Matt Ridley’s first response to my post about his failed prediction was denial:

I did not write for the Globe and Mail in 1993 let alone about climate!

Then he moved onto stage 3, bargaining:

global av temp (ignoring pinatubo drop) is about 0.2C above 1991 level after 22 yrs – so I was spot on so far!

UAH_LT_1979_thru_Dec_2012_v5.51

As you can see, the graph he cites shows 0.5 degrees of warming since he made his prediction, so it seems that he is applying a 0.3 degree correction for Pinatubo.   Which brings us to Ridley’s next column, published in The Sunday Telegraph on 30 Jan 1994 (one month after his column with the failed prediction):

The satellites, however, tell a very different story about the 1980s (their data do not go further back). Orbiting the planet from north to south as the Earth turns beneath them, they take the temperature of the lower atmosphere using microwave sensors. By the end of 1993 the temperature was trending downwards by 0.04 of a degree per decade.

The satellite’s masters explain away this awkward fact by subtracting two volcanic eruptions (Mount Pinatubo in 1991 and El Chichon in 1982) and four El Ninos (sudden changes in the circulation of the water in the Pacific).  Since they assume that all these would have cooled the atmosphere, they conclude that the 1980s did see a gradual warming of the air by 0.09 degrees: still less than a third of that recorded by the old method.

Even with this sleight of hand (and when I was a scientist I was trained not to correct my data according my preconceptions of the result), the startling truth remains that the best measure yet taken of the atmosphere has found virtually no evidence of global warming.

So according to Matt Ridley in 1994, Matt Ridley in 2013 used a “sleight of hand”, something that he was trained not to do.   If we hold Matt Ridley to the standard he declared at the time of his prediction there has been 0.5 degrees of warming since he predicted that there would be just one degree by 2100.

But if we do want to know what the long term warming trend is, it is not a “sleight of hand” to remove the short term effects of volcanoes and El Nino/La Nina. It is, however, a sleight of hand for Ridley to just correct for Pinatubo and not El Nino/La Nina.  Here is the graph from Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) that shows what temperature records look like if the short term effects are removed:

figure05

Using Ridley’s preferred UAH data set we see that there has been 0.4 degrees of warming since he made his prediction.

Any way you slice it, there has been much more warming that Ridley predicted.  I hope this information will help him reach stage 5, acceptance.

Comments

  1. #1 Wow
    January 18, 2013

    “I guess you could call him a seeker-of-biassed-confirmation troll.”

    Otherwise known as “An Idiot”.

  2. #2 Chris O'Neill
    January 18, 2013

    Latimer Alder :

    It seems that you failed to tune in for the next instalment. Ridley responded to Lambert here three days ago.

    How do you know I didn’t check Ridley? Ridley’s response didn’t alter Tim Lambert’s demolition. You asked for someone to “just” demolish Ridley’s argument and as you imply with “just”, it wasn’t difficult to see if you’re not blind.

  3. #3 BBD
    January 18, 2013

    Wondered where Lattie had gone. He got twitted at Climate etc by willard and disappeared.

    He *really* likes me, too ;-)

    See you soon Lattie!

    xx

  4. #4 chameleon
    January 18, 2013

    I suspect that he had better things to do than hang around arguing semantics with you lot!
    You deltoids are hilarious!
    BTW, this is far from a high traffic blog.
    Even a relatively new blogger like me can easily spot that.
    Lotharsson’s excuse for that is only ONE of several more likely reasons.
    My guess is there are too many blinkered ‘conspiracy theorists’ here.
    People have probably got tired of your silly repetetive lectures that are about ‘one side’ of politics and ‘one hypothesis’ about climate.
    The world and the politics and the research has moved on deltoids.
    Latimer is giving you good advice when he suggests you need to get out more.
    You are not achieving anything by hanging out here and waving your semantics around.
    But you are good for a laugh!

  5. #5 Latimer Alder
    January 18, 2013

    Chameleon

    You put it very well. Life’s too short for hanging around with the very odd and unpleasant crowd of introvert agoraphobics here.

    I’ll leave you all to congratulate each other on your strange, closed view of the world. My brief sojourn among you really has been very very instructive. And incredibly claustrophobic.

    And so – with lungfuls of the outside air and many sighs of relief – back to reality for me.

  6. #6 Stu
    January 18, 2013

    Life’s too short for hanging around with the very odd and unpleasant crowd of introvert agoraphobics here.

    1. IT’S ALL PROJECTION.
    2. Tone trolling? Really?

    0/0 for originality, 0/0 for content. Need better trolls, Judith. Let’s see if this one sticks the flounce.

    (Random aside: Jonas is upping the loopiness level again)

  7. #7 Stu
    January 18, 2013

    By the way,

    You are not achieving anything by hanging out here and waving your semantics around.

    But my semantics is beautiful and everyone needs to see it!

    Seriously though; it possessing a dictionary a crime in denier-land? The inability to express even the most basic of ideas seems common and increasing in intensity. Well, in a way, that would make sense. The increasing amounts of cognitive dissonance required would favor an inverted Darwinian process, would it not?

    BTW, this is far from a high traffic blog.

    Argumentum ad O’Reillyum. How original (cough), pointless and indicative of massive insecurity of you.

  8. #8 Stu
    January 18, 2013

    Whoa. One more thing:

    My guess is there are too many blinkered ‘conspiracy theorists’ here.
    People have probably got tired of your silly repetetive lectures that are about ‘one side’ of politics and ‘one hypothesis’ about climate.

    Note the poor spelling and novel, pathological overuse of scare quotes. Cf the Jonas thread.

    (Tim, if you do an IP check and see this is merely de rigeur in denial-land rather than puppetry, please delete so I don’t look exceedingly paranoid)

  9. #9 bill
    January 18, 2013

    And so – with lungfuls of the outside air and many sighs of relief – back to reality for me.

    Oh dear – the poor little man didn’t do very well, did he? And his narcissistic self-regard is all tarnished? Wrong-footed himself from the get-go and never recovered? Perhaps not quite so dazzlingly bright as he thought?

    Feel free never to return.

  10. #10 chameleon
    January 18, 2013

    No Bill,
    he did just fine.
    You would all do well to follow his lead and take some fresh air.
    I would also suggest you look up the definition of narcissistic self regard and apply it to your comment above..
    But there is a little part of me that hopes you won’t because I confess I would miss my daily dose of amusement ;-)
    I would also suggest that Tim probably wrings his hands every time you tell people to leave and crow a hollow defeat when they tire of you.
    Maybe Bill is the reason why Tim has lost so much traffic Lotharsson?

  11. #11 chameleon
    January 18, 2013

    Stu,
    if you have to resort to analysing spelling and grammar at a blog I fear for your sanity.
    It has absolutely nothing to do with anything important that real people would like to discuss about ‘science and the environment’.
    When I’m ready for a proof reader, I’ll go to a recommended professional.

  12. #12 zoot
    January 18, 2013

    Trust me, you’re ready for a proof reader.

