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 22, 2013

    However, some studies have found different response to ocean acidification, with coccolithophore calcification and photosynthesis both increasing under elevated atmospheric pCO2

    Really?

    Now where did they say that it WOULD NOT acidify?

    Hmmm?

  2. #2 chek
    January 22, 2013

    “The seawater chemistry here will be quite different from say, the North Sea”

    “Does it reject CO2? No.
    Does it refuse to produce carbonic acid? No.”

    I’m not a chemist, but I think Wow nailed Lati’s twaddlling around right there. Well, that and a conversation I had with Tim Barnett from Scripps.

  3. #3 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @bernard j

    Thank you for the links. I took a glance at them and found that (unless my glance missed the point) but found that none of them had any useful information about pH over the recent short term (last 100 years).

    Please point me to my error if I am way off beam and there are indeed nuggets of useful information contained within them.

  4. #4 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @wow

    ‘The seawater chemistry here will be quite different from say, the North Sea”

    To clarify – off the top of my head. At least these will be different – starting pH, average temperature, salinity, inorganic ion composition esp. carbonates and bicarbonates. The buffering effect will be different as will all the equilibria that vhnage and eventually may lead tp pH changes.

    Just to check – you do have a good grasp of equilibria and buffering and understand why they make this a very much more complex and far less ‘obvious’ problem than the simple ‘pure water’ case?

  5. #5 BBD
    January 22, 2013

    Latimer

    You are being silly now. And I am getting bored.

  6. #6 Lionel A
    January 22, 2013

    Latimer dropped:

    You’re going to have to talk me through the bit that starts ‘therefore. Especially the proof that atmospheric CO2 drives down pH *in seawater*. Quite happy that it does so in *pure water*.

    Ah! Does this indicate that you think that because sea water contains ions of dissolved salts that it is therefore incapable of becoming less basic if carbonic acid is added?

    If so you are suffering from a similar delusion to Tim Curtin (well one of Curtin’s delusions). If you know not to what I am alluding then you need to get out more.

    Whatever, here is some explanation from those involved in research:

    Frequently Asked Questions About Ocean Acidification.

  7. #7 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @chek

    ‘Does it reject CO2? No.
    Does it refuse to produce carbonic acid? No.”

    Will its buffering capabilites be very different -yes
    Will its starting pH be very different – yes
    Will its temperature be different – yes.

    Do these things affect the overall chemistry? Yes.

  8. #8 BBD
    January 22, 2013

    You completely skipped over this:

    Do you argue that the average pH of the vast majority of the world ocean is already so low that ~390ppmv CO2 (well mixed and continuously rising) will *not* reduce pH further?

    Is this what you believe? Yes/no.

    If yes, please reference. If no, please explain why not. Explain why robust, fundamental theory and experimental confirmation are not reliable guides to the chemical reactions involved.

    Unless average ocean pH is already so low that further reduction could not be driven by the increase in atmospheric CO2, it will occur. It must. See ‘robust theory and experimentation’, above.

    Wittering about how things sometimes don’t scale from bench to real world is evasiveness masquerading as expertise.

    Nobody’s fooled.

  9. #9 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    To clarify – off the top of my head

    OK, sorry, you need more than that. Your head has been shown already to be an unreliable source of information.

    starting pH, average temperature, salinity, inorganic ion composition esp. carbonates and bicarbonates

    Data, please, not musings.

    The buffering effect will be different as will all the equilibria that vhnage and eventually may lead tp pH changes.

    What changes?

    Your point is missing.

    This is no different than saying “Well, your sports car could be slower than my Ford Focus because things like engine size, torque/weight ratios, top speed and traction are different”.

    Indeed, the difference of each of those things WILL change how fast things go.

    And indeed they ARE different between, say, a Porsche 911, and a Ford Focus.

    But you cannot use those differences to claim that the Ford Focus will be faster than the Porsche.

  10. #10 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @chek

    ‘a conversation I had with Tim Barnett from Scripps’

    Unless you choose to describe this conversation, this is no more than a meaningless throwaway remark.

  11. #11 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    Do these things affect the overall chemistry? Yes.

    Does that affect mean that it doesn’t acidify?

    No.

    So your point is what?

  12. #12 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    “this is no more than a meaningless throwaway remark.”

    Says the master of the throwaway remark.

    Your point is..?

  13. #13 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    Latte,

    Just to check – you do have a good grasp of equilibria and buffering and understand why they make this a very much more complex and far less ‘obvious’ than the simple ‘it can’t acidify’ assertion you place on it?

  14. #14 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    (unless my glance missed the point) but found that none of them had any useful information about pH over the recent short term (last 100 years).

    Why were you demanding this yet third option on what you demanded before?

    As predicted: you are presented with what you demanded, then come up with “It doesn’t have… therefore it isn’t proof”.

  15. #15 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    Will its buffering capabilites be very different -yes
    Will its starting pH be very different – yes
    Will its temperature be different – yes.

    Were these the case before – Yes
    Do these mean that the formation of carbonic acid is forbidden – No
    Do you have a point – No
    Are you an idiot – Oh yes.

  16. #16 Lionel A
    January 22, 2013

    Latimer drop-quoted:

    ‘However, some studies have found different response to ocean acidification, with coccolithophore calcification and photosynthesis both increasing under elevated atmospheric pCO2,[54][55][56] an equal decline in primary production and calcification in response to elevated CO2[57] or the direction of the response varying between species’

    So having picked that cherry, or cherries counting the three sources cited, you can claim that ocean acidification ain’t happening and there is nought to worry about.

    So those studies cited actually said what and about what? In other words the context is…?

    Come on, that is year 4 level of debate. And I did indicate that I was trying to get you out more and think more broadly.

    This line of enquiry seems to have rattled you. Probably because you had no idea about this facet of ocean acidification and the light on your ignorance hurts.

