May 2012 Open thread

Comments

  1. #1 John Mashey
    May 15, 2012

    re: 482
    Yes, expertise and rationality in one domain does not necessarily confer it elsewhere. Despite the venue of that discussion, it was too good to pass up because:

    1) It was such a fine example of intense D-K behavior in the face of clear expertise (note Clifford Will also showed up), where the expert stayed with it amazingly long.

    2) It was so consistent with Bethell’s other writing. as in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, a cornucopia of delights.
    (see my review on pp.26-32.

    As for physicists going weird on climate science, see 2009 APS Petition, which proved that a bunch of physicists, of whom at least some were quite distinguished, managed to ignore basic physics when they didn’t like the results. Of course, their petition only got less than 0.5% of the membership. :-)

  2. #2 Rog Tallbloke
    May 15, 2012

    Cherrypicking, team style.

    “However as we mentioned earlier on the subject of biological growth populations, this does not mean that one could not improve a chronology by reducing the number of series used if the purpose of removing samples is to enhance a desired signal. The ability to pick and choose which samples to use is an advantage unique to dendroclimatology.”
    Esper et al 2003

    Lol.

    This is similar to the sort of crap published in Journals like ‘Nature’, which has had a moratorium on solar studies from non-team members for years anyway.

  3. #3 Nelthon
    May 15, 2012

    > This is similar to the sort of crap published in Journals like ‘Nature’, which has had a moratorium on solar studies from non-team members for years anyway

    No wonder you’re not taken seriously. Really: take the advice of others upthread. Try attending some of your university#s courses.

  4. #4 chek
    May 15, 2012

    Cherrypicking, team style.

    Only if you’re a paranoid conspiracy theorist, or your business is to whip up the aforementioned P.C.T.s.

    As we’ve already established you’re no scientist Rog, think of it as how say, a screenwriter may reduce two thousand words of a novel down to a set and two double-spaced pages of a script, whilst retaining and conveying the spirit and meaning of the original. Of course, you have to have the skills and know what you’re doing to not end up with a travesty.

    Perhaps that’s the bit you guys just don’t get before you start reaching for the tinfoil.

  5. #5 Rog Tallbloke
    May 15, 2012

    500 Chek:”As we’ve already established”

    The main things that have been established here is that your mind is so narrow that your intellectual dishonesty has trouble squeezing through it, and that the height of your horse is matched only by the depths to which you stoop.

    You are a zit on the face of reasonable debate. ;-)

  6. #6 chek
    May 15, 2012

    Well, I guess [that's the culmination](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6271501) of Tallquack’s konspirasy outreach program.

    Congratulations Rog, you scored Brenda. No loss here.

  7. #7 Al B
    May 15, 2012

    502 – RTB’s projection of his own shortcomings is perverse. The arrogance is mind-numbing….

  8. #8 bill
    May 15, 2012

    I thinks he’s funny. Can we keep him?

    He cheers me up no end, with his combined self-importance and incoherence, reminding me that what we’re really up against is equal parts reactionary politics and self-delusion.

    Browse his website sometime. He’s very serious about this whole ‘publishing’ thing. It’s just brimming with ‘sciencey’ goodness. DIY erudition, mutual-back-patting, climastrology, and lashings of self-congratulation… (I know, just like Watts, only more so!)

    So, do tell us; how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin, Rog?

  9. #9 Chris O'Neill
    May 15, 2012

    Talltales:

    ;-)

    For a minute there, I thought you were serious. But it was pretty obviously a joke when you said things like:

    it is adviseable to compare several datasets, including Envisat, Topex and Jason.

    when we already know that is being done and

    you need to work out the relative contributions of steric changes and runoff vs evaporation

    when we know it’s easy to look up the research that already does this but even that is not necessary, all we have to do is deduce from your statement:

    The ocean heat content built up by 75 years of above average solar activity levels has been buffering the surface temp against the drop in solar activity since 2003

    that you’re hypothesizing that net runoff suddenly and permanently increased in 2003, at the EXACT SAME TIME as the drop in solar activity and by just the right amount to make the rate of increase of sea level the same as it was before 2003.

    Of course, such amazing coincidences are absolutely laughable but your ;-) lets us know you’re not completely deadpan.

  10. #10 Betula
    May 15, 2012

    I know there was some discussion about Darwin earlier on the thread so I thought some would find this interesting…

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2144732/Cambridge-Uni-complete-Charles-Darwins-creepy-experiment-human-emotion.html

    Besides, the pictures appear to represent the many faces of Jeff Harvey after I asked him to explain the climate change he witnessed first hand on his Algonquin trip…

  11. #11 bill
    May 15, 2012

    Daily Mail = Instant Fail.

  12. #12 Sou
    May 16, 2012

    After years of falsely saying that global temperature data sets do not account for the urban heat island effect, now a denier website seems to be arguing that the UHI doesn’t exist at all.

    Dr Maharosey has pointed to a ‘calculation’ by mining academic Dr Beamish that to her demonstrates the UHI is a fallacy in relation to the western suburbs of Sydney. The article relies on nonsensical data comparisons, but I thought it strange they’d even be arguing the point.

    Weird, huh!

    I’ve posted a comment on the article asking for an explanation but it’s still in moderation so will have to wait a bit to see if there’s an explanation for this turnaround.

    I don’t provide links to denialist websites, sorry. The article is currently the second most recent on the blog in question.

    The primary source is the recent booklet released from the Climate Commission, which can be found [here](http://climatecommission.gov.au/topics/climate-impacts-and-opportunities-for-nsw/)

  13. #13 John
    May 16, 2012

    Rog is right. Science shouldn’t be published in “journals” with their “standards”. Science should be decided by whose blog gets the most hits. Then the angry mob can lock that lying James Hansen and fraudulent Michael Mann away in the Tower Of London (note: this suggestion was once seriously made at Watts). Perhaps to shut them up forever they can even be burned alive at the stake.

