December 2012 Open Thread

Despite carbon tax, Australia is still not in the Stone Age.

Comments

  1. #1 GSW
    December 2, 2012

    “Despite carbon tax, Australia is still not in the Stone Age.”

    The tagline could be a bit more up beat I think, there’s an air of disappointment about it.
    ;)

  2. #2 chek
    December 2, 2012

    Oh, things are indeed looking up Griselda.

    US Carbon Tax

  3. #3 spottedquoll
    Hollow log, deep in the forest.
    December 2, 2012

    From the NSW Government Gazette, haven’t heard Mista Rabbit or Alan Jones talking about this new tax.

    ENERGY AND UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION ACT 1987
    Energy and Utilities Administration (Energy Contributions) Order 2012 I, the Hon. ROBYN PARKER, M.P., Minister for the Environment, with the concurrence of the Hon. CHRIS HARTCHER, M.P., Minister for Resources and Energy, and the Hon. MIKE BAIRD, M.P., Treasurer, make the following Order under section 34J of the Energy and Utilities Administration Act 1987.

    This Order takes effect on the date that it is published in the New South Wales Government Gazette. Dated at Sydney, this 18th day of September 2012. ROBYN PARKER, M.P., Minister for the Environment

    Explanatory Note Section 34J of the Energy and Utilities Administration Act 1987, provides that the Minister may, by Order published in the New South Wales Government Gazette, require any one or more distribution network service providers to make an annual contribution for a specified financial year to the Climate Change Fund. The purpose of this Order is to require defined distribution network service providers to make an annual contribution to the Climate Change Fund for the financial year commencing 1 July 2012.

    1. Name of Order This Order is the Energy and Utilities Administration (Energy Contributions) Order 2012.

    2. Commencement This Order commences on the date that it is published in the New South Wales Government Gazette.

    3. Interpretation The Explanatory Note to this Order does not form part of the Order. 4. Definitions distribution network service provider means a distribution network service provider listed in column 1 of Schedule 1.

    5. Annual Contribution (1) A distribution network service provider is required to make an annual contribution to the Climate Change Fund for the financial year commencing 1 July 2012. (2) The amount of the annual contribution to be paid by a distribution network service provider is as set out in column 2 of Schedule 1.

    6. Time for payment The annual contribution is to be paid by instalments on or before the first day of November 2012 (being equal to one-half of the annual contribution payable), February 2013 (being equal to one-fourth of the annual contribution payable) and May 2013 (being equal to one-fourth of the annual contribution payable).

    SCHEDULE 1
    Column 1 Column 2
    Distribution Network Annual Contribution
    Service Provider
    Ausgrid $118,000,000
    Endeavour Energy $74,250,000
    Essential Energy $57,750,000

  4. #4 Bernard J.
    December 3, 2012

    Concerningly, the latest in a string of recent reportings implies that most talk in scientific circles is now about the impending 4-6° Celsius rise… 2-3° Celsius seems to be a shattered dream:

    New figures give grim prognosis on climate change

    Alarming new figures released overnight have some scientists worried that the door is rapidly closing on the world’s ability to do anything about climate change. The data, published in Nature Climate Change, says greenhouse gas emissions are continuing to grow, and at present, global temperatures are on a course to rise by up to six degrees by the end of the century.

    Listen to Andy Pittman’s commentary – his subtext is one of quiet desperation and unconcealed pessimism.

    And it looks grim for Australian agriculture and ecology, although in this report I suspect there is still some valiant vestige of the traditional scientific conservatism:

    Big changes to agriculture in warming climate

    Scientists say a four to six degree rise in average temperatures would require a complete change in the world’s farming practices. However, a warming climate could be beneficial for some countries, especially those in the northern hemisphere, like Russia and Canada.

  5. #5 bill
    December 3, 2012

    Remind me again: are we in the northern hemisphere? No? So, let’s see, Australian agriculture, already struggling, goes down the gurgler some time before 2100. And yet we are plagued by a disproportionate number of shouty dipstick fantasists who insist that we do nothing about it, and who simultaneously proclaim themselves ‘conservatives’. Go figure!

    Those whose names we have can always be gainfully put to work in the future constructing sea-walls and dykes, and enclosing irrigation ditches.

  6. #6 Bernard J.
    December 3, 2012

    More reporting on the ever-increasing inevitability of a 4-6° Celsius increase in mean global temperature in the ABC PM’s “Forecast puts spotlight on climate talks“.

    One thing that the rabid, racist conservative portion of Australian society should consider though is that no amount of government policy in the future is going to prevent the ever-increasing flood of refugees to the country, probably not even a heavily armed coastguard/navy:

    JON BARNETT: If you had a choice though, if you could be born into the world and choose to live somewhere in 40 to 50 year’s time under climate change, you’d probably choose to live in Australia, somewhere away from the immediate coastline any day of the week, ahead of living in an island in the Pacific.

    Personally, I think that Barnett is being scientifically conservative in his assessment, because he makes no mention of the convergence with other profoundly serious issues such as post-Peak Oil energy crunches; serious loss of marine and terrestrial ecosystem services; future geopolitical conflict over ever-dwindling space, food and water resources; and general economic decay. With all of the above, will Australia really still be a wonderful place to live? And if is still delightful relative to other countries, can anyone actually detail just how a sufficiently functional Australian society will survive for another half a century without losing its capacity to determine who enters the country, and in what numbers?

  7. #7 Wow
    December 3, 2012

    “there’s an air of disappointment about it.”

    Irony, git.

    Alarmists like yourself insisted the Australian economy would collapse if the carbon tax were instituted.

    It was instituted despite their Rita Hayworth impression and there has been no collapse.

    I guess you’re trying to find some hope in it all since your alarmist predictions have come to naught.

  8. #8 Bernard J.
    December 3, 2012

    Can’t discern irony from disappointment; can’t discern science from pseudoscience.

    Nothing new under the sun…

    …except for the ever-increasing average temperature of the planet.

  9. #9 lord_sidcup
    December 3, 2012

    I picked up a copy of the free taboid newspaper ‘Metro’ on the tube this morning and was heartened to see this taking up the centre pages:

    http://www.metro.co.uk/news/newsfocus/919490-climate-change-leaves-us-sweating-through-333rd-warm-month-in-a-row

    Even tabloids are turning their backs on the ‘sceptics’.

  10. #10 chek
    December 3, 2012

    It seems we in the UK are amongst the last to get a release of the Chasing Ice movie (14th December 2012) referred to in lord_s’s linkedarticle (and recently given an added push by the viral video of the ex-Faux viewer angry at being lied to by Brilleaux Reilly :).