  13. #13 Vince Whirlwind
    January 18, 2013

    Chameleon, you don’t need a “recommended professional”, you need a Primary-level tutor to assist you in bringing your literacy level up to scratch.

    Amusing that you swallow Latimer’s false claim to be heading off “for some fresh air” when he will clearly be returning to the foetid swamp of denialism from whence he sprang 2 days ago.

    When asked the non-rhetorical questions as whether he recommends that we go to dishonest journalists or nutty crank blogs to obtain science information, he made the false claim,

    I make no recommendations in this matter. ‘Null’.

    Despite clearly recommending that people do so by,
    a/ recommending Ridley
    and
    b/ recommending WUWT or Curry or whatever crank blog it was he was singing the praises of.

    It isn’t uncommon for know-nothing IT professionals to develop an ego-driven contrarian urge as Latimer has been displaying. Reading between the lines, I’d guess he may have been involved with Accenture or one of those kinds of IT firms that place greater emphasis on engineering costly (to the client) project failures rather than delivering what the client expects. He just has that aura of slimy dishonesty about him.

  14. #14 chameleon
    January 19, 2013

    Good grief!
    Apart from being incredibly funny, you deltoids are entirely predictable.
    You really would do well if you followed Latimer’s suggestion and get out for some fresh air.
    You are arguing about nothing instead of paying attention to the message.
    Watching you all get tied up in knots over syntax and auras etcetera is a real hoot.
    Most of us learnt a long time ago that it is a waste of time.
    We learn this important lesson when we leave academia land to go out into the ‘real’ world. (Maybe those quotation marks do look pathalogically terrifying to you folks?)
    And JeffH, what utter tosh! (to reuse your own phrase).
    Your comments remind me of those pigs in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”:
    ‘Everybody is equal but some are more equal than others.’
    Come to think of it, your politics remind me of those pigs too.
    Deltoids!!!!!!
    It isn’t as scary and horrible out here in the real ‘rough and tumble’ world as your data and your increasingly wobbly predictions tell you.
    There’s nothing like a breath of fresh air ;-)

  15. #15 Vince Whirlwind
    January 19, 2013

    Chameleon, I don’t detect any statement of substance in your last contribution.

    Going to nutter crank blogs isn’t “getting out”.

    Ridley was wrong in his prediction.

    Ridley made a statement about the scientific consensus that was wrong when he made it. This is either incompetence (which you’d expect from somebody who managed to make a bank fail) or perhaps something worse.

    The Australian had to apologise and retract one of its nonsensical articles published this week as part of a flurry of political anti-science activism.

    Those are all examples of statements of substance.

    If you’ve ever seen the expression, “hand-waving”, that’s what you do when you type your illiterate, fact-free and delusional nonsense.

  16. #16 Wow
    January 19, 2013

    “Going to nutter crank blogs isn’t “getting out”.”

    Though I’d settle for the idiots to fuck off to those blogs they prefer.

  17. #17 Vince Whirlwind
    January 19, 2013

    Yeah, you can only spend so much of the day reading what idiots have crammed their head with.

  18. #18 Stu
    January 19, 2013

    Good god this is a boring little concern troll.

  19. #19 chameleon
    January 19, 2013

    Ummm Vince?
    “Ridley was wrong in his prediction.” ?
    Please forgive me for stating the bleeding obvious
    So was Viner and Flannery and Gore and countless others Vince!
    Being wrong in a prediction about the climate/weather is not counted as some sort of capital offense in case you haven’t noticed.
    Just as well too, because all those proper climate scientists at places like BoM would be in all sorts of legal trouble by now.
    Lucky heh?
    That’s why you folks are soooooo funny!
    You are frantically protecting certain wobbly and incorrect predictions by personally attacking others who have ALSO made INCORRECT predictions.
    There is nothing scientific about that you know.
    It is nothing to to do with misrepresenting scientific consensus.
    It is purely and transparently political.
    And it’s hilarious watching all of you tie yourselves up in self important knots over it and practicing ‘nuancing’ and ‘ritual intellectual humiliation’.
    No one (except you deltoids) cares about your nuancing and rituals.
    I’m not kidding you know.
    Latimer gave you some really good advice.
    He didn’t say go to another specific blog, he most definitely suggested you get out of this particular space to get some ‘fresh air’.
    Maybe you could all go out and plant some trees?
    To develop the metaphor and perhaps turn it into a simile:
    It’s like you’re starting to suffocate from lack of oxygen.

  20. #20 Vince Whirlwind
    January 19, 2013

    Well, presumably you can talk about Viner being wrong in the “Viner was wrong” thread.

    Coming onto the “Ridley was wrong” thread and talking about Viner is irrelevant.

    Having said that, Ridley was wrong at the time he made his statement, because it was not well-founded – it was directly contradicted by the facts.

    Viner, on the other hand, made a statement that was well-founded on the facts.
    http://dusk2.geo.orst.edu/prosem/PDFs/preeti_seasonal_snow.pdf
    P.313, Figure5., “Northern Hemisphere Winter” [Snow cover]

    Additionally, your opinion on whether he was wrong appears based on some selective quoting you’ve no doubt been exposed to at a nutter crank blog, because this is what Viner said,

    Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. “We’re really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,” he said.

    Did he say “heavy snow will return”? Yes!

    Then there’s Flannery. You invented a “quote” you ascribe to him and use that false quote to claim he was wrong about something. Surely you’re not even kidding yourself which that low-quality bit of nonsense?

    And then there’s “Gore”. Personally I know nothing about this guy except for political cartoons in the 1980s that made fun of him for saying nothing of substance. I have no idea why the cranks are so obsessed with this one US politician, but that’s the thing about cranks – they get these idiotic obsessions that cannot be explained by any rational process. So anyway, I have no idea what Gore’s predictions are nor whether they are wrong, but I do know that your 3 previous examples of somebody being “wrong” were wrong, therefore I will assume that Gore was right and you are simply lying again.

  21. #21 chameleon
    January 19, 2013

    Vince!
    As I said at the other thread,
    Maybe you’re picking on the wrong people?
    Ridley’s quote was taken out of context as well was it not?
    It can be properly explained just as easily as you have ‘properly explained’ Viner’s quotes which were ALSO taken out of context.
    ALL of the media are guilty of doing this INCLUDING those insufferable snobs at the ABC.
    Tim has committed the same error.
    He has actually been rather ‘unscrupulous’ according to his own definition with his graph at the first Ridley post.
    He took Ridley’s quote out of context and then graphed it for visual effect.
    But let’s be clear here deltoids, Tim is NOT the only person to have done this and neither is it peculiar to what you people see as ‘one side’.
    You are indeed correct that it is a feature of the media and politics that surround this issue.
    But it’s BOTH SIDES deltoids, BOTH!
    But of course Vince, you are free to assume whatever you like about me. It is not relevant to this discussion no matter how many times and how many different ways you would like to express your assumptions.
    Neither is a comment like:
    ‘He just has that aura of slimy dishonesty about him.’
    The fact that you feel the need to write such a comment says way more about you than anyone else.
    And you based it on your opinion of Latimer’s profession?
    Uh Oh Vince!
    I think you just confirmed what he was very patiently trying to point out.