    Rog slags off Nature now, but in reality he would kill to be published there. Deniers crave the legitimacy and prestige of of real scientific journals.

  14. #14 John
    May 16, 2012

    >No wonder you’re not taken seriously. Really: take the advice of others upthread. Try attending some of your university#s courses.

    Why should he? Their blogs probably don’t get as many hits as his, if they have blogs at all.

  15. #15 DarylD
    May 16, 2012

    Hmmm, out of stoopid curiosity in a thread of 508, those few denialati or other who scored own goal, with pure unadulterated bunkum, are as follows :-

    Troll 14

    Betula 23

    Duff 33

    RTB mononeuron 34

    [Epic Face Palm](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-_sABor77E)

  16. #16 Sou
    May 16, 2012

    Correction to my previous post: Dr Maharosey should read Dr Marohasy.

  17. #17 Mercurius
    May 16, 2012

    Roger Talltales starts with:

    “75000 people view my site every month Jeff…”

    …and concludes with…

    “The proof of the pudding will be in the accuracy of the predictions, not the approval of groupthinking consensoids.”

    Quite so, Roger. Quite so.

    BTW Roger, several *million* people a month view Star Trek fanfic websites…therefore…Spock!

  18. #18 Rog Tallbloke
    May 16, 2012

    Craig Loehle on the dendroclimatologist’s cherrypicking of treemometers which give the ‘right answer':

    The process of analyzing tree ring data has been compared here and elsewhere to iterative experimental studies. Let’s say one is trying to synthesize some compound. In this process, mistakes can be made, experiments can be contaminated, etc. One keeps trying things until either the compound is synthesized or one gives up and concludes that maybe it isn’t possible. But what in the world does it mean to tinker with dendro data? Where is one justified in rejecting any of the data (except in the case of stripbark trees which are clearly physically damaged, but which they won’t throw out)? The only sign of a mistake or problem is that you don’t get the answer you like!! I have read lots of this stuff and never have seen an objective reason given for keeping or rejecting any set of trees. How about: “I’m rejecting this set of patients because they did not respond properly to the medicine”? I hope no one thinks that is ok.

  19. #19 Chris O'Neill
    May 16, 2012

    via talltales:

    Where is one justified in rejecting any of the data (except in the case of stripbark trees

    We must never forget to reject the stripbarks, mustn’t we? Our denialist forefathers would never forgive us.

  20. #20 Mack
    May 16, 2012

    @ 504 “reactionary politics” says hammer and sickle head Bill.

  21. #21 Nick
    May 16, 2012

    75000 views/month for Rog likely means he has about 100 obsessives with itchy fingers..

  22. #22 Crispy
    May 16, 2012

    I always find it funny that Craig Loehle, with a BS in Forest Science and an MS in Forest Management, published a 2000 year temp reconstruction based on non-treering proxies.

    I wonder if he’s staying on as a ‘climate expert’ with the Heartland selfimmolators?

  23. #23 chek
    May 16, 2012

    To be more accurate Crispy, he’s also credited with [a Ph.D. in range management (mathematical ecology) from Colorado State University.](http://www.climatewiki.org/wiki/Dr._Craig_Loehle)

    But basically he’s [yet another denier konspiracy whiner with a grudge](http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/04/craig_loehle_is_sad.php) having a past temperature reconstruction that made it into E&E and was subsequently [ripped to shreds years ago.](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/past-reconstructions/)

    Just Rogs type of “authority”, all in all.

  24. #24 bill
    May 16, 2012

    @516 I can also construct comprehensible English sentences, ‘Mack’… ;-)

  25. #25 Jeff Harvey
    May 16, 2012

    Notice how scientists on the fringe or else journals with bottom-feeding impact factors are cited without hesitation by the deniers if what they say supports their wafer-thin arguments; on the other hand, note how the deniers routinely smear some of the most esteemed scientists and top-ranking journals when they publish significantly larger volumes of articles supporting AGW.

    Its all part of their game. They aren’t interested in science, but in promoting a pre-determined world view with a decidedly right wing political agenda. Science just so happens to get in the way, so they are forced to distort it so that it supports their views. As has been shown many times, most AGW deniers also deny a range of other negative human impacts on the biosphere. That is why you commonly find amongst their ranks people who, in addition to GW, downplay high estimates of extinction rates, other forms of pollution, habitat destruction and its effects, ozone depletion, acid rain and other anthropogenic stressors.

  26. #26 bill
    May 16, 2012

    Cripsy @518

    From the ICCC-7 conference schedule:

    Craig Loehle, Ph.D. – Enhanced Crop, Forest, and Ecosystem Health in a Warmer World

    Other ‘highlights’ include;

    Craig Idso, Ph.D. – Global Warming and Ocean Acidification

    Don Easterbrook, Ph.D. – Are Forecasts of a 20-Year Cooling Trend Credible?

    Patrick Michaels, Ph.D. – The Role of Public Choice in Climate Science

    Willie Soon, Ph.D. – Almighty CO2, Giant Boa Snake, and the Sun (What controls the equator-to-pole temperature distribution of the Earth’s surface?)

    S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. – CO2 and Climate Change: The Evidence Doesn’t Add Up

    William Gray, Ph.D. – Why Computer Models Overestimate Global Warming

    Christopher Horner, J.D. – The Incredible Disappearing “Climate” Agenda and its True Costs

    Jay Lehr, Ph.D. –Teaching Climate Change to the Public

    Bob Carter, Ph.D. – The Misrepresentation of Science in the Public Domain

    [ Is anybody else's Irony Meter really playing up after the last couple? ;-) ]

    The eponymous group discussion on ‘the NASA Letter Writers’ should be a hoot, too!…

    PS: ‘Almighty CO2, Giant Boa Snake, and the Sun’ sounds like an album by The Flaming Lips!