  11. #11 Wow
    December 3, 2012

    To follow on from the “lesser evil” arguments we had November, can you find anything egregiously wrong here

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/03/progressive-media-obama-criticisms

  12. #12 Bernard J.
    December 3, 2012

    There seems to be a bit of chatter with the recalcitrant troll. I admire those who have the stomach for entering that dungeon.

    Has he detailed yet which papers he read (and did not read) in order to come up with the claim that the IPCC simply made up its estimations of attribution?

  13. #13 bill
    December 3, 2012

    Democracy Now! is at D’oh!a this week. Don’t anticipate much in the way of good news…

  14. #14 bill
    December 3, 2012

    Oh, and here’s Brysse, Oreskes, O’Reilly and Oppenheimer on ‘Erring on the Side of Least Drama’ – ESLD.

  15. #15 Bernard J.
    December 3, 2012

    It seems that the seriousness of it all is starting to filter through to some media at least:

    Prepare economy for climate change ‘war': expert

    A world specialist in the effects of climate change and fishing says Australia’s fish stocks are already moving further south because of global warming. Dr Daniel Pauly is from the University of British Colombia in Canada and will be an editor on the United Nation’s next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He says governments should be putting their economies on a ‘war footing’.

    The phenological and biogeographic aspects are elephants in the room lumbering inexorably to sit on the fiddling Neros at the negotiating table, and the blathering distractors behind them attempting to maintain the politico-economic status quo.

    As an aside, the issue of moving fish ranges recalls a paper I read a few months ago:

    Thermal tolerance and the global redistribution of animals. Jennifer M. Sunday, Amanda E. Bates & Nicholas K. Dulvy. Nature Climate Change , (2012)

    I wonder whether the Scandinavian Troll Collective has explained yet why the biosphere has ignored their denialism and is instead agreeing lockstep with the consensus climatology…

  16. #16 Bernard J.
    December 4, 2012

    A thought for Australians reading this, because I don’t know of any more appropriate sites…

    Today the Reserve bank of Australia lowered the interest rate by “25 bases points”(0.25%). Joe Hockey, the Oppositions treasury ‘spokesman, is wailing and gnashing his teeth about how this signifies the collapse of the Australian economy.

    But hang on a moment… didn’t his mob go to the 2007 election promising that interest rates would ALWAYS be lower under a Coalition government? Always, always.

    Does this mean that the economy would collapse (if such is actually happening) even more under a Coalition government?

    Or could it be, just possibly, that the conservatives are slightly hyping the whole issue…?

  17. #17 Bernard J.
    December 4, 2012

    Damn those automatic ‘smart’ quotes – an apostrophe wandered away from where it was supposed to be.

    Smart, indeed.

  18. #18 Lotharsson
    December 4, 2012

    …didn’t his mob go to the 2007 election promising that interest rates would ALWAYS be lower under a Coalition government?

    Hockey hopes that viewers’ memories are short and their understanding of economics is worse than his.

    That sounds a lot like the Abbott and Co. communications strategy on the environment.

  19. #19 bill
    December 4, 2012

    Bernard, I’m sure the Australian public will be traumatised by the prospect of any such relief on the massive mortgages they’ve had to take out to purchase their hyper-inflated suburban McMansions – oh, hang on, that was Hockey and Co.s beloved ‘property boom’, wasn’t it?

    If this isn’t the dumbest opposition ever, it’s certainly
    close…

  20. #20 Jeff Harvey
    December 4, 2012

    “I wonder whether the Scandinavian Troll Collective has explained yet why the biosphere has ignored their denialism and is instead agreeing lockstep with the consensus climatology”

    No, and they never will because their idol believes he alone knows more about science than the vast majority of the scientific community. The guy is a textbook case of the Dunning-Kruger effect – I am sure that psychologists would be able to write a volumetric tome on his self-righteousness and illusions.

    As for having the stomach to tolerate hos nonsense, after his latest bout of nauseau-inducing hyperbole, suggesting that environmental NGOs have deeper wallets than those in the climate-change lobby,I believe its time to throw away the keys to his cell.

  21. #21 Jeff Harvey
    December 4, 2012

    OOPs – I meant climate change DENIAL lobby! Shows how much the trolls in the insanity thread are affecting me…

  22. #22 Bernard J.
    December 4, 2012

    Jeff, if you find yourself in that alley again kicking at the denialist rats and ‘roaches, ask Jonas if he has been able to recall yet exactly which papers in the primary climatological literature he’s read and determined do not describe the statistics of attribution. After all, he claims that there is no work that has done this, that the IPCC simply made up the figures for AR4, so he must have read a lot of papers to make this claim. I have rather a long and growing list of attribution references of my own with which to test him, but first I want to see exactly what it is that he’s decided is bunkum.

    I’ll guarantee that he won’t be able to come up with anything like a representative list, if he can actually produce a list at all.

    Also, because the big scaredy-cat won’t accept any of my ‘wagers’, invite him to enter instead into a warranty with me that the Arctic sea ice won’t melt. Not a wager or a bet, but a warantee – a contract of assurance that his claims are correct, as opposed to mine, and that they won’t fail or otherwise evidence unreliability. This should be palatable to him if he trusts the material on which he makes his claims.

    The conditions can coincidentally be identical to the original terms I set him, or he might like to avail himself of the terms I offered Kai over at A Few Things Ill Considered (also here). Essentially he will warrant on the basis of his claims that PIOMAS sea ice volume will not drop below 2 thousand cubic km by 2017, whilst conversely I warrant on the basis of the best science that it will.

    He has until Christmas to agree to a legally-binding contract, although it won’t be particularly necessary because a part of the warranty will require that both he and I lodge the warranted sum with a third party a priori. The terms are in gold, which is unlikely to lose value in the future no matter the varagies of the global economy. If 15 half-ounces of gold aren’t sufficiently tempting, I’ll happily take whole ounces. I elect Tim Lambert to hold the gold in trust if he agrees to do so, and if not I have several another third party alternatives in mind.

    Tell him the clock’s ticking.

  23. #23 Bernard J.
    December 4, 2012

    …also here

  24. #24 lord_sidcup
    December 5, 2012

    Monckton has arrived in Doha in fancy dress:

    http://twitter.yfrog.com/oe3o9jgj

    Am I right, are his ‘Arabic Robes’ see-through? Dark pants not a good idea.