  22. #22 Lotharsson
    January 19, 2013

    And so – with lungfuls of the outside air and many sighs of relief – back to reality for me.

    Let’s see if Latimer is better at sticking the flounce than he is at trying to argue a case. If he succeeds it will be close to the first supported factual claim he has made here.

    If so, maybe chameleon can watch and learn.

  23. #23 Lotharsson
    January 19, 2013

    My guess is there are too many blinkered ‘conspiracy theorists’ here.

    Oh, my that really is precious!

    I need to head out and purchase a stronger irony meter.

    People have probably got tired of your silly repetetive lectures that are about ‘one side’ of politics and ‘one hypothesis’ about climate.

    People here got tired of your particular brand of woolly thinking and lecturing about five minutes after you arrived, but that hasn’t stopped you, has it? And these “your silly repetetive lectures” don’t seem to have turned you off, so it’s not obvious that your hypothesis fits the evidence.

    Self awareness ain’t your strong suit, is it? Come to think of it, I don’t recall seeing any evidence of any strong suits from you yet.

    Come to think of it, your politics remind me of those pigs too.

    Yep, another facet of standard model AGW denialism reveals itself. Whodathunkit?

    You are frantically protecting certain wobbly and incorrect predictions by personally attacking others who have ALSO made INCORRECT predictions.

    Wait, wait…the troll who has been demonstrably wrong on practically every factual claim she has made – up to and including the extremely basic English comprehension question “Delingpole was quoting Flannery saying ‘fleeting fancy'” – is lecturing other people about what is and isn’t an incorrect prediction, and what is and isn’t “wobbly”?

    This is comedy gold. We should sell tickets!

    Ridley’s quote was taken out of context as well was it not?
    It can be properly explained just as easily…

    Funny how Ridley didn’t bother to do that here then, him being a journalist who’s paid for his alleged skill at expressing concepts and providing explanations.

    Why do you think that is?

    The fact that you feel the need to write such a comment says way more about you than anyone else.

    Don’t be silly.

    The evidence strongly indicates that he “has that aura”. Consider if you will – and you won’t – his mendaciously constructed “rebuttals” that insist – even after it has been pointed out – on attacking strawmen, or implying that rebutting a side point rebuts the main argument that does not depend on it, or asserting facts not in evidence. And doing so supplemented with assertions that seek to characterise the “other side” as using the very same unsophisticated sophistical tricks that he is engaging in.

    Most thinking adults can perceive the dishonesty behind those tactics fairly quickly. You, however, praise him for “saying it well”.

    That says more about you than Vince. Way more.

  24. #24 Richard Simons
    January 19, 2013

    Ridley’s quote was taken out of context as well was it not?

    What was the correct context?

  25. #25 chameleon
    January 19, 2013

    Yes Lotharsson,
    I have to confess I have become addicted to winding you lot up.
    You’re one of my favourites.
    It doesn’t take much to set you off into your ‘nuancing’ and ‘ritual intellectual humiliation’ routine.
    But Latimer is right, it is getting a bit stale.
    Rest easy, I do have way more important things to do than this.
    I’ll be ‘flouncing off’ sooner rather than later.

  26. #26 Marco
    January 19, 2013

    I see Latimer Alder ran away when I asked him for evidence for a claim he knew was complete nonsense, and I see chameleon defends Latimer Alder. Am I surprised? Not at all.

  27. #27 Lotharsson
    January 19, 2013

    It doesn’t take much…

    The unintended irony, it hurts.

  28. #28 Lotharsson
    January 19, 2013

    …and I see chameleon defends Latimer Alder.

    Both of them seem to be from the “My assertion should be sufficient evidence for you” school, but Latimer has a better grasp of written English. Perhaps that was sufficient to earn chameleon’s praise?

    If we were to give him the benefit of the doubt by ruling out deliberate mendacity, one would have to conclude that his comprehension skills are not much better than chameleon’s are though. ’twas remarkable how often he asserted an argument that had not actually been made (never mind the facts not in evidence).

  29. #29 Lotharsson
    January 19, 2013

    I’ll be ‘flouncing off’ sooner rather than later.

    For anyone playing along at home, I make it 4 and a half unsuccessful flounces thus far.

    Anyone wanna take bets on how many she eventually makes? Just a hint: my pick is into double figures.

  30. #30 bill
    January 19, 2013

    Chebbie is as voluble as she is dull. Next.

  31. #31 Lotharsson
    January 19, 2013

    Marco, Latimer Alder also went awfully quiet on the other thread after comments like this and the preceding couple which showed that he was still busily rebutting a strawman.

    It’s almost as if he learned some debating techniques – one might speculate somewhere around 4th form – for characterising your opponents’ arguments as flawed, but never got around to learning how to demonstrate it.

    Chameleon has the same problem in spades.

  32. #32 Stu
    January 19, 2013

    I have to confess I have become addicted to winding you lot up.

    Openly admitting to trolling. And we’re the ones that need to step outside, right?

    Pathetic.

  33. #33 Marco
    January 19, 2013

    Lotharsson, asking the pseudoskeptics to back up their claims is always a lesson in futility, but when they venture into a forum like this, where facts are facts and opinion opinion, they usually have no choice but to run away. Back to Curry’s, where they can say all they want, and whenever they get asked for evidence, they will have a whole group of people willing to make sure this is drowned in noise.

  34. #34 Lotharsson
    January 19, 2013

    Yep, it’s an exercise in futility if your aim is to get them to admit their claims cannot be defended. I think I can count on one hand the number of claims pseudoskeptics have withdrawn over the years I’ve been hanging out here, and still have enough fingers left over to hold a pen.

    It is, however, a useful exercise to the extent that it demonstrates to other readers that they are making claims they can’t substantiate.

  35. #35 Jeff Harvey
    January 19, 2013

    Chameleon, for some strange reason thinks she’s smart, rational and witty. She’s actually none of the above.

    I’d say shallow, witless and naive are more apt metaphors.

    She writes this, apparently with a straight face: “My guess is there are too many blinkered ‘conspiracy theorists’ here”

    Every time she says something, its foot straight into mouth. If anyone has been making a big deal about conspiracy theories, its the climate change deniers. Some of their illuminati have used everything from ‘its a global conspiracy to create a world government under the auspices of the UN’ to smearing scientists by bleating that ‘they depend on fear campaigns to secure government grants’. These smears and more characterize the denial community writ large. And some of the names listed by Latimer have been at the forefront in spreading these lies.

  36. #36 guthrie
    January 19, 2013

    HHmm, the latest comment widget at the side seems out of sync with the comments themselves.
    So it allowed me to see this interesting comment by Alder:

    “Now its quite a long time since I worked as a proper scientist, but in our well-respected university chemistry research lab at least we learnt pretty quickly that Mother Mature or Gaia or The Universe – or whatever you want to call it – was absolutely no respecter of persons. He /she/it showed him/her/it self via experiment and observation, not by the seniority or reputation of the person reporting it. That was the old Aristotlean notion…and it started to go out of the window in the time of Bacon ..if not before.”

