears to drown has no bearing on whether or not melting artic sea ice can.

    Wow, is this really how you interpret the things people say? I never denied any such thing.

    Well, of course, you have, by engaging in the fallacy and your general dishonesty around the issue. It’s as if someone said that the sun exploding and swelling to a million times its diameter could kill people and then you went on and on about how other things can surely kill people, and asked for direct evidence of the sun exploding and swelling to a million times and killing people. Then after spending a lifetime of tapdancing around the issue and never even admitting that the sun exploding could kill people, you then said that, hey, you never uttered the words “I deny it” and you’re being misinterpreted.

    The bottom line it’s obvious that you’re a dishonest sack of denialist feces and none of your silly sophistry will change that.

  84. #84 ianam
    April 19, 2012

    But much of what we know is based on projection estimates.

    You cannot know the future! You have no direct evidence!

    `< `exit Betula moron mode`>`

  85. #85 Fran Barlow
    April 19, 2012

    One might add to Jeff Harvey, on the usbject of Bengal Tigers and Polar Bears that below a certain number, prolongation of the species entails a sharp decline in genetic diversity and an associated elevated risk of either lethal genetic flaws or declining resistance to disease. This was something noted just the other day in realtion to the thylacine — that it was not mere human predation that finished the species.

    One might also add, in relation to polar bears, that it is not mere drowning that is a threat, but the loss of food sources underneath the floating sea ice on which the prey of polar bears feed. When the prey goes elsewhere, the polar bears cannot follow and are often forced to feed on “salp”. So they lose condition very rapidly.

  86. #86 ianam (but Betula certainly is)
    April 20, 2012

    Prove that loss of food sources kills polar bears! Where’s your direct evidence that not having a food supply kills polar bears?! Just because I don’t acknowledge that a logical consequence of lack of sea ice, and lack of food, is dead polar bears doesn’t mean I’m a denier … you’re misinterpreting me!

  87. #87 ianam
    April 20, 2012

    Maybe Betula believes in this.

  88. #88 Mack
    April 20, 2012

    Jeff and Bernerd,
    I’m beginning to feel a little guilty about my polar bear car seat covers so I hope to sooth your concerns by diverting you to quite a lot of reading here…
    http://adoptanegotiator.org/2011/11/18/a-skeptics-approach-to-climate-activism/

  89. #89 Jeff Harvey
    April 20, 2012

    Mack,

    I suppose you also have a tiger car seat cover and an amulet made out of black rhinocerous horn as well as a necklace made from the beaks of Ivory-Billed Woodpeckers….

    Or don’t you think that these species are threatened either? This is the sprint of folly. Refuse to acknowledge projections based on habitat area-extinction models, stick your head in the sand and claim that we have no idea what the future holds for the Arctic and leave it at that.

    So, what do you think will happen to Polar Bears if their habitat changes drastically in the next 50 years? Are you one of those silly scientifically illiterate deniers like Lomborg who think that they will ‘evolve behavior like their brown bear cousins?’… all in the space of a single generation? Fran’s point is important: the genetic dispostion of the population will influence the rate of adaptive radiation, but given that these are highly k-selected animals, their response will be in slow motion. The ice isn’t disappearing in slow motion but at rates probably faster than at any time in the bear’s evolutionary history. This is set against populations also affected by pesticides and hunting. If they were Diptera or Orthoptera I would think they might stand a chance, but they are not.

  90. #90 Wow
    April 20, 2012

    “Are you one of those silly scientifically illiterate deniers like Lomborg who think that they will ‘evolve behavior like their brown bear cousins?’”

    And guess what happens when they do? Since whitey here doesn’t live in the arctic, he and his mates will see these huge bears, feel threatened and demand that they be killed off “for the safety of our children”.

  91. #91 Mack
    April 20, 2012

    It’s called humour Jeff. But sorry I forgot you’re a souless doom-merchant. Just read the link.

