June 2012 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Uncle Buck
    June 26, 2012

    Tim, this blog has degenerated to a shouting match in a lunatic asylum. Maybe it is time to retire Deltoid. It’s been a great source of information, particularly with regard to Chris Mitchell’s war on climate science and other loons such as Monckton. However reading through some of the posts here it’sclearly become a magnet for denier carpertbombers and obfusicators like Olas, Karen et. al.

    I expect running a blog like this requires a lot of your free time and as such takes you away from your family and other commitments. Perhaps you could guest post on other sites such as De Smog, Climate Progress or Skeptical Science. I’m sure, given your standing amongst normal and sane climate bloggers, your contributions would be welcome.

    Anyway, that’s just a suggestion. Cheers, Mark.

  2. #2 Richard Simons
    June 26, 2012

    KarerMackSpot: @6:45am

    Some more peer reviewed proof that glowbull warming just aint global.

    Elephant seals help uncover slower-than-expected Antarctic melting

    Wrong. They investigated a small part of eastern Antarctic to find out why melting was slower than expected (but still taking place). Even if that area were not warming, so what? No-one has ever claimed that warming would be uniformly distributed across the globe.

    Your other link a few comments later emphasizes the vulnerability of a civilization to climate change. I’m not sure how this is supposed to support your views.

  3. #3 Olaus Petri
    June 26, 2012

    Why is it met with so much hate and anger that the great threat to emperor penguins wasn’t a real one?

    Bernie even came running with his penguin friends rambling about something besides the point, and now he tops it off with a basketball player.

    :-)

  4. #4 Jeff Harvey
    June 26, 2012

    *Why is it met with so much hate and anger that the great threat to emperor penguins wasn’t a real one?*

    Try telling that to the other 10-40% of birds, mammals and vascular plants that are threatened with extinction, or the approx. 30,000 genetically distinct populations that disappear daily (Hughes et al., 1998).

    Besides, Petri, you are wrong anyway. Explain why the IUCN recently placed the Emperor Penguin on the status of ‘threatened’… or is this too much to ask of your unscientific brain?

  5. #5 Betula
    June 26, 2012

    Jeff Hardley…

    “I will give Betula some credit – he has told us that his profession is to prune trees and bushes. Why on Eareth a guy in a job like this would support those intent on taking our planet’s life support systems to hell is beyond me, but, then again, it takes all types”

    The great Jeff Harvey….spends his life with his nose in the literature, when he finally goes outside for a few weeks, he sees a spider and throws out a general statement that something is amiss…..no other facts given. We’re all suppose to assume and speculate as he does.

    Unlike you Jeff, I don’t lie to embellish the facts and I don’t have a superiority complex. Yet it needs to be said, while you have been cooped up with your papers and advocacy journalism, I have spent over 30 years in the field dealing with the things you read about, which includes your predatory insect friends.

    At 52 years old, I don’t personally prune trees and shrubs anymore, but consider it an honor that you say I do. I have many crews that do that sort of thing…

    By maintaining the health of plant material through proper pruning techniques, diagnosing and treating for insects and disease, correcting cultural problems, fertilization and the use of soil ammendments, I have saved thousands of trees over the years, improved the health of thousands more, and planted a thousand more. Meanwhile, you’ve been critiquing papers, speculating about catastrophic future scenarios and hoping someone notices you…

    By the way, I know you aren’t prone to answering questions because you become exposed when you do, but who are “those” that you assume I am supporting? Is there some great scheme or conspiracy that I am part of….Hardley?

  6. #6 Jeff Harvey
    June 26, 2012

    Mark/Uncle Buck,

    The blog would be a lot better if the idiot brigade – represented by a few scientifically illiterate deniers – were banned henceforth. At this stage we should be discussing the ramifications of AGW, along with other anthropogenic threats to the environment, and not stupid WUWT/CA/Joanne Nova/ etc. level bilge. But Tim’s excellent site was long ago overrun but brainless vermin… which is a great shame.

  7. #7 Jeff Harvey
    June 26, 2012

    You know, Betula, as I said earlier, its pathetic that someone like you who claims to have a pulse on nature (that sure as hell is debatable) would support the arrogant dingbats who are driving our planet’s life support systems to hell in the space of a few human generations. You are a bloody hypocrite, that is all I can say.

    And no, I don’t just have my nose in the literature… you have not got a clue what research I do, what my background is in the fieldof ecology and so on. You remind me of the fishermen who say that they know more about the status of coastal marine fish stocks than fish biologists, while the stocks continue to be decimated by unsustainable quotas. The same thing we once heard from whalers: that stocks are secure and will continue to be, just let us continue as we are and all will be fine. Well, we can see how these scenarios turned out. Populations of the great baleen whales have been annihalted and those of predatory fish like cod have also collapsed in areas where there were once millions of fish. So what do the fishermen do? Aside from denial that there is a problem, they then blame piscivorous mammals like seals, claiming they are depleting the stocks. Humans have long waged war on species at the terminal end of the food chain, and this is no exception.

    Its pathetic, as are you.

    I have spent every bit as much time in the field – in nature- as you, and for sure I know a helluva lot more than you how natural systems evolve, assemble and function. You may know a lot about tree pathogens, fertilizer regimes etc. and the like, but your understanding of community and ecosystem functioning is probably piss-poor. Just as fishermen cannot elucidate trophic cascades and inverted food webs, or foresters cannot reconcile top-down versus bottom up regulation of forest ecosystems. They aren’t trained to understand this, any more than I am trained to be a brain surgeon.

    I have had to deal with guys like you for years, people who think that doing some kind of job outdoors qualifies them as being experts in areas that in relaity they barely understand. I am 54 and have had a profoundly strong interest in nature, natural history and ecology since I was old enough to walk, and I grew up on a farm in Canada in an area of countryside. My long interest in biology naturally led me to a career in the field. I do not doubt that you possess some skills gleaned from your career, but don’t lecture me on the natural world. I spend a lot of time in the field, and work with colleagues working on an exceedingly wide range of topics from soil microbial ecology to aquatic ecology to the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.

    Finally, I find it takes remarkable hubris for you and others to be able to judge the motives the most of the scientific community with respect to various global change scenarios. I am fed up to here with people like you who appear to think that climate change science is some vast gravy train and that the scientists working in the field must, by association, be dishonest. Again, I cannot for the life of me understand why you, of all people, comes down on the side of those willing to risk the future for the sake of short term profit. My only guess is that you have some inherent hatred of government regulation and this nonsensical and irrational fear of creeping socialism. With respect to the press release following my Algonquin Trip, if the best you can do is to accuse me of lying on the basis of a legitimate concern over recent rapid warming on a transitional biomes, well then goodie two shoes for you. Make a mountain out of a bloody mole hill if that makes your day. But several scientists have written perspective papers arguing exactly my point: that there will be serious repercussions for these biomes if climate warming continues unabated and at the current rate.

    I have long realized that people like you aren not worth the time of day. I do not write into Deltoid about climate-change related effects on ecological communities for the benefit of people like you have had their minds made up on the basis of their own inherent belief systems and agendas. I write in an effort to communicate (1) that climate change is real and is happening, (2) that humans are almost certainly ther primary culprit, and (3) that the consequences for natural and managed ecosystems, their functioning, and on on a wide array of services that support human civilization are of profound concern.

    Youc an take your denial somewhere else for all I am concerned. Gladly, I have met very few people in my career whose mind sets are so twisted by hatred for science and for political action as a few people on the internet. But I think it is the duty of scientists to confront deniers and I will continue to do so as long as I am able. Science is not, and never will be on your side, Betula. But certainly those with power and priviledge are. One day those people will hopefully be held accountable for the risks they are taking.

  8. #8 Jeff Harvey
    June 26, 2012

    *By the way, I know you aren’t prone to answering questions because you become exposed when you do, but who are “those” that you assume I am supporting? Is there some great scheme or conspiracy that I am part of….Hardley?*

    I don’t know what your motives are, and frankly, I couldn’t give a damn. All I know is that you are wrong.

  9. #9 Betula
    June 26, 2012

    Hardley.