    Note that he missed out the whole theory side of things – this is a common problem with denialists – they think that some observations are enough to overturn theory and other obeservtions. They usually ignore the interplay between observation, theory, testing, prediction of further effects, observation of these effects, and so on. Examples can be adduced of this not working quite right and also of it working very well.

    Following on from that, what Alder needs to do is provide an argument which shows how the whole global warming ‘con’ is not based upon observations, known physical properties of the earth and universe in general. I know he can’t, as do others here, but it appears he doesn’t.
    As for the comment re. Aristotelian observation going out the window by the time of Bacon, it isn’t clear if he means Francie or Roger. Roger Bacon wrote a great deal that, in the medieval style, argued from both observation, logic and authority, as they did at the time. Since then, science has developed along increasingly observation/ theory / experiment based lines, with the important point that a good theory points to further work and makes predictions, such as a cooling stratosphere, warmer nights, increasing oceanic pH etc. of global warming.

  37. #37 Latimer Alder
    January 19, 2013

    @guthrie

    Just a quickie as I’m passing by.

    I don’t think I’d disagree much with anything that you said about the interplay between observation and theory. Of course they fed of each other. Ad if you’d read some of my other posts you’d see that I was briefly a theoretician too.

    But the point of my post was to object most strongly to the argument put forward by some other posters that a piece of work should be judged by the status of the guy presenting it, not by the work itself. Or by irrelevancies about their personal lives or background.

    Along the lines of ‘xyz’ is a climate scientist’ and therefore ‘must be right’ and ‘abc’ isn’t and therefore must be wrong. Or even ‘abc’ did something I disapprove of and therefore must be wrong. Those are the ffallacies of ‘argumentum ad vericundiam’ and ‘argumentum ad hominem’

    I’m as happy as the next man to shout at the referee if he gives a foul against a player from my team. even when it is blatantly well-deserved. But that’s in the heat of the moment at a football match.

    I’m sure you’d agree that to do proper science, we need a better set of judgements than ‘my man right or wrong’ or ‘don’t listen to him – he is a Bad Person’

  38. #38 Latimer Alder
    January 19, 2013

    @guthrie

    And just to point out that the theory is said to lead to *decreased* oceanic pH, (less alkaline) not to *increased* oceanic pH (more alkaline). And it’s said to be a consequence of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere – not of global warming.

    The argument in this case is that A produces B and C, not A produces B produces C.

    Reminder of the pH scale

    0 Strongly acid
    7.0 Neutral
    14 Strongly alkaline

    Seawater …about 8.0 +/- 0.3 (slightly alkaline)

  39. #39 Vince Whirlwind
    January 19, 2013

    …object most strongly to the argument put forward by some other posters that a piece of work should be judged by the status of the guy presenting it, not by the work itself.

    And this is where Dunning-Kruger kicks in: people of low intellect who are in denial of science, kid themselves that they have the ability to pass such judgment.

    If you do not have the expertise to judge somebody else’s science, then you have to rely on that person’s peers to judge it.

    You find out what that person’s peers think of their work by seeing whether that work is published in reputable places and how often it is cited

    But you knew that.

  40. #40 BBD
    January 19, 2013

    Latimer

    But the point of my post was to object most strongly to the argument put forward by some other posters that a piece of work should be judged by the status of the guy presenting it, not by the work itself. Or by irrelevancies about their personal lives or background.

    This is what most ‘sceptics’ do to climate scientists. Vociferously and continuously.

  41. #41 Vince Whirlwind
    January 19, 2013

    Oh, and for a demonstration of Dunning-Kruger in action…

    the theory is said to lead to *decreased* oceanic pH, (less alkaline) not to *increased* oceanic pH (more alkaline). And it’s said to be a consequence of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere – not of global warming.

    The argument in this case is that A produces B and C, not A produces B produces C.

    Contrast with what people who don’t get their “information” from crank-blogs like WUWT and Curry’s…

    The pCO2 in mixed-layer waters that exchange CO2
    directly with the atmosphere is affected primarily by
    temperature, DIC levels and AT. While the water temperature
    is regulated by physical processes, including
    solar energy input, sea-air heat exchanges and mixedlayer
    thickness, the DIC and A T are primarily controlled
    by the biological processes of photosynthesis
    and respiration and by upwelling of subsurface waters
    rich in respired CO= and nutrients.

    http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/14_4/14_4_feely_et_al.pdf

  42. #42 Vince Whirlwind
    January 19, 2013

    Wasn’t Latimer claiming to be an atmospheric chemist or something?

    What a duufus.

  43. #43 Vince Whirlwind
    January 19, 2013

    The golden rule of trolling is you have to choose a solid cover story.

  44. #44 BBD
    January 19, 2013

    Vince Whirlwind

    Lattie has said elsewhere that he ran an IT services company (or something of that nature).

  45. #45 Vince Whirlwind
    January 19, 2013

    Ran it into the ground, probably, just like Ridley did his bank.

  46. #46 stephenk
    January 19, 2013

    Latimer:
    “…Along the lines of ‘xyz’ is a climate scientist’ and therefore ‘must be right’ and ‘abc’ isn’t and therefore must be wrong. … Those are the ffallacies of ‘argumentum ad vericundiam’ ”

    Damon Runyan:
    “It may be that the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong – but that’s the way to bet.”

  47. #47 Vince Whirlwind
    January 19, 2013

    Latimer’s money is on the longshot.

  48. #48 guthrie
    January 19, 2013

    Hmm, I’m getting a sense of deja vu here, I recall trying to teach basic chemistry to Neil Craig on oceanic acidification a few years ago. Although Latimer does write better than he does.

    Now, you state:
    “And just to point out that the theory is said to lead to *decreased* oceanic pH, (less alkaline) not to *increased* oceanic pH (more alkaline). And it’s said to be a consequence of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere – not of global warming. ”
    Said to be a consequence of increased CO2? No, it’s a scientific certainty that it is a consequence of increased CO2. No if’s but’s or maybe’s, it’s been scientifically proven that the acidification, that is, becoming more acid, of the ocean, is due to CO2. It it were the other way around, it would be oceanic alkilination, but that isn’t what is happening.

  49. #49 chameleon
    January 19, 2013

    Ummmmm?
    JeffH?
    Reread your comment.
    You are operating under the misconception that people like me are part of an organised group called ‘deniers’ and/or ‘climate change deniers’.
    To quote you:
    What utter tosh!
    There is no such organisation.
    However there is an organisation known as the UN and there also is the theory of ‘deliberative global governance’.
    They’re not conspiracies however as they’re well known and well documented and well funded by public money.
    You are arguing about political ideologies not science and the environment.

  50. #50 bill
    January 19, 2013

    Bog-standard Jo Nova-ite nutter! Boring.

  51. #51 bill
    January 19, 2013

    And that flounce from the Larch didn’t last long:

    Reminder of the pH scale

    0 Strongly acid
    7.0 Neutral
    14 Strongly alkaline

    Seawater …about 8.0 +/- 0.3 (slightly alkaline)

    And?

