Brangelina thread

By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.

Comments

  1. #1 BBD
    April 19, 2013

    # 96

    1/ You want to find out about the relative efficacies of different forcings? Go ahead. Do your homework. I am not going to do it for you. While you are at it, find out how the early faint sun paradox was resolved (hint it has much to do with GHG forcing).

    2/ It’s not MY paradigm. Stop the framing. It is the entire standard scientific position and has been for half a century. The problem here is that *you* don’t know what you are talking about and you are in denial. A toxic combination.

    Your statement that climatologists know “fuck-all” about the way climate operates is false and you have abused another stolen email by Ed Cook, stripped of all context to “support” your rubbish. Here is the context:

    Without trying to prejudice this work [a proposed new proxy reconstruction], but also because of what I almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will show that we can probably say a fair bit about [sub] 100 year extra-tropical NH temperature variability (at least as far as we believe the proxy estimates), but honestly know f**k-all about what the [longer than] 100 year variability was like with any certainty (i.e. we know with certainty that we know f**k-all).

    Note that:

    – Cook is not talking about climate science in general

    – Cook is not talking about paleoclimate in general

    – Cook is talking about specifics – very high resolution proxy reconstructions (periods of less than 100 years) within millennial-scale Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions

    – This conversation took place in 2003, not last week

    – This has nothing do with the attribution of modern warming or the estimate of climate sensitivity and pretending that it does is blatant misrepresentation.

    So don’t.

    You haven’t answered the question. You have waffled and dodged. As you do every bloody time. So you can fuck off.

    I already provided a succinct example of Singer telling three lies in two sentences on this thread. So you can fuck off again. It is *trivially easy* to find long, detailed and accurate descriptions of the lies and misrepresentations spun by Lindzen. I suggest you start at Skeptical Science.

    Your tactic of denial and hiding behind “show me the evidence” will not work with me. For the third time: you can fuck off. If you don’t think I’m correct, go and do your homework and come back and we will argue the science, point by point. Otherwise, you are wrong and I am right.

  2. #2 BBD
    April 19, 2013

    God you annoy me Keyes with your feigned climate agnosia denial tactics. Go back to my original question to the fuckwit Rednoise. Let’s see if smart boy can argue the science.

    What a warm “MWP” really means for fake sceptics.

    What it means is trouble. Since there is no evidence for any *major* change in forcings, a warm “MWP” means that the climate system is highly sensitive to radiative perturbation. Highly.

    This is anathema to the “it’s-not-CO2″ brigade, who are stuck in one of two camps:

    – deny the physics (eg Sky Dragons)

    – accept the physics but handwave an improbably low climate sensitivity

    The trouble with improbably low climate sensitivities is that paleoclimate behaviour stops making any kind of sense. Nothing works, from the overall cooling trend characterising the Cenozoic to orbitally-triggered deglaciations to the “MWP” and LIA.

    For all that to *work* you need at least a moderately sensitive climate system (dT= ~0.75C per W/m^2 dF) . And if we have one, then the radiative forcing from an ever-increasing atmospheric fraction of CO2 means warming. Exactly as predicted.

  3. #3 BBD
    April 19, 2013

    Of course, there’s an easy way out of the “MWP” non-dilemma: simply reject the dishonest framing of the deniers.

    Reject the lie that “alarmists hate the MWP and tried to *get rid* of it”. Understand the full context. Understand that the millennial reconstructions seek to understand and describe past climate behaviour, not *falsify it* for some political end. That is loony tunes conspiracy theorising. Rubbish for nutters. Reject it.

    Understand that you have been tricked but tricked in a scientifically illiterate way which leaves you with a huge problem. You can’t have a global and synchronous MWP as warm or warmer than the present unless the climate system is really very sensitive to radiative perturbation indeed.

    The liars don’t seem to have thought this one through to its logical conclusion. And you bought the lie without thinking it through either. As I said, wake up. Reject the lies. Think.

  4. #4 Brad Keyes
    April 20, 2013

    Blast from the past!

    Long-suffering readers may recall the day in February when Wow quoted “someone’s” idiotic “thoughts” on the topic of consensus:

    There are two aspects to scientific consensus. Most importantly, you need a consensus of evidence – many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion. As the evidence piles up, you inevitably end up with near-unanimous agreement among actively researching scientists: a consensus of scientists.

    I immediately made the banal observation that no scientist could possibly be ignorant enough to say something like that, and I asked Wow the source for his quote. The normally logorrhoeic Wow turned bashful all of a sudden, resisting all further attempts at questioning. He refused to divulge the idiot’s identity; all he would say, over and over, is that I had to define “scientist.”

    I repeatedly explained:

    Anyone practicing one of the physical sciences is a scientist. No such person can possibly have disgorged the offal you quoted.
    If I were wrong about this, you would have told the world about it by now.

    Wow then told the lie that would seal his fate (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/comment-page-19/#comment-149445):


    ”Anyone practicing one of the physical sciences is a scientist”

    Then the quote was from a scientist.

    Really? A scientist?! What scientist?

    He wouldn’t say.

    Finally, after more than 48 hours of evasion, it was Wow’s avian ally, the birdbrained Bill, who let the cat out of the bag: the quote was from John Cook. Yes, that John Cook. John Cook the SkSFürher; Lewandowsky’s halfwit henchboy.

    No surprises there: I knew the party culpable for the moronic passage was no scientist, and I said so, and I was right.

    What I didn’t count on was the deltoid denizens’ apparently infinite capacity for denying the obvious.

    Wow’s partner in hebetude, the shameless chek, refused to acknowledge my vindication.

    I asked:

    Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice, chek?

    Wow flailed:

    Physics.

    Chek improvised:

    I expect the fact that John Cook’s qualified in physics and solar physics and teaches at university level as well as effectively practising science communication on a well-known website detested by climate denier cranks (such as carpet-chewing “Brad” here) must really make nobodies like carpet-chewing “Brad” quite dyspeptic

    [W]hy are you lying about John Cook not being a scientist when he works as one and works with other scientists?

    Wow doubled down on the denial:

    Cook is a scientist.

    Your only “proof” against it is that you say he isn’t.

    That, from an obvious nutcase, is worth less than nothing.

    Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice?

    
Solar physics.