    “You know, Betula, as I said earlier, its pathetic that someone like you who claims to have a pulse on nature (that sure as hell is debatable) would support the arrogant dingbats who are driving our planet’s life support systems to hell in the space of a few human generations”

    So who are these arrogant dingbats I’m supporting, arrogant dingbat? How about some detail instead of generalities, possible scenarios, speculations and assumptions..and what species of spider was that again that assured you something was amiss?

    Hey look! A Blue Lobster! Something is amiss….

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/rare-blue-lobster-caught-canada-215839742.html

    Hardley, Is your whole life an assumption? If I were to guess, it appears you may be educated beyond your intelligence…

  10. #10 Wow
    June 26, 2012

    Irony: Betty demanding specifics.

  11. #11 Bernard J.
    June 26, 2012

    Olaus Petri said at 2:45 pm on 26 June:

    Why is it met with so much hate and anger that the great threat to emperor penguins wasn’t a real one?

    1) Olaus Petri is moving the goal posts, because his initial claim was that the emperor penguin population had been shown to have increased. He was proven to be wrong on this.

    2) Olaus Petri is claiming that the counters to his incorrect claim are based on “so much hate and anger”. Again he is wrong – the counters are borne of frustration with his poor understanding and his grievous misrepresentation of the science, even after it has been repeatedly explained to him.

    3) Olaus Petri in his shifting of the subject now claims that there is no threat to emperor penguins. Yet again he is wrong, because the very real phenomenon of global warming, given the current trajectory and the inertia inherent in the physics of the phenomenon, means that in all likelihood the Antarctic ice is seriously threatened on the scale of millenia to centuries. I doubt that OP would be quite so sanguine if I informed him that all of his and his relatives’ descendants were going to be expunged from the face of the earth in a similar time frame.

    In all of this OP has demonstrated skill in one thing – the ability to squeeze so much wrongness into one sentence.

  12. #12 Richard Simons
    June 26, 2012

    Betula:

    I have spent over 30 years in the field dealing with the things you read about, which includes your predatory insect friends.

    Then how is it possible that you have failed to notice the changes that are happening? Even if you live in a part of the world that has so far escaped the effects of climate change, how have you avoided hearing about the mountain pine beetle or the changes to USDA’s plant hardiness zones, to give a couple of examples that you should be familiar with?

    You must have a strange view of what ecologists do if you think they spend all their time reading about things. You need to get out of your cocoon, actually meet a few ecologists and read a bit about the wider world, including what is taking place in arboriculture.

  13. #13 Lionel A
    June 26, 2012

    A warning from history, David Duff’s (and mine) tainted land and don’t mention the war the tar sands of Alberta and the mines of Oz.

  14. #14 Jeff Harvey
    June 26, 2012

    *So who are these arrogant dingbats I’m supporting, arrogant dingbat?*

    If you don’t know who and what I am referring to by now, then you aren’t worth any more of my time. Read what Richard said, and then think about the well documented effects of climate change on other species of vertebrates and invertebrates. Yes, these data – collected in the field over many years – and concomitant studies do exist. You just don’t appear to know very much about them.

  15. #15 P. Lewis
    June 26, 2012

    You must have a strange view of what ecologists do if you think they spend all their time reading about things.

    Betula (and she’s not the only one) has a strange view of what scientists do and say, full stop!

    Not only does she deride what Jeff does and says, she also derides what most climate scientists do and say judging from what I’ve read of her output since killfile died an untimely death.

    They are all wrong, obviously. Sheesh!

  16. #16 chek
    June 26, 2012

    Oh come on chaps – I tend to take these fearsomely environmentalist/sons of the soil/Thomas Hardy lifestyle claims from the rabid anything-but-CO2 brigade with a bucket or three of salt.

    I strongly suspect that someone else’s cheeseplant on the office window sill and a pine-shaped air freshener in the car is as ‘environmental’ as Betty ever gets.

  17. #17 Betula
    June 26, 2012

    Richard Simons….

    “Then how is it possible that you have failed to notice the changes that are happening”

    Changes have always been happening,,,what’s your point? Is it bad that we now have wild turkeys and coyotes here in New England when they were unheard of when I was a kid? Some years the Bluefish are feeding on Bunker, other years the Bunker are few and they are feeding on sandworms. Bluecrabs were plentiful, seemed to go away, and now we are seeing them again. We used to catch Weakfish when I was a kid, for years they were gone, came back, gone again. A moose was hit on the Merritt Parkway a few years back and a mountain lion last year. Two weeks ago a Black Bear was captured in a downtown area of Greenwich Ct….I’ve seen Woolly Beech Aphid come and go. This spring was dry, then wet….now we are seeing Anthacnose and leafspot….a lot of scale this year…a lot of snow two winters ago, not much last year…..

    Trees and shrubs are flushed out, the grass is green, Cherry and Dogwood Blossoms were exceptional, the water table is high, plenty of squirrels,chipmunks,rabbits,racoons, opossoms and skunks….what am I looking for Richard?

    Hey, are you talking about people planting Nellie Stevens Hollies and Southern Magnolia along the SouthWest section of Connecticut?

    Wait, Asian longhorn Beetle and Emerald Ash Borer…is that what I’m suppose to notice? Surely these are a result of global Warming…. or was is Mile-a-minute weed?

    Oh, I know, we have a lot more Mosquitos this year, West Nile Virus due to global Warming….or is it too many Ticks causing Lymes disease and Erlichiosis…is this what you are talking about?

    No wait, it was Mountain Pine Beetle….is this something new to Global Warming Richard? Strange how it was a major problem when I was a college student in 1979 studying Forestry at Colorado State, yet nobody was blaming Global Warming…..in fact lumber companies were taking advantage of the blue stained wood sold for paneling…

    So which observations have I failed to notice….please tell numbnuts.

  18. #18 Ian Forrester
    June 26, 2012

    Lionel don’t forget about today’s mess. Up to 50 billion at Sellafield and 4 billion at Dounreay. What other nuclear money pits are there?

  19. #19 Richard Simons
    June 26, 2012

    So which observations have I failed to notice….please tell numbnuts.

    OK, for the numbnuts, there are various reasons why populations of organisms change their distribution, including accidental or deliberate human introduction (e.g. Asian longhorn beetle). Others are changing their range seemingly because of climate change. One of these is the mountain pine beetle. You say it was a major problem in Colorado when you were a student. It is now a problem in Alberta, 1000 miles to the north, in areas where it was previously unknown. Why do you think this is?

    Of course there are small changes from year to year or even from one decade to the next. There always will be, while environments change and populations evolve. Sometimes they will even be quite dramatic (e.g. the spread of the collared dove through Europe). However, in the last 50 years or so there has been a dramatic shift in the range of many species towards the poles and to higher altitudes.

    what am I looking for Richard?

    Species that you can grow now that couldn’t be grown a few decades ago, and vice versa, pests that have become more significant and those that have faded away, etc. More to the point, you should be thinking about why the ranges of organisms have changed. You seem to know that it is possible that ranges have changed, but then you just shut down your noggin and do not wonder on what might be the cause(s). If climate change is not taking place, why do you think that the USDA shifted the plant hardiness zones?

  20. #20 Betula
    June 26, 2012

    Richard Simons…

    “If climate change is not taking place, why do you think that the USDA shifted the plant hardiness zones?”

    I’ve never said climate change isn’t taking place, in fact i’ve never said Global warming isn’t occurring…..I don’t assume everything I see is a reult of climate change and I don’t assume all climate change is bad and I don’t assume climate change has never occurred before. I don’t see a spider and assume something is amiss. I’ve seen so many fluctuations from year to year that I don’t assume climate is constant.

    As for the USDA Hardiness zones, they are relatively new (50-60 years) and have been upgraded before. Do you have a thousand year hardiness zone map to compare it to? Do you think the plants in each zone have always been there? Do you think organisms have ever shifted outside of y

  21. #21 Betula
    June 26, 2012

    I hit something!

    outside of your lifetime?