    I mean, seriously; this is one of those ‘it’s not really ocean acidification, you know’ things, isn’t it? That’s not even pathetic! And weren’t you even trying to unconvince us that you had some ‘expertise’ in such matters?

    Well, lookee here –

    in our well-respected university chemistry research lab

    Ho ho. OK – and your relation to this ‘well respected lab’ is, um, doing IT, or were you perhaps a Lab assistant once?

    What’s the latin for ‘argument by claiming authority you don’t actually possess while simultaneously claiming others are arguing from authority’?

    You’d have done better to have stayed away, you know!

  52. #52 Vince Whirlwind
    January 19, 2013

    Well, considering he was trying to say that temperature increase doesn’t lead to CO2 uptake in water, I’d say he was scrubbing the floors – even an IT monkey would have had the commonsense to get that right.

  53. #53 chek
    January 20, 2013

    I bet Camo neither knows nor understands the concept of “global governance” beyond what her fellow cranks have drip fed her. She probably imagines that the International Maritime Organisantion or the International Atomic Energy Agency for example are communist front groups looking to steal her pension.
    In short, yet another whacko.

  54. #54 Stu
    January 20, 2013

    You are operating under the misconception that people like me are part of an organised group called ‘deniers’ and/or ‘climate change deniers’.

    No, and [citation needed]. Anyway, are you calling Koch Industries and the Heartland Institute disorganized now?

    However there is an organisation known as the UN and there also is the theory of ‘deliberative global governance’.

    There are also black helicopters. Doesn’t mean they’re out to get you.

    You are arguing about political ideologies not science and the environment.

    Sigh. The projection is strong in this one.

  55. #55 chameleon
    January 20, 2013

    Well no actually chek,
    Apart from the fact that I’m not worried about my pension at this stage of my life and am planning not to need a pension or support from a govt pension scheme:
    ‘Global Governance’ or ‘Deliberative Global Governance’ is a well known and well documented policy and very easy to find at official websites like here:
    http://greens.org.au/policies/human-rights-democracy/global-governance
    and here:
    http://deliberativedemocracy.anu.edu.au/democratising-climate-governance
    or here:
    http://cc2011.earthsystemgovernance.org/pdf/2011Colora_0196.pdf
    Plus many many more.
    There is no ‘whacko’ involved in knowing the theory exists and is supported by ‘big government’ via public monies.
    It’s interesting that you are calling it whacko and/or that institutions like IMO are communist fronts?
    Where on earth did you get that idea?

  56. #56 chameleon
    January 20, 2013

    And Stu?
    Talk about projection!
    Out to get you?
    Seriously?
    I will also point out that I am not a member or a subscriber to Koch Industries or The Heartland Institute but my country is definitely a member of the UN.
    I don’t know for sure, but I would seriously suspect that the 2 entites you have mentioned are not funded by public monies but I can tell you most definitely that many other organisations including the UN are indeed funded by public monies.
    Other than those simple observations, I have no idea why you folks are screeching away about this mythical group called ‘Climate Change Denialists’.
    I can’t find this highly organised group that is apparently out to ruin the planet.

  57. #57 Vince Whirlwind
    January 20, 2013

    Er…
    1/ it’s *not* supported by “big government”, that’s why it’s on the Greens’ wishlist.
    Duh.

    2/ I don’t see anything relevant to government policy here

    3/ Even less relevant

    Tell us something Chameleon, do you like Democracy, or do you like the IMF and the World Bank just the way they are, run by “big governments”?

  58. #58 Stu
    January 20, 2013

    So wait, only “public monies” are bad? Is that what you are saying?

  59. #59 chameleon
    January 20, 2013

    Vince,
    I don’t think you understand the point of disagreement here.
    I have been accused of believing in a conspiracy theory and belonging to some highly organised group called the ‘Climate Change Denialists’ which JeffH summarised above.
    It appears that the only place that group exists is in JeffH’s very fertile imagination?
    When I google it I only find references to others using the name, not an actual organisation or official policy.
    If such an organisation does exists, I can assure you I am not a member and I would also suspect that any funding does not come via public monies. otherwise it would be easy to find.
    However, there is such an organisation known as the UN which I am a member of because my country is and keeps that membership via public monies.
    There is also such a theory as ‘deliberative global governance’
    In Australia as well as other countries around the world it is studied at Universities and funded by Govts.
    If you would like to Google the course at ANU it has a fairly good description there.
    Your final question bears no relevance to the issue under discussion.
    Actually JeffH has already decided he knows my ‘politics’ and what I believe in:
    At some stage he said I wear a Libertarian, Right Wing heart on my sleeve.
    At least you thought to ask what my political leanings are; albiet in a rhetorical manner.
    I’m gonna guess that they probably aren’t the same as yours Vince but, I would also guess that we both do believe in the basic principles of democracy.
    At least I hope so :-)

  60. #60 chameleon
    January 20, 2013

    Stu,
    Only public monies are bad?
    What on earth do you think that means?
    I have no idea how you could have drawn that conclusion or would see the need to ask such a question.
    I haven’t said that anything is BAAAD or otherwise.
    I was QUESTIONING the existence of this very scary organisation called ‘Climate Change Denialists’.
    If it existed it should be easy to find like the UN and ‘deliberative global governance’ is: which JeffH and you seem to think is believing in a conspiracy theory?????????
    I was merely pointing out that the UN and the theory can’t be a conspiracy because they are easily located and they are funded by public monies.
    I also would therefore say there is nothing sinister about believing that they exist. Wouldn’t you?

  61. #61 Vince Whirlwind
    January 20, 2013

    I have been accused of …belonging to some highly organised group called the ‘Climate Change Denialists’ which JeffH summarised above.
    It appears that the only place that group exists is in JeffH’s very fertile imagination?

    a. Jeff mentioned no such group
    b. Jeff summarised nothing of the sort
    c. It’s your imagination that has once again produced yet another invention

    Only public monies are bad?
    What on earth do you think that means?

    Are you saying you don’t understand your own statement about public monies, or are you going to deny you made such a statement?

  62. #62 Vince Whirlwind
    January 20, 2013

    In spring, the Pee-wees round my way start nest-building and get all territorial.

    Last Spring, some pee-wees at a government building I work at built their nest on the intersection of a crossed pair of beams under a 4th-floor balcony.
    Their nest was level with a 3rd-floor window.
    The Pee-wee on the nest kept catching sight if its reflection in the window about 3 metres away and would jump off its nest and aggressively fly at its reflection. Then it would figure out there was no other bird there and go back to its nest. Then it would catch sight of its own reflection again,…. etc…

    It would do this over and over again, all day every day.

    Chameleon reminds of those Pee-wees.