  25. #25 Lionel A
    December 5, 2012

    There is a cracker of a post put up at SkS over the last 24 hours and this reply from John Brookes is priceless (it’s a Poe BTW for those short of grey matter – we know who they are even if those concerned are oblivious to this too):

    .I’m sorry, but just because you’ve got a lot of people agreeing, that doesn’t make them right. I remain absolutely convinced that there is no greenhouse effect because it contravenes the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

    Now I don’t really know what the 2nd law of thermodynamics is, but I’ve hung my hat on it, and there it will stay. You can’t convince me I’m wrong, because I have no idea why I’m right. So don’t even try, or I’ll create this great big fog of words, so that no one can see what my position is at all. And more than that, I’ll get indignant and abusive. So there!

    Now where have we seen this before?

    Is that thread even still open?

  26. #26 Wow
    December 5, 2012

    “Is that thread even still open?”

    In the words of Vir: “Ohhh, you betcha”.

  27. #27 Russell
    December 5, 2012

    I wonder what sort of carbon offset Monckton claims for his camel?

  28. #28 MikeH
    Melbourne
    December 6, 2012

    And now for some good news.

    In June, Australia’s richest woman and richest climate science denier, coal baron Gina Reinhardt spent $192 million buying shares in the Channel 10 TV network to ensure that her fave journalist, climate science denier Andrew Bolt could have his own TV show called the Bolt Report.

    Unfortunately (ha, ha, ha) for Reinhardt and Blot, Australians have deserted the station in droves. Clipping your toenails, watching paint dry, you name it – they are all more popular than watching Ch 10.

    According to today’s The Age, the investment has cost Gina around $140 million. Lachlan Murdoch is believed to have lost a bit more than that based on the current share price.

    Reinhardt is now balking at paying her share of a $230 million dollar capital raising to keep the sinking ship afloat.

    She is also losing truckloads on her Fairfax investment – particularly as I cancelled my sub to The Age after another article from Heartland “house scientist”, Bob Carter.

    Ain’t capitalism grand.

  29. #29 MikeH
    Melbourne
    December 6, 2012

    Naomi Oreskes and Michael Oppenheimer are co-authors of a paper which argues that

    Over the past two decades, skeptics of the reality and significance of anthropogenic climate change have frequently accused climate scientists of “alarmism”: of over-interpreting or overreacting to evidence of human impacts on the climate system. However, the available evidence suggests that scientists have in fact been conservative in their projections of the impacts of climate change. In particular, we discuss recent studies showing that at least some of the key attributes of global warming from increased atmospheric greenhouse gases have been under-predicted, particularly in IPCC assessments of the physical science, by Working Group I.

    and

    We suggest, therefore, that scientists are biased not toward alarmism but rather the reverse: toward cautious estimates, where we define caution as erring on the side of less rather than more alarming predictions. We call this tendency “erring on the side of least drama (ESLD).” We explore some cases of ESLD at work, including predictions of Arctic ozone depletion and the possible disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet,…

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378012001215

  30. #30 bill
    December 6, 2012

    lord-s – ah, yes, he’s the Sultan of Shite.

  31. #31 Lionel A
    December 6, 2012

    Mike H

    On the so called alarmism, yes I have been trying to point this out to various of the denier brigade around here for some time and was about to throw this in front of Jonas on that ‘Big Pit’ (Jonas digging a furking great hole) thread but have given up on him – he is beyond help and showing definite signs of insanity.

    Of course most of us were aware of the true situation with the neutering of the AR4 conclusions to satisfy vested interests being the main bone of contention with those scientists who expressed non-agreement with those conclusions.

    Of course this situation was picked on and, as usual distorted, by the likes of Morano and Bolt to claim that many scientists did not agree with the AR4. Half truths and more obfuscation.

  32. #32 bill
    December 6, 2012

    Yep, those of us who aren’t idiots realise the world really is permanently changing much faster than predicted. Unfortunately we’re stuck on the same planet as the idiots, and are forced to share their fate.

  33. #33 Wow
    December 6, 2012

    What’s so amusing are the slug horde’s apoplexy about the IPCC conclusions being driven by politics rather than science, but COMPLETELY in denial about how that the science said “more than 95%” whilst the politics (from denier country reps) demanded it be downgraded to “90-95%”.

  34. #34 Lionel A
    December 6, 2012

    What’s so amusing are the slug horde’s apoplexy about the IPCC conclusions being driven by politics rather than science…

    Which of course is partially correct for reasons pointed out in my last post above.

    If one takes the start of the first para’ in AR4 Chapter 9, Frequently Asked Question 9.1 pp 696 ) we see the following where I have emphasised weasel words or phrases, which are common throughout the AR4 and in particular the Summary for Policy makers (I’ll bet some of our antagonists are not even aware that AR4 and its predecessors comes in multiple parts), which were used to satisfy the delayers of the vested interests in the FFL etc. but which caused many respectable scientists considerable angst. See Stephen Schneider’s ‘Science as a Contact Sport‘ for examples.

    Changes in climate extremes are expected as the climate warms in response to increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases resulting from human activities, such as the use of fossil fuels. However, determining whether a specific, single extreme event is due to a specific cause, such as increasing greenhouse gases, is difficult, if not impossible, for two reasons: 1) extreme events are usually caused by a combination of factors and 2) a wide range of extreme events is a normal occurrence even in an unchanging climate. Nevertheless, analysis of the warming observed over the past century suggests that the likelihood of some extreme events, such as heat waves, has increased due to greenhouse warming, and that the likelihood of others, such as frost or extremely cold nights, has decreased. For example, a recent study estimates that human infl uences have more than doubled the risk of a very hot European summer like that of 2003.

    Jonas if you are reading this take note.

  35. #35 Bernard J.
    December 6, 2012

    Mike and Lionel.

    I attended an informal presentation this evening arranged by one of the local marine scientists, and delivered to a select goup by one of Australia’s highest-profile climate change researchers. I won’t name him explicitly because of what I am about to say.

    The focus of the talk was on modelling (and btw Jonas really is speaking from his arse), with a view to future changes. The presenter was very balanced in his discussion of ‘positives’ and ‘negatives’, and very restrained on judging the outcomes for humans given the obvious import of the graphs and tables he showed. Toward the end of his talk he said off the record that even with immediate and extreme global response commencing now mean global temperatures will rise to over 2 degrees Celcius, and probably over 2.5 degrees Celcius. He estimated that another decade or two of inaction would see at least 3.5 – 4 degrees Celcius rise by the end of the century, and that inaction beyond that would lead to temperatures peaking at 5 – 6 degrees Celcius and perhaps more beyond the end of the 21st century.

    None of these numbers are a surprise to anyone with any familiarity of the science. What was telling for me was the utter certainty of the presenter of the path that climate change is going to take, and is already taking. As I said above, he made very little comment about the sequelæ and consequences of this change, beyond a practical summation of how Australian primary industry will have to adapt. He did observe at one point in passing that beyond 3 degrees Celcius increase in global mean temperature there would not likely any longer exist a globally-connected economy.