    Richard….here’s what the USDA says….”Because the USDA PHZM represents 30-year averages of what are essentially extreme weather events (the coldest temperature of the year), changes in zones are not reliable evidence of whether there has been global warming.”

    http://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/PHZMWeb/AboutWhatsNew.aspx

  22. #22 chek
    June 26, 2012

    Ooooh Betty! The excitement! changes in zones are not reliable evidence of whether there has been global warming. Let’s try “reliable evidence”

    Which is true – on their own it’s not reliable evidence. But taken in conjunction with all the other metrics, it forms part of the consilience of evidence.

    However, your exclaimed excitement over your ‘hit’, doesn’t quite gell with your statements at 9.55 p.m. immediately prior.
    Is the Betty team in disarray? Or are you just severely indecisive?

  23. #23 Richard Simons
    June 26, 2012

    I’ve never said climate change isn’t taking place, in fact i’ve never said Global warming isn’t occurring…..I don’t assume everything I see is a reult of climate change and I don’t assume all climate change is bad and I don’t assume climate change has never occurred before. I don’t see a spider and assume something is amiss. I’ve seen so many fluctuations from year to year that I don’t assume climate is constant.

    Good for you! So just what is your argument and what evidence do you use to support it? Or perhaps you just get a kick out of irritating people who are better-informed?

    “. . . changes in zones are not reliable evidence of whether there has been global warming.”

    Of course they are not evidence in themselves, I was just trying to relate it to something you might be familiar with. The improvement in the extreme temperatures used to make the zones is, however, an additional small piece of evidence.

  24. #24 bill
    June 27, 2012

    Let’s face it, Betty: the sad truth is that, despite being around for over half a century, you really are neither smart nor observant, and you are as callow and devoid of wisdom as you were 30 years ago.

    Sadly, there’s a lot of you about, and Denial basically is you – in extremis in the form of the KarenMackSpot sociopath, and your warning of where you’ll most-likely end up is there to see in the form of David Duff. Bet you can’t avoid that fate!

    I suppose you must feel some consolation in numbers, but what bigger testament to failure could there be than counting such people among your peers? Or being part of a movement whose proudest champions include the likes of Lord Monckton, James Delingpole and Senator Inhofe?

    Like the bulk of your tribe you are essentially pointless, except that you can have a really good crack at gumming up the works if you congeal and stick on like grim death in sufficient numbers. Your anti-intellectual hostility is driven by a desperate need to conceal the grim reality of your inherent irrelevance from yourself.

    Doesn’t really work, does it?

  25. #25 Lotharsson
    June 27, 2012

    I’ve seen so many fluctuations from year to year that I don’t assume climate is constant.

    There’s your problem!

    Well, one of them. You appear to be confusing weather and climate. And probably local with global – both in terms of temperatures, but also giving primacy to your own observations and discounting the global aggregate of observations collected by scientists – and others.

    It’s very difficult to reliably assess climate change – let alone get a handle on its causes – if you simply focus on the “so many fluctuations from year to year” that you experience.

  26. #26 Mack
    June 27, 2012

    The men in white coats will be around to pick you up shortly Bill.

  27. #27 bill
    June 27, 2012

    Gee – that was a zinger. Did you think of that yourself, or did your writers produce that one?

    In memory of the Old Men’s War on Science – I’m sure many here may enjoy this.

  28. #28 GSW
    June 27, 2012

    @Betula,Richard

    Yes, It’s worth noting there are many papers around dealing with changing “tree lines” over the current interglacial. Some I’ve read (I think US, although there are alps, urals papers also) claim the current tree line is low to normal (relative to interglacial average) and increasing. Some areas have fosil tree lines 300m higher than todays.

    So shifts in hardiness zones over decades to century time frames doesn’t actually seem to be that unusual in itself and evidence of very little other than perhaps there has been some warming over the last 100yrs (post NH LIA).

  29. #29 Wow
    June 27, 2012

    Have you heard the news today? Oh boy.

    EPA can regulate CO2 pollution.

    Like the judge said in the smack down on the denialists, the EPA don’t have to continually prove the atom before they can regulate.

  30. #30 Jeff Harvey
    June 27, 2012

    Here is a snippet of what I am talking about:

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7089/abs/nature04539.html
    http://www.pnas.org/content/96/17/9701.short
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/p7v30152u043113q/
    http://www.pnas.org/content/105/42/16195.short
    http://www.pnas.org/content/100/21/12219.short
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01178.x/full
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2000.00322.x/full
    http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/270/1523/1467.short
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5877/800.short
    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2004.00327.x/full
    http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19941100095.html
    http://www.lssu.edu/faculty/gsteinhart/GBS-LSSU/BIOL333-Fish%20Ecology_files/Winder%20and%20Schindler%202004.pdf
    http://www.scopenvironment.org/downloadpubs/scope29/chapter08.html
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/ebbhqftxem7ype71/
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/w0423qq4m267g471/
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/k321276u26505620/
    http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/2845499
    http://cedarcreek.umn.edu/biblio/fulltext/t1002.pdf
    http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/20000616787.html;jsessionid=A7F12DE4FBAEE10FD4C56288F51BCFB9
    http://www.sfu.ca/geog315-new/readings/pastor+post.pdf
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880900002322

    Given time (I am pressed today) I can put up a lot more This is just a sampler. Bear in mind that some of these studies were published before James Hansen’s famous 1988 declaration… so the topic was being considered seriously by the sciedntific community 25 years ago.

  31. #31 Lotharsson
    June 27, 2012

    The Supreme Court, which has been doing its darnedest to give the impression of being completely in the tank for big business and The Republican Party, will probably try its hardest to produce an industry-friendly ruling that can be emitted from the bench without everyone in sight falling about in helpless laughter.

    Which is easier said than done when several of your members appear to care little for any sort of personal reputation for intellectual integrity or well-reasoned jurisprudence.

  32. #32 David Duff
    This Septic Isle
    June 27, 2012

    Oh dear! When the Captain of the ‘Warm Titanic’ decides it’s all over and deserts the sinking ship I really do feel it’s time for you lot to make for the lifeboats of commonsense:

    “Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” [My emphasis]”

    Yes, that Lovelock, your former High Priest! “Oh what a falling off was there”.

    @Bill: if Betula ends up in my excellent condition when she reaches 73, slim, fit and at fighting weight, then she will have done well and given her excellent counter-punching abilities it what she deserves.

    @LionelA: What a SHLOCK-HORROR story! My goodness, they’re all dropping like flies in Derbyshire, and Huddersfield is a wasteland, it’s straight our of Cormac McCarthy’s ‘The Road’ – not!

  33. #33 Lotharsson
    June 27, 2012

    …Lovelock, your former High Priest!

    Category error – there may be a High Priest in your method of belief acquisition and retention, but there’s no High Priest in science.

    There’s only evidence and logic. And Lovelock’s recent pronouncements have failed on both counts.

    But I’m quite sure that’s beyond your comprehension. Or maybe just your will to comprehend.

  34. #34 Wow
    June 27, 2012

    So, lovelock, previously predicting humanity’s end (and called “hysterical alarmist” by the idiot brigade) now says “I was alarmist” agrees with the IPCC and the idiot brigade then crow “See! He doesn’t think that AGW exists!!!!”.

    Really, the level of stupid here goes well over 9000.

  35. #35 bill
    June 27, 2012

    Ah, David, everyone who’s not befuddled – well, not as befuddled as you, at any rate – went through the whole ‘Lovelock recants!’ thing weeks ago. Net result – nothing.

    Muller announcing the Warmists were right after all – and on the basis of actual research, not nonagenerian wilfulness – now, that was something!

    Remember how old Anthony, who had thought the whole thing was stitched-up from the get-go, had to frantically backtrack and then become hysterical? Ah, how we laughed!

    The morons are unmoved, of course, but, well, that’s morons…

  36. #36 lord_sidcup
    June 27, 2012

    “it’s straight our of Cormac McCarthy’s ‘The Road’ – not!”

    Now we know the standard of evidence Duff is demands.