  27. #27 bill
    May 16, 2012

    Hey, since it’s all an online popularity contest with Rog, I just went round to his place and checked his comment nos. for May.

    This looks like it should come in as comment 523 on the single item for May here at Deltoid, and Rog’s total is now 625. From 17 posts.

    But when you allow for the fact that Rog is nothing if not prolific in his own comment threads, and for the additional fact that I’m going to semi-arbitrarily decide (rather conveniently for my own argument – in accordance with standard Denialist practice, mind you!) that he actually contributes about, oh, 1 comment in 6, he’s actually only got 521!

    So Tim doesn’t even need to turn up to whip him!

    And as for average popularity per post…

    Science for the win!

  28. #28 Betula
    May 16, 2012

    This just in…

    It’s becoming more and more apparent that Mann may have been using data from Bamboozle plants collected by the Bambuseae tribe.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/15/mcintyre-gets-some-new-yamal-data-still-no-hockey-stick/

    Khắc nhập, khắc xuất

  29. #29 chek
    May 16, 2012

    Wait a minute – I thought McIntyre’s original contention was that you could only get hockey sticks. But suddenly, now there are none?

    I hadn’t realised McIntyre is even more incompetent than was first thought.

  30. #30 Jeff Harvey
    May 16, 2012

    This just in….

    Betula is an idiot.

    OK, OK, that’s not just in. Its been known for quite some time. I stand corrected.

  31. #31 BBD
    May 16, 2012

    Clearly the ‘sceptics’ will never let the Mannean hockey stick go. As if any of that mattered.

    Excessive partiality to an irrelevant argument is a sure sign of weakness. Perhaps they should no longer be indulged.

    Ask them counter-questions instead. Like how known paleoclimate variability squares with an insensitive climate system as hypothesised by eg Lindzen.

  32. #32 chek
    May 16, 2012

    H/T to Phil Clarke at [Real Climate](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/05/yamalian-yawns/comment-page-4/#comment-235647)

    “A poster naming himself Rashit Hantemirov comments at CA :- Steve, I’m horrified by your slipshod work. You did not define what you compare, what dataset used in each case, how data were processed, and what was the reason for that, what limitation there are, what kind of additional information you need to know. Why didn’t you ask me for all the details? You even aren’t ashamed of using information from stolen letters. Do (sic) carelessness, grubbiness, dishonourableness are the necessary concomitants of your job? With disrespect…

    Of course on the internet nobody knows you’re a dog so these may or may not be the words of the distinguished dendrochronolgist. But it is not entirely implausible…”.

  33. #33 lord_sidcup
    May 16, 2012

    Well, McIntyre’s effort does seem to follow CRUs up until around 1960 – [could there be a reason](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_problem)? Also, is it really necessary to cut down trees to establish temperature post-1960?

  34. #34 Chris O'Neill
    May 16, 2012

    Ask them counter-questions instead. Like how known paleoclimate variability squares with an insensitive climate system as hypothesised by eg Lindzen.

    It’s a pity you can’t ask them in person. If they behaved the way they normally do, they would just look somewhere else and start walking away.

  35. #35 lord_sidcup
    May 16, 2012

    chek #528

    these may or may not be the words of the distinguished dendrochronolgist

    It seems they are the words Hantemirov. From McIntyre’s response to a comment directed at Hantemirov:

    Steve: the comment appears to be genuine.

    How embarrassing.

  36. #36 DarylD
    May 16, 2012

    Say Chek #528, watt a good find.

    Steve’s Comment May 16th, 10.54 am “He has to coexist with Briffa, Schmidt and those guys. I suspect that he’s received criticism for providing me with data. I didn’t do anything complicated in the calculation, so I’m not sure what his specific problem is.”

    Gavin’s reply to ‘dhogaza’ question dated May 16th, 11.36am,
    Conspiracy theory again, on McI’s part:

    “[Response: For the record, I have never met or corresponded with Hantemirov about this or any other topic. - gavin]”

    Thus, reinforcing the total incompetence of both Rog Smallbloke and Steve McIntyre, about the subject we call global warming!

    Watt McIntyre and Rog Smallbloke know about climate change and the subject of global warming, can be written on the head of a pin, with blackboard chalk.

    Many Thanks, you truly made my day! :)

  37. #37 BBD
    May 16, 2012

    Chris O’Neill @ 530

    Either walk away, or start prating loudly about conspiracies ;-)

  38. #38 bill
    May 16, 2012

    The man just cannot stop himself

    We took it down immediately and admitted that it was in poor taste and a mistake, but they continue to promote madmen on the other side of the issue including Michael Mann and Bill McKibben, and hypocritically pound on us for our “ethical lapse.” [my emphasis]

    Having blasted away both feet and kneecaps Bast now takes aim at his left elbow…

    But Rog – if you’ve not scampered off back to your blog trying to boost your hit count (therefore ‘science’) – you don’t see a problem here, right?

    And this – combined with your being, um, wrong – is why we’ll beat you eventually, you know.

    You and your risible cronies have already caused untold damage via the delay to action you’ve gleefully helped to foster, of course, and your life is likely to become a very uncomfortable one when those particular chickens come home to roost…

  39. #39 bill
    May 16, 2012

    More wince-inducing moments, from the same source as above:

    Regarding tactics, since the “Fakegate” scandal, Greenpeace has contacted the employers of every scientist who works for us, demanding that they be fired for having the temerity to question the official dogma of global warming. [emphasis mine]

  40. #40 Rattus Norvegicus
    May 16, 2012

    Just checked HI’s global warming “experts” (and I use that very, very, loosely) and anyone who might have once been considered respectable has gone bye-bye. But then I thought this effort was spearheaded by BigCityLib, a Canadian blogger out of Toronto. Or maybe all the letters and responses at his site are forgeries created by Peter Glieck?