    During question time I attempted to press him on how Peak Oil and geopolitical/economic would feed into the direct climate change impacts, especially with respect to the maintenance of current economic/industrial activity and social cohesion. His response was essentially an elipsis, a raising of an eyebrow, and a closing of the evening.

    A reporter cherry-picking sound bites would probably have run the usual story of uncertainty the next day. The take-home message though (and it wasn’t even subtext), is that we are on the absolute brink of being completely screwed. What we don’t bugger up directly by heating the planet we’ll probably finish off in our fight over the benign patches that escape climate change.

    Very interestingly, the presenter said that we have an urgent need for David Attenborough type communciators to disseminate the science far and wide to the lay public, to business, and to government. I couldn’t help but feel that he actually meant it in the past tense, but that may well simply be my own dismal pessimism (pragmatism?) interpreting his intent.

    The last decade of denialist whining about “alarmism” will in the not-too-distant future be shown to be the utterly abhorent and morally-bereft ideological and vested-interest sloganeering that it is. And frankly, it will probably come to be regarded as a culpably-executed crime against humanity and against life. Indeed, given the overwhelming weight of evidence for the consensus science and against the forebodings of economic ruin if action is taken to stem warming, the only alarmists are the deniers themselves. Many folk will not look back with any hint of mercy on the denialists’ complicity in trashing the only biosphere we know of in the universe.

    At least the tar will be easy to apply in the future – although feathers may be in short supply.

  36. #36 Olaus Petri
    December 6, 2012

    I see some portentolgists use the asylum to get back at Jonas. :-)

  37. #37 Wow
    December 6, 2012

    Oh lap dog, why are you humping the oil rig?

  38. #38 Olaus Petri
    December 6, 2012

    Because you are so pathetic Wow.

    Anything else?

  39. #39 Wow
    December 6, 2012

    Wow.

    So because I’m pathetic, YOU are humping oil rigs.

    There, in a nut (case) shell, is the logical disconnect that deniers have inculcated for so long they can no longer find the route out of their own heads.

  40. #40 Olaus Petri
    December 6, 2012

    Wow, doing well over at the “Real Science thread”? ;-)

    “Deniers” says Wow, who links to papers that contradict him. :-)

  41. #41 Lionel A
    December 6, 2012

    Bernard J

    I think you have just used a term ‘the sequelæ‘ that has sent a few of the trolls to their favourite dictionaries.

    Whatever, it is some of these that we are all concerned about I am sure and my worry is about the repressive measures that the PTB will use to corral their perceived resource needs so as to preserve ‘the line’. I think that we are already seeing the early stages of this with fiscal deficit reduction in many countries being the leading edge.

    These cut-backs, in so called public spending’ are, in my view designed to do two things.

    Firstly to reduce essential consumption with food, clothing and shelter from the elements coming first, shortly followed by access to health care and education. The latter two can be used, and are being, to further feather the nests of the PTB and of course to restrict the flow of any dissenting dialogue.

    The second, and once people have little to loose it will necessarily follow, is social unrest. Indeed there are already signs of this for all but the incurably stupid. This can be used as a lever for various forms of coercion from petty fines, in withdrawal of any ‘privileges’ to imprisonment and then execution. Of course natural, climate related, disasters disproportionally affect the poor. Thus it is the poor who will die in drovers, either on the spot, or shot down like dogs whilst trying to evacuate, To where, who knows.

    Of course some of the poor, already slaves one way or another, in fact if not by name, will be preserved to keep things ticking over.

    Those amongst the hierarchy who loose their coastal property and yachts will have hedged against the worst of that.

    The current ‘propaganda’ industry (Beck, Hannity, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Delingpole, Rose, Bolt, Marohasy, Codling etc) may survive for awhile to keep the proll’s in check but once that has been achieved they will be ‘retired’ if not already dead, joining many others who are currently clutching the coat tails of the chosen few. Every cloud has a silver lining they say.

    I do hope I am wrong about all this but how else to explain the policies of our current leadership.

  42. #42 Wow
    December 6, 2012

    “who links to papers that contradict him”

    Ah, another idiot who doesn’t understand.

    Then again, they probably share the same brain cell, if not bedroom.

  43. #43 Lionel A
    December 6, 2012

    I see some portentolgists use the asylum to get back at Jonas

    Why would anyone want to get back at Jonas when he is doing such a fine job of destroying himself?

    Oh! And BTW here is some accurate information WRT sea levels:

    Sea Level Rise: Faster than Projected

  44. #45 Wow
    December 6, 2012

    Gosh. Snow? In winter?

    You really were born yesterday, weren’t you Olap.

  45. #46 Russell
    December 6, 2012

    Meanwhile , back in Doha, a certain viscount has been deported

    http://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2012/12/burmese-daze-in-doha.html

  46. #47 bill
    December 7, 2012

    Yep, he’s been evicted. And lost his UN credentials. So he won’t be able to claim to be an author of AR5 then?

    Has anyone ever witnessed a more striking and pathological need on the part of an individual to be the centre of attention?

    And this is one of Denial’s leading lights… You really can tell a lot about a movement by the people it elevates to prominence.

  47. #48 Bernard J.
    December 7, 2012

    Ah, Olaus, I see that you’ve wandered away from the troll toilet again.

    Could you please draw Jonas N’s attention to my post of 4 December above, wherein I request that Jonas N warrants that the Arctic sea ice will not decline as I describe in the proposed contract. Tell him that I am keen to see how firmly he believes humans are not warming the planet – his preparedness to warrant will be a direct indication of this.

    Also, I note from the “Recent comments” panel that there has been a lot of traffic to the troll toilet. Has Jonas yet explained what papers he read in order to determine that the IPCC made up its confidences in attribution of global warming to humans? If not, please ask him to explain why he refuses to commit his claims to testability. I am keen to have Jonas commit to documenting the depth of his of investigation of science, so that I can establish the basis on which he moved to libel many dozens of professional scientists.

    Perhaps Jonas is actually more widely read than I give him credit for (although I doubt it, as he simply cannot even provide a sampling of his reading that could be tested), so I will narrow the task for the poor boy. Ask Jonas which publications by any combination of Gabriele Hegerl, Markus Huber, Phil Jones, Reto Knutti, Ben Santer, Peter Stott, and/or Francis Zwiers he has read. In particular, which of the publications by the above authors has Jonas determined do not account for the IPCC’s attribution claims, and which do.

    If Jonas has actually done the background reading that he claims, it should be a simple matter for him to list in annotated bibliography form the results of his reading that led to him claiming that the IPCC simply “made up” the confidences of attribution.