  37. #37 bill
    June 27, 2012

    And let’s not forget, as Wow has pointed out, that today is another Black Day for Denial, with the Federal District Court of Appeals ruling that it’s the EPA that has CO2 figured out, rather than any of your motley heroes…

    State Petitioners have not provided substantial support for their argument that the Endangerment Finding should be revised. State Petitioners point out that some studies the IPCC referenced in its assessment were not peer-reviewed, but they ignore the fact that (1) the IPCC assessment relied on around 18,000 studies that were peer-reviewed, and (2) the IPCC’s report development procedures expressly permitted the inclusion in the assessment of some non-peer-reviewed studies (“gray” literature).

    Moreover, as EPA determined, the limited inaccurate information developed from the gray literature does not appear sufficient to undermine the substantial overall evidentiary support for the Endangerment Finding. State Petitioners have not, as they assert, uncovered a “pattern” of flawed science.

    Only two of the errors they point out seem to be errors at all, and EPA relied on neither in making the Endangerment Finding. First, as State Petitioners assert, the IPCC misstated the percentage of the Netherlands that is below sea level, a statistic that was used for background information. However, the IPCC corrected the error, and EPA concluded that the error was “minor and had no impact,” and the Endangerment Finding did not refer to the statistic in any way. Id. at 49,576–77. Second, the IPCC acknowledged misstating the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are receding. EPA also did not rely on that projection in the Endangerment Finding. studies. [emphases mine]

    Ooh, that’s gotta smart! This is what the actual grown-ups, rather than the merely aged, are currently talking about.

    18, 000 peer-reviewed studies. Now, maybe it’s just me, but that strikes me as a little more impressive than a few Google Galileos guest-posting on a handful of far-Right blogs.

    But, that’s right, it’s all a conspiracy, isn’t it?

    You really ought to try escaping the crushing confirmation-bias gravitional pull of the Right Wing blogosphere sometime, because you’re probably unaware just how many ‘pro AGW’ (i.e. scientific, rational, evidence-based) papers appear in proper journals after proper peer-review every bloody week!

    Hence this section over at SkS.

    But, by all means, clutch your sad little treasure…

  38. #38 Karen
    June 27, 2012

    The foundations of AGW and the prophesies of a scorched earth just had cold water poured over them :)

    http://judithcurry.com/2012/06/25/questioning-the-forest-et-al-2006-sensitivity-study/

  39. #39 chek
    June 27, 2012

    What’s that Skippyduff? Not the Lovelock thing again?

    I believe I already asked you the last time to show me how many papers by Lovelock had the IPCC included in their reports, didn’t I Skippyduff?

    Then you just went off and laid low and no doubt bounced yourself silly since then and forgot all about that, didn’t you Skippyduff?

    And here you are again with the same thing. You’re a stupid and forgetful old macropod, aren’t you Skippyduff?

  40. #40 Wow
    June 27, 2012

    Hmm. A story that says “questioning” (I.e. not saying it’s falsified) is “pouring cold water” over AGW???

    Really, spotty, how the hell do you make this stuff up? Is it congenital or learned?

  41. #41 Karen
    June 27, 2012

    A History Reminder,

    “The reason why even the Guardian’s George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    Professor Philip Jones, the CRU’s director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC’s key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

    Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.

    Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.

    Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the “hockey stick” were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre, an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann’s supporters, calling themselves “the Hockey Team”, and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.

    The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC’s scientific elite, including not just the “Hockey Team”, such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC’s 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore’s ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself. [16] ”

    Martin explained in “Global WarmingGate: What Does It Mean,” the e-mails suggested:

    [T]he authors co-operated covertly to ensure that only papers favorable to CO2-forced AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming or man-made global warming] were published, and that editors and journals publishing contrary papers were punished. They also attempted to ‘discipline’ scientists and journalists who published skeptical information.
    [T]he authors manipulated and ‘massaged’ the data to strengthen the case in favor of unprecedented CO2-forced AGW, and to suppress their own data if it called AGW into question.
    [T]he authors co-operated (perhaps the word is ‘conspired’) to prevent data from being made available to other researchers through either data archiving requests or through the Freedom of Information Acts of both the U.S. and the UK. [17]

  42. #42 bill
    June 27, 2012

    Ah, Karen, you really are a gift to our side of the argument.

    The origin of this little piece of neural outsourcing? Christopher Booker! In that well known journal of gravitas – The Telegraph! And, what, some obscure comment at Jo Nova’s?

    You know, you’re really supposed to tell us all that – and format the comment to make it clear its a quotation – but I can see why you might well shy away from that!

    And, tell us, what did Monbiot end up saying about his originally hastily-formed conclusions, based on not realising how mendacious you lot really are? Eh?

    What is it that you imagine you’re achieving here, ‘Karen’?

  43. #43 Wow
    June 27, 2012

    Sound and fury, signifying nothing, Bill.

    But they have nothing else to do except throw a tantrum. When reality disagrees with them, they have to present unreality as an “equally valid alternative”.

  44. #44 John
    June 27, 2012

    The court ruling is very damaging for the deniers, especially since as they have claimed for years now that the moment the IPCC are ruled upon “the scam will crumble”.

    Now we see that the US legal system is really just another cog in Al Gore’s massive one world government conspiracy. This, predictably, has caused so much angst amongst Karen (who believes the government are suppressing free energy) and Duff (who believes that the Brits are tilting sea measuring equipment, as told to by a dowser) that they are scattergun spamming our dear little comments thread with irrelevent nonesense in a vain attempt to prove…that they are gullible idiots? I don’t know.

    Carry on chaps!

  45. #45 Lotharsson
    June 27, 2012

    … in a vain highly successful attempt to prove…that they are gullible idiots?.

    FIFY.

  46. #46 Lotharsson
    June 27, 2012

    Speaking of the slow-motion radical changes going on in the US which may impact any Supreme Court ruling on the EPA regulations…

  47. #47 luminous beauty
    June 27, 2012

    “Why is it met with so much hate and anger that the great threat to emperor penguins wasn’t a real one?”

    Olaus just can’t help but project his own feelings of fear, anger and hatred onto others.

    So much so, that in his attempts to rationalize his denial, he becomes confused about the relationship of the past, present and future.

    Sad, isn’t it?

  48. #48 Betula
    June 27, 2012

    Chek…
    “However, your exclaimed excitement over your ‘hit’, doesn’t quite gell with your statements at 9.55 p.m. immediately prior.
    Is the Betty team in disarray? Or are you just severely indecisive?”

    Are you really that retarded?

    The “Hit something” was in reference to that fact that I sent the post before I was finished writing it.

  49. #49 Betula
    June 27, 2012

    Richard…

    “So just what is your argument and what evidence do you use to support it? Or perhaps you just get a kick out of irritating people who are better-informed?”

    That the predictions are just that…predictions. That the alarmists hype the worst case scenarios. That ideology and bias is inherent. That the IPCC doesn’t consist of 2000 scientists. That there are other scientists with different opinions. That Polar Bears have not currently been affected by climate change. That the U.N., which formed the IPCC. has an admitted goal of spreading global wealth. That climate models have flaws. That the debate isn’t over. That we won’t all be cannibals in the near future.That all corporations and their employees aren’t evil. That all oil companies and their employees aren’t evil. That all coal companies and their employees aren’t evil. That capitalism isn’t evil. That many on this site are hypocrites. That many on this site are arrogant. That many on this site are close minded. That some on this site are radical ie: suggesting a discussion about murdering those who disagree. That many on this site, by virtue of their monikers ie: Ianam (I am not a moron) and Luminous Beauty…are in denial. That not everything that happens is due to Global Warming. That some on this site embellish and lie…

    That everything mentioned above is true and therefore, I’m a denier.

  50. #50 ianam
    June 27, 2012

    I’ve never said climate change isn’t taking place, in fact i’ve never said Global warming isn’t occurring…..I don’t assume everything I see is a reult of climate change and I don’t assume all climate change is bad and I don’t assume climate change has never occurred before. I don’t see a spider and assume something is amiss.

    All of which can be said of a rock or turd or anything else that, like you, lacks a functioning human forebrain.

  51. #51 Betula
    June 27, 2012

    bill…

    “I suppose you must feel some consolation in numbers, but what bigger testament to failure could there be than counting such people among your peers?”