    Lionel bullshat:

    With an undergraduate education in physics from the University of Queensland and a post-graduate honors year studying solar physics…

    Cook clearly has an education in science sufficient enough for him to comprehend the nuances of climate change science and does practice that science by the very nature of his involvement with and founding of Skeptical Science.

    Therefore your declaration that,

    As everyone knows, John Cook does not practice a physical science. He is not a solar physicist. He is not a physicist. You were lying.

    is demonstrably untrue, see above. GOTCHA!

    Who is the liar now? Your ‘facility with words‘ [1] is exposing you for the evasive, devious and mendacious troll that you are.

    I corrected:

    ROFL!

    Okay… okay… so far I’ve heard:

    1. Cook is a practicing physicist
2. Cook is a practicing solar physicist
3. Cook is a practicing climate scientist

    And number 3 was as simple as running a blog!

    The uncanny thing is, despite Dr Cook’s years of research and publication in the peer-reviewed climate-science literature, he’s inexplicably managed to avoid picking up the rudiments of scientific thought! It’s almost unbelievable that someone who’d hung out with scientists and listened to their opinions, or even done so much as read a book or two about the history of opinions in the science community, could ever produce a falsehood as gross as this one with a straight face:

    “There are two aspects to scientific consensus. Most importantly, you need a consensus [sic] of evidence – many different measurements pointing to a single, consistent conclusion.”

    Are you actually naive enough to buy this, Lionel? Are you really oblivious to the existence of scientific consensi that don’t have the support of a consilience of evidence?

    I put Wow in his place:

    Let me remind you of your message of February 16:

    “Anyone practicing one of the physical sciences is a scientist”

    Then the quote was from a scientist.

    No it was not. I knew immediately that it couldn’t be, and I was right.

    It was from John Cook. As everyone knows, John Cook does not practice a physical science. He is not a solar physicist. He is not a physicist. You were lying.

    I schooled chek:

    You pompous dimwit, chek. I told Wow that by “scientist” I meant “someone practicing one of the physical sciences” and Wow replied, “Then the quote was from a scientist.”

    No it was not.

    It was from John Cook, cartoonist, blogger and paid propagandist.


    Cook is not a scientist. Miseducating the youth of Queensland in “Science Communication” is not the same as practicing one of the physical sciences, which is why your only response to the following question is to dance spastically around it:

    “Which of the physical sciences does John Cook practice?”

    The following answer is correct, and you will therefore never be able to say it:

    “None, because Wow was lying and Brad’s deduction was spot on.”

    And please, no more red herrings about who John Cook “works with.” Chris Mooney, the English graduate who wouldn’t know the scientific method if it ate his face, “works with” scientists routinely. Unfortunately their mental qualities haven’t rubbed off on him.

    I concluded:

    Moreover, Cook cheapened and traduced the scientific method in a retarded article he wrote, and I love the scientific method, and it’s not at all clear why I should repay Cook’s attacks on a loved one with kindness.
    
Who do you think I am, Gandhi?

    John Cook is not a scientist. But don’t take my word for it. Who needs reliable sources when SkepticalScience can settle the bet for us, thanks to the marvels of Internet archiving:

    About Skeptical Science

    This site was created by John Cook. I’m not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade. I did a Physics degree at the University of Queensland and while I achieved First Class Honours and could’ve continued onto a PhD, I instead quit academia and became a professional scrawler. Too much doodling in lectures, I think. Nevertheless, I’ve pursued a keen interest in science and if anything, found my curiosity about how the world works increased once I wasn’t forced to study for impending exams.

    In case you missed it, John Cook just agreed with me:

    I’m not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade.

    But don’t hold your breath, dear readers, waiting for an apology from Wow, chek or Lionel A for their long history of dishonesty on this topic.

    Being in denial means never having to say sorry.

  5. #5 Brad Keyes
    April 21, 2013

    Jeff Harvey,

    you seem to take robust exception to this generalisation by Rednose:

    “And it has been argued, many of the most vociferous supporters of CAGW seem to come from far end of the political left wing, “bring on world government and control.” “Down with democracy and freedom of speech.”

    As outrageous as you may find this, in my personal experience it’s pretty uncontroversially true, although I would rather say “some” than “many.” For example, it’s unlikely that the bulk of the support for the idea of CAGW comes from the “far” left (since that is, by definition, a fringe constituency). Nevertheless, the belief–denial axis is closely aligned with left–right political affinity, at least in the Anglosphere, which is obviously the source of most of my anecdotal data—but I’m told that the ideological coordinate system we take for granted might not be valid elsewhere, especially in Europe, so your experience may vary.

    The more you say, the deeper the pit of shit you sink into Rednose. Defend your statement. Name those at the ‘far end of the political left wing’ who are supporters of (C)AGW.

    I can’t speak for Rednose, but as a rule of thumb in Australia, the UK and the US, it’s well-known that believers (not to say supporters!) of CAGW tend to be izquierdistas. Just to take the first sample that springs to mind, consider the SkS kidz. In a forum thread titled “Political Compass” a bunch of them take a political orientation questionnaire, which confirms that they’re all in the same quadrant (Left / Liberal) in their political sympathies.

    “It’s official, we’re all a bunch of leftists”—John Cook.

    “I’m a damn dirty commie”—Dana Nuccitelli.

    “OMG, I’m a closet Leftist!”—Daniel Bailey.

    “It seems I am on par with Nelson Mandela”—perseus.

    “Turns out we’re all a bunch of soppy leftists”—MarkR.

    “Reality reveals a left-wing bias.”—nealjking.

    “We’re all pretty much a bunch of Socialist Libertarians—See Chomsky”—gyrpo.

    “[A]t heart I am a fundamentalist extremist moderate”—Dikran Marsupial (who scores as Left / Liberal too).

    “I’m still something of leftie, despite all those years in business.”—Andy S.

    “The Criticisms of the Skeptics are right—SkSers are obviously all pinko/liberals”—Glenn Tamblyn.

    As self-evident as this finding is, some of the kidz are apparently naive enough to be surprised by it! Andy S writes,

    I recall previous discussion dealing with the SkS team page, and how the map and bios would be able to show that we are a diverse group of people that have different social and political views and backgrounds […but] apparently most of us are in the same general quadrant.

    FWIW, I took the test and landed in exactly the same quadrant.