    My guess is that he’ll simply prevaricate and blather as usual about how unscientific the scientific community is, without producing a page of science himself. However, if he does produce a testable response I would be pleased to visit if someone posts here to let me know that there’s something on the troll’s toilet wall worth reading. And if Jonas is prepared to accept my terms of warranty, I am there with bells on.

  48. #49 wmmbb
    December 7, 2012

    If only the Stone Age was the choice on offer. The Earth’s climate was conducive then to ecological sustainability. Interesting to reflect that the reality of whether human life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” is a function of human culture. Culture is derived from values and technology which in turn emerge from evolved consciousness. A relevant question might be: Who do we think we are?

  49. #50 bill
    December 7, 2012
  50. #51 Vince Whirlwind
    December 7, 2012

    Monckton. Wottatwat.

  51. #52 GSW
    December 7, 2012

    @Benard,

    How old are you, grow up! You behave as though you were still at primary school – “Jonas isn’t my friend [I'm sure he's gutted ;) ], I’m not speaking to him anymore, could somebody tell him something for me”.

    This pamtomime/ drama of yours may be important to you, but nobody else is particularly interested in indulging your childish behaviours. If you have something worthwhile to contribute just tell him! Rather than mope around this kindergarten thread where Jonas can’t get you. Either you have a case to make or you don’t.

  52. #53 Bernard J.
    December 7, 2012

    Ah, so Olaus
    and GSW
    are socks on the same hand.

    As if the nauseating winkies weren’t sufficient evidence.

    Idiot.

  53. #54 Bernard J.
    December 7, 2012

    Preview would be really nice.

    Trying again…

    So Olaus
    and GSW are socks on the same hand.

    As if the nauseating winkies weren’t sufficient evidence.

    Recalcitrant idiot.

  54. #55 GSW
    December 7, 2012

    @Bernard

    Decided to play it safe on the kindergarten thread then? fair enough. You can idulge yourself imagining all sorts of things here. Beats facing reality I suspose.
    ;)

  55. #56 Jeff Harvey
    December 7, 2012

    GSW,

    You’re full of it, man. Childish behavior? What planet are you on? Planet Gumbo? Heck, your hero makes all kinds of vacuous claims, refuses to answer pretty straightforward questions, and makes things up constantly – all stuff he accuses me of doing. He seems obsessed with me, as every one of his crappy posts mentions my name. I must really get under the turd’s skin.

    Here’s the crux: the vast majority of the scientific community agrees that humans are the main culprit for the recent warming. Check. This includes every Natiuonal Scientific Academy in every country on Earth. Check. So the onus should be on your hero to prove that this huge number of scientisrts is wrong, that the academies are wrong, and that they must be all involved in some vast conspiracy. Its Jonarse who has to prove to everyone here that these esteemed bodies and scientists are all wrong – not for anyone here to justfy where they are right.

    And speaking of making things up – Jonas wants to know where the AR4 90% attribution comes from. Its really simple, but the clown appears to think this is his claim to fame. At the same time, he’s constantly told everyone else in his padded cell how brilliant he is, how much more he knows than everyone else, and (more recently, and I loved this one): that he is better educated than I am.

    So I asked him: PROVE IT. My educationsl background is there for anyone who wants to see it. But as soon as challenged on this and many other points, your wet dream man slides back into smear mode. He makes a claim of having a superior education but then provides no bonafides. I have asked him a million times what he does for a living. How many peer-reviewed papers he has. His other scientific credentials, And he always answers the same: bluff, bluff,, bluff, bluff, bluff, evade, evade, evade, evade, followed by smear, smear, smear, smear.

    This essentially enables anyone with a smidgeon of common sense (clearly excludes you and Olaus) to see that he has no formal scientific qualifications and that his self-professed brilliance is an illusion. I have said time and again that my opinion is based on biotic proxies along with the evidence – tons of it – produced by real experts in the field of climate science for the abiotic factors. For you and Jonas, this ain’t good enough. Jonas feels free to smear and dismiss some of the world’s leading climate scientists from his cell as if, by saying that they arent’ ‘real’ scientists, this elevates him into a position of authority. No wonder he drools over Lomborg. The Danish denier did the same thing in his book.

    Jonarse baits and baits and baits and baits, in a desperate craving to get attention. Then he goes on and on about his brilliance in debating, with you (and occasionally your equally idiotic sidekick Olaus) cheering from the sidelines. Hundreds of studies have been pasted on his insanity thread, and in true denier fashion he ignores all of them (my guess is he’s never read a single one). Instead, he retreats back to the same mantra: its up to others to prove to him where the AR4-90% figure was derived. Nothing else. End of story. I am sure the schmuck has never ever written to a single climate scientist in his miserable life. Instead, he thinks that by pounding his chest on one or two web logs, that elevates him to the status of authority.

    And there are you, trying to suggest that we are all overwhelmed by Jonarse’s brilliance and just can’t engage the clown in his own thread. I for one am sick to death of him and his profound arrogance and ignorance. That’s why I won’t go there any more, despite his constant baiting.He wants attention. He clearly has a superiority complex a mile long, hence how he can summarily dismiss studies he has never read or the reputations of scientists with years of experience. In the scientific world he would be eaten alive.

    The last point I will make on your hero is that he thinks in his deluded fantasies that by petulantly sticking to his shrinking island, that he wins some glorious scientific victory. Its as if what is said on the Jonarese thread on Deltoid is the final word on the subject of AGW. Certainly he seems to believe it. You appear to as well. I got news for you: the Jonas thread is not even the minutest, tiniest blip on the scientific radar. Its less than invisible. Jonas sticks here because its the only way to stoke his bloated ego. Out in the real world of universities and research institutes the guy is a complete and utter unknown. His views would be chewed up and spat out in a millisecond out there. So this is all he has, and for some strange and sick reason he seems to think as if its the United Nations Environment Program or NASA in scale. This self-hypnosis, aided and abetted by a couple of equally challenged supporters, has only made his vitriol grow and grow.

    He can go to you-know-where for all I care. I have had enough of his arrogant ignorance for a lifetime. Time to move on.

  56. #57 GSW
    December 7, 2012

    @Jeff

    “Time to move on.”

    Fair enough Jeff. What’s you next project? Tantric flying? Crystals of Power? Give us an update when you can. Oh, and bring some evidence next time.
    ;)

  57. #58 Jeff Harvey
    December 7, 2012

    GSW,

    Sorry to disappoit you, you sad gnome.

    You see, unlike your hero, I do science, The real stuff. You see, I ahve 125 papers of real science. Plus 2750 citations (416 so far in 2012 FYI). You and Jonarese?

    000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

    Put up or shut up, schmuck.