    Unlike you bill, I don’t need to cling to groups or peers to hide from insecurities. I don’t deny common sense for group think. For you, the emperor will always be naked.

  52. #52 Betula
    June 27, 2012

    “All of which can be said of a rock or turd or anything else that, like you, lacks a functioning human forebrain.”

    Meanwhile, we can hear a distant sound coming for ianams house… ” I am not a moron…..I am not a moron…I am not a moron….”

  53. #53 Lionel A
    June 27, 2012

    Old Duffer

    @LionelA: What a SHLOCK-HORROR story! My goodness, they’re all dropping like flies in Derbyshire, and Huddersfield is a wasteland, it’s straight our of Cormac McCarthy’s ‘The Road’ – not!

    You are one sick individual if you think such nauseating base flippancy is humorous. A case of Clarkson’s disease perhaps.

  54. #54 Betula
    June 27, 2012

    Say it isn’t so….a computer model may be wrong?

    “It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf”

    http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2012/2012-31.shtml

  55. #55 chek
    June 27, 2012

    Betty I had initially considered refuting your farrago of infantile rubbish point by point. But then I remembered I do actually have a life, and who has time to deal with every paranoid assertion by the borderline insane? Not me, so I satisfied myself with this gem from you: “That the IPCC doesn’t consist of 2000 scientists”.

    As we all well know, the IPCC operates from a small one bedroom ap[artment above a Chinese take-away in Geneva:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_structure.shtml#
    with Raj in charge of day-to-day refreshments (coffee machine/soft drinks vernding machines/ acuum cleaning the carpets etc. etc., utility bills and compiling reports. Given the cramped nature of the accommodation (especially during plenary sessions), he has to settle for a small ‘Z’ guage train set no larger than an average briefcase to keep his railroad marshalling skills honed.

    Dave, as we know, is in charge of anything sciency and given the cramped premises prefers outsourcing, which is why the AR4 assessment relied on around 18,000 studies that were peer-reviewed. Given an average of say 3 authors per paper to write, plus say 5 minimom to review, that works out at say 120,000 plus scientists per assessment.

    What point were you trying to mak again, Betty? Apart from the painfully obvious, ill-informed, think-tank filtered garbage that we’ve come to expect from you by now of course.

  56. #56 DarylD
    William Lamb's Town Down Under
    June 28, 2012

    Ah, Betty,Wally Ollie, Old Duffer,Mack Spot et al. are all in fine form, singing the self same identical industry paid propaganda, as served up by the likes of Marc/Fred/Lord Bull of Mocking tune of complete horse hockey.

    So sad, to live in a brainwashed condition, a completely fictitious world, one that is totally divorced from all forms of reality.

    In other news Gina Rhinoass, after investing a large chunk cash portion of her wealth(the rest is still in the ground yet to be mined, gotta love the printed propaganda lies of the so called Fibius Rich List) purchased an old already dead print media empire. There is an irony, in investing money on dead horse.

    In the Age of the Internets, one can already see the Murdoch Pay Wall is failing, pricing itself out of a two billion plus market, as we speak.

    Thus, it comes to pass, choose your experts wisely, and somewhere between the northern summers of 2021 and 2035, the folly of listening to Propaganda Lord Mocking of Bull, becomes truly apparent, for all to see.

    “When the last tree is cut, when the last river has been poisoned, when the last fish has been caught, then we will find out that we can’t eat money.”

    Watt tune, then will brainwashed few cry in unison?

  57. #57 bill
    June 28, 2012

    Ah, Betty, I’m afraid your gaggle of droogs’ heroically obtuse and unswerving ignorance is only equal to the expertise of tens of thousands of actual scientists in Libtardia, a magical fantasy world above the clouds- and well beyond the reach of mere evidence.

    So, if we’re not going to talk about actual scientists doing actual research and producing actual papers, and we’re not going to talk about the US courts ruling that its the actual scientists doing actual research and producing actual papers that the EPA must base its assessments on, shall we talk about, oh, I don’t know, Arctic sea ice? Monckton and the British Freedom Party? Watts more and more palpable desperation?

    No? More of your opinions then? Some sad little hangover from your brief Golden Age, in 2009, when many in the media were briefly conned by your dreary little posse’s disgraceful exercise in tendentious quote-mining and cherry-picking, assuring you all zero credibility thereafter?

    No? How about the fact that you and the rest of the pantomime visigoths that plague this site will be remembered only as a card-carrying member of that highly non-exclusive club, The Most Stupid People in History?

    You can expect to live a few decades yet. How popular are you hoping to be?

    Because, believe me, there’s going to be some deeply unhappy people about, wondering how the hell it was all allowed to happen…

  58. #58 bill
    June 28, 2012

    Or perhaps we could talk about this?

    What I expect we will see if these low albedo conditions [in Greenland] persist is 100% surface melting over the ice sheet. This would be a first in observations. It may not happen this year, but the trajectory the ice sheet is on, along with amplified Arctic warming, will have the ice sheet responding by melting more and more.

    No?

    Then perhaps you’d like to tell us how Mike Mann, Al Gore, and Jim Hansen are causing these instruments to give these readings?

    No?

    How about: precisely how bad are you going to feel when you eventually realise – because this is inevitable, unless, of course, you choose to be forever lost in the fantasy world of Epistemic Closure with Monckton and Delingpole and Bast and Inhofe – you’ve been doing nothing less than facilitating the wreck of the global biosphere for years?

    And, no small thanks to you and your pals, it’s irreversible?

  59. #59 Richard Simons
    June 28, 2012

    That the predictions are just that…predictions.

    Based on a considerable body of evidence. But what point are you trying to make?

    That the alarmists hype the worst case scenarios.

    I have not seen any climatologists promoting anything like the worst-case scenarios. Citation, please.

    That ideology and bias is inherent.

    Citation, please.

    That the IPCC doesn’t consist of 2000 scientists.

    I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.

    That there are other scientists with different opinions.

    Citation, please, to a climatologist who has published any research in a reputable journal to support the contention that climate change is not/will not take place.

    That Polar Bears have not currently been affected by climate change.

    You are a lot more complacent about this than the Polar Bear Specialist Group of the IUCN. Why do you feel you have better information than they do?

    That the U.N., which formed the IPCC. has an admitted goal of spreading global wealth.

    And the significance of this is . . . ?

    That climate models have flaws.

    All models have flaws. Please describe the flaws in climate models that you feel have exaggerated either the magnitude of climate change or of its effects. Presumably you bring this up because you have significant, well-justified concerns.

    That the debate isn’t over.

    The debate amongst climatologists over whether or not climate change is to be expected was essentially over 30 years ago. Which debate are you talking about?

    That we won’t all be cannibals in the near future.

    Please give a citation to any climatologist who has said otherwise.

    That all corporations and their employees aren’t evil.

    Please give a citation to any climatologist who has said otherwise.

    That all oil companies and their employees aren’t evil.

    Please give a citation to any climatologist who has said otherwise.

    That all coal companies and their employees aren’t evil.

    Please give a citation to any climatologist who has said otherwise.

    That capitalism isn’t evil.

    Please give a citation to any climatologist who has said otherwise.

    That many on this site are hypocrites.

    Irrelevant, but please give an example.

    That many on this site are arrogant.

    Irrelevant. Why does this affect your opinion of the science?

    That many on this site are close minded.

    Irrelevant, but please give an example. Why does this affect your opinion of the science?

    That some on this site are radical ie: suggesting a discussion about murdering those who disagree.</blockquote
    Why does this affect your opinion of the science?

    That many on this site, by virtue of their monikers ie: Ianam (I am not a moron) and Luminous Beauty…are in denial.</blockquote
    In denial of what? Why does this affect your opinion of the science?

    That not everything that happens is due to Global Warming.

    Please give a citation to any scientist who has said otherwise.

    That some on this site embellish and lie…

    Indeed they do! Some of the claims from those who deny the reality of climate change are quite outrageous.

    That everything mentioned above is true

    Not exactly.

    and therefore, I’m a denier.