  41. #41 bill
    May 17, 2012

    I just ran through the roster of those who remain as listed HI ‘experts’ who are relevant to AGW (I may have missed a name or two if I’m unfamiliar with them. Some may also have been ring-ins if I’m unfamiliar with them but their listed position seems appropriate), and got a total of 64.

    This includes the following familiar names:

    David Archibald

    Sallie Baliunas

    Timothy Ball

    Joseph Bast

    E. Calvin Beisner [Cornwall Alliance]

    David Bellamy ['No, Bellamy, noooo!' to quote The Goodies!]

    Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen

    Robert M. Carter

    John Christy

    Richard Courtney

    Joseph D’Aleo

    Chris de Freitas

    Freeman Dyson

    Myron Ebell

    Vincent Gray

    William Gray

    Tom Harris

    Craig Idso [apparently so good he's listed twice!]

    William Kininmonth

    Václav Klaus

    David Legates

    Jay Lehr

    Richard Lindzen

    Craig Loehle

    Bjorn Lomborg

    Anthony R. Lupo

    Ross McKitrick

    Owen McShane

    Patrick Michaels

    Steven Milloy

    Lord Christopher Monckton [Top ho!]

    Marc Morano

    Ian Plimer

    Harrison Schmitt

    Nir Shaviv

    S. Fred Singer

    Lawrence Solomon

    Willie Soon

    Roy Spencer

    James M. Taylor, J.D.

    Anthony Watts

    Notably Christopher Landsea is still there, despite the WaPo reporting his request to be de-listed.

    Even without going in to the question of the relevance of some qualifications, I’m not quite getting the ‘most scientists… do not believe man-made global warming is a problem’ vibe here. Particularly when compared to the 2500 scientists involved in the IPCC alone, or when you look at the lists of new research papers that are pasted each week over at SkS…

  42. #42 user-illusion.myid.net
    May 17, 2012

    @John Mashey

    Yes, expertise and rationality in one domain does not necessarily confer it elsewhere.

    True, but not my point and it doesn’t really apply to Barr … he has the relevant expertise to write a book on religion and faith, but like all religious apologetics is rests on ideology rather than intellectual honesty. And the same is very much on display in his extraordinarily biased piece on “Scientists Behaving Badly”. Expertise is not what he lacks … he’s no Roger Tattersall and would quickly reject the nonsense of such ignorant, science-illiterate deniers if he actually bothered to examine it. (Though if he did and came to the inevitable conclusion, he would be viewed as traitor by his co-ideologues.)

    Despite the venue of that discussion, it was too good to pass up because: …

    Yes, definitely.

  43. #43 lord_sidcup
    May 17, 2012

    Joe Bast [#534](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6272103) also states:

    Our billboard was factual: The Unabomber was motivated by concern over man-made global warming to do the terrible crimes he committed.

    I don’t know a huge amount about the Unabomber, but I know enough to recognise this is a lie.

  44. #44 Bernard J.
    May 17, 2012

    >Our billboard was factual: The Unabomber was motivated by concern over man-made global warming to do the terrible crimes he committed.

    Interesting.

    Remind me again – how many people Ted Kaczynski injure or kill?

    How many people will global warming harm, or lead to death?

    If Kaczynski’s were “terrible crimes”, what does this imply about inaction on mitigating the effects of climate change?

  45. #45 Wow
    May 17, 2012

    “Greenpeace has contacted the employers of every scientist who works for us”

    Well

    a) if they know the content of the missive, where is it?

    b) how about the witchhunts of Mann and Jones? Apparently it’s fine to contact the employers of every scientist who dares to accept the scientific consensus on AGW.

  46. #46 lord_sidcup
    May 17, 2012

    Worth reading Climate Progress on Bast’s letter:

    [Heartland CEO Joe Bast Calls Bill McKibben and Michael Mann ‘Madmen’](http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/16/485531/heartland-ceo-joe-bast-calls-bill-mckibben-and-michael-mann-madmen/?mobile=nc)

    Heartland’s justification for claiming the Unabomber was motivated by a concern over AGW is:

    a passage from Kaczynski’s manifesto that says the Industrial Revolution has “inflicted severe damage on the natural world.”

    Which just demonstrates how spectacularly ill-informed, illogical and irrational Heartland are. Or maybe they are just liars.

  47. #47 BBD
    May 17, 2012

    lord_sidcup @ 542

    Which just demonstrates how spectacularly ill-informed, illogical and irrational Heartland are. Or maybe they are just liars.

    I used to think that HI were essentially paid liars, but perhaps not. They may be being paid to be sincere. Or at least, they were being paid, until recent events overtook them.

    In neither case does it matter. The public response to the billboards is what counts. And how very… heartening that has been.

  48. #48 bill
    May 17, 2012

    As I said above, I counted 64 still-listed ‘experts’ relating to HI’s AGW campaigns (so far as I can discern, but probably an understimate.)

    Here are the details of Greenpeace’s letter writing campaign. I count 10 letters.

    Here’s an example of a Greenpeace letter – to Harvard re Willie Soon.

    Now, have fun trying to fit the claim –

    Greenpeace has contacted the employers of every scientist who works for us, demanding that they be fired for having the temerity to question the official dogma of global warming.

    -to the data!

  49. @538
    s/a book on religion and faith/a book on physics and faith/

    Heartland’s justification for claiming the Unabomber was motivated by a concern over AGW is:
    a passage from Kaczynski’s manifesto that says the Industrial Revolution has “inflicted severe damage on the natural world.”

    HI equating AGW with the Industrial Revolution is quite an own goal.

  50. #50 Lionel A
    May 17, 2012

    Following on from Bill’s list of Heartland ‘experts’ here is their 2007 conference schedule.

    Note this:

    Keynote: Joe Bastardi –

    Global Sea Ice,

    Accumulated Cyclone Energy, and How it Explains the Climate

    Well we know the first one is going to be a lemon and as for that second, Heartland should call in James Dyson as he would put a better handle on cyclone technology.