    But many of my fellow deniers would land elsewhere—because our side is philosophically diverse. Of course, this hasn’t stopped the lazy stereotype of the right-wing CAGW denier being inscribed deeply, implicitly, into the discourse. For example, check out the advice a hapless John Cook offers to the (hoax) blogger formerly known as Alene Composta—my emphasis:

    In fact, the level of attack that the climate scientists receive are the greatest—death threats, dead rats left on their door, legal harassment from conservative lawyers and ad hominem attack after ad hominem attack. No one is worthy of more respect than climate scientists who are the preeminent experts in the world, spending decades researching this stuff, and yet their name is mud to deniers. As all the science and evidence points to climate action, the only recourse deniers have is to attack the messenger.

    You recycle the trope that “catastrophe” is just a strawman:

    I bracket the ‘C’ because that is a corporate funded think tank invention. Certainly it is likely that AGW will have serious effects on certain ecosystems across the biosphere, but the C has been added for some kind of political effect.

    Come on Jeff, let’s not deny that the entire narrative has been about catastrophic climate change from the start. Let’s not pretend that the IPCC itself is above using the language of catastrophe explicitly. Open your copy of AR4. Look at the title of section 2.2.4 of the report by Working Group III:

    2.2.4 Risk of catastrophic or abrupt change

    But back to my point: who is advocating ‘world government control, whilst eliminating democracy and free speech’?

    Calls for world government control? We’ve got those.

    As President Chirac of France put it when promoting a key Kyoto Protocol objective for Western Europe in 2000,

    For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environment Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.

    If you lived in Australia, you’d have the honor of reading your Chief Climate Commissioner, the scientist Tim Flannery in the pages of The Guardian:

    Today we’re on the edge of creating this global super-organism. That will mean there is no outside, there is no other …

    For the first time, this global super-organism, this global intelligence, will be able to send a single strong and clear signal to the earth and … we will be a regulating intelligence for the planet and we will do what our brain does for our body, which is help create stability, co-ordination between the parts and lead to a stronger Gaia.

    Professor Flannery had previously admitted, in the lead-up to the Copenhagen negotiations, that

    We think of them as being concerned with some sort of environmental treaty. That is far from the case. The negotiations now ongoing toward the Copenhagen agreement are in effect diplomacy at the most profound global level. They deal with every aspect of our life and they will influence every aspect of our life, our economy, our society.

    A source at Greenpeace wrote the following to an East Anglian climate scientist. 

    From: “paul horsman” 

    To: m.kelly@uea.ac.uk (Mike Kelly)

    It was good to see you again yesterday – if briefly. One particular thing you said – and we agreed – was about the IPCC reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation agenda driven by organisations like the WTO. So my first question is do you have anything written or published, or know of anything particularly on this subject, which talks about this in more detail?

    As early as 1996, Mikhail Gorbachev was musing at the State of the World Forum in San Francisco that,

    The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government.

    Contempt for free speech? Thinly disguised, if at all:

    There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

    You’d be forgiven for thinking I’m quoting from a Scientology field manual for dealing with subversives, but no. That was the sidebar text found on every page of the anti-skeptic site desmogblog.com.

    Is this an empty threat mission statement, or do they really mean it? Just ask any “denier” who’s made the mistake of trying to advocate an alternative to alarmism at one of the notorious climate deletionist blogs (SkepticalScience, RealClimate). Caveat visitor. It’s probably our own damn fault for expecting any different; after all, “Mike” launched RC with this vow:

    Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.

    You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC comments as a megaphone…

    mike

    Naturally, deletionist ethics don’t stop at mere blog comments. This same clique is just as careful to “screen” the scientific literature itself, ensuring the skeptics don’t get to use IPCC reports as “as a megaphone” either:

    I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

    Career deletionism isn’t unheard of either!

    If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted. …

    If the climate movement had a Voltaire, he’d probably say something like: “Sir, I may not agree with what you say, but I also reserve the right to delete it, to ensure any editor who publishes it loses his or her job, to ensure any university that gives you a stage cancels your appearance, to violate the Constitutionally-protected anonymity of any private donors who choose to support you, and to thrust a pie in your face.” Skeptics have paid all these petty penalties and more for presuming to speak freely, and the most disturbing aspect is that it wasn’t lone losers on the fringe of climatism who did these things to skeptics—it wasn’t the kind of inbred idiots that deposit dead rats on doorsteps in the middle of the night and are rightly too embarrassed to own up to it the next day—far from it! It was prominent, respectable members of the climate movement who did all these things. Openly and unapologetically. Because climate deletionism is salonfähig.

    Cries of “down with democracy”? Yes, obviously. From the point of view of certain alarmists, democracy has failed (to deliver meaningful climate action, or whatever). Adolescent dreams of overthrowing it were more or less inevitable the moment the voting public signalled its indifference to the “problem” of climate change. How could the alarmist intelligentsia appeal against the verdict of the common man—where else could it go but over the common man’s head?

    Australia’s own Professor Flannery was an early adopter of such thinking. In The Weather Makers: Our changing climate and what it means for life on earth he “contrasts the freedom of humanity with the need for a more directive leadership.”

    More than one climate movementarian has admired the Chinese political arrangement for its ability to make trains run on time enact supposedly environment-friendly Great Leaps Forward—often involving picking up rubbish—without all the hassle of seeking and securing the electorate’s consent for major legislative changes. In The Climate Change Challenge And The Failure Of Democracy (2007), medical scientist David Shearman and his coauthor Joseph Wayne Smith (who are both Australian—what else?) fantasise that, in response to the “unique” “problem” of climate change,

    Government in the future will be based upon … a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task.

    It can be argued that all these factors have a common denominator: the fundamental flaws in liberal democracy. The market economy, now the linchpin of western culture, is fused with liberal democracy, such that each is dependent upon the other for survival. Together they have developed a liberty for the individual that has environmentally destructive consequences. The liberty to negate these consequences is constrained.