    Funny thing is, in all of that you’ve not actually said that you do not accept that global climate change is taking place, or that the changes could have very serious consequences for humans. So on the evidence given here, no, you are not a denier. On the other hand, I think my suggestion that you just get a kick out of irritating people who are better-informed is probably correct.

  60. #60 Lotharsson
    June 28, 2012

    Heck, while we’re piling on this is deeply ironic:

    That many on this site, by virtue of their monikers ie: Ianam (I am not a moron) and Luminous Beauty…are in denial.

    The person posting under the moniker Luminous Beauty may or may not be a luminous beauty in some sense or other – but unless Betula is claiming some form of ESP or remote sensing, Betula does not actually know that the moniker does not fit. In that case, the charge of “in denial” by Betula is a completely unsupported assertion.

    And ianam may be many things, but is clearly not a moron. In that case, the only person in denial on that matter is Betula.

  61. #61 bill
    June 28, 2012

    Also, clearly you’re not a Birch – hypocrite, liar, right back at ya – but perhaps you’re just a Bircher? Seems about Right*…

    (*geddit?)

  62. #62 Tim Curtin
    www.timcurtin.com
    June 28, 2012

    1. Crikey, 42 hatemails from you lot in less than 24 hours!

    Robert Murphy, I treat you as the only if partial exception to that comment.

    Re Murphy’s Law #1: That’s why a block of ice in my living room will emit EM radiation into my warmer living room. The net heat flow will be from the room to the ice, but that doesn’t stop the ice from radiating energy (as all matter above absolute zero must do).

    Where are your observations and measurements for ML #1? If your house was encased in ice a hundred metres thick, surely by ML#1 the ice’s EM radiation should warm it. If not, why not?

    Your corollary to ML#1 is also wrong “A molecule of Co2 that encounters a photon of LW radiation will scatter it in all directions.” Not so, only from hot to less hot.

    ML#2: “The N2 and the O2 act just like a vacuum as far as retaining the LW radiation – they don’t.” I said “the N2 and O2 CANNOT act like a vacuum as when they are present there is no vacuum. We are talking about the LW infrared, and the N2 and O2 fail to propel heat through it, as Tyndall showed and my link to UMSL.edu.confirmed.”

    You reply: “No, no, NO! [Tyndall] showed that the N2 and O2 failed to stop the heat from traveling through the container and leaving it.”

    That is simply untrue. Had the heat travelled through the cylinder when filled only with N2 and O2, Tyndall’s galvanometer would have measured the heat leaving the other end of the cylinder. It did not.

    That finding does not mean that N2 and O2 can act “like” a vacuum, they are not and do not, but it does mean they are the real GHGs.

    Enough of Murphy’s laws, but for one FINAL comment:
    I am glad you repeated my source even if you clearly misunderstand it:

    “It is known that symmetrical diatomic molecules like nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen, do not absorb infrared radiation, even though their vibrational frequencies are in the infrared region. These homonuclear diatomic molecules have no permanent dipole moment and lack a mechanism by which they can interact with the electric field of the light.”

    In fact this means Tyndall did show that N2 and O2 are GHG’s and do trap LW radiation, because they “do not absorb infrared radiation”, and therefore cannot reradiate it.

    I previously linked to a full inventory of the infrared spectrum. There is no N2 at all, and only minuscule amounts of O2, much as Tyndall surmised. By far the largest inhabitants are the H2O and CO2, all busily radiating through their respective favoured wavelengths, along with smaller amounts of CH4 and N2O.

  63. #63 bill
    June 28, 2012

    Wrong thread, Tim.

    Wrong content, too.

  64. #64 Marco
    June 28, 2012

    I almost dropped out of my chair. I thought teh Curtin had come to the open thread to acknowledge in front of everyone that he had been a complete and utter idiot in maintaining that Tyndall supported his view that N2 and O2 block LW radiation, but no such luck.

    Teh Curtin, it hurts!

    Also, especially for teh Curtin (to get him all confused):
    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL051409.shtml

  65. #65 Lionel A
    June 28, 2012

    Curtin,

    1. Crikey, 42 hatemails from you lot in less than 24 hours!

    You even fail to comprehend the meaning of hatemails.

    Counters to your vitriolic ideological motivated opinions are not propelled by hate. Indeed by now the only emotion that could be shown in your direction is pity. For you sure have made, and continue to do so, one big fool of yourself.

    Besides blog posts are not mails, but then since when did Curtin learn to understand the correct nuances of correct language with his confusion of thought demonstrated at every turn.

    Your clear hypocrisy in lambasting others in this way was made clear to you here by Robert Murphy in his June 25, 1:39 pm post

  66. #66 bill
    June 28, 2012

    And let us not forget calling Grant Foster ‘Goebbelistic’

    (Tim L – or host – is ‘less Goebbelistic’, apparently.)

  67. #67 Wow
    June 28, 2012

    “That’s why a block of ice in my living room will emit EM radiation into my warmer living room”

    If it is emitting to a warmer place, then why can’t CO2 emit to a warmer place????

  68. #68 Lionel A
    June 28, 2012

    Jeff Harvey @ June 27, 9:02 am

    Thank you for an excellent list of reading matter I will benefit greatly from studying these as they will enable me to reinforce my broad understanding. If I am able to drill through to the complete entities that is.

    I doubt that the denialati and facetious muppets (Duff etc.) who infest these threads will get much out of them for they will probably fail with the first in the list on the concept of ‘trophic levels’, disruption between which we have been noticing for some time now.

  69. #69 Wow
    June 28, 2012

    If you have two plates heated up by a power supply of 200W each, how much radiation do they give off?

    They’re the same size and material.

    Does the photoelectric effect stop when the material is hotter than the source of the photons? I.e. a stimulated source.

  70. #70 ianam
    June 28, 2012

    That many on this site are hypocrites.

    Have you yourself ever been the least bit arrogant, close minded, have ever embellished or lied about anything? Have you ever been at all hypocritical?

    Tell the truth now.

  71. #71 ianam
    June 28, 2012

    That the predictions are just that…predictions.

    What do you folks have against the human forebrain? When a doctor tells someone that they will die if they don’t get treatment, do you council the person to ignore that because it’s “just” a prediction? How about when your mother told you to look both ways before crossing a street because a driver might not see you and they might hit you with their car, did you ignore her advice because it’s “just” a prediction?

    Over and over, Betula, you use arguments that are frankly stupid and fallacious, that make you look stupid and make it obvious that you are intellectually dishonest, as with “Say it isn’t so….a computer model may be wrong?” — Even you cannot be so stupid as to not be aware that we all know that computer models may be wrong, and that scientists are constantly working to improve them and remove errors. That is not a reason to disregard them — in fact it’s a reason to pay a lot of attention to what they say, precisely because they get tested and corrected. There’s an intelligent and honest way to react to an article like that, but that’s never what you do …

  72. #72 ianam
    June 28, 2012

    In fact this means Tyndall did show that N2 and O2 are GHG’s and do trap LW radiation, because they “do not absorb infrared radiation”, and therefore cannot reradiate it.

    For the umpteenth time, radiation does not need to be absorbed and reradiated … it just radiates. It’s like you’re saying that no one can hit a baseball into the bleachers without someone catching it and throwing it there; if they don’t the ball is “trapped”.

    I previously linked to a full inventory of the infrared spectrum. There is no N2 at all, and only minuscule amounts of O2, much as Tyndall surmised. By far the largest inhabitants are the H2O and CO2, all busily radiating through their respective favoured wavelengths, along with smaller amounts of CH4 and N2O.

    For the umpteenth time: yes, we know: N2 and O2 are transparent to IR.

  73. #73 John
    June 29, 2012

    Betula has fallen for Duff’s Folly, a last offensive whereby the troll discards all pretence they care about science and spams irrelevent ideological gobbledegook and long discarded memes in the face of overwhemling evidence that their position is fatally wrong.

    It’s especially hurtful to be called arrogant. I’m not the one denying the face of the laws of phyics based on my political persuasion.

  74. #74 John
    June 29, 2012

    *denying the laws of physics…

  75. #75 DarylD
    William Lamb's Town Down Under
    June 29, 2012

    Ah, Tim Curtin, you have earned yet another econometric F minus.