  17. #17 chek
    January 22, 2013

    “Unless you choose to describe this conversation, this is no more than a meaningless throwaway remark”

    As I previously said, I’m not a chemist so the details were over my head, but suffice to say that a researcher at a leading institute impressed on me that OA is a serious problem. It’s only use (and only to me) is for calibrating the contortions you’re going through in denying that in the non-specific ways that are the hallmark of Bish style denialism..

  18. #18 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @jeff harvey

    ‘Shorter Latimer: Until I see even more massive die-offs of coral reefs, phytoplankton and other biota than has already occurred, I will deny that increased atmospheric C02 will lower marine pH levels or have negative effects on marine biodiversity’

    I’ve said nothing at all on these topics. The furthest I have gne is to show that ‘ocean acidification’ is not an established scientific fact. And nor will it be until the relevant realworld observations have been made.

    Please do not put words – especially word about topics I have not even mentioned – in my mouth.

  19. #19 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    Cockroaches don’t like the light.

    And this dude is both a cock and a roach.

  20. #20 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    I’ve said nothing at all on these topics.

    Yes, you’ve said nothing on ANY topic.

    The furthest I have gne is to show that ‘ocean acidification’ is not an established scientific fact.

    Nope, you’ve claimed it. Claiming ain’t proving

    Are you actually Joan with a different sock on?

    Please do not put words – especially word about topics I have not even mentioned – in my mouth.

    Why?

    Why the fuck should ANYONE care about your whining little white-arse bitching?

    You know, maybe you should try thinking and say something rather than the empty calories you manage now.

    Go away.

  21. #21 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @lionel a

    ‘So having picked that cherry, or cherries counting the three sources cited, you can claim that ocean acidification ain’t happening and there is nought to worry about.’

    Please check my writings, and you will find that I have not passed an opinion about either of the two topics you mention.

    And it is disingenuous to claim I have .

  22. #22 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    Please check my writings

    We did.

    and you will find that I have not passed an opinion about either of the two topics you mention

    You did.

    Otherwise what is the point of your whining?

  23. #23 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    What is your best judgement about how many stations will be needed to show ocean acidification is real?

  24. #24 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @lionel a

    ‘So those studies cited actually said what and about what?

    It seems that they said three things.

    1 Increased CO2 gives extra photsynthesis and calcification
    2. Increased CO2 gives decreased photosynthesis and calcification
    3. It all depends on things we don’t understand.

    The relevance to our discussion is that this stuff is not likely to give us good proxy information about pH levels.

  25. #25 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    It seems that they said three things.

    None of which says that extra CO2 will cause no acidification.

    3. It all depends on things we don’t understand.

    Where EXACTLY does it say that? And how do you know it is true?

  26. #26 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @wow

    ‘Why the fuck should ANYONE care about your whining little white-arse bitching?

    You know, maybe you should try thinking and say something rather than the empty calories you manage now.

    Go away.’

    Thanks for confirming what other people have said about some of the inhabitants of this blog. It seems that their low opinion was justified.

  27. #27 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    “1 Increased CO2 gives extra photsynthesis and calcification
    2. Increased CO2 gives decreased photosynthesis and calcification”

    So you base your intransigence on acidification not happening because it could happen???

  28. #28 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    Thanks for confirming what other people have said about some of the inhabitants of this blog. It seems that their low opinion was justified.

    Sorry, tone trolling from an imbecile like you is not a problem for any sane human being.

    The idiocy of deniers seems justified. Your posts have confirmed.

    Thank you for confirming the correlation of idiocy and denialism.

  29. #29 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    In other words, Latte here has nothing so tone trolls.

    As opposed to discussing anything of relevance.

    All the while crying about everyone talking about irrelevant things.

    Poor dear. Doesn’t realise the huge joke nature has played on him.

    Definitely not the sharpest tool in the kiddies playbox…

  30. #30 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @chek

    ‘ a researcher at a leading institute impressed on me that OA is a serious problem’

    Hmm

    Was your paid researcher kind enough to reveal the data on which he based his view.

  31. #31 BBD
    January 22, 2013

    Latimer

    Skip, skip, skip…

    Do you argue that the average pH of the vast majority of the world ocean is already so low that ~390ppmv CO2 (well mixed and continuously rising) will *not* reduce pH further?

    Is this what you believe? Yes/no.

    If no, please explain *why* robust, fundamental theory with copious experimental confirmation is an unreliable predictor of what to expect.

    Please explain *why* you think the fundamentals of chemistry will not apply in this case. Please explain *why* average ocean pH will *not* continue to fall as CO2 concentration increases if it is *not* already so low that further reduction cannot be driven by the increase in atmospheric CO2.

    I think you are spouting crap.

  32. #32 Latimer Alder
    January 22, 2013

    @wow

    ‘the simple ‘it can’t acidify’ assertion you place on it?

    I’ve made no such assertion.

    I suggest that would do better to read an understand what I have actually written rather than just spray random insults loosely connected to things you have imagined I have written.

  33. #33 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    Was your paid researcher kind enough to reveal the data on which he based his view.

    Your point being..?

    Tell us, do you work for free?

    (mind you, if you did, you’re still overpaid)

  34. #34 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    I’ve made no such assertion.

    Yes you did.

    It’s why you claim it is unproven.

  35. #35 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    BBD, there’s no need to think he’s spouting crap.

    It’s evident.

  36. #36 Wow
    January 22, 2013

    Latte: All Froth, no Substance.

  37. #37 Stu
    January 22, 2013

    Am I the only one expecting Latimer to explode at any time, probably in a frothing “you can keep your facts, I’ll take the truth!” starfart?

  38. #38 chek
    January 22, 2013

    Was your paid researcher

    Deary me Lati – resorting to dog-whistling for the ‘only in it fer t’ grant money’ crowd now, eh? Pathetic.

  39. #39 guthrie
    January 22, 2013

    Chek, that’s cheating, you aren’t supposed to talk to real scientists, you’re supposed to waste hours of your life trying to understand it yourself then regurgitate it to Latimer.