    Chapter 9 will describe in more detail how we might begin the process of constructing such real universities to train the ecowarriors to do battle against the enemies of life. We must accomplish this education with the same dedication used to train its warriors. As in Sparta, these natural elites will be especially trained from childhood to meet the challenging problems of our times. [p. 134]

    Even a well-educated schoolchild could tell these authors why their putative utopia was in fact a dystopian nightmare. After all, when Plato tried exactly the same shit thousands of years ago, he was fatally rebuffed by a simple question: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Yet in the second decade of the third millennium AD, this proto-fascist bilge is apparently taken seriously again… at least in the climate movement. A deep thinker called Gordon Graham, the Henry Luce III Professor of Philosophy and the Arts at Princeton Theological Seminar, says of the Shearman-Smith book, apparently without irony:

    Warnings of a pending environmental crisis are no longer the prerogative of solitary prophets. They now reflect the consensus of the scientific establishment. But how radical a change in established political thinking do they require of us? This volume makes a powerful case for the view that taking environmental crisis seriously implies a radical critique of democracy itself, and a willingness to accept government by qualified expertise rather than popular election. If political thinking at its best makes the pressing questions of the day an occasion to revisit cherished fundamentals, then this book qualifies.

    Finally, let me stress that I don’t regard these atavistic and bestial impulses as pandemic, or even typical, in the kind of people who are worried about climate change. I’m sure the majority of CAGW believers would rather preserve such traditions as free speech and democracy, thanks very much. Nevertheless these darker elements in the climate movement really exist, and if you dismiss the evidence thereof as blithely as you wave away Rednose’s comment then I’m afraid your denial of the problem will only perpetuate it, Jeff. You need to accept that it’s real, condemn it and cut it off before it infects all of your “side.”

  6. #6 Brad Keyes
    April 21, 2013

    Jeff,

    To continue from the above,

    The unanswerable Aristotelian comeback—¿quis custodiet ipsos custodes?—should by rights have put an end to Plato’s fantasies about a regime of philosopher-kings once and for all. Alas, fascist ideation is not so easily eradicated from the human psychological menu, as students of the 20th century know only too bitterly. Nevertheless I trust you’ll agree that the recrudescence of this dark urge within the church of climatism—in the guise of “government by qualified expertise rather than popular election” or “specially-trained philosopher-ecologists” who “advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities”, or any other—is something to be deplored.

    But as I stressed earlier, the chillingly anti-democratic thoughts entertained by these climate intellectuals is probably not widespread among the climate-concerned rank and file. The pawn that calls itself chek is a case in point. I was reminded of this by some words I had occasion to address to it:

    chek,

    Your guilelessness is most refreshing:

    [CAGW skeptics are associated with] the secret – or at the very least underhand – channelling of money to groups attempting to subvert democratic government. The kind of thing that some likely would call an actual conspiracy.

    Ah, finally someone who doesn’t deny what the MOD family of theories is all about.

    Conspiracies. Thank you, chek.

    Chek’s “arguments” vividly illustrate a paranoid and superficial grasp on reality, but on the plus side they reaffirm a common value: that democracy is a good thing, and putative attacks on it would be bad. It just goes to show, even some of the most fatuous believalists on the Interwebs share some core premises with the normal citizens of the free world.

    Further on the respective political tendencies of the two broad climate credal camps, I wrote that

    FWIW, I took the ["Political Compass"] test and landed in exactly the same quadrant [as the SkS kidz]

    I should have added that Steven McIntyre and Freeman Dyson are also leftist liberals, just like me.

    Of course, I won’t flatter myself by comparison with either of those men intellectually! I’m merely emphasising the fact that CAGW skepticism is a broad church that resists stereotyping.

    Notwithstanding the undeniable truth of these individual data points, it would be equally absurd to pretend there wasn’t some statistical correlation between CAGW denial and generally “right” politics, at least throughout the Anglospheric population. (My earlier disclaimer about the politics of continental Europe and other parts of the world still holds—I’d be interested in your observations on that front, Jeff.) This was proven once and for all by Dan Kahan’s research at Yale, if not earlier.

    But it’s important not to misinterpret this trend.

    First, is the observation above any more or less than another way of saying CAGW belief goes hand-in-hand with “left” politics? No, it’s the obverse of the same coin.

    Second, correlation is not causation. It would be logically premature to ejaculate, “Aha! You only deny CAGW because you don’t like its political implications!” (The contrapositive assertion would, of course, be equally fallacious.)

    I can’t speak from the authority of personal introspection on what makes a political rightist / conservative skeptical of CAGW, but I have spent a lot of time talking and listening to such folk. (Incidentally, the average “climate psychologist” actually prides himself on avoiding this empirical work—the pseudo-scholar Stephan Lewandowsky goes out of his way to remain ignorant about how real-life CAGW skeptics speak and think—so it’s no surprise that they’re utterly clueless as to the etiology of CAGW disbelief. Said cynical clowns are wilfully, effortfully wrong on this topic. One or two noble exceptions to this indictment—like the aforementioned Kahan—are thankfully available, but otherwise the entire “climate psychology” community could perish in a faculty room fire with no loss whatsoever to human knowledge.) From my experience with conservative CAGW skeptics, I know better than to insult their rationality by theorising that they have political motives, or any motives for that matter, for their beliefs about the Earth’s atmosphere. Whichever way you slice it, such theories are tantamount to an accusation of mental illness, for if someone agrees or disagrees with a scientific opinion because its “political implications” are congenial or uncongenial, that person is necessarily fooling him- or herself … even if he or she happens to arrive at the right answer! Any conclusion that we arrive at teleologically, or adopt instrumentally, is to that extent an unscientific one. It is therefore insulting even to ask somebody what “motivates” their belief in a particular proposition about nature. If they’re sane, the answer must be “nothing.”

    In other words, so-called “motivated reasoning” is actually irrational, and therefore pathological, at least when it informs our beliefs about the material world. Sanity requires that we base our “science” beliefs on the evidence—that we derive it from information about how the world is, not from how we’d like it to be.

    How then to account for the coincidence of the (seemingly immovable) climate divide along roughly political lines—at least throughout the Anglosphere?

    Here is the paradox:

    Although the world’s English-speaking peoples may generally be stupid, lazy and even crazy, it simply isn’t epidemiologically plausible to maintain that half the population suffers from a psychosis specific to climate change.

    Yet the statistics can’t be palliated: half the world or thereabouts is not only wrong about climate change but is so systematically wrong that we can, in more cases than not, predict a person’s error from his or her political beliefs.

    I now offer an account that respects the premise of general public sanity and rationality.

    The scientists are telling us—or so we’re told by a dazzling ensemble of non-scientists including professional actresses, climate psychologists and a railway engineer—that they’re increasingly convinced of the dangers of AGW. We just about universally accept this. Trust in scientists is an apolitical feature of contemporary civilisation; we were all raised, as ordinary citizens, to assume they’re telling us the truth until proven otherwise. Scientism could be said to be a secular article of faith—and this isn’t a bad thing! Historically, it’s served us well.