  51. #51 John Mashey
    May 17, 2012

    To his credit, Landsea reacted promptly and directly …
    but oddly, there had been 2 separate pages for him.
    HI removed the first quickly, but missed the second, although it is now gone, just this AM.

    user-illusion.myid.net:
    To be clear, I wasn’t commenting on religion, but on his comments on climate, in which expertise and rationality were not on display.

  52. #52 Betula
    May 17, 2012

    Nerdard…

    “Remind me again – how many people Ted Kaczynski injure or kill?”

    Twenty two injured, three killed.

    “How many people will global warming harm, or lead to death?”

    Apparently you don’t know. So far, as a direct result of climate change…Zero.

    However, we do know that “Approximately 600,000 deaths occurred world-wide as a result of weather-related natural disasters in the 1990s”. Of course, this is from the WHO, so to fit the bill they have to emphasize that these were mostly poor people.
    http://www.climate.org/topics/health.html

    “If Kaczynski’s were “terrible crimes”, what does this imply about inaction on mitigating the effects of climate change?”

    Well, we just confirmed that weather creates “terrible crimes”, so that must mean inaction on mitigating the potential effects of climate change has the potential to turn climate change into a terrible criminal.

    Perhaps we should have a poster showing Nerdard as one of the many catalysts that potentially turns climate change into a potentially terrible criminal. It would show him in front of his plugged in computer, while in the backgound the poor people without computers suffer from the consequences of his fossil fuel sucking luxury…

  53. #53 Wow
    May 17, 2012

    “”How many people will global warming harm, or lead to death?”

    Apparently you don’t know. So far, as a direct result of climate change…Zero.”

    We know it’s going to be millions. At least 150,000 deaths were statistically brought about by climate change in the last decade, and we haven’t even started yet.

    Apparently, you THINK you know.

    Problem is, you’re wrong, Betty.

  54. his comments on climate, in which expertise and rationality were not on display

    I offered it as an example of being irrational. And again, it’s not expertise he lacks, but intellectual honesty … one needs no expertise beyond what he has to recognize the flaws in that piece. And his book that argues that physics is more in line with the Bible than with secular materialism is another example of the power of ideology to override rationality.

  55. #55 John Mashey
    May 17, 2012

    re: 551
    I don’t think we disagree, except perhaps in use of words.
    a) Expertise in some area of physics
    b) Expertise in physics of climate

    Anybody with deep expertise in a) could pick up enough of b) in a very short time to understand the basic issues, although it is the case that even some very good physicists (who accept AGW) *think* they understand b), but don’t, because they haven’t studied it enough.

    The study of the 2009 APS petition enumerated many cases where it was clear that ideology (or intellectual dishonesty, if you prefer) simply overpowered any hope of b).
    Barr might fit that … and given that, I’m slighlty surprised he wasn’t on the APS petition. A useful essay is that of physicist Arthur P. Smith, The Arrogance of Physicists.
    A shrot excerpt is:
    ‘But sometimes that arrogance and self-assurance and collection of intuitions lead us, or at least a few of us, astray. We forget that there are other smart people in the world, who have been thinking about their limited problem for a lot longer and perhaps have a deeper understanding than we give them credit for. We jump in with our simplified models and ideas and then wonder why they don’t find them helpful. Or we too deeply trust the intuition of a colleague who has been often right before or who we trust for other reasons, but in a particular instance has not put in the effort to properly understand the problem, and ends up only embarrassing themselves, and us by association.’

  56. Barr might fit that …

    The evidence supports that.

  57. #57 bill
    May 17, 2012

    Looking forward to ‘Brent infestation removed’.

    Are any of you ever going to grasp the distinction between weather and climate? The warmest recorded April in the northern hemisphere just passed, and the warmest recorded 12 month period for the US just passed. Therefore – and significantly trumping your own ‘logic’ – AGW.

    It’s not just The Stupid that’s the problem, the longer we go on the more it’s apparent it’s the stupid.

  58. “Hey dad, it’s cold in here, could you please pour more heat into the oceans and raise the planet’s average surface temperature by a few degrees? Thanks!”

  59. #59 Richard Simons
    May 17, 2012

    It’s mid-May in England,and we’ve put the sodding heating on.

    Brent – you’ve obviously never heard the old Yorkshire saying – Ne’er cast a clout ’til May be out.

  60. @556 Bad, point-missing argument that hands easy fodder to the trolls.

  61. #61 John
    May 18, 2012

    Brent believes the world’s climate is just like England’s. He is dum.

  62. #62 John
    May 18, 2012

    I should also point out that “global warming is a scam because it’s cold where I live!” is the only consistent argument Brent has ever maintained, despite previously admitting that weather isn’t climate.

    Brent also previously argued that the CET was a good proxy for world temperatures for those keeping score of Brent’s stupid and inconsistent arguments.

  63. #63 Wow
    May 18, 2012

    When I was young, if you were cold, you put another jumper on.

    When I was older, if you were cold (and rich), you retired to warmer climes.

    Nowadays, the sense of self entitlement people like Bent display has it that the entire world has to change to make them comfortably warm.

  64. #64 Bernard J.
    May 18, 2012

    [Betula](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2012/05/may_2012_open_thread.php#comment-6272395) said:

    >Nerdard…

    >>”Remind me again – how many people Ted Kaczynski injure or kill?”

    >Twenty two injured, three killed.

    >>”How many people will global warming harm, or lead to death?”

    >Apparently you don’t know. So far, as a direct result of climate change…Zero.

    >However, we do know that “Approximately 600,000 deaths occurred world-wide as a result of weather-related natural disasters in the 1990s”. Of course, this is from the WHO, so to fit the bill they have to emphasize that these were mostly poor people. http://www.climate.org/topics/health.html

    >”If Kaczynski’s were “terrible crimes”, what does this imply about inaction on mitigating the effects of climate change?”