    Watt a complete load of of old twaddle, red herrings, bunkum, gish gallop of furphies, that defies the law of logic, the properties of matter, basic chemistry, physics and mathematics.

  76. #76 Betula
    June 29, 2012

    Richard…

    Are you new here? I’m not going to repost every conversation and every link I’ve ever had on Deltoid to appease your curiosity, however, I will address a few of your questions…

    1.That the predictions are just that…predictions.

    “Based on a considerable body of evidence. But what point are you trying to make?”

    That when I say they are predictions, that makes me a denier.

    2. That the alarmists hype the worst case scenarios.

    “I have not seen any climatologists promoting anything like the worst-case scenarios. Citation, please”.

    3 1/2 years to go….
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14834318/ns/us_news-environment/t/warming-expert-only-decade-left-act-time/

    3.That ideology and bias is inherent.

    “Citation, please.”

    Saleemul Huq….Lead author of the chapter on Adaptation and Sustainable Development in the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    http://www.scidev.net/en/climate-change-and-energy/climate-change-impacts/editorials/bangladesh-floods-rich-nations-must-share-the-bl.html

    4. That the debate isn’t over.

    “The debate amongst climatologists over whether or not climate change is to be expected was essentially over 30 years ago. Which debate are you talking about?”

    Where. How much. When. If. Maybe. Possibly.

    5. That we won’t all be cannibals in the near future.

    “Please give a citation to any climatologist who has said otherwise”

    Sorry, my mistake. I actually think we will be cannibals…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSlB1nW4S54

    6. You ask this question a lot regarding arrogance, hypocrites etc…”Why does this affect your opinion of the science?”

    It affects my opinion of the the people trying to convince me they can predict the future.

    7. That not everything that happens is due to Global Warming.

    “Please give a citation to any scientist who has said otherwise”

    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

    8. That Polar Bears have not currently been affected by climate change.

    “You are a lot more complacent about this than the Polar Bear Specialist Group of the IUCN. Why do you feel you have better information than they do?”

    Your article doesn’t mention anything about the current affect of climate on Polar Bears….only future possibilities. That’s my point and your problem, you think it does…

    9. “So on the evidence given here, no, you are not a denier.”

    Did you read that ianam, Bernard, John, Bill, Lumy, et al… according to Richard, this whole time you’ve been embellishing and lying…

  77. #77 Wow
    June 29, 2012

    “1.That the predictions are just that…predictions. ”

    And predictions are made to guide future actions (which will change the situation being predicted. Duh).

    “2. That the alarmists hype the worst case scenarios.”

    Yup. All that “IT WILL BE ONE WORLD ORDER!!!” or “We’ll be living in caves!!!” alarmism is ALWAYS aping over the worst (im)possible case scenarios.

    Why do you do it?

    ““I have not seen any climatologists promoting anything like the worst-case scenarios. Citation, please”.

    3 1/2 years to go….
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14834318/ns/us_news-environment/t/warming-expert-only-decade-left-act-time/

    This isn’t talking about worst case scenarios you bumbling buffoon.

    “Which debate are you talking about?”

    Where. How much. When. If. Maybe. Possibly.”

    Where what? How much what? What when? What If? What maybe? What possibly?

    Are you intellectally incapable of comprehension, or are you just scared of thinking in case it turns you liberal?

    “It affects my opinion of the the people trying to convince me they can predict the future.”

    So Hansen’s 1988 model that predicted a 0.8-0.9C warming by 2003 over the pre-industrial average and the record since then that shows 0.7-0.9C warming from that period didn’t convince you otherwise?

    Figures. You don’t accept the truth because you can’t handle the truth.

    “8. That Polar Bears have not currently been affected by climate change.”

    Polar bears have been.

    You’re a denier because you deny any evidence. Richard looked at one post where you asked questions and you didn’t deny anything in the questions, you only deny any answers to them.

    You’re a denier, Betty.

  78. #78 Daniel J. Andrews
    June 29, 2012

    A bit off-topic, but I know Tim has covered this before. Trewavas and signatories have a correspondence in Nature that take some truths about DDT but give it a twist to say something different.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7404/full/486473a.html

    E.g. bald eagles were already declining. There’s a difference between declines caused by active persecution of adults by ranchers and through accidental poisonings when they fed on strychnine killed ‘varmints’, and declines caused by massive nest failure due to egg-shell thinning. As well, other raptors and birds like cormorants suffered declines as their eggs thinned too.

    He says a ban on DDT resulted in 10s to 100s of millions of deaths from malaria. DDT wasn’t banned on a global scale and was still used to combat malaria. It was banned in the US and also overseas it was banned for use in agriculture as indiscriminate spraying could result in DDT resistant mosquitoes. Where DDT was not used for malaria it was because the agencies studied the issue and were using other measures that they believed were as good or better (or cheaper).

    I would like to comment but we received a directive telling us to avoid commenting or speaking to the press about certain issues (i.e. anything to do with our jobs–thank you, Stephen Harper you control….oh wait, we’re not allowed to criticize the federal government either). Under my pseudonym, I can’t comment either but would like it if someone (Tim?) could give a short reply???

    If not, I may have to wait till I work in the private sector again and am free from our Soviet-era minders and muzzlers.

  79. #79 jrkrideau
    June 29, 2012

    @Daniel J. Andrews

    I thought it was just Parks Canada that got the “don’t criticize the gov’t letter”.

    Does the PMO still allow federal employees to have business cards or are the job titles confidential now too?

    I don’ have the background to reply to the letter you link to but I urge someone with the knowledge to reply. It certainly seems to distort what I have read of the issues aroud DDT.

  80. #80 Lionel A
    June 29, 2012

    Whilst Betty, Duff and Mackarenspot fool around we have another data point for indications of a warming world with other parts of the country being similarly inundated earlier in the week and this on top of flooding elsewhere in the UK earlier in June and in May and April.

    OK land use change and development has not helped but such frequent, widespread and repeated heavy rains in one year are developments of the last twenty years.

    About thirteen years ago (1998) we had sudden deluges in the UK Midlands too. A part of my family was caught in a train on the West Coast mainline. Touch and go for awhile with not so many means of communication back then. I had an old computer that displayed Teletext which was useful for getting info’ updates.

  81. #81 Ian Forrester
    June 29, 2012

    Daniel J. Andrews, I wouldn’t believe a word of what Trewavas says. He is a shill for the large seed and chemical companies such as Monsanto et al. He has been found guilty in at least one case of libeling people he disagreed with. He is listed as an adviser to Sense about Science which is nothing but a PR group for large companies. SAS is in exactly the same position as is Friends of Science in relation to climate change.

    Here is a comment on SAS:

    There are other ways in which what you see is not what you get with SAS. Bizarrely, none of the leading lights of this lobby group for “promoting good science” has a science background. SAS’s founder, Dick Taverne’s professional life was in the law, politics and business. Its directors, Tracey Brown and Ellen Raphael, both studied sociology under Frank Furedi, the controversial “father” of the now defunct Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), who during the early 1990s backflipped to the farthest fringes of the libertarian right. And both are intimates of Furedi’s so-called “LM network”, which lobbies in favour of GM foods, human cloning, global warming, and against restraints on corporations. Prior to working for SAS, both its directors worked for the PR firm Regester Larkin, which numbered several biotech corporations amongst its clients.[29] Needless to say, none of this information could be deduced from the staff biographies provided by SAS.[30]

    http://tinyurl.com/6w4nsdk

  82. #82 P. Lewis
    June 29, 2012

    Which libel case?

    If it was for a letter published in the Herald about the libelling of Greenpeace, it was later agreed that he didn’t write the letter and that he just forwarded it to interested parties.
    Links:
    http://ngin.tripod.com/trewavas.htm

    http://ngin.tripod.com/deceit5.html

    http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=922

  83. #83 ianam
    June 29, 2012

    Did you read that ianam

    What I read is you again using arguments that are frankly stupid and fallacious, that make you look stupid and make it obvious that you are intellectually dishonest.