    By the way, we brought more than a hundred paper’s worth of evidence. Just because you can’t read doens’t mean those studies arent’packed with evidence showing how significant the human fingerprint on climate is.

    You clearly don’t read the primary literature. It seems like Morano, Mountford, Nova and Watts are your window to the world of science.

    Poor you.

  58. #59 bill
    December 7, 2012

    So, why doesn’t one of you clowns put up some real studies or take Bernard’s bet? Because even you know you’re talking complete tosh, that’s why! So you make this infantile projection as a way of trying to avoid the content of hiscomment.

    Why not shock us all? Or if the brandy-soaked Duffer is around, he can do it. Man up and take the bet, blowhards! C’mon – do it! You insult our intelligence by expecting us to believe that you believe the drivel you spout; it should be easy money for you, shouldn’t it? So; take the money!

    But you won’t, will you? You bloody cowards! And it’s the likes of you that are poisoning the world…

    Graceless, gormless and gutless.

  59. #60 Wow
    December 7, 2012

    Thing is, slug horde, Joan’s thread has gotten over 4000 entries.

    Seems like you guys haven’t even mastered the basics of “integers” when you claim Joan isn’t being engaged on its thread.

  60. #61 Jeff Harvey
    December 7, 2012

    Here’s how Jonas would be introduced at an International Conference on Climate Science in Seattle or Los Angeles (his own dream scenario):

    Chairman: “Ladies and gentlemen, it is my great honor to introduce to you our Plenary Speaker, who comes from Sweden. Mr. Jonas N – please excuse me for his anonymity, and for the fact he is wearing a brown paper bag over his head – is one of the world’s pre-eminent experts on – well, pretty well everything – in science. His scientific pedigree is without peer. He has 0 publications in any fields, and is not employed by any research or academic institute [audience 'oohs' and 'awws' in awe]. Today, Mr. N. will tell us why the 90% attribution claim in the AR4 summary chapter of the last IPCC report is not science. Building on this, he will then go onto to argue that James Hansen, Michel Mann, Ben Santer and others aren’t, as you may believe ‘real scientists at all, but advocates of poor science, unlike himself. ‘Finally, he will argue that, in order to appreciate sound climate science, we all need to spend more time in blogs like Climate Audit, Watts Up With That, Climate Depot and Bishop’s Hill,where bonafide research is done, and to stop relying on the peer-reviewed literature. Again, let’s give Mr. N a big hand and a huge welcome! (Thunderous applause).

    (and closing remarks by Mr. N): and in closing, I hope that you can appreciate my take-home message, which is: the 90% figure is NOT science! That means the rest of the last IPCC report is therefore highly questionable! the hockey stick is broken! The Arctic ice loss is quite normal! The crippling heat wave which gripped the USA this year is hardly unusual! It hasn’t warmed since 1998! Climate warming is not going to be a problem, folks. Trust me. I am an expert in everything. And finally, don’t listen to Hansen and Mann! They aren’t real scientists. Thank you for your attention.

    (Audience responds with standing ovation; some delegates are wiping away tears; others are hugging each other. Jonas N waves as he departs the stage. The curtains fall).

  61. #62 GSW
    December 7, 2012

    @Jeff

    Fantasizing stories that play out in your head about a world where empirical evidence is not required and everything turns out how you like it, is not Science – it’s a psychotic disorder, a Napolean delusion. Keeping taking the meds, I’m sure Marshal Ney will be along in a minute to reassure you and strap you in for the night.

  62. #63 Lionel A
    December 7, 2012

    I’m sure Marshal Ney will be along in a minute to reassure you and strap you in for the night.

    Ah! The hothead that lost Bonaparte a battle or two. It seems your history education is lacking too, surprise! I could offer some suggestions to fix that but of course you won’t be able to bother.

  63. #64 Jeff Harvey
    December 7, 2012

    GSW, There’s nothing but sound science underpinning AGW – the fantasy material you allude to comes from your side. If it comes down to every major scientific body on Earth versus you, Jonas, and few right wing pundits, then I know which side I am on. That you can’t tell the difference between sound science and denial non-science says everything about your abilities.

  64. #65 Wow
    December 7, 2012

    “Fantasizing stories that play out in your head about a world where empirical evidence is not required”

    And your evidence of this happening is what?

    Entirely in your head.

    Irony, to these blockheads, is something made of iron.

  65. #66 GSW
    December 7, 2012

    @Lionel

    Marshal Ney did have his travails, but favoured and re-favoured by Napoloean nonetheless. Gratifying that in a comment about Jeff’s “illness”, the only point you take issue with is Ney’s place in history.
    ;)

  66. #67 Wow
    December 7, 2012

    Hey, idiot, why are you bringing up irrelevancies like Napoleon (except you admire his butt, of course, that would explain your fascination for him)?

    When are you going to stop pretending to see things and see your doctor?

  67. #68 Jeff Harvey
    December 7, 2012

    I am sorry GSW, but any mental illness is yours. If you had any guts you and your brainless hero would take your arguments into the scientific arena where they would be chewed up and spat out. Instead you hang out here making vacious little quips whilst refusing to read a single peer-reviewed study.

    What is totally sick is that you and Jonarese try and present the so-called debate as if thousands of peer-reviewed studies and the positions of every major scientific body and organization on Earth doesn’t exist. If anything shows evidence for mental sickness, its this salient fact. Earth to GSW: the scientific world isn’t Deltoid. And it sure isn’t the shite sites you glean for your worldview. Its in the universities and research bodies and the peer-reviewed literature that you refuse to read or acknowledge. Its in the lectures given by Hansen, Santer, Trenberth and the many other scientists who do the actual research and have the qualifications to be able to evaluate it. Not from self-righteous self-taught know-it-alls who are afraid the big world of science and take refuge in their own threads on a web log. Get that through your head, dumwit.

  68. #69 Olaus Petri
    December 7, 2012
  69. #70 Bernard J.
    December 7, 2012

    So “Olaus Petri” posts on this open thread, I respond, and “GSW” replies to me.

    Just as KarenMackSunspot couldn’t maintain multiple socks, so it is with this puppeteer.

    GWOlaus SPitre.

    Jonas N is most certainly no friend of mine – indeed, he is no friend of humanity nor of future biospheric amenity. However, the reason I eschew the troll toilet is simply that I said a long time ago that I wouldn’t – Jonas has long demonstrated that he can’t put forward anything resembling evidence or methodology, and I’m not inclined to waste my time on the likes of him.

    However, if he can explain how he came to his enlightenment that the IPCC and many dozens of associated and otherwise-referenced climatologists made up the attribution confidences I might revisit. If he can clearly respond to my question above about the work of Gabriele Hegerl, Markus Huber, Phil Jones, Reto Knutti, Ben Santer, Peter Stott, and/or Francis Zwiers, I will definitely be interested.