  40. #40 chameleon
    January 22, 2013

    No Stu,
    Far more likely that he will just tire of the petty name calling and pathetic attempts to trap him semantically.
    Why don’t you deltoids go back to the original assertion made about OA here?
    Latimer is correct that
    a) It an assertion and/or assumption (and overstated)
    b) There is not enough data to make such an assumption
    The rest is just name calling and arguing over irrelevancies.

  41. #41 BBD
    January 22, 2013

    chameleon

    a) You would have to give your quantified reasoning why OA is ‘overstated’ or this is just argument by assertion.

    b) The insistence on data is to miss the essential point, as I have attempted several times to explain to Latimer. See # 31.

    Your reasoning seems to be as rickety and reliant on rhetoric as his.

  42. #42 Vince Whirlwind
    January 22, 2013

    CHameleon, don’t choose to be taken in by Latimer’s idiocies.

    Here is a simple graphic depicting ocean acidification at Hawaii:
    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/file/Hawaii+Carbon+Dioxide+Time-Series

    Two things to remember,
    – basic chemistry says that if you increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, oceans that connected to that atmosphere will increase in CO2 as well
    – increased CO2 causes acidification

    Neither of these two things is in any doubt in the real world. They are basic, simple, inarguable facts.

    Latimer just likes playing silly buggers to wind up the cranks. He knows he’s lying, and he’ll get a chortle out of seeing you agree with his misstatements.

  43. #43 Lionel A
    January 22, 2013

    Lat Alder

    the following is from ‘Ocean acidification due to increasing
    atmospheric carbon dioxide’, Royal Society 2005 (see link ahead of the quote that you repeated:

    The surface waters of the oceans are slightly alkaline, with
    an average pH of about 8.2, although this varies across
    the oceans by ±0.3 units because of local, regional and
    seasonal variations. Carbon dioxide plays an important
    natural role in defining the pH of seawater (a brief
    account of measures of acidity such as pH, and the
    acid–base chemistry of the CO2–carbonate system in the
    oceans, is given in Annex 1). When CO2 dissolves in
    seawater it forms a weak acid, called carbonic acid. Part
    of this acidity is neutralised by the buffering effect of
    seawater, but the overall impact is to increase the acidity.
    This dissolution of CO2 has lowered the average pH of the
    oceans by about 0.1 units from pre-industrial levels
    (Caldeira & Wickett 2003). Such a value may seem small
    but because of the way pH is measured, as we explain in
    Section 2, this change represents about a 30% increase in
    the concentration of hydrogen ions, which is a
    considerable acidification of the oceans. Increasing
    atmospheric concentration of CO2 will lead to further
    acidification of the oceans.

    Does that not indicate that, contrary to your assertions, that quantitative studies have been carried out other than those three that you tried to focus on?

    Cue more semantic slaloming from our latest addition to the list of faux sceptics.

  44. #44 chameleon
    January 22, 2013

    No BBD,
    I was not the one to make the original unsupported assertion.
    Overstated in this instance means the original assertion was made with no supporting evidence.
    How does one supply quantifiable data for something that was not quantified in the first place?

  45. #45 chek
    January 22, 2013

    Camo, look on it as a failed chemistry student, now a bitter middle-management lackey for an anonymous IT company (literally) reduced to tilting at windmills, arguing against what he’s 35+ years out of date with.

    Of course you’re sympathetic because it appears to relieve you of the responsibility of being informed. By putting your trust in a washed-up crock like Lati here, rather than those active in the field who are by definition more informed about what is going on.

    The fact that you’d prefer not to know what’s going on in reality is – in your terms – a consumer choice. But that, needless to say, isn’t enough to protect you from the consequences.

  46. #46 Jeff Harvey
    January 22, 2013

    More pearls of wisdom (NOT) from Chameleon:

    “Latimer is correct that
    a) It an assertion and/or assumption (and overstated)
    b) There is not enough data to make such an assumption”

    According to who.. YOU?!!!!!!!!

    Ha, ha, ha, ha!

    Now this IS getting good. We have every major scientific body on Earth in agreement over the link between increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide and ocean acidification on the one side, and a few Dunning-Kruger graduates with no relevant expertise or shame on the other.

    Chammy, have you read any of the empirical literature in this area of research? A single study? There’a a helluva lot of em’ out there. Have you ever visited the ISI Web of Science? Done a check in the key words section by typing in the relevant words? Watch the studies pop up in their hundreds? Downloaded any? A single one? I linked to two above, but if you want to get technical I could paste a pile more for you.

    But you won’t read them. Latimer won’t either. We’ll get more blather about the evidence being too limited, more studies being required etc. I have spent the past 15 years giving lectures at universities etc. on the tactics and motives of the anti-environmental lobby. You both fit the term live a glove. Essentially, the anti-environmentalists generally demand 100% concrete evidence of a process; without this, the problem does not exist. I have seen this slimy little trick used to downplay so many environmental threats that I have lost count. Acid rain, pesticide contamination of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, other forms of pollution, rates of deforestation, loss of biodiversity as well as defending various technologies like genetically modified organisms. Now, in spite of the vast and growing empirical evidence, we’ve got our own versions of Abbott and Costello here arguing that we need more proof! And still more!!!! And on top of that, more still!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    What should be obvious to everyone by now is that the deniers here like Lat and Cham aren’t behaving any differently than the massive anti-environmental lobby out there that is arguing on behalf of maintaining the status quo at all costs. I have experienced this kind of thing so many times over the past decade and half that I have lost count. Proof must be absolute or there is no problem. That’s their battle cry.

  47. #47 Jeff Harvey
    January 22, 2013

    “Chameleon, don’t choose to be taken in by Latimer’s idiocies”.

    Vince, Chameleon will be taken in by any argument with respect to climate change and other environmental problems so long as its contrarian. She has a pedigree in her short time on deltoid for doing this. Flat Earthers one and all.

  48. #48 bill
    January 22, 2013

    Latimer – that hollow, hollow man – is well aware that the only intellects he could ever hope to sway are those of the calibre of Chebbie’s.