    Kaczynski injured or killed people through the agency of the bombs that he constructed. Fossil fuel-using societies are harming and/or killing people today, and people not yet born, through the agency of refusing to remediate the climate-altering circumstances that they have constructed.

    There’s no substantive difference. Except that human-caused global warming will end up killing many millions more than Kaczynski did.

    Oh, and you haven’t said anything about how climate dictates weather…

    >Well, we just confirmed that weather creates “terrible crimes”…

    No, you just confabulated weather with climate.

    >…so that must mean inaction on mitigating the potential effects of climate change has the potential to turn climate change into a terrible criminal.

    You don’t do logic at all well, do you?

    >Perhaps we should have a poster showing Nerdard as one of the many catalysts that potentially turns climate change into a potentially terrible criminal.

    If you’re talking about human-caused global warming, I’ll happily sign up for that.

    >It would show him in front of his plugged in computer, while in the backgound the poor people without computers suffer from the consequences of his fossil fuel sucking luxury…

    Betula, you obviously have not read my posts from a number of years ago. I live a very frugal life, with no services connected to my property. My water comes from the roof, my poo is composted, my electricity is renewable. By your standards I would live in poverty, but I grow a lot of my own fruits and vegetables, and next year I’ll be self-sufficient in any animal protien that my family will require.

    Your image of me might warm the cockles of your denying heart, but it’s wrong.

    As is so much else that you spout.

  65. #65 chek
    May 18, 2012

    Brenty also believes his sub-tallquackian, think for yourself, loudly and proudly proclaimed ignorance means [this ain't really happening](http://barentsobserver.com/en/topics/nasa-thickest-parts-arctic-ice-cap-melting-faster). It’s just those scientists and their dodgy interpolated models making it up.

  66. #66 Mack
    May 18, 2012

    Good show Bererd, Big Al would be proud of you.

  67. #67 Mack
    May 18, 2012

    Sorry about the spelling Bernard.

  68. #68 Betula
    May 18, 2012

    Nerdard…

    “Fossil fuel-using societies are harming and/or killing people today”

    How many? And how many have they saved?

    “and people not yet born”

    That’s called abortion.

    “Except that human-caused global warming will end up killing many millions more than Kaczynski did.”

    If could, potentially may might.

    “My water comes from the roof, my poo is composted, my electricity is renewable.”

    So because you fling your poo, we should all fling ours?

    “By your standards I would live in poverty”

    You presume to know my standards? Other than not flinging my poo, please share.

  69. #69 Wow
    May 18, 2012

    “How many?”

    http://articles.latimes.com/2006/mar/25/local/me-smog-25

    “And how many have they saved?”

    0.

    “That’s called abortion.”

    Nope, if aborted, they don’t become people. After being born, THEN they are people. And in the future, people will be born.

    Who’d’ve thought it?

    “If could, potentially may might.”

    Has, will.

    “So because you fling your poo, we should all fling ours?”

    That’s all you’ve been doing, Betty. And insist that you have the RIGHT to fling poo.

    “You presume to know my standards?”

    Yes. Plenty of evidence. Your standards are negative.

  70. #70 Betula
    May 18, 2012

    “Good show Bererd, Big Al would be proud of you.”

    Mack, did you just call Al Gore fat?

  71. #71 Betula
    May 18, 2012

    Wow @564…

    And how many have they saved?” “0”

    So the fossil fuel burning ambulances, police cars, firetrucks, helicopters, hospitals, cat scans, x-rays, radiation treatments, defibulators, furnaces and air conditioning units etc never saved anyone. Okay, you win, I get it…

    “Nope, if aborted, they don’t become people. After being born, THEN they are people. And in the future, people will be born.”

    Nerdard stated that fossil fuel societies are “harming or killing people not born yet”. If we go by your definition they aren’t people yet, because they aren’t born. So your definition proves Nerdards comment to be incorrect. Thanks.

    “Has, will.”

    What, when.

    “That’s all you’ve been doing, Betty. And insist that you have the RIGHT to fling poo.”

    Are you saying we should take away the freedom to fling? Nerdards would be the first door they knock on (wearing Hazmat suits of course).

    Let Freedom Fling!

    “Yes. Plenty of evidence. Your standards are negative”

    If predicting doom and gloom, catastrophic, storm killing, famine creating, zone shifting, hybrid offspring producing, flood generating, insect and disease spreading, millions of people dying, end of the world scenarios is positive, then yes, I’m negative.

  72. Tim will eventually delete Brent’s latest comment just as he deleted all his previous comments, so let’s not take the bait, folks.

  73. #73 chek
    May 18, 2012

    ‘Unsustainable’ is not a word that Brenda and his ilk will ever understand, even as their pensions dry up and the young renege on the social contract the Brendas thought they had sewn up to contain them in providing their continued privilege.

  74. #74 Bernard J.
    May 18, 2012

    Without mentioning trolls by name, it’s exactly because I am not a misanthrope, because I care about and for people and non-humans who don’t have a voice with which to defend themselves, that I am concerned that rich Westerners can’t find the wherewithall to wean themselves off the carbon tit.

    Especially when there’ll be no choice in the end, and running the tab until that time would be Western societal suicide.

    The troll’s is a good example though of how denialists turn reality on its head.

  75. #75 Bernard J.
    May 18, 2012

    Birch-‘brain’, you’re descending into purility. If you don’t know the difference between composting poop and flinging it, it’s no wonder that you don’t have the quorum of functioning neurones required to understand the physics of global warming, or the ecology of ecosystem degradation.

    And that you think that the subject of fæces is a humourous one simply indicates that you have no appreciation of its significant in trophic webs.

    Grow up.