  63. #63 chameleon
    January 20, 2013

    I beg to differ Vince:
    Direct cut and paste from JeffH comment above:
    “If anyone has been making a big deal about conspiracy theories, its the climate change deniers. Some of their illuminati have used everything from ‘its a global conspiracy to create a world government under the auspices of the UN’ to smearing scientists by bleating that ‘they depend on fear campaigns to secure government grants’. ”

    He definitely refers to ‘climate change deniers’ and they even have an illuminati according to JeffH’s comment above.
    He also seems to think that the UN and Global Governance and Government Grants are part of this group’s conspiracy theory.
    I was merely pointing out that:
    a) there is no such organisation called ‘climate change deniers’ and
    b) That the UN and ‘global governance’ are not ‘conspiracies’, they are both well known and well supported by public monies.
    I fail to understand what your problem is Vince.
    Do you think there is an organisation with illuminati called ‘climate change deniers’?
    Do you think the UN and the theory of ‘Deliberative Global Governance’ are conspiracies?
    Do you think that the UN is NOT supported by public monies and/or that Australia is NOT a member?
    Also, the statement I made about public monies is this one:
    I don’t know for sure, but I would seriously suspect that the 2 entites you have mentioned are not funded by public monies but I can tell you most definitely that many other organisations including the UN are indeed funded by public monies.
    I can’t see where that means that I think that:
    only “public monies” are bad?
    But I’m sure you will enlighten me!
    BTW, my original comment re ‘blinkered conspiracy theorists’ actually referred to the sorts of comments that JeffH has made above.
    He of course is not the only one who does it.

  64. #64 MikeH
    January 20, 2013

    Bog-standard Jo Nova-ite nutter! Boring.

    +1

  65. #65 Lotharsson
    January 20, 2013

    Whodathunkit! Chameleon – a la arch conspiracy theorist Monckton – conflates global governance on some issue with global government .

    Someone else can explain it to her – I’m typing on my phone.

  66. #66 Vince Whirlwind
    January 20, 2013

    So you admit Jeff said nothing about

    highly organised group called the ‘Climate Change Denialists’

    Which was your own nutty invention?

    I can’t see where that means that I think that:
    only “public monies” are bad?

    Let’s put it another way: would the UN be acceptable to you if it were funded by the same bodies that fund WUWT and Jo Nova’s blog?

  67. #67 bill
    January 20, 2013

    I’m actually disappointed that LA21 hasn’t been mentioned yet. My card is very nearly full otherwise…

  68. #68 Richard Simons
    January 20, 2013

    Latimer:

    But the point of my post was to object most strongly to the argument put forward by some other posters that a piece of work should be judged by the status of the guy presenting it, not by the work itself.

    I can’t find where anyone said this. Please could you direct me to it.

  69. #69 Lotharsson
    January 20, 2013

    But the point of my post was to object most strongly to the argument put forward by some other posters that a piece of work should be judged by the status of the guy presenting it, not by the work itself. Or by irrelevancies about their personal lives or background.

    Note the modus operandi here.

    This strawman has been rebutted several times on the other thread, so Latimer simply switches threads and repeats it as if the other rebuttals did not occur.

    Better trolls please.

  70. #70 Lotharsson
    January 20, 2013

    I’m actually disappointed that LA21 hasn’t been mentioned yet.

    Bonus points for “The UN is coming to steal all our golfs”.

    Meanwhile, since Latimer is fond of imagining a grade for other people’s performances on a school year scale, perhaps he could tell us what year kids learn about proper nouns and how readers and writers distinguish them from non-proper nouns. Latimer, over to you!

  71. #71 Lotharsson
    January 20, 2013

    I am reminded by Latimer busily inventing and dispatching a strawman, of a trenchant scientific principle (can’t remember who first expressed it).

    It says:

    If you haven’t published a paper in a scientific field that survives peer review (pre-publication and post-), then you aren’t qualified to buck a consensus in the field.

    In other words, to go against the consensus you at least need to demonstrate basic competence in the field. Any anyone who has basic competence in the field can get a paper published that stands up to scrutiny. (That’s practically axiomatic.)

    And of course this is necessary but not sufficient to demonstrate that your counter-consensus claims are credible. (Cue more strawman creation by the usual suspects.)

    Unless I’m mistaken Ridley doesn’t qualify under that principle.

  72. #72 adelady
    January 20, 2013

    I need to head out and purchase a stronger irony meter.

    Simple solution. Buy them by the carton. Doesn’t matter how high you ramp the quality – there’s always someone somewhere who’ll wreck the thing. Better to be reassured by a supply of replacements ready for whenever it happens.

  73. #73 Lotharsson
    January 20, 2013

    That’s a great idea, adelady.

    Maybe we should start one of those group buy things and really buy them in bulk.

  74. #74 Vince Whirlwind
    January 20, 2013

    Chameleon:

    they even have an illuminati according to JeffH’s comment

    Ho ho ho.
    There’s another one to add to your list, Chameleon.

    Here’s some free advice:
    Try this new process for communicating with people:
    – think first
    – pause
    – talk or type later

    Usually, the think phase should result in you realising you were about to type a sentence including a word whose meaning you do not comprehend.
    This is your cue to either look it up, or, avoid using it.

    In your case, having witnessed you looking up “rhetorical” and still managing an epic comprehension fail, I think the best strategy would be to avoid all long words entirely. That is, anything longer than one syllable is completely out, although many one-syllable words should still be treated with strict caution.

  75. #75 bill
    January 20, 2013

    Further to Loth above, let’s not forget this classic from upthread –

    And fwiw I am always deeply suspicious of those who try to dictate, censor or otherwise manipulate what others can read or publish. Too frequently they are members of an ‘establishment’ with things that they’d rather not get generally known

    In this case the help-me-I’m-the-victim-of-persecution strawman is so utterly ludicrous – yep, we’re so calculating and brutal in our commitment to totalitarianism that The Larch can turn up here and spout all the nonsense he wants* – he didn’t even make an attempt to defend it.

    He simply dropped the subject with no acknowledgement of how ludicrous – indeed, oxymoronic – the claim is, but, in his mind (and his fellow-travellers, no doubt), performs that interesting juggling act; while knowing it to be false in the quotidian, merely factual, sense, polishes its sacred truth at the deepest, most important level.

    (Also, on confirming he did just drop it I came across the classic claim that RealClimate isn’t influential – ‘making great pontifical statements to nobody at all’ – precisely because it doesn’t host several metres of the mutual back-slapping jabberings of a troglodyte army below each post. This is the kind of ‘logic’ that results in McDonalds being ‘the best restaurant in the world’ and has Beyonce a better musician than Beethoven… Entirely consistent with a group that the laws of physics can be safely determined by a straw poll, of course.)

    Speaking of which: if only there was a way to stack all the strawmen created by the Larches of the world together we might even be well on the way to assembling a reasonable defence against the rising seas!

    ‘Ninny’ I think is the word.

    (*You have to work hard for ages to even get confined your own thread! This immediately makes you Galileo, of course…)

  76. #76 bill
    January 20, 2013

    D’oh!