    The whole climate debate has been a great opportunity for third-raters, hacks, and genuine loons to gain an audience and lashings of undeserved attention.

    If you can’t achieve much on a genuinely level playing field the admiration of fools may be the best you can hope for.

    Of course, some – e.g. Monckton, Delingpole – have managed to turn this unhappy intersection of sociopathy and an ocean of suckers into a nice little earner…

  49. #49 Jeff Harvey
    January 22, 2013

    From the National Academy of Sciences (USA):

    http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12904

    Arguing with Latimer and Chameleon over a strong consensus is a waste of time. They are deniers for reasons that have nothing to do with science in my opinion and will continue to be so indefinitely.

    The late Stephen Schneider once said that debating contrarians is more like a mud wrestling match than a scientific debate. They aren’t interested in science (they actually loathe it), but need to distort it to bolster their pre-determined world view.

    Another colleague at a university in the US once warned me against debating contrarians and deniers in public venues. When I asked why, they said it was simple: because I will tell the truth and the opponent will lie. They have nothing to lose by lying, as they aren’t interested in the truth. Moreover, while the truthful scientist is very cautious in his or her arguments and sticks to probabilities, the denier will confidently assert that there is absolutely nothing to worry about. They will therefore appear much more convincing than the cautious scientist. My colleague’s warning I have taken very seriously since then.

  50. #50 Jeff Harvey
    January 22, 2013

    From the internet (reiterated above in NAS link)
    Two main points; the oceans are an immense system and any changes in pH would require a major external forcing. pH has decreased on average by 0.1 units over the past 150 years. Even this supposedly minor decrease occurring in the blink of a geological eye is alarming enough for such a deterministic system. As the reports suggest, the rate of change is likely to be unprecedented in millions of years. Moreover, because of lag effects on large scale systems, the pH will continue to fall for probably decades until it stabilizes – and that would be if we were to stop burning fossil fuels altogether immediately. Deniers seem to believe that effects are virtually instantaneous.

    From the report:

    What is ocean acidification? What is causing it?

    The ocean absorbs approximately 1/3rd of the CO2 emitted to the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels (1). However, this valuable service comes at a steep ecological cost – the acidification of the ocean. As CO2 dissolves in seawater, the pH of the water decreases, which is called “acidification”.

    *Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, ocean pH has dropped globally by approximately 0.1 pH units*.

    Past and present variability of marine pH. Future predictions for years shown on the right-hand side of the figure are model-derived values based on IPCC mean scenarios. From Pearson and Palmer (2), adapted by Turley et al. (3) and from the Eur-Oceans Fact Sheet No. 7, “Ocean Acidification – the other half of the CO2 problem”, May 2007 (4).

    While these pH levels are not alarming in themselves, the rate of change is cause for concern. *To the best of our knowledge, the ocean has never experienced such a rapid acidification*. By the end of this century, if concentrations of CO2 continue to rise exponentially, we may expect to see changes in pH that are three times greater and 100 times faster than those experienced during the transitions from glacial to interglacial periods. Such large changes in ocean pH have probably not been experienced on the planet for the past 21 million years (5).

  51. #51 guthrie
    January 22, 2013

    Jeff, your colleague is correct. You see it clearly with dealing with creationists – they can spout out 10 lies in a minute which the scientist doesn’t have time to address. Your options are therefore somewhat limited – I believe our host met Monckton once but had prepared everythign beforehand because Monkton doesn’t usually deviate from his previous script.
    Or you can concentrate on one or two things and hammer them home, ignoring all the other lies.

  52. #52 Chameleon
    January 23, 2013

    As I said earlier JeffH,
    You are operating under the misconception that, to quote you, there is :
    “the massive anti-environmental lobby out there”
    To quote you again:
    “what utter tosh!”
    It does however make for highly amusing reading.
    What ‘status quo’? Jeff H?
    You are actually arguing politics and policy platforms based on the ‘precautionary principle’ and the theory of ‘deliberative global governance’.
    It has precious little to do with ‘the environment’.
    And once again:
    THANKYOU CAPTAIN OBVIOUS!
    There is NO QUESTION that mankind has and will impact his environment.
    Like DOH!
    It is actually entirely NATURAL behaviour for mankind to do that.
    You seem to forget that humans are amongst the most successful species on the planet and one of the reasons for that is that humans can and will enhance and alter the environment.
    You also seem to think that mankind is somehow not part of the global environment.
    The ONLY way that could possibly be the case is if mankind was put here by aliens.
    NO ONE is claiming that humans are perfect or that we can’t do better and behave more responsibly.
    Of course we can and of course we are.
    But you are being dishonest trying to frame a political debate around ‘evil mankind vs environment’.
    It’s rubbish politics JeffH.
    If you want to have a POLITICAL discussion, then I am happy to oblige.
    Please be honest about it though and stop claiming that I am ‘anti environmental’. That is just pure, unadulterated political nonsense.
    For all you know I may have done far far more for ‘the environment’ and been far more ‘environmentally responsible’ than you.
    Your rather wonky and unfounded assessment of my “POLITICAL BELIEFS” would be entirely irelevant to my treatment of ‘the environment’.

  53. #53 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    “a) It an assertion and/or assumption (and overstated)”

    Incorrect.

    “b) There is not enough data to make such an assumption”

    Then why did you make the assumption?

  54. #54 Stu
    January 23, 2013

    I count 9 strawmen in that last post alone. Wow.

  55. #55 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    “What ‘status quo’? Jeff H?”

    Ever heard of this thing called “Fossil fuel companies”, chubby?

  56. #56 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    “Please be honest about it though and stop claiming that I am ‘anti environmental’. That is just pure, unadulterated political nonsense.”

    Says the noisy troll who gibbers pure unadulterated political nonsense…

  57. #57 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    “It is actually entirely NATURAL behaviour for mankind to do that.”

    Really? You eat petroleum distillates and coal for dinner?

  58. #58 bill
    January 23, 2013

    Hey, we’ve got permalinks back – so does killfile work here again yet?