    Note too that inappropriately fixating on potty humour generally characterises the ‘preoperational’ stage of Paigetan cognitive development – this would concord with the level of intellectual rigour with which you approach the physics of global warming. Petards, and all that…

  76. #76 Chris O'Neill
    May 18, 2012

    Misanthropy: hatred of Mann.

    (Brent’s spelling is not always the best.)

  77. #77 bill
    May 19, 2012

    Nice definition, Chris!

    Betty, is there a point to you?

  78. Betula has stated that his point is to troll.

  79. #79 Betula
    May 19, 2012

    Bertard…

    “I am concerned that rich Westerners can’t find the wherewithall to wean themselves off the carbon tit.”

    There it is. The rich vs. the poor. That’s what this is all about isn’t it? The recurring “rich” western theme, the reason for all the exaggerated, always negative to the extreme outcomes. We instill fear to get people to react and create policies that take from the rich and distribute to the poor.

    The rich are to blame, the poor suffer so the rich must pay. It’s about economic inequality and social justice. All the “if”, “could”, “might”, “maybe”, “possibly” and “may” catastrophic scenarios are really about getting those evil westerners to pay up…. western misanthropy.

    Shocking!

    I wonder if the U.N. and their Millenium Goals to eliminate poverty could have anything to do with this? 2015 was suppose to be the big year, now it’s been changed to 2025:

    “the poorest countries will still require ongoing support equal to 10–20 percent of their GDP to -graduate from external assistance sometime after 2015—likely by 2025″

    http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/reports/costs_benefits3.htm

    Conspiracy!

    Really? But isn’t it true that rather than creating wealth to reduce poverty, the U.N. wants to redistribute it?

    “Despite the UN’s acknowledgment of the power of wealth creation, it continues to focus on encouraging cash transfers from rich to poor countries.”

    “The report added that such an investment level would need to be reached within the next few years, and that “one half of the required investments would have to be realized in developing countries.” That’s where the transfer comes in — some $38 trillion would flow mainly from rich countries to the developing world in the next four decades, if the UN were to get its way.”

    Bertard, wouldn’t you agree that this is the “climate debt” owed by the tit sucking westerners?

    “This report is a reflection of the notion of “climate debt” that many of the climate change doomsayers discuss.”

    “Climate debt is shorthand for the trillions these people say the rich industrialized countries owe to the developing world for having “expropriated” the world’s resources, starting at the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century.”

    Conspiracy again! No actually, they admit it:

    “That the UN is behind the idea — and has linked it to a bid to redistribute wealth from rich to poor countries — was confirmed by Ottmar Edenhofer, German co-chair of one of the working groups of the UN’s data-assessing Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

    “But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

    http://www.canada.com/business/grudgingl…

    Bertard, do you disagree with those last statements?

    Is that the same IPCC established by two United Nations organizations?

    The cat’s out of the bag Bertard, the “rich” westerners need to pay and you’re just another concerned misanthropic waterboy for the cause…

  80. #80 chek
    May 19, 2012

    Shorter Betty: AGW is a hoax, it’s all a conspiracy to take my money. I got it all figured out, just like Brenty – the two smartest guys in the room. Oh yus, you can’t fool me. Etc. et tedious cetra.

  81. #81 Betula
    May 19, 2012

    Here’s shorter URL @575…

    http://tinyurl.com/7pln6r9

  82. #82 Betula
    May 19, 2012

    chek…

    “Shorter Betty: AGW is a hoax, it’s all a conspiracy to take my money”

    The effects are exaggerated to spread the wealth, yes. Or are you calling Ottmar Edenhofer a liar?

    O. Edenhofer currently holds the professorship of Economics of Climate Change at the Technical University of Berlin; the co-chair of working group III Mitigation of Climate Change at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); is deputy director and chief economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK); director of the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change[1]; fellow of the Academy of Sciences in Hamburg, Germany and Member of the Workgroup Climate, Energy and Environment within the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, Germany.

  83. #83 Betula
    May 19, 2012

    Chek…

    “I got it all figured out, just like Brenty – the two smartest guys in the room”

    Obviously I have you figured out…

    Me @575…”Conspiracy!”

    Me @575…”Conspiracy again!”

    You @576…”Shorter Betty: AGW is a hoax, it’s all a conspiracy to take my money”

    With a 100% probability…

  84. #84 chek
    May 19, 2012

    The effects are exaggerated to spread the wealth, yes. Or are you calling Ottmar Edenhofer a liar?

    No, I’m calling

    The effects are exaggerated to spread the wealth

    a lie.

  85. Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

    No, he’s not lying.

  86. The effects are exaggerated to spread the wealth, yes. Or are you calling Ottmar Edenhofer a liar?

    Edenhofer said nothing about exaggerating effects, you lying sack of crap, and you’re too stupid to understand what he did say, moron.

  87. “That the UN is behind the idea — and has linked it to a bid to redistribute wealth from rich to poor countries — was confirmed by Ottmar Edenhofer, German co-chair of one of the working groups of the UN’s data-assessing Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

    “But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

    Lying Betula quotes lying sources. Edenhofer’s quoted statement (the second item) in no way says what the source claims (the first item). Betula’s source counts on its readers, like Betula, to be too stupid and dishonest to examine the mined quote in context or to even consider what “de facto” means here, or what the interviewer’s comment that prompted it means:

    De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

  88. #88 John
    May 20, 2012

    Betula, good to see you hurl off the last vestiges of integrity and dive deep into the murky underworld of Agenda 21 conspiracies. That’ll give you credibility. Yeah, people will really start to take you seriously now.

    Crazy old Brent,

    >But the backlash against the Green Meanies and their AGW scam has begun.

    This is the third year running you’ve claimed this. Not really working out for you, is it? But go on. I mean, there are so many angry old men shouting in comments threads that something is definitely going to happen soon. Right? The scam will collapse any moment now.

    You’re probably right. I suspect the scam will collapse right around the time of the impending ice age you naively predicted.