  92. #92 Bernard J.
    April 20, 2012

    [Foulspot](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/april_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6260211).

    It’s a forlorn endeavour to hope that you might actually sufficiently evolve intellectually that you yourself could understand the science.

    You’ve pegged the game of sock-puppetry though…

  93. #93 Wow
    April 20, 2012

    “Just read the link.”

    I did.

    Why did it need reading? If I point you to an xkcd comic, will you read that?

    From that whining self-pitying puff piece:

    “a theory which states that the variations in temperature, thought to be explained by anthropogenic emissions according to the IPCC, were actually better explained by increases in solar activity.”

    Except that you’d have to deny the sun has been cooling when the temperatures are still going up. Last time the sun was this inactive, the world was 1.3C cooler.

    Or did you and he not approach that theory *skeptically*?

    This would be why you and he gets called denier when promulgating that idiocy. Because you’re not skeptical over it, you haven’t bothered checking. You both just *hope*.

  94. #94 Wow
    April 20, 2012

    “Wow, is this really how you interpret the things people say? I never denied any such thing.”

    You have denied plenty of such things. Here is the proof:

    “Please provide links stating climate change as the direct cause of any polar bear drowning.”

    You’re denying that the causation is appropriate and sufficient. You’re denying that EVERYTHING has to be inferred. You never saw the bullet leave the gun, you heard a bang, you heard “I’m gonna kill you” and the person who is dead has a bullet hole through them and the gun has a missing bullet and smoke powder.

    But, since you didn’t ACTUALLY SEE the bullet, you deny that the person was shot dead by the defendant.

    Tell me, what OTHER ways could polar bears die?

    Now PROVE they died that way.

  95. #95 Jeff Harvey
    April 20, 2012

    *It’s called humour Jeff*

    If that was ‘humor’, then you’ve cornered the market for insidious stupidity…

    And yes, as Bernard says you have become a sock-puppet expert Spotty. How many other aliases can we expect to see you don?

  96. #96 Mack
    April 20, 2012

    Sorry Hello Jeff only one person here .no alias you poor paranoid.

  97. #97 Karen
    April 20, 2012

    Amazing

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

    Hey Mack, where did you get those seat covers ?

    I would like to get a polar bear skin to put on the floor of my walk in freezer.

    Funny how the gits in here think you are me, that makes you a foulspot too, maybe only once a month though ? That’s what that disgusting creature bernerd is referring to.

    Here is one for the gits, some perspective !

    ( http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2012/04/vivid-illustration-of-how-global.html )

  98. #98 Bernard J.
    April 20, 2012

    Sunspot.

    I’m losing count of the number of socks that you employ on Deltoid (perhaps someone with more patience than I could list them), but you’re not fooling anyone with your denials of such. Your peculiar idiosyncracies of semi-literate grammar, spelling, punctuation and vocabulary are klaxons to anyone with half a clue.

    Further, just so you know, when you [start talking to yourself](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/03/april_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6260269) it’s time to acknowledge your abject foolishness.

    And you obviously have no Shakespeare under your belt, or you’d not tell disgusting and despicably purile untruths about the reason why I refer to you (very validly, as it seems) as ‘Foulspot’.

    If you’re a hero of your denialist mates, then the quality of the whole Denialati movement is suitably represented by the quality of your ‘advocacy’.

  99. #99 The bard
    April 20, 2012

    Isn’t it “damned spot”? Of course, in this case, foul works just as well.

  100. #100 Bernard J.
    April 20, 2012

    Yep, it’s “damned”, but way-back-when I felt that I couldn’t elevate spotty to the lofty heights of metaphysical disapprobation. ‘Foul’ seems a better descriptor, and it’s commonly used in the misquote.

    Ironically, the substance of the spot is of the exact hæmatological nature as ‘Karen’ suggested, even if the source is different. And if ever anyone needed evidence that Karen isn’t female, the very fact that he used that purile analogy should serve to convince…