    Because I have no desire to waste any more time scrolling past Chebbie’s drivel.

  59. #59 Richard Simons
    January 23, 2013

    Chameleon writes (of Jeff):

    You also seem to think that mankind is somehow not part of the global environment.

    Anyone who gets this from Jeff’s writings clearly has major comprehension problems. Ecologists as a group are extremely cognizant of the fact that humans are a part of, and very dependent on, the global environment.

  60. #60 Wow
    January 23, 2013

    Maybe chubby can point out what from Jeff’s postings makes her think he seems that way?

  61. #61 Richard Simons
    January 23, 2013

    Chameleon: you seem to have missed this question I asked earlier:

    In the late 60s, when I was an undergraduate student, our crop physiology lecturer told us that global temperatures were likely to increase as a result of human production of CO2. He gave the reasons and we all agreed it seemed plausible. What do you think was the explanation and evidence that he gave us?

    I particularly had you in mind when I asked it and I’d really appreciate an answer.

  62. #62 Richard Simons
    January 23, 2013

    Link failed, try again.

    Chameleon: you seem to have missed this question I asked earlier:
    In the late 60s, when I was an undergraduate student, our crop physiology lecturer told us that global temperatures were likely to increase as a result of human production of CO2. He gave the reasons and we all agreed it seemed plausible. What do you think was the explanation and evidence that he gave us?
    I particularly had you in mind when I asked it and I’d really appreciate an answer.

  63. #63 Vince Whirlwind
    January 23, 2013

    Chameleon, if you aren’t “anti-environmental”, then you are no doubt concerned about the progressive acidification of the oceans and the effect this will have on marine food chains and hence on the fishing industry, correct?

  64. #64 Lotharsson
    January 23, 2013

    …some may argue it could have been done with fewer, but haven’t yet come up with an estimate of how many…

    It’s astounding how many ways can you find to be wrong. Does it came naturally, or do you practice with chameleon?

    Some do argue. Or are you disputing that fact now too?

    And “some” asked you to come up with your own estimate. In part because you reject 90% of what other people point out to you, so perhaps you’ll do better if you put some effort into it yourself. In part to see if you have ANY research ability whatsoever – and we have little evidence to support the contention that you do thus far.

    It’s not like this is a difficult research question. You appear to be incompetent at this stage.

  65. #65 Lotharsson
    January 23, 2013

    Latimer is correct that
    a) It an assertion and/or assumption (and overstated)
    b) There is not enough data to make such an assumption

    No, dear, Latimer is wrong and so are you.

    What is correct that:

    1) It is a prediction from very well established chemistry theory – which itself relies on a lot of experiments done under a lot of different conditions. You know, like varying temperature, salinity, starting pH levels and the like…now where have I heard that before?

    2) The direct experimental data in the oceans confirms it. Yes, we’d all like more data and even stronger confirmation, but it’s most definitely not an “assumption” (just like it was the first time you came here and claimed certain findings were “assumptions”). Latimer has pointed to not a shred of data that goes against it. That means it is Latimer’s claims that are “overstated” here, given the weight of evidence.

    3) If I’m not mistaken the weight of the proxy evidence, including that from recent history as well as muuuuuuch longer time periods, points to ocean acidification occurring. Direct measurements are not the only way to understand the system, no matter how cutely Latimer stamps his feet and threatens to hold his breath until he turns blue if he’s not given enough of them.

    4) If I’m not mistaken some of the other factors that Latimer suggests might significantly impact the process have been scientifically investigated and scientists say they won’t. Latimer refuses to investigate their conclusions or their reasons – perhaps because if he did, and were honest, he would not be able to advance his faux-skeptical position.

    You’ll note that I pointed Latimer to a FAQ produced by ocean scientists for the public that says Latimer is wrong – not only on his use of the term “neutralisation”, but on his Great White Hope that “buffering” will save the day from increasing CO2. So far he’s had plenty of time to pontificate here, but no time to show us why they are so deeply mistaken and are spouting unsupported claims. Let me know when he contacts them and shows them the error of their ways and the FAQ is changed, OK? Until then he’s like a kid playing dressing up and pretending that one day when he grows up he’ll be a heroic (thanks, Brad Keyes) researcher fearlessly telling the truth that the mighty consensus refuses to admit…

  66. #66 Lotharsson
    January 23, 2013

    Your reasoning seems to be as rickety and reliant on rhetoric as his.

    I’ve wondered for a while if they’re a double act elsewhere, Latimer with his scientific truthiness act and chameleon cheering on from the sidelines with a word salad made out of incomprehension, illogic and garden variety confusion…

  67. #67 Chameleon
    January 23, 2013

    Which part of naming me an ‘anti enviromentalist’ and claiming there is :
    “the massive anti environmental movement out there”
    Which I am apparently an active and scary member of:
    Is actually argung politics and has precious little to do with the environment;
    did you happen to miss deltoids?
    I’m happy to oblige if you would like to honestly discuss the POLITICS but instead you people just want to claim that if anyone questions your policies and politics then it means they are against the ‘environment’ and part of:
    ‘the massive anti environmental movement out there’.
    That really is just ‘utter tosh’ (as JeffH would say)
    It has made for highly amusing reading but that’s about it folks.
    As I said above, for all you know, I could have done far more for the environment and been far more environmentally responsible than JeffH has been.
    Making wonky and unsupported claims about my POLITICAL BELIEFS from some type of self proclaimed and authoritarian platform associated with lecturing, would be entirely irrelevant concerning my views about the environment.
    Your resultant questions from that comment are highly amusing.
    Richard,
    Why is that question particularly for me?
    Do you think I was present at that lecture?
    I was just beginning Primary School in the late 60’s.
    And just in case you’re not aware of it, research into cropping has moved on in huge leaps and bounds since the late 60’s and cropping practices have changed remarkably since then as well.
    That would actually be a good thing BTW as cropping practices in Australia are far more responsible and sustainable now than they were in the late 60’s.