    Entirely consistent with a group that believes the laws of physics can be safely determined by a straw poll…

  77. #77 chameleon
    January 20, 2013

    :-) :-) :-)
    You are such fun deltoids!
    Latimer pegged you perfectly :-)
    So Vince?
    Are you claiming that Illumanati means something else other than this?
    Illuminati: n;pl.
    1. Persons claiming to posses special knowledge or enlightenment.
    2. Any of various intellectual movements or societies.
    From the ‘context’ of jeffH’s comment I’m guessing he was leaning towards number 2 but they both fit OK.
    Only problem is there is no organisation known as ‘climate change deniers’ so being an ‘illuminati’ of such an organisation would be a bit difficult don’t you think?

  78. #78 mike
    anti-Deltoid-land
    January 20, 2013

    Great to see Latimer show-up here to bestow on Deltoid’s land-of-the-booger-eaters, weenie-pit regulars his inimitable style, pearls-of-wisdom, and Brit-wit panache. Waste of his valuable time, of course.

    That is, I can see that Latimer, brought to this improbable blog the good-faith assumption, like moi before him–before I quickly wised-up, that you Deltoid life-forms, for all your creep-out, geek-freak weirdness, were vaguely humanoid in character. BIG MISTAKE THAT!

    No, I can see that Latimer has had to learn the hard way–again, like moi–that attempting an intelligent, urbane, and intellectually stimulating conversation with the conditioned-reflex, party-line-hack, group-cogitating-cog, loser-reject lefties that cluster-frack on this blog is a noble, but futile gesture given that Deltoid-land’s core demographic is entirely given over to cyborg hive-bots and vat-bred eco-chimeras assembled from can’t-get-a-date, whiny-dork, spoiled-brat, momma’s-boy kid with zits and undescended testicles and a boundless sense of entitlement deriving from a life-time of unearned prize and a trophy-case full of all-the-kids-get-a-trophy trophies; flesh-eating bacteria; tapeworm; leech; herpes-virus, and an ill-defined yeast-infection genetic components, all in equal measure.

    And to think you Deltoid barf-bags aspire to be our Philosopher-Kings and Cull-masters. What a joke!

  79. #79 bill
    January 20, 2013

    Actually, mike, you were about the creepiest scatalogical obsessive we’ve ever had show up.

    No-one misses you – but that’s just the same as at home, isn’t it?

    Have to say I’m glad I don’t inhabit the same landmass as you if, as I suspect, you’re a big fan of your second amendment rights…

  80. #80 Brad Keyes
    January 20, 2013

    Stu rebutts Latimer Adler:

    “Note the poor spelling…”

    You mean like “de rigeur,” Stu?

  81. #81 Vince Whirlwind
    January 20, 2013

    Sorry, Mike, did you have something to say about Matt Ridley being wrong?

    Chameleon:

    Are you claiming that Illumanati means something else other than this?
    Illuminati: n;pl.
    1. Persons claiming to posses special knowledge or enlightenment.
    2. Any of various intellectual movements or societies.

    Only problem is there is no organisation known as ‘climate change deniers’ so being an ‘illuminati’ of such an organisation would be a bit difficult don’t you think?

    Chameleon – concentrate.

    a. Can you spot your mistake? I’ve given you a hint.

    b. *Where* in that definition you just provided, does it say that an illuminatus belongs to an “organisation”?

  82. #82 Latimer Alder
    January 20, 2013

    @mike

    Thanks you for your kind words

    Like a responsible adult I popped in to check on the petulant children, and saw a sensible post from ‘guthrie’ which seemed worthy of discussion.

    Sadly they’ve not shown (yet?) up to continue.

    Meanwhile the purveyors of the Orwellian ‘Posts of Hate’ cluster around with their silly games – reducing yet further their credibility as serious players in the climatosphere.

    I’ll look in again sometime to see if ‘guthrie’ has reappeared.

  83. #83 Vince Whirlwind
    January 20, 2013

    You’re the one playing silly games, Latimer.

    Ridley was wrong.

    Monbiot references what he writes.

    You make it up as you go along…and demonstrate your wrongness at every turn.

    Care to explain your claim that increased sea temperature doesn’t cause increased CO2 uptake?
    How did you get that so wrong?

    And why do you change the subject every time you seem in danger of learning something?

  84. #84 Vince Whirlwind
    January 20, 2013

    Doesn’t understand basic Chemistry, gets his “info” from crank blogs.

    No wonder he feels the need to wallow in intellectually dishonest smoke-screens laid down by self-combusting strawmen.

  85. #85 Lotharsson
    January 20, 2013

    Condescension towards those who have demonstrated all but one of your substantive claims – and that most likely was a slip-up on guthrie’s part – to be clearly unfounded is generally an indicator that one has given up trying to argue one’s case on the merits and is now treating one’s audience with contempt. (That is, on the charitable assumption that one started out attempting to argue on the merits.)

    They should have taught you that by the time you reached 4th form debating classes.

    Doing the Gish Gallop is another dead giveaway.

    Meanwhile, would you mind giving chameleon a quick lesson about proper nouns? If that works you might consider working on some remedial comprehension. I’m hoping she can help you distinguish between a loaded and a straight (if pointed) question in return, but maybe we should get someone else in for that.

  86. #86 Latimer Alder
    January 20, 2013

    @guthire

    Sorry – missed your post above in all the other crap.

    ‘ No, it’s a scientific certainty that it is a consequence of increased CO2. No if’s but’s or maybe’s, it’s been scientifically proven that the acidification, that is, becoming more acid, of the ocean, is due to CO2.’

    Please show the observational data that proves that this theoretical effect is actually occurring. in practice in the oceans.

    No argument that if you increase the partial pressure of CO2 over a jar of pure water, you will end up with a solution of carbonic acid that will be slightly acidic. Basic physical chemistry.

    But pure water is not at all the same thing as seawater – a not very well mixed solution of all sorts of inorganic ions surrounded by huge quantities of rocks of CaCO3 and others. It is not at all obvious that the weak carbonic acid like carbonic will overwhelm the buffering effect of the solution and surrounding rocks

    For such a complex and varied system. the only way to show that the pH is actually decreasing is to go out and make the measurements over a long period of time.

    By analogy, to show that the GAT was actually increasing took the analysis of somewhere between 10 and 100 million temperature records taken from thermometers all over the world (and later by satellite ) over a period of several decades..

    Can you show me a similar set of observations of ocean pH that will hep to turn a lab based theory into the same ‘scientific proof’ that you claim?

    And to Bill – yes I have worked in several chemistry labs as a lab technician. Chemistry is an intensely practical and observational science so working down and dirty in the lab is part of learning the trade.

    But for the relevant part that I discussed I was studying for a Masters in Atmospheric Chemistry – which the examiners were good enough to award, even though observations by my experimental colleagues showed that the theory I was working on was way off base. You can read my bio here.

    http://judithcurry.com/2010/11/12/the-denizens-of-climate-etc/#comment-11121

    And since you take delight in deriding others qualifications and expertise, perhaps you’d do us the courtesy of publishing yours too?

  87. #87 Lotharsson
    January 20, 2013

    Sorry – missed your post above in all the other crap.

    Bugger. There goes another irony meter.