    But climate change is no ordinary question.

    Let’s begin by accepting the self-evident fact that The Science™ of dangerous AGW has political, or at least policy, implications if it’s “true.” Now let’s take the novel step of following that truism through to its rational (as opposed to irrational) consequences.

    Although we all start from a position of implicit trust in scientists, what we do next reveals our ideological heterogeneities.

    Those of us on the “right” are inherently suspicious of Big Government, novel taxes and major reorganizations of society and the economy. Such people will therefore understandably be more inclined to critically scrutinize the claims made for The Science™ of CAGW for themselves… which process can only erode their (initially absolute) faith in said claims.

    By contrast, people on the “left,” who are (relatively) comfortable with the idea of a tax on metabolism, a Klimakommissariat, a “global superorganism,” a “regulating intelligence for the planet,” Julia Gillard’s noble lie and Ottmar Edenhofer’s shameless honesty (“wir verteilen durch die Klimapolitik de facto das Weltvermögen um”) correspondingly have much less reason to skeptically interrogate the received “consensus.” It’s a gift horse, so to speak. Even if The Science™ is wrong, no great harm will be done if we all take it seriously. (The political side-effects might even be said to be attractive for their own sake.) It’s only logical that this fraction of the electorate will be relatively disinclined to invest the time and effort to scrutinise The Science™—as a consequence of which, most of these people have no idea, and may never have any idea, how rickety and osteoporotic its evidentiary foundations are. They may not even care.

    Thus, our political inclinations predict our climatic conclusions, but not in a directly causal way. (That would require the average person to be absurdly irrational, if not mentally ill, after all.) Rather, one’s politics determine the perceived cost of wrongly trusting The Science™, and thereby predispose us to be more—or less—thorough in double-checking The Science™ for ourselves. It is this diligence, or the lack thereof, which ultimately makes a person skeptical, or accepting, of CAGW.

    My theory has explanatory power. It has the virtue of explaining every aspect, as far as I’m aware, of the bimodal distribution of popular climate belief without assuming retardation, delusion or bad faith on anyone’s part—or not on the layman’s part at least. (Sure, it does imply that a certain number of scientists have knowingly and culpably deceived millions of people—surely the climate science community, from Lindzen to Hansen, can’t plead ignorance en masse—but this is an unfortunate corollary of every other explanation I’ve heard, the only difference being which scientists stand indicted.)

    And my hypothesis has predictive power. Let me make a prediction. I predict that if a legitimate scholar ever asks CAGW deniers about the process or journey of their disbelief, and listens to their narratives, these narratives will agree with the above model. The common theme will be: the more I looked into it, the less convincing it was.

    Further, I predict that believers, and only believers, will express (relative) indifference as to whether The Science™ is right or wrong. Under my model, to the kind of person who’s most prone to believe in CAGW it doesn’t particularly matter if that belief turns out to have been misguided. A kind of Pascal’s wager—”What’s the worst that could happen if we believed needlessly?”—will be a theme in believalist, and only believalist, discourse. Down Under, several million dupes in this group are so scientifically incurious that they actually believe “carbon emissions” are dirty plumes of particulate pollution—the foreseeable and intentional outcome of years of shameless propaganda by the Cate Blanchett set—and it follows, in the minds of such muggles, that even if The Science™ is completely wrong, de-carbonising the economy will still bring cleaner skies! I’m sure you’ve heard people say this, in all seriousness. (Did you have the integrity to correct their misconception?)

    So far, these predictions have inerrantly come true.

    When the “climate psychologist” Adam Corner elicited skeptics’ histories of their climate thinking, what cropped up repeatedly is the exact theme I anticipated above.

    For example, “James Evans” wrote (June 15, 2012 at 2:56 pm):

    Do you think that many scep­tics would be less likely to doubt the reality or ser­i­ous­ness of cli­mate change if tack­ling it had no impact on their lives, or could be shown to be ‘cost-free’?

    If it had no impact on our lives then nobody would care. Scientists can argue as much as they like about the exist­ence of dark matter. That’s entirely up to them. Why should I care? I’m not going to take the time to check the sci­ence out for myself. I have other things to do.

    But we’re told that AGW is going to cause ser­ious prob­lems to all of us. That’s why people are checking out the sci­ence, and it’s also why the sub­ject is inher­ently political.

    When we check out the sci­ence we are appalled at how bad it is. Is the sci­ence in other areas this poor? I don’t know, and if it doesn’t affect me then I don’t much care. It’s not my busi­ness. If people want to do shoddy work, and it doesn’t affect me, then that’s just up to them.

    But AWG is my busi­ness, because the imme­diate ques­tion raised is “what should we do?” Which makes it polit­ical by defin­i­tion, I would have thought.

    “David Lilley” wrote (June 15, 2012 at 3:15 pm): 


    Adam, I am one of the great unwashed: a layman who has simply become inter­ested in CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming). Until 2–3 years ago, I never gave the topic a second thought, simply assuming that the experts must know what they’re doing.

    Then, for some reason, I started to read up on the evid­ence and eval­uate it for myself. I was shocked. The experts do not agree, and there is hardly any aspect of the sub­ject which is as I had been led to believe. I could write pages for you on what I dis­covered and why I became a sceptic but, in view of the topic of your blog, may I state that my scep­ti­cism is nothing to do with psy­cho­logy or politics and everything to do with the sci­entific weak­nesses of the con­sensus case.


    Would I feel dif­fer­ently if there were approaches which did not involve eco­nomic sac­ri­fice? Well, if this were nothing more than a spat between sci­ent­ists I might not be inter­ested — I’m sure they happen all the time in dif­ferent branches of sci­ence. But this isn’t just an aca­demic argu­ment. Policies to reduce CO2 emis­sions are wasting the wealth of nations, driving up energy prices and pushing people into energy poverty, jeop­ard­ising the con­tinuity of energy supply, causing an increase in deaths due to star­va­tion in the 3rd world because of the switch of arable land from food pro­duc­tion to bio­fuels, and inhib­iting efforts in devel­oping coun­tries to break out of poverty — some­thing which can only be achieved if there is the pro­vi­sion of cheap and abundant elec­tri­city. For these reasons, I regard the cur­rent cli­mate con­sensus as modern day Lysenkoism and it must be opposed.