  68. #68 Lotharsson
    January 23, 2013

    I’m happy to oblige if you would like to honestly discuss the POLITICS…

    You can’t handle an honest discussion of the POLITICS around these topics because you keep injecting a dishonest set of claims about the SCIENCE that informs it into the discussion. When called out on the scientific dishonesty you fall back to claiming it’s just a discussion about politics. IT IS NOT!

    As far as I can see you’re not discussing anything here in good faith and good comprehension – including the politics around anthropogenic climate change.

  69. #69 Vince Whirlwind
    January 23, 2013

    Chameleon, we only have your political beliefs to discuss – you have made it amply clear that you don’t have any relevant knowledge about the facts that your politics rejects.

  70. #70 Lotharsson
    January 23, 2013

    So, chameleon, since you won’t answer Richard Simons’ question, and since you’re burnishing your “I might actually be concerned about the environment because you don’t know for sure that I’m not” credentials, how about Vince’s one:

    …if you aren’t “anti-environmental”, then you are no doubt concerned about the progressive acidification of the oceans and the effect this will have on marine food chains and hence on the fishing industry, correct?

  71. #71 Brad Keyes
    January 23, 2013

    Who was it that insisted a few pages ago that Ove Hoegh-Guldberg is relatively credible? Vince, right?

    You’re wrong. Guldberg tells lies and is therefore (by definition) not credible.

    Guldberg writes at http://theconversation.edu.au/whos-your-expert-the-difference-between-peer-review-and-rhetoric-1550:

    “Searching for articles by David Evans and William Kininmonth revealed no peer-reviewed scientific literature that tests their claim that climate change is not happening.

    “None of these peer-reviewed articles presented data or tested the idea that climate change is or is not happening, or any of the other “errors” that Carter and his co-authors claim are associated with the conclusions of the Climate Commission.

    “The number of articles by Franks since 2000 that involve peer review of his claims that climate change is not happening is also zero.”

    The problem is, none of the scientists attacked by Guldberg have ever made such a claim.

    Continuing his libellous strawman argument, Guldberg even resorts to outright quote-doctoring:

    “Carter and his colleagues dispute the major findings and assert that “independent scientists are confident overall that there is no evidence of global warming” or unusual “sea-level rise”.”

    The real passage reads:

    “[I]ndependent scientists are confident overall that there is no evidence of global warming at a rate faster than for the two major 20th century phases of natural warming; no evidence of sea level rise at a rate greater than the 20th century natural rise of ~1.7 mm/yr; no evidence of acceleration in sea-level change in either the tide gauge or satellite records …”

    Apparently Guldberg thinks he can convince us of our Climate Commission’s “credibility” by lying about the Commission’s critics.

    Does this sound like the tactic of a credible scientist to you?

  72. #72 Lotharsson
    January 23, 2013

    Guldberg tells lies and is therefore (by definition) not credible.

    …says the guy who lies about “Mann abolishing the MWP”.

  73. #73 Brad Keyes
    January 23, 2013

    Guldberg tells lies and is therefore (by definition) not credible.

    Says the guy who backs up his truthful assertions with a link to the proof thereof, which you apparently haven’t even bothered to check, son of Lothar, seeker of the truth.

  74. #74 bill
    January 23, 2013

    Ah, the monkey’s back!

    Anyone convinced by the, ahhh, stuff he’s chucking around? Thought not…

    You’re nothing without your organ-grinder, Braddie…

  75. #75 Lotharsson
    January 23, 2013

    Says the guy who backs up his truthful assertions with a link to the proof thereof, …

    Wait, wait – I get it! You tell a lie or two, but then you say something truthful and that means you’re no longer a liar!

    OK. Has this Hoegh-Guldberg fellow said anything truthful since he said what you claim is a lie? Because if so, under your rules, he’s off the hook.

    Right?

  76. #76 Brad Keyes
    January 23, 2013

    “Wait, wait – I get it! You tell a lie or two, but then you say something truthful and that means you’re no longer a liar!”

    Well, I haven’t told “a lie or two”, so you’re wrong there—but at least you accept that what I’ve just revealed about Hoegh-Guldberg is “something truthful”. That’s a start.

  77. #77 Brad Keyes
    January 23, 2013

    O bilious one,

    I’m an ape, not a monkey, you ignoramus.

  78. #78 Lotharsson
    January 23, 2013

    Looks to me like the Distraction Troops are back in force, hoping that Latimer’s abject failings at science and logic will be soon forgotten.

    (And yes, Brad, I had already looked at it – sheesh, I told you not to come back and claim you can mind-reading until your practice actually started working!)

    One would have to be a fool to claim that “global warming” in this context did NOT mean “anthropogenic global warming”, or that Carter et al. are NOT claiming there has been no anthropogenic global warming by comparing warming rates to two periods which they allege were “natural”.

    One would also have to be a fool NOT to note that Carter has exactly one peer-reviewed climate science paper which was absolutely destroyed after publication, Evans has none that I recall and has been caught out time and time again making scientific claims that won’t stand up to scrutiny. Kininmonth has been similarly caught out.

    So you are that fool – and are apparently desperate enough to proffer this weak piss – accusing a scientist of lying about the nuance of what was said by people who routinely and blatantly misrepresent the science even after they’ve been repeatedly corrected.

    And you’re still lying about Mann which is interesting, given that you claim to hate liars and challenged people to find an example of you lying. Not acknowledging that is yet another form of lying. I guess you’ll fail to acknowledge this too, thus adding another layer of lies to your lies.

    Methinks you’re suffering from a severely over-inflated sense of your ability to detect lying, and perhaps you should go away and practice lie detection along with your mind-reading, and not come back until you actually show some skill at it.

  79. #79 Lotharsson
    January 23, 2013

    Well, I haven’t told “a lie or two”,…

    You lie about lying about Mann?

    Called it.

    …but at least you accept that what I’ve just revealed about Hoegh-Guldberg is “something truthful”.

    Er, no. I’m just inferring your rules from your claims.