    And if he grows a grain of courage and is prepared to put money on the Arctic sea ice not melting away, I will most certainly revisit the cesspit. However, I doubt that the coward will – which is ironic, because he says that there’s no evidence for human involvement in climate change, but I never saw him explain why the planet just keeps on warming. If not humans, there must be a natural forcing – but what exactly is this magical beast…?

  70. #71 Jeff Harvey
    December 7, 2012

    Well said, Bernard. I’ve wasted much too much of my valuable time with this sordid lot.

  71. #72 GSW
    December 7, 2012

    @Bernard

    “IPCC and many dozens of associated and otherwise-referenced climatologists made up the attribution confidences”

    Which is true. Looking thru the list of rent seekers, Greenpeace and WWF activists, I had would have as much confidence in the determination of the existence of God by a show of hands at the Vatican, or Leonard Nimoy as the “Sexiest man of all time” at a Star-Trek convention (h/t Sheldon Cooper).

    It’s no substitute for empirical evidence. You continue to believe what you believe “sans” evidence, you would be unable to evaluate it anyway.

    The more reasonable readers of this blog have come to thier senses when reading the “Real Science thread”.

    Well done Jonas!
    ;)

  72. #73 chek
    December 7, 2012

    What you describe Griselda is how the campaign of intellectual sybversion as practised by Montfdord, Watts et al has worked its magic on you and your cohorts.

    It doesn’t work on others; you just find it comforting to assume everybody is as fully moronic as you are, and can be just as easily convinced that black is really a form of white as you have been.

  73. #74 Wow
    December 7, 2012

    “you just find it comforting to assume everybody is as fully moronic as you are”

    Actually, they want to insist everyone else is MORE moronic than they are. This allows them not just able to feel “normal” but allows them to feel superior without all that hassle of actually having to do the work.

  74. #75 Jeff Harvey
    December 7, 2012

    “The more reasonable readers of this blog”

    Who? You and Olaus? HA!

  75. #76 Chris O'Neill
    December 7, 2012

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mwjC-MMKwRY

    I notice Mr Monckton persists with his denialist favorite lie about no statistically significant warming in 16 years (failing to mention the “statistically significant” part) based on a cherry-picked and outdated data set (HadCrut3). Global warming denialist strategy comes either in the form of pointing out there has been no warming for some short period or the latest incarnation is to say there is no “statistically significant” warming for a moderately longer period (often without mentioning “statistically significant”).

    I predict that at some time in the future (probably continuing for several years), the denialists will say:

    “There has been no (statistically significant) warming since 1998″ (either mentioning “statistically significant” or failing to do so) and considering how warm 1998 was they will keep doing this for something longer than 16 years after 1998, i.e. in 2014 and beyond.

    Be prepared to put up with the “no warming since 1998″ meme for several years yet.

  76. #77 chek
    December 7, 2012

    The scary thing is Chris, looking at the slope of the graph, how soon what used to be extremes become the average.

  77. #78 bill
    December 8, 2012

    Leaving aside the question of the f**kwits for a moment – and, lest there be any doubt, I refer specifically to you, Olaus, GSW, Jonas, Duffer and any other Denialist chum-monkey that might be reading this; FOaD! the lot of you – we turn to the real question of the AGU : Is The Earth F**ked?

  78. #79 Scribe
    http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2012/12/weekend-links-38/#comments
    December 8, 2012

    Could any of you care to comment at the shitstorm being thrown at David Karoly here please?
    http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2012/12/weekend-links-38/#comments

  79. #80 bill
    December 8, 2012

    um – the usual morons? spouting the usual crap?

  80. #81 MikeH
    December 8, 2012

    I believe this is what has the tinfoil hatters fired up.

    http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/five-degrees-hotter-20121207-2b19g.html

    The message appears to be getting through to the science journos at Fairfax at least.

  81. #82 bill
    December 8, 2012

    can anyone else not get that interactive to work?

  82. #83 MikeH
    December 8, 2012

    Click on the degree numbers to the left of the thermometer.

  83. #84 Lotharsson
    December 8, 2012

    The Rabbett’s report on the AGU fall meeting.

    First, there is a clear and strong consensus supporting the main pillars of the IPCC AR4, and the USGCRP. Climate change is occurring, driven by human influences and dangerous. Action to stop carbon emissions is needed immediately.

    Anyone doubting this need only go through the myriad abstracts. You might find one or two amongst the thousands that disagrees with this, but this is the clear opinion of the climate science community. Where doubts exist, they are doubts about how bad it is going to be and how fast climate change is coming.

    Second, the mood of the attendees had also shifted. It was much sourer about the few in the atmospheric science community still running interference for in activism. People were being called out in private, but also in public and not just in sessions dealing with education and communication and blogging.

  84. #85 Bernard J.
    December 8, 2012

    I can see that there’s a high turnover on the Troll Toilet Thread.

    GWOlaus SPitre.

    I will repeat again, in the hope that the question was answered over there. Which publications by any combination of Gabriele Hegerl, Markus Huber, Phil Jones, Reto Knutti, Ben Santer, Peter Stott, and/or Francis Zwiers has Jonas read?

    Can he document them in a list?

  85. #86 chek
    December 8, 2012

    State of play so far Bernard is that one day he admits to having read nothing, the next he’s read everything and fancies himself a more brilliant scientist than anyone else. So whatever answer is given would need to be tested rather than believed.

    File under another crank with mental health issues and self-aggrandising imaginings a la Monckton and Watts of the type the double digit, rank and file denialati love to attach themselves to.

  86. #87 Wow
    December 8, 2012

    Are you sure they manage double digits?

  87. #88 Lionel A
    December 8, 2012

    Are you sure they manage double digits?

    Yes, but no more than two digits, fingers that is, for they are effectively giving the two fingered salute to all logic and rationality. They appear clinically insane.

    Cue another rant about ‘talking’ behind their backs. Tough, it is their choice to argue based upon stupid.

    These pigs do seem to like wrestling in it and I doubt there are any more casual visitors that would require their exposure as frauds for that has already been done in spades by all in that thread including, ironically, themselves. But they are too dim, or sick, to realise even that.

    Time to leave them to flounder in their mud.

  88. #89 Bernard J.
    December 9, 2012

    Thanks for the précis chek. It’s nice not having to go in and dirty my boots without cause.