  88. #88 Vince Whirlwind
    January 20, 2013

    You mean
    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/acidity.html
    like this, Latimer?

    30 lines of text to say precisely nothing. When will it learn.

  89. #89 bill
    January 20, 2013

    Sorry, you’re claiming that you have a masters degree in atmospheric chemistry, and yet you deny the oceans are acidifying!

    Well then; publish or be damned!

    (And the fact that you were ‘way off base’ isn’t a hint to you, or anything?)

    This also explains why the real scientists at RealClimate are such an object of resentment.

    No wonder you’re spending your twilight years hanging out at Judith Curry’s.

    Do you also notice that you get progressively more pompous as your arguments get successively torn down? You might want to remember this.

    And, you really don’t get the logic of this, do you – I’m not making claims beyond my competence, or against the scientific mainstream.

  90. #90 Jeff Harvey
    January 20, 2013

    Just looked at the motley assortment of deniers on the Curry page that Latimer linked.

    Essentially what I read were a bunch of people with expertise nothing close to climate science who tried to blow up their credentials by giving the impression that they read a lot around the subject. A few of the responses were especially hilarious, such as one clown suggesting that climate change was linked with conflicts in Darfur and elsewhere. Pretty kindergarten level stuff.

    All I can do is shake my head in disbelief when I read that kind of drivel. More and more each day I think our species is screwed. Big time. Heading for the abyss whilst refusing to change course.

  91. #91 Lotharsson
    January 20, 2013

    I see Latimer Alder ran away when I asked him for evidence for a claim he knew was complete nonsense, …

    He’s popped back in a couple of times, but he’s still covering his eyes and pretending you never asked. That sort of thing tends to get noticed, even at 4th form debating level.

  92. #92 Lotharsson
    January 20, 2013

    Jeff, did you notice Latimer at Curry’s cites “(…mysterious and unmeasurable ‘forcings’ that multiply the effect by 4 or more?? )”?

    Given his history of ignoring other corrections here, do you reckon it’s worth pointing out he clearly doesn’t even understand the basics of the scientific case he claims to be “skeptical” about? Or would that just be arguing “semantics” which seem never to be appropriate according to chameleon?

    And that’s before anyone notes his claim that “ClimateGate” cast suspicion on various scientists and sundry data, and his assertion of “…a completely unjustifiable reliance on models with very limited (or no) verification of them by observation of the real world…”. The latter closely matches chameleon’s views on the subject. One wonders if they are also a double act at other blogs…

  93. #93 Jeff Harvey
    January 20, 2013

    Lotharsson,

    Yeh, i saw it. Yes, I reckon it is worth pointing that out. And the climategate reference was there as you say. That’s long been consigned to the bin, except in the minds of many deniers who cling to it desperately to legitimize their conspiracy claims.

    What’s utterly ironic is that if anyone distorts, manipulates, massages or cherry-picks the data, its the deniers.

  94. #94 Lotharsson
    January 20, 2013

    Worth repeating:

    And, you really don’t get the logic of this, do you – I’m not making claims beyond my competence, or against the scientific mainstream.

    I don’t think we’ve found many (any?) visiting “skeptics” who are operating outside of their own competence who’ve understood this. It’s not symmetrical. They are making claims outside of their competence and against the scientific mainstream, and love to cast people who point to the scientific mainstream and are actually skeptical of their claims (because they haven’t demonstrated that they are well-founded) as doing what they’re doing – operating outside of their own competence.

    Deferring to the consensus of the competent is explicitly choosing NOT to operate outside one’s own sphere of competence.

  95. #95 guthrie
    January 20, 2013

    Vince has kindlyprovided the simplest chain of evidence for ocean acidification. The oceans are connected and will naturally equilibrate in condition over time; they are also complex with different layering systems based on temperature etc, but what was already known was that the layers move around the ocean over time, often years.
    Add knowledge of statistics and that there is mixing, and you certainly don’t need thousands of ships testing every square kilometre of the ocean for pH.

    Thus your points are decisively answered.
    If you want to go further back, there’s this:
    http://geology.usgs.gov/postdoc/profiles/moyer/index.html

    Why yes we can tell what pH and temp were like many years ago in an area.
    Oh wait, here’s something that shows that scientists have already anticipated and looked into your objections:
    http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/Honisch_et_al_2012_Science_ocean_acidification.pdf

    Now, the point about qualifications was to mock you for not seeming to live up to your alleged level of education. In Ridley’s case, you might thnk someone with a PhD would show some appreciation for the professional literature, but no, he does not.
    I also have spent time as a lab monkey; I even have 2 MSc’s (I need an MA and a PhD to complete the set, but it’s trickier nowadays) on top of a BSc hons in chemistry. Therefore I have gone and read the IPCC reports, and whatever papers I can see. Have you?

  96. #96 Wow
    January 20, 2013

    “(…mysterious and unmeasurable ‘forcings’ that multiply the effect by 4 or more?? )”

    Wouldn’t that be H2O?

    You know, the thing they kept insisting was a much bigger GHG than CO2?

    Which would mean that its effects if it rises are more than CO2’s effects.

    Well, we see CO2’s effects, then H2O’s effects, and somehow when before they would have insisted

    CO2= 1.2 C warming
    H20 >> 1.2C warming
    Therefore
    H20 +CO2 >>2.4C warming

    They don’t like that and insist that there’s “nothing” to multiply the effects of CO2 “fourfold”. Despite the existence of H2O.

  97. #97 Vince Whirlwind
    January 20, 2013

    No, no, no, Wow –
    H20=clouds
    clouds=increased albedo
    :.H20=a negative feedback
    :.warming=1.2C-the effect of H20
    :.CO2 might even cause cooling.

    It’s all perfectly logical as long as you don’t rely on anybody who practices science for a living to thrown any spanners in their works.

  98. #98 Wow
    January 20, 2013

    But that makes the lie to their assertion “H2O is a much greater GHG than CO2, so CO2 can’t be the cause!”.

    It is always a problem when you talk out of both sides of your arse-crack. Deniers, however, ignore that in themselves and their compatriots.

  99. #99 Vince Whirlwind
    January 20, 2013

    Check out Latimer’s slimy dishonesty on this thread:
    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/12/the-big-green-rent-seeking-machine/

    Somebody said words to the effect of ‘nuclear’s great, until it goes BBOOOMMMM!’
    (Surprise, surprise, Latimer’s inability to correctly assess information has led him to be a cheerleader for the nuke industry)

    Latimer:

    Fuku did not go ‘booooommm’ – despite the best efforts of an earthquake and a tsunami. There was no explosion.

    Sane people pointed out that there most definitely were explosions at Fukushima

    This is what Latimer came back with:

    There were no nuclear explosions at either incident you cite
    Simple as that.
    And it is ‘mendacious’ (= polite word for lying) to suggest that there were.

    What a slimy little liar – exactly his MO here over the past few days.

  100. #100 Lotharsson
    January 20, 2013

    Very similar M.O. to chameleon – falsely assert what the other party is saying and then castigate them for it.

Current ye@r *