    Brent, you’re such a hateful bitter old man. Cheer up there loner. It’s gonna be okay. The “mean Greenies” of your imagination aren’t going to steal your little Fiat. You’re going to be alright. In the meantime I suggest you go to anger management before your “fury” leads you to do something silly.

  89. #89 Bernard J.
    May 20, 2012

    >But the glory days of Global Warmery are drawing to a close.

    Ah, Brent, humour me again… your last attempt at evading me has been binned.

    Rephrasing it in order to get an explicit answer from you, what probability would you place on the mean annual GISS January-December land-and-sea global temperature anomaly for the next-to-occur WMO-defined El Niño year being greater than 0.6 celcius?

  90. #90 chek
    May 20, 2012

    It can’t happen and it can’t be done Brenty, not because of Tim but because you’re a fanatic.

    When it comes down to it, you prefer to believe pie-in-the-sky such as unknown solar mechanisms or similar tosh, rather than actual data that defines rational discussion.

    It’s that simple.

  91. #91 John
    May 20, 2012

    Brenty boy,

    >you doubtless think ‘it’s for their own good’, as extremists always do when visiting evil upon others in the name of some obnoxious ideal

    That’s called projection, when an AGW denier puts the world’s poor in harm’s way due to his extremist ideological agenda, an agenga that he has failed so often to support with scientific facts he’s given up arguing the science and taken to weak emotionally-based arguments free of logic.

    Don’t pretend you care a flying fig about the world’s poor. This is about your irrational fear that the government will take your precious property rights away. This is about you, you, you.

    >But the glory days of Global Warmery are drawing to a close.

    lol

    Did you read what you linked to? If the document is genuine, it shows that the shift to green energy has been *so successful* it is now comercially viable and can stand on its own! This was entirely the point of giving green energy a leg up all along!

    Kind of puts a gun to the head of your alarmist conspiracies, Brenty boy, that it’s all about sucking up government money.

    Can’t you get anything right? It’s like talking to a child.

    >In this photo you’d never know that the Anractic Peninsula existed

    I’m not sure the “Anractic Peninsula” does exist.

    >Bernard, I’m trying to answer your question.

    That made me snort.

    >I’m well aware that I’m supposed to say, ‘Zero percent probability’ to which you respond ‘Hah! Gotcha! It ALREADY HAS exceeded…’

    I’m glad you’re already aware that you’ll be wrong. We know too.

    >Come the day that a polar expedition walks all the way from South Georgia to the Pole, will you Warmists even then concede that there’s no such sodding thing as Global Warming? (A yes or a no would do…)

    Yes. You got me Brent, with all your tricky wording. If we can walk all the way from South Georgia to the pole we’ll admit we were wrong all along. Are you happy?

    I would set a tricky trap for you, but you already set one for yourself when you claimed you would admit you were wrong if the temperature anomaly exceeded +0.75 in the next five years, which it did the very year you said that. Strangely enough you never followed through! I wonder why that is?

    But look, it’s okay. I know I’m not dealing with an honest person. I know I’m dealiing with an ideological zealot who can’t make a consistent, rational argument backed up by scientific evidence. I’m dealing with a liar who should be ashamed of himself for coming here and knowingly telling lies in pursuit of his political cause, and at the expense of his own integrity.

  92. #92 bill
    May 20, 2012

    Can’t you get anything right? It’s like talking to a child.

    I agree. It’s literally pitiful.

    And he’s not alone.

    Since Brent and Betty are doubtlessly stridently Tea Partyish in their politics, if either of you is older than 14 I suggest you immediately refund any public monies that were wasted in any futile attempt to ‘educate’ you…

  93. #93 StevoR
    May 20, 2012

    BTW. Mr Lambert, just curious but was one of your relations on the recently replayed Captain Cook doco?

    Thought I saw someone (Andrew Lambert I think?) with your surname on that late the other night.

  94. #94 John
    May 20, 2012

    Brent says:

    >Call me pedantic, but only a warming globe can convince me of global warming.

    Which is excellent, as he has previously been forced to admit:

    >I concede a rising temperature trend since 1860, and even since the 1998 peak.

  95. #95 Tim Lambert
    May 20, 2012

    >BTW. Mr Lambert, just curious but was one of your relations on the recently replayed Captain Cook doco?

    No relation.

  96. #96 Lionel A
    May 20, 2012

    SteveR

    That Andrew Lambert was probably this well known, to those of us interested in nautical matters, maritime historian .

  97. #97 chek
    May 20, 2012

    I claim pantiesizeZ’s ‘panic’ as yet another iteration of ‘final nail in the coffin’ for this week’s sweepstake purposes.

    It’s very popular among the more stupid deniers with no arguments (like Jonarse the Vacuous for example), but I do have to admit that ol’ pantiesizeZ here exhibits all the signs of an IQ and comprehension so low, it likely makes his arse squeak when he walks. Or is that too down to Jonarse?

  98. #98 John
    May 20, 2012

    Brent says:

    >Call me pedantic, but only a warming globe can convince me of global warming.

    Which is excellent, as he has previously been forced to admit:

    >I concede a rising temperature trend since 1860, and even since the 1998 peak.

    It is a lie for Brent to argue that he’ll accept warming if it reaches an artitrary point as he’s been entirely unable to explain what natural mechanisms have caused nearly one degree of the current warming we have already experienced, and especially the warming since 1970.

    I know how Brent will react. The same way he reacts whenever science throws up a result he doesn’t like – he’ll shriek “fraud!”

  99. #99 user-illusion.myid.net
    May 20, 2012

    Folks, the only signs of this “Brent” person are in your own comments. You’re defeating the purpose of banning the troll by quoting him (or even responding to him).

  100. #100 Girma
    May 20, 2012

    Climate pattern of the 20th century!

    http://bit.ly/HRvReF

    What do you think?

Current ye@r *