    Does psy­cho­logy extend to the study of logical thought pro­cesses and crit­ical thinking? If so, you might like to invest­igate why pro-CAGW people believe the output of com­puter models even when it is con­tra­dicted by real world obser­va­tions, why they are unable to recog­nise cir­cular logic e.g. in the attri­bu­tion of recent warming to human-produced CO2, and why they con­flate cli­mate change with man-made cata­strophic cli­mate change so that evid­ence for the former is taken as evid­ence for the latter.

    “TomFP” wrote (June 16, 2012 at 3:39 am):


    Adam, the chief obstacle to your attempt to under­stand cli­mate scep­ti­cism is your inab­ility to believe in the remotest pos­sib­ility that it may be sci­en­tific­ally cor­rect.

    Until you can accom­plish that modest feat of the ima­gin­a­tion, you will always be talking in ravens, while they listen in writing desks.

    To pick but one of your many remarks that shed far more light on the psy­cho­logy of believers than of sceptics:

    “That suggests to me that if there were other policy options on the table – that didn’t involve rising energy prices – your doubts about the legitimacy of the underlying science would not be as strong.”


    Only to a True Believer, it does. Try looking through the other end of the tele­scope, Adam. If there truly were no cost asso­ci­ated with mit­ig­a­tion policies (do you have any examples, by the way, or is your point entirely hypo­thet­ical?), there would be no point in anyone, sceptic or believer, picking argu­ments – the point about the sci­ence would be moot. We could go about our lives untroubled by need­less acrimony.

    As a 60 year-old sceptic, I have become used to seeing a per­centage of each gen­er­a­tion grow to what passes for maturity gripped by the belief that it would be the last to walk the face of the earth unless every­body listened up and did as it told them. They do a lot of damage (Eugenics, DDT demon­iz­a­tion come to mind) and waste a lot of money, but they seem to provide psychic diver­sion for a rather larger group of my fellow cit­izens, and their fads have gen­er­ally been for­gotten after a few years. A lot of wasteful, growth-inhibiting legis­la­tion remained fes­tering on the statute books – but overall I have come to see this as a sort of tithe – an irk­some but lim­ited impost on the right to live a quiet life. People do not like being told that they are gull­ible, and the social cost of voicing scep­ti­cism over their pet scares out­weighed the bene­fits. Quiescence, through gritted teeth, pre­vailed. This may have been a mis­take, as Voltaire observed: “ Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”


    When CAGW came along, I assumed that, coming almost com­ic­ally soon after, and on the lips of the same ‘sci­ent­ists’, as global cooling, it would enjoy a brief period of earnest hand-wringing, soak up a few $m in grants, and move on. My high school Physics master had pre­dicted, c1969, that cli­mate, a non­linear, chaotic system, could never be skil­fully pre­dicted by com­puter modelling.

    But AGW struck it lucky in the real world, which warmed for 25 years. And I had under­es­tim­ated the appetite among sup­posedly edu­cated west­erners for cata­strophe nar­rat­ives.

    It is pre­cisely because I saw CAGW gen­erate suf­fi­cient trac­tion to occa­sion real and enduring wealth-destruction, par­tic­u­larly to the undeveloped world, that I decided to endure the pitying scorn or out­right con­dem­na­tion that, in 2009, came with expressing climate-scepticism any­where that mattered.

    From your end of the tele­scope, I ‘became’ a sceptic. From my end, I was always one, but a mostly silent one.

    As I sug­gested to Geoff in another forum, a better ques­tion to ask, and one it would be fas­cin­ating to see you tackle, is “why has a large seg­ment of the least threatened pop­u­la­tion in the his­tory of humanity AGREED to con­coct a mis­an­thropic nar­rative about its own kind?”

  7. #7 Brad Keyes
    April 21, 2013

    Oh. My. God.

    Reader, this gem, taken from SkepticalScience’s open-secret forum, dated June 25, 2011, is so exquisitely tragicomic that I almost feel guilty for drawing attention to it.

    Almost.

    Gawp, gawp at the New Epistemology, friends:

    I’ve written a few articles on the ABC website since then, referencing the term denier and outlining scientific evidence, and my observation has been just using the “d-word” so alienates many readers that they can’t even process the scientific evidence – it’s like it’s not even there. So I’m starting to test the idea of softening the language, engaging values that you share in common with your audience, in order to “give the facts a fighting chance”.

    So I’m writing an article for a Christian magazine – in that one, I start by referencing scripture about how truth is established by two or more witnesses and showing how science runs on the same principle. I’ve also drafted something I’ll send to the ABC where I start by quoting some skeptics demanding evidence, complimenting that attitude.

    LOL!!!….

    I know what you’re thinking! Surely this is some climate consensualist’s stab at self-parody. The alternative is almost too horrific to contemplate.

    And I’d assume the same thing, except for one detail: it appears to have been written by the well-known specimen of pre-scientific cretinism, John Cook!

    Pathetic as it is, I believe it almost certainly represents a good-faith effort by John Cook to make an accurate claim about the way science works. He’s dead serious, I’m afraid.

    You’ve got to laugh. Otherwise you’d cry.

  8. #8 BBD
    April 21, 2013

    BK

    In breaking news:

    During the last 30-year period in the reconstructions (1971-2000 CE), the average reconstructed temperature among all of the regions was likely higher than anytime in at least ~1400 years. Interestingly, temperatures did not fluctuate uniformly among all regions at multi-decadal to centennial scales. For example, there were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age.

    But you heard it from me first!

  9. #9 bill
    April 21, 2013

    Yep; this’ll test even Brunning’s powers of rationalization.

  10. #10 Brad Keyes
    April 21, 2013

    Fascinating.

    But I find your emphasis questionable. To reiterate a question nobody seems to want to answer:

    Does it really matter whether or not every part of the globe enjoyed its Medieval Climate Optimum at the same time? Surely you bolded the wrong part of your announcement, BBD. Surely the question that matters is how warm any given part of the world managed to get at the height of the MWP, relative to current temps.