    If you venture in again tell Jonas he really should look up those authors. They’re referenced in Chapter 9, some of them are sourced for work in Appendix 9c, and the statistical attributions of human involvement in global warming are well and truly summarised in their original relevant papers. One only has to look to find…

    I know that Jonas either hasn’t read them, or has and is trying to pretend that the work doesn’t exist, but I really, really want him to do the scientific thing and document his trail to his claims. If he does this I’ll then tell him which papers cover the attribution calculations.

    I’d be surprised if he hasn’t actually seen any of them, but I just want him to put on the record that he believes that the work doesn’t exist.

    Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if he hasn’t seen any of these papers. How else could anyone make the ignorant statements that Jonas makes… unless that person is an outright conscious liar?

  89. #90 bill
    December 9, 2012

    Various AGU presentations now up at RealClimate.

    WARNING: Considerable danger of learning something. Best avoid by those for whom facts and evidence constitute an unbearable threat to their ideologically constrained world-view.

  90. #91 GSW
    December 9, 2012

    Just watched quite a good video on Polar Bears from paid “Denier” Susan Crockford, adjunct Professor of Anthropology/Zoology at the University of Victoria.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7UPO2PAa2k

    Some useful background on hybridization, breeding cycles etc. The take home message is “As far as we know Polar Bears are OK, but there’s a lot we don’t know”

    By way of commentary, the language used is more in keeping with what I would call the “Scientific Norm”, clear about you know, and don’t know, and what you can/can’t say.

    Not a scam for Polar Bear insurance as we seen expressed here from time to time. Probably why I feel more comfortable on that side of the debate.
    ‘;)

  91. #92 Jeff Harvey
    December 9, 2012

    And here’s who sponsored Crockford’s Polar Bear talk:

    Two corporate funded denial think tanks: The International Climate Science Coalition (note the acronym which is intentionally deceptive) and Frontiers for Public Policy. Both advocate neoliberal economic programs.

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Climate_Science_Coalition

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontier_Centre_for_Public_Policy

    Really now, GSW. I know you are as thick as two planks, and that your science education is kindergarten level, but really? Note how quickly before the lecture the sponsorship credits flashes by as well. The aim is to give the impression that the lecture is an independent one.

    File under ‘garbage’ .

  92. #93 GSW
    December 9, 2012

    @Jeff

    Thought you would be lurking somewhere. Hey, we’re all grown ups and can watch the video with that in mind. I don’t think there is anything controversial there and it was interesting for all that.

    Nobody’s stopping you hanging around with your “Beware False Prophets” placard. Feel free.

  93. #94 bill
    December 9, 2012

    Let alone the Ludwig von Mises Institute? Give me a bloody break! What sort of ‘disinterested’ scientist would allow themselves to be associated with that lot?

    Particularly ironic given that you lot are always rabbiting on about the politicization of science, while your ‘science’ is promulgated by Libtard thinktanks!

    Try watching some of the AGU material, you fool. Go on, I dare you! Or just take Bernard’s bet…

  94. #95 Lionel A
    December 9, 2012

    Thanks for the précis chek. It’s nice not having to go in and dirty my boots without cause.

    If you venture in again tell Jonas he really should look up those authors. They’re referenced in Chapter 9…

    BJ (I like that as that BJ Hunnicut character of MASH fame was one smart bunny too).

    Wow and I have already gone to the trouble of listing most of the authors and papers referenced in AR4 Physical Science Base Chapter 9. But hey, Jonas is smart enough to know that all that work is bunk! ~

    [explanation of tilde use]

  95. #96 Lionel A
    December 9, 2012

    Bill

    Over at the Rabett’s I noticed this comment:

    Steve Bloom said…

    It’s up, Eli. The trashing of Lindzen, Christy and Spencer was amusing, but not exactly Nobel material. Otherwise, someobscure bits of history aside, I think I already knew everything in that lecture.

    In which session did that happen? I am having great trouble getting a reliable feed from the YouTube AGU section right now.

  96. #97 Lionel A
    December 9, 2012

    Bill

    From the context over at Eli’s I think this must be it, watching now but may have to take a break part way through:

    Tyndall Lecture: GC43I. Successful Predictions

    Could be one to throw at Jonas, but of course he will find some excuse to slalom around the arguments and evidence. Yeh Jonas! I know you will hear about this and throw your toys out of the pram again after all you having looked into climate change for a dog-watch know better than two centuries of accumulating evidence.

  97. #98 MikeH
    December 10, 2012

    @Jeff Harvey
    “Really now, GSW. I know you are as thick as two planks”

    That is a bit unkind to the two planks.

    “The Heartland Institute’s Denialgate documents indicate that the spinstitute gives Crockford $750 per month.”

    http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-payments-university-victoria-professor-susan-crockford-probed

    http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/heartland-institute-leak-susan-crockford-of-university-of-victoria-recruited-to-help-think-tank-undermine-ipcc/

  98. #99 bill
    December 10, 2012

    Well, that blew up in his face; thanks Mike! And to Peter Gleick, of course.

    QED really. So, GSW, got any actual evidence for your ridiculous assertions? NB: ‘My narcissism and overwhelming sense of (similarly undevidenced) smug superiority’ doesn’t qualify.

    No? Didn’t think so.

    PS; When it turns out we’re right, what punishment do you think you deserve?

  99. #100 Jeff Harvey
    December 10, 2012

    Thanks MikeH for the relevant information.

    I also checked Crfockford up on the Web of Science. All I could find from her were 13 publications with 49 citations.

    And GSW calls Zoology ‘soft science’. In terms of Crockford’s status, I will agree with that. Her talk is nonsense – one cannot extrapolate the demographics of polar bear populations simply on recent history – instead, one has to determine the status of the current populations as well as their physioloigical status. Given that they are at the terminal end of the food chain effects of sudden shifts in habitat quality will take time to find their way through the population. In other words there will be a lag, unless these changes result in instantaneous mortality. What we see happening with polar bears is a shift to an older age structure in the population (meaning birth rates are down or else juvenile mortality rates are up) combined with lower per capita fitness rates of the current adult cohort. So even though population rates are fairly stable for now, this tells us nothing about the status of individuals in the population. Certainly rapid changes in the Arctic ecosystem will make it harder for the bears to find their normal prey (seals) meaning they will store less fat with negative metabolic costs that will be reflected in future reproductive output.

    The fact that Crockford argued in her polemic that Polar Bears are successful survivors of climate change, without reconciling the fact that the worst effects on the bear populations are yet to be manifested, tells me all I need to know about her ‘expertise’. Its like saying to someone whose car is heading for a brick wall at high speed but has not yet impacted the wall that the driver is a great example of someone who has survived the impact – which hasn’t happened yet but will.

    I am sure GSW will consult his intellectual guru on the dead-end thread for his pearls of wisdom on the subject.

Current ye@r *