    Doesn’t mean I accept them.

    Wow, zero for two on that post! Care to try again?

    And do you think all of this will really lead people to forget that thus far Latimer has revealed he hasn’t got a leg to stand on – despite your cheering him on with misguided praise?

  80. #80 Brad Keyes
    January 23, 2013

    “And do you think all of this will really lead people to forget that thus far Latimer has revealed he hasn’t got a leg to stand on – despite your cheering him on with misguided praise?”

    I haven’t been following your spat with Latimer. I doubt your assault on his legs was successful, but I may get around to reading it if I ever find myself with nothing better to do.

  81. #81 Brad Keyes
    January 23, 2013

    “You lie about lying about Mann?”

    Nope. Keep grasping.

  82. #82 Chameleon
    January 23, 2013

    And look at this one Richard.
    By none other than Matt Ridley!
    (yes it is a little ironic I know)
    Now please deltoids, this does not automatically mean that I am a member of some mysterious organisation or a blind faith supporter of everything Matt Ridley says.
    His figs and references here however are quite interesting in relation to Richard’s question.
    http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/peak-farmland-is-here.aspx
    Look at how far the world of Agriculture and therefore crop physiology has advanced since the 60’s.
    It seems like it is now becoming possible to feed more people from less land.
    That would be a pretty good thing don’t you think?
    Lotharsson,
    There is a huge difference between being ‘no doubt concerned’ and discussing political policy platforms to deal with this ‘no doubt concerned’.
    You Deltoids are so intent on arguing and trying to lay semantic traps that you are totally missing the point.
    Let me try again:
    Your assumptions about my politics have NOTHING to do with my behaviour and my concerns re the environment.
    Just because I may/may not have differing POLITICAL views to you , does not mean that I am automatically less concerned about or less responsible for my environment than you are.
    That is nonsense.
    If you want to discussand/or argue the POLITICS and the POLICY PLATFORMS and the CURRENT POLITICALTHEORIES then let me know OK?

  83. #83 Brad Keyes
    January 23, 2013

    “Wow, zero for two on that post! Care to try again?”

    So Wow is back and failing as usual? What a surprise.

  84. #84 bill
    January 23, 2013

    Gee, the ‘two major 20th century phases of natural warming’ and ’20th century natural [sea level] rise’ is, um, ‘truthful’, is it, Mr. Ape?

    What does ‘unusual’ mean, pet, in relation to the word ‘natural': would a ‘natural’ event be ‘unusual’? So where’s the problem in stating that your heroes were claiming ‘no unusual sea-level rise’?

    ‘Global warming’ vs. ‘natural warming’ may be sloppy, but we all know what he means – surely you’re not going to support a rather tawdry semantic trick to try to get the audience to implicitly buy into the notion that any waming is ‘natural’?

    Hence this reverts to exactly the point I just made above.

    ‘[I]ndependent scientists are confident overall that there is no evidence of [anthropogenic rather than what we’re going to demand be ‘natural’] global warming’ is an absurdity, but one you’d certainly like to believe.

    ‘Semantic games’ is a bit of a phrase of the month around here, so that’s all rather topical. It’s about all you lot have.

    Little wonder you’re Latimer’s little shadow…

    And how long did you have to hunt around to find some chum to cut-and-paste on Guldberg?

  85. #85 Brad Keyes
    January 23, 2013

    “And how long did you have to hunt around to find some chum to cut-and-paste on Guldberg?”

    Already had it in my quick-chum links. Took a couple of seconds to call it up as soon as I noticed the serial reef obituarist being trotted out as an exemplar of credibility (above, on this thread).

  86. #86 Lotharsson
    January 23, 2013

    I see Brad is from the Alder School Of Debate, whereby asserting that one’s argument is valid is far more important than – nay, completely removes the necessity to – demonstrate its validity.

    It does mean one never “loses” and never “lies” because one’s own assertions that one has not lost and has not lied are sufficient proof under Latimer’s 4th Form Rules.

  87. #87 Brad Keyes
    January 23, 2013

    “I see Brad is from the Alder School Of Debate, whereby asserting that one’s argument is valid is far more important than – nay, completely removes the necessity to – demonstrate its validity.”

    An argument’s validity (or otherwise) is an intrinsic property thereof. I’m not in the habit either of meta-asserting or of meta-demonstrating such a property, since it’s either self-evident or it isn’t. You however seem addicted to meta-denying it (extremely verbosely), which is equally ineffectual.

  88. #88 Lotharsson
    January 23, 2013

    His figs and references here however are quite interesting in relation to Richard’s question.

    Good grief!

    That article about farm land usage and productivity discusses the reasoning behind ’60’s predictions of greenhouse gas warming exactly as much as Delingpole’s article quoted Flannery saying “fleeting fancy”.

    That is, not at all. Nada. Not in the slightest. Zip. Never discussed it. Zero. Did not do so. None. Never even hinted at it.

    Is your village missing you?

  89. #89 Lotharsson
    January 23, 2013

    I’m not in the habit either of meta-asserting or of meta-demonstrating such a property…

    You should try reading your own stuff back some time.

    Maybe get an English teacher to help you. They might also help you with your frequent miscomprehension, and suggest that writing snarky responses when you have miscomprehended tends to make you look, well, silly.

    You however seem addicted to meta-denying it (extremely verbosely), which is equally ineffectual.

    ROFL!

    I demonstrate it. And then you typically do what you did in that quote – “meta-assert” that the demonstration does not thus demonstrate without showing reason to think that to be true.

    So thanks for illustrating my point.

  90. #90 bill
    January 23, 2013

    Here’s some more epic ‘truthiness’ from The Men the Ape Admires (in that Bastion of Truthiness, Quadrant):

    there is nothing unusual about the behaviour of mountain glaciers, Arctic sea ice or the Greenland or West Antarctic ice sheets

    You cannot seriously try to uphold that one, surely?

    Ho ho ho. And here we are, what, playing again on a veritably autistic use of the word ‘unusual’?

    Well, given how mind-numbingly, pole-axeingly, ideologically blind the target-audience is…

    (Anybody seriously doubt he’s got a ‘quick-chum’ list?)

    Same question as your keeper; do you imagine you’re achieving what you’d like to believe your achieving here?

    Because I don’t think anyone else does!

  91. #91 Chameleon
    January 23, 2013

    :-) :-) :-)
    Chuckle :-)
    What point was that again Lotharsson?
    ” I demonstrate it. And then you typically do what you did in that quote – “meta-assert” that the demonstration does not thus demonstrate without showing reason to think that to be true.

    So thanks for illustrating my point”
    Chuckle :-)

  92. #92 Brad Keyes
    January 23, 2013

    Chameleon—I no longer bother asking Lotharsson what his point was. It rarely comes across any clearer the second time.

  93. #93 bill
    January 23, 2013

    Chebbie needs help to comprehend what’s going on again. Quelle surprise!

  94. #94 bill
    January 23, 2013

    Braddy, babe, you’re right: you two are just about intellectual peers, rest assured…

  95. #95 Lotharsson
    January 23, 2013

    Brad (and chameleon), let’s recap.

    Brad: “Mann abolished the MWP”.

    Me: Nope, that’s false because of A – it had not been established at the time you claim it was abolished. It’s independently false because of B. Pick either one, the claim is still false.

    Brad: OK, so you don’t like the timing. Let’s say “Mann denies the MWP”.

    Me: Nope, that’s merely a fallacious variant – A still applies. B does too – which you haven’t addressed.

    Brad:

    […some time later…]

    Brad: I never lie. Show me otherwise.

    Me: You claimed “Mann abolished the MWP”.

    Brad: Not a lie.

    Me: You’re asserting your own claim. I demonstrated it wasn’t true; you have failed to demonstrate my demonstration is wrong. That’s just like Latimer who argues mostly from asserting the truth of his claim in the face of rebuttals rather than demonstrating that it survives scrutiny.

    Brad: My claim is self-evidently true. You’re the one asserting your position.

    Me: The first claim there is an assertion, not a demonstration. And so is the second! Thanks for illustrating that you predominantly argue by assertion, especially by reasserting claims in the face of rebuttals (such as B, and even the variant of A) that you have not even attempted to demonstrate do not hold.

    (I predict that won’t be clear to either of you.)

  96. #96 Brad Keyes
    January 23, 2013

    Only 4 more prolix and irrelevant comments to go, Lotharsson and bilious, and you’ll have succeeded in your goal of pushing my proof of Hoegh-Guldberg’s mendacity (comment #71) back to the previous page. A tedious game.

  97. #97 Jeff Harvey
    January 23, 2013

    Chameleon writes, “Just because I may/may not have differing POLITICAL views to you , does not mean that I am automatically less concerned about or less responsible for my environment than you are”.

    The why are your supposed opinions at odds with every respected scientific body on Earth? Why in lieu of these bodies do you choose a side populated by a rag-tag army of pseudo-scientists, right wing pundits, other non-experts, think tanks and various anti-environmental groups? Since arriving on Deltoid, you’ve donned a cheerleaders dress and danced to the tune of downplaying SLR, climate warming, ocean acidification, and other areas where the weight of scientific evidence and, more importantly, opinion, is heavily skewed to the other side.

    Your approach is much like Bjorn Lomborg’s – claim to be an environmentalist, but then argue that environmental problems are overblown (again, in contrast with the weight of scientific opinion) and thus spend elsewhere. In Lomborg’s case it was a sure-fire way to go from academic unknown (1 peer-reviewed article to that point in an obscure field) to prominence amongst the lay public, who know even less about the complex issues he superficially covers than Lomborg himself. Its also made the guy very popular amongst those who are keen to see the current global economic and political systems remain intact. Hence why Lomborg speaks often at think tanks, corporate dinners and the like.

    Essentially Chameleon, you are a hypocrite. Your posts also aren’t witty, despite you may think.

  98. #98 Brad Keyes
    January 23, 2013

    To help you along, here’s a (succinct and potent) comment from me.

    Lotharsson faux-quoted me:

    “Brad: My claim is self-evidently true.”

    No, I said that arguments are either self-evidently valid or self-evidently invalid, and so Lotharsson’s notion of “asserting” that a particular argument is valid makes no sense at all. That’s not how people argue.

    Do you even know the difference between validity (of an argument) and truth (of a claim), Lotharsson?

  99. #99 Chameleon
    January 23, 2013

    Lotharsson?
    It isn’t about debating talents and debating tactics you know.
    You seem to think that everybody should engage according to your tactical rules and that we must have an affirmative and a negative case.
    You do realise that you’re not actually communicating anything of much use don’t you?
    You are obsessed with trying to lay semantic traps and when people choose not to ‘take the other side’ you go to great lengths postulating and ruminating on what that means about their mental abilities according to your rules.
    It doesn’t mean anything of the sort you know.
    It just means that people aren’t interested in playing at debating tactics or perhaps that people don’t think that we have to argue from your defined battle lines.
    We can all see clearly that you like playing that game and it is obviously a hobby of yours.
    But you are only proving that you like to argue.
    I worked that out not long after my first visit here Lotharsson.
    You don’t need to keep proving it.

  100. #100 Lotharsson
    January 23, 2013

    Only 4 more prolix and irrelevant comments to go…

    Argument by assertion that responses to your argument have no merit – without demonstrating any reason to believe that assertion.

    Thanks for yet another illustration of my point.

    …you’ll have succeeded in your goal…

    Argument by assertion, this time relying on mind-reading, and inaccurate mind-reading to boot. Your conspiracy theorising about my motives isn’t working.

    It is not my goal to “push back” your comment about Hoegh-Guldberg. My responses indicate that your claim is difficult to substantiate and appears quite likely to be mendacious – or at least indicative of comprehension problems. I’m more than happy for readers to have that exchange front and centre of their mind when reading your other comments.

Current ye@r *