    In case it’s not clear why the latter question eclipses the former:

    Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that your “newsflash” is entirely veridical and the so-called MWP was in truth an asynchronous or “staggered” climate excursion, which each society enjoyed at a different time. The fact remains that we all survived it with no difficulty. And if we all survived an asynchronous or “staggered” MWP with no difficulty, then there seems to be little reason to doubt that we would also, hypothetically, have survived a synchronous worldwide MWP, enjoyed by everybody at the same time, with no difficulty. (The only complication that comes to mind is that in the second scenario, sea levels would have been slightly higher at their highest. Can you suggest any other relevant difference?) And if we would all have survived a synchronous, global MWP with no difficulty, then it’s no real surprise that we’re all doing just fine right now, is it?

  11. #11 Lionel A
    April 22, 2013

    And if we would all have survived a synchronous, global MWP with no difficulty, then it’s no real surprise that we’re all doing just fine right now, is it?

    So, is that what you really believe Keyes, ‘that we’re ALL doing just fine right now’?

    Come on pin your hat to the wall.

    If so than your evidence for this is ….?

    Just so much stupid myopia evident in your last paragraph at #10 that it beggars belief!

  12. #12 BBD
    April 22, 2013

    Fuck off, Brad. Game over.

  13. #13 BBD
    April 22, 2013

    The fact remains that we all survived it with no difficulty.

    You have no idea what you are talking about at all.

    Everything you say is wrong and at this point I cannot believe the effort that has been wasted trying to sort out the shiteheap in your head.

    I repeat: fuck off. Enough now.

  14. #14 Wow
    April 22, 2013

    “Does it really matter whether or not every part of the globe enjoyed its Medieval Climate Optimum at the same time?”

    Yes.

    Since if it wasn’t global, then the GLOBAL temperature during whatever you want to term the MWP was not anywhere near as warm as the GLOBAL temperature today.

  15. #15 BBD
    April 22, 2013

    And the climate liars claim that “the MWP” was as warm as today in order to make the false claim that there is nothing unusual about modern warming.

    Perhaps Bradley is too fucking thick to understand any of this. I begin to wonder.

  16. #16 BBD
    April 22, 2013

    Brad is certainly stupid enough to say that a few asynchronous warmings somehow prove that the modern forced *global* response to the ongoing increase in GHGs is nothing to worry about. So all bets are off. The flailing mess that is Bradley’s mentation could drag us just about anywhere if we stopped thinking and got sucked in.

  17. #17 BBD
    April 22, 2013

    BTW does anyone think that the absolute torrent of blather unleashed by Keyes above was prompted by a desire to avoid addressing # 1, # 2, # 3?

    Especially in the light of # 8.

  18. #18 Lionel A
    April 22, 2013

    But don’t hold your breath, dear readers, waiting for an apology from Wow, chek or Lionel A for their long history of dishonesty on this topic.

    By pointing out that John Cook has a track record in studying science and has since engaged with a number of scientists in the production at Skeptical Science I established that Cook was not ignorant of the ways of science as you were trying to claim when you were, amongst other things casting racial aspersions at him.

    Being in denial means never having to say sorry.

    Maybe you should just think about that next time you find yourself preening in front of a mirror.

    You write fine polemics and clearly could have a great future as a post-modern philosopher, as a humble normally interacting human being – not so much. Maybe there lies your tragedy.

    But having put so much effort into demeaning Cook and SkS, and we lesser mortals (lesser than the Great God Keyes that is) then this must be a sign that SkS are hitting the spot.

    SkS are providing access [1] to the science which is increasingly confirming, the consensus is in the cohesive picture that is emerging that warming is real, largely attributed to human sources and will have many diverse adverse effects, that debilitating warming will be effected unless we reign in our use of fossil fuels and alter some of our other behaviors.

    Clearly it is the emerging truth that you do not like and so, using fogs of words and other devious tricks, you attempt to shoot the messenger.

    Shame on you.

    [1] by access I indicate not only citations to papers but also accessible explanations of the conclusions of those papers and other supporting explanatory material.

    I have yet to see you cite anything which assists the discourse in any way.

  19. #19 BBD
    April 22, 2013

    Lionel A

    I have yet to see you cite anything which assists the discourse in any way.

    Brad can’t reference because he hasn’t read anything and doesn’t know anything. He can’t even get the difference between TCR and ECS straight.

    Which is why his Master Of Science™ posturing was so unintentionally hilarious – for a couple of thousand comments.

    These days, Keyes comes across as just another insane windbag propelled by misinformation and unpleasant right wing politics he’s too much of a coward to admit to and attempt to defend.

    Fuck him, I say. Vermin.

  20. #20 bill
    April 23, 2013

    The Emperor has no clo-othes, the Emperor has no clo-othes…

    What a ridiculous figure you are, Bradley!

  21. #21 Bernard J.
    April 23, 2013

    Remember when the windbag asked:

    What magical epistemological system are you using?

    and I countered with:

    Could be, perhaps, the same unexplained “magical epistemological system” that you rely on for your claims of a mildly negative or even a positive biological response to rapid global warming of 2 and more degrees Celsius?

    You have yet to detail the source of your belief in this matter.

    If Keyes put as much energy into producing the science that he relies on to arrive at his stance that global warming is beneficial for most species – or indeed why climate sensitivity should be considered to lie in the 1.5 to 2.5 degrees Celsius range that he favours – as he does into libelling John Cook we’d have a much more interesting discussion.

    However all that we’ve seen from Keyes is evidence-free magna cogitatione>.

  22. #22 Brad Keyes
    April 23, 2013

    Bernard J:

    If Keyes put as much energy into producing the science that he relies on to arrive at his stance that global warming is beneficial for most species – or indeed why climate sensitivity should be considered to lie in the 1.5 to 2.5 degrees Celsius range that he favours – as he does into libelling John Cook we’d have a much more interesting discussion.

    Intriguing. So you think I’m being too hard on Australia’s favorite climate cartoonist. You don’t think it’s legitimate to shine a light on Cook’s imaginative, ad hoc, sometimes hilarious private definitions of the scientific method?

    Or maybe you agree with him!

    Tell me, Bernard, when Cook claims that science establishes truth by the Biblical principle of consensus among “two or more witnesses”, do you nod your head? Does that sound about right, as far as you’re aware?

    Hey, maybe you find the Koranic paradigm more satisfying? Perhaps you think scientific takes 4 or more witnesses (male, obviously)?

    Or is there some other Medieval or Iron Age text you recommend as a science manual, Bernard? Pray tell.

  23. #23 ianam
    April 23, 2013

    John Cook agrees with Brad Keyes that John Cook is not a scientist. Brad Keyes: +1

    John Cook, and virtually every climate scientist and other informed person, based on the evidence and the physics, disagrees with Brad Keyes about global warming. Brad Keyes: -999,999

  24. #24 ianam
    April 23, 2013

    And if we all survived an asynchronous or “staggered” MWP with no difficulty, then there seems to be little reason to doubt that we would also, hypothetically, have survived a synchronous worldwide MWP, enjoyed by everybody at the same time, with no difficulty.

    No one has suggested otherwise, you imbecile. Notably, no one is suggesting that we aren’t surviving the current climate.

    it’s no real surprise that we’re all doing just fine right now, is it?

    In the same way that someone in the early stages of cancer is doing just fine now. Or the way that Jim Fixx was doing “just fine” when he put his fit legs on the cover of his book, you cretin.

  25. #25 ianam
    April 23, 2013

    Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that your “newsflash” is entirely veridical and the so-called MWP was in truth an asynchronous or “staggered” climate excursion, which each society enjoyed at a different time.

    Your problem, you willfully ignorant cretin, is that you have no idea what the argument is, no matter how many times it is explained. No one is saying that the issue is that if the MWP had been global, then humanity would have died off, or anything like that.

  26. #26 ianam
    April 23, 2013

    What it really means for CAGW deniers—indeed for anyone capable of logical reflection—is that we’ve been warmer within civilised memory and the world didn’t come to an end. If anything, we flourished. And therefore the historically-literate citizen has no reason to lose sleep over global warming.

    I once created a fire in a campfire pit. It got very hot, but nothing bad happened. Now I’ve got this nice little fire going in a brush field at the edge of a forest. It’s not even as hot as that campfire was, so anyone with the reflective capacities of a Dunning-Kruger imbecile like Brad will conclude that there isn’t anything to be concerned about.

  27. #27 bill
    April 23, 2013

    Yup.

  28. #28 Wow
    April 23, 2013

    “And if we all survived an asynchronous or “staggered” MWP with no difficulty”

    Since this is a GLOBAL warming event, unlike the MWP, whether we survived the MWP has no bearing on survival of this.

  29. #29 Brad Keyes
    April 23, 2013

    ianam:

    No one is saying that the issue is that if the MWP had been global, then humanity would have died off, or anything like that.

    Sure, nobody with half a brain would suggest something as absurd as all that. A child could grasp that if an asynchronous warming event that occurred at different times in different places didn’t bother anyone, then a synchronous warming would be just as harmless. What conceivable difference would the temperature in Peru make to a Medieval English grape-grower?

    But that’s a child. Not everyone is as smart as a child, ianam. In your haste to make a noisome asshole of yourself, you seem to have forgotten something.

    The Wow factor.

    “And if we survived an asynchronous or “staggered” MWP with no difficulty”

    Since this is a GLOBAL warming event, unlike the MWP, whether we survived the MWP has no bearing on survival of this.

    What were you saying, ianam? Oops!

    Get it? Chronic contributor Wow is suggesting, with a straight face, that if the MWP had been temporally coherent all around the world, then humanity would have died off, or something like that. I have no idea how that would work. Neither does Wow, of course. But that’s his MO: he’ll imagine something and immediately type it. There’s no internal censor, critic, auditor, peer reviewer or what have you. And it’s this unique defect, or rather this evolutionary tradeoff of quality for quantity, that makes Wow both so prolific and so ridiculous. Yet perhaps we should envy the simpleminded—never to know the slightest twinge of auto-skepticism!

    But this isn’t the point. The point is that you burst in here half-cocked, shot your mouth off without knowing anything about the, shall we say, colorful local characters, and right on cue Wow turned up to confute your clueless declarations.

    Let that be a lesson. Keep your incorrect thoughts to yourself in future.

  30. #30 chek
    April 23, 2013

    Has “Brad” ever had one fact or opinion that didn’t require correction in all 47 pages of this thread? Only he seems to be feeling a bit badly done to.

  31. #31 Jeff Harvey
    April 23, 2013

    The MWP ofm course has no relevanced to what is happening today because at the time the planet’s ecological systems were far more intact than they are today. Human impact across the biosphere in 1400 was minimal, as technologies were simple and the human population a fraction of what it is now.

    Brad avoided my last psots alluding to this and comes back with more piffle. Its like comparing apples and oranges. Biodiversity faces an entire suite of stresses that were virtually non-existant during the MWP. Massive changes in the landscape and losses of natural ecosystems such as wetlands and forests; invasive species; changes in the chemical environmnent; other forms of pollution such as bioaccumulative pesticices; and so on and so forth.

    Earth to Brad: the planet is very, very different now. Humans are challenging nature to respond to massive anthropogenic changes across wide swathes of the biosphere, with GW just one additional but very important stress. If you cannot understand this, then you have no place anywhere debating science.

  32. #32 Lionel A
    April 23, 2013

    Within all that verbiage Keyes writes this:

    You pompous dimwit, chek

    My irony meter is now well busted, and I do mean busted [sic] Keyes, it could only take so much!

    Shame that with all that vocabulary Keyes missed discovering the meaning of wisdom.

    I appreciate now some old sayings from my grandparents, ‘…too clever by half’ and its twin ‘…too clever for his own good he’ll come a cropper one day.’

    At the base of it, Keyes is arguing about arguing, nothing more.

    Never, in the field of human discourse, has so much been written by he of so little real understanding of the topic engaged.

  33. #33 BBD
    April 23, 2013

    Unsinkable rubber duck.

  34. #34 Jeff Harvey
    April 23, 2013

    “At the base of it, Keyes is arguing about arguing, nothing more”

    Essentially, this is it. You say high, I say low… you say light, I say dark; you say left, I say right. Its as simple as that. Brad would be well placed to step out of here before what little of his dignity is left is in tatters.

  35. #35 BBD
    April 23, 2013

    IMO he’s a lawyer.

    And an unsinkable rubber duck.

    Nasty combination, that.

  36. #36 ianam
    April 23, 2013

    The “global” issue is a red herring and focusing on it plays into the denier’s game. Even if the MWP had been global and hotter than today, that wouldn’t be relevant. What is relevant is the *cause* of today’s warming, which is the