  84. #84 Betula
    June 29, 2012

    Wow…

    “This isn’t talking about worst case scenarios you bumbling buffoon”

    You’re correct, this must be the best case scenario…

    “On that warmer planet, ice sheets would melt quickly, causing a rise in sea levels that would put most of Manhattan under water. The world would see more prolonged droughts and heat waves, powerful hurricanes in new areas and the likely extinction of 50 percent of species”.

    “Why do you do it?”

    Why do I do what?

    “Figures. You don’t accept the truth because you can’t handle the truth”

    Um, okay Jack. You were good in “One Flew Over The Cookoos Nest. That didn’t end well for you.

    “Polar bears have been”

    Citation please.

  85. #85 Betula
    June 29, 2012

    ianam…

    “What I read is you again using arguments that are frankly stupid and fallacious, that make you look stupid and make it obvious that you are intellectually dishonest”

    Then you missed it. Here it is again from Richard:

    “So on the evidence given here, no, you are not a denier.”

  86. #86 Betula
    June 29, 2012

    Lionel A

    “Whilst Betty, Duff and Mackarenspot fool around we have another data point for indications of a warming world with other parts of the country being similarly inundated earlier in the week and this on top of flooding elsewhere in the UK earlier in June and in May and April.”

    Hmmm..

    “The world would see more prolonged droughts and heat waves”

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14834318/ns/us_news-environment/t/warming-expert-only-decade-left-act-time/

    Just foolin around.

  87. #87 chek
    June 30, 2012

    “The world would see more prolonged droughts and heat waves” Just foolin around.”

    Ah right, so the collective IQ of Team Bettydecided that the only valid meaning of that q

  88. #88 chek
    June 30, 2012

    “The world would see more prolonged droughts and heat waves” Just foolin around.”

    Ah right, so the collective IQ of Team Betty decided that the only valid meaning of that quote is that everywhere on Earth would only “see more prolonged droughts and heat waves”.

    And if you’re a knuckle-draggin’ denier moron, you might well agree that’s exactly what Hansen said. Or so Team Betty would have us believe.

  89. #89 Wow
    June 30, 2012

    No Betty it isn’t talking about the best case scenario.

    Did you bother to read it?

    You’ve been given the citation a half dozen times at least Betty. I’m not giving it again.

  90. #90 Lotharsson
    June 30, 2012

    To legitimately complain about “hyping a worst case scenario”, one has to demonstrate that what is being discussed is in fact a “worst case scenario”, and furthermore that it is in fact being “hyped” or overblown. To demonstrate the latter, one has to show that the risk (e.g. likelihood and/or impact) from the scenario is being seriously overinflated – which means actually assessing the likelihood and/or impacts and potential responses using (say) best practice risk mitigation analysis tools.

    I don’t recall Betula even coming close, although maybe I missed it in the middle of all the woolly rhetoric. There appears to be a Betula presumption that pointing out a very bad scenario is inherently “worst case” and also inherently “hype”. I don’t see any analysis to support either premise – which is not surprising, because analysis is very unlikely to align with Betula’s position.

    Risk mitigation says that when the impacts are intolerable or unbounded – as I believe they are in the genuine “worst case scenarios” from analysis (a recent case suggesting that the earth’s carrying capacity for humans could decline to around one billion total, and globally integrated civilisation would not be maintained) – then the only prudent response is to avoid that scenario at practically any cost. It is difficult to see how “avoid at practically any cost” can even be over-hyped – which, along with other statements, leads one to conclude that Betula is probably (non-consciously) rejecting the scientific conclusions that underpin the (actual) worst-case scenarios.

  91. #91 DarylD
    William Lamb's Town Down Under
    June 30, 2012

    Ah Betty Troll@June 29, 3:48 pm.

    An interesting head in the sands of denial, mostly fact free trolling, you have going there. Must be worth an F minus in propaganda, one could say.

    “The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.” Winston Churchill

  92. #92 ianam
    June 30, 2012

    Then you missed it.

    No, I saw an instance of what I referred to, and this is yet another one.

  93. #93 ianam
    June 30, 2012

    “This isn’t talking about worst case scenarios you bumbling buffoon”

    You’re correct, this must be the best case scenario…

    Again, this is another example. Are you just too stupid to grasp that there are other alternatives than worst and best? Well, it doesn’t matter, the effect is that you look stupid, and intellectually dishonest.

  94. #94 bill
    June 30, 2012

    So, Betty, shall we talk about -

    The current melt-rate in the Arctic?
    The current melt-rate in Greenland?
    The US Court ruling on the EPA and CO2, and their scathing assessment of Denier ‘science’?
    Wild fires in the US? (there’s the scope for ‘adaptation’ for you!) Or Siberia?
    Watt’s desperation? Did you see that repulsive ‘ “ickle birdies”/”indigenous persons” ‘ thing he put up from….
    Monckton – that friend of all the great chaps of the British Freedom Party?

    The fact that your allies here are hapless, braying, anti-intellectual thugs any person with any pretence to wisdom should be cripplingly ashamed to be associated with?

    No? We’ll just run with some multiply debunked BS, or material completely devoid of meaning – e.g. ‘The Predictions are just that…’? Jeee-sus! ‘You can’t predict the future’? What are you, 12? ‘Cannibalism’? Say what?

    Are you planning to protect us from the rising seas by lining the coasts with your veritable army of strawmen, by any chance?

    No? You’re just going to continue to to be an uninformed, selfish, abrasive wrecker, then? Gutlessly hiding behind ‘I never said it wasn’t warming’?

    And do you imagine that’s going to cut much ice – or lack of it – with anyone in the future, BTW?

  95. #95 Lionel A
    June 30, 2012

    Bet:

    Just foolin around.

    The only thing you can do well.

    Of course there will be an increase in drought in areas already stressed that way just as more water will fall in other areas as the ITCZ changes in ways not previously known. Now you investigate why it would be doing this. There are other major components of the earth’s circulatory systems which are subject to a similar disruption and that is just it.

    Why do you think this is happening bozo with this being just one part of that bigger picture .

  96. #96 Lotharsson
    June 30, 2012

    For anyone vaguely interested in TC’s greatest hits, check out his 1:01pm comment over here on page 8.

    Do not attempt to eat or drink at the same time if you value your computer equipment. Also, consider covering the desk with soft furnishings.

    (Responses to TC’s model should probably go on that thread rather than this one.)

  97. #97 Bernard J.
    June 30, 2012
  98. #98 Betula
    June 30, 2012

    Wow…

    “You’ve been given the citation a half dozen times at least Betty. I’m not giving it again.”

    Ah, more embellishing and lies…with a side of delusion.

    Dicky, I posted it….June 29, 3:48 pm….you copied it to me June 29, 4:00 pm. That’s hardly you giving it to me, and it’s hardly a half dozen times.

    But I suppose it’s not a lie if you believe it, so I should say it’s more embellishment and delusion, with a side of lies.

    Is this how you interpret Global Climate Models?

  99. #99 Betula
    June 30, 2012

    Lionel A…

    “Why do you think this is happening bozo with this being just one part of that bigger picture”

    Are you asking me why wildfires have been occurring forever or are you asking me about wildland-urban interface?

  100. #100 Betula
    June 30, 2012

    Somehow I missed this gem from ianam….

    “When a doctor tells someone that they will die if they don’t get treatment, do you council the person to ignore that because it’s “just” a prediction”

    You’re comparing apple orchards to an orange peel. Real life is much more complicated than that, but I can twist things and play the same game as you…

    A doctor predicts you might feel sick if you eat too much candy, that means you are sick and he should start pumping your stomach now.

    A doctor predicts you could get skin cancer from too much sun, that means you have skin cancer and you should you start chemotherapy immediately…

    Polar Bears may be affected by melting ice, that means they are being affected now and should be put on the endangered species list.

    You’ll notice ianumb, in your example you used the word “will”, which is stating a fact. My examples used words like “might”, “could” and “may”, which are stating predictions. The difference is apparently a problem for you….for reasons that are obvious.

    Let’s do one another game of apple orchards and orange peel…

    A new president might strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation while in office, so that means he did strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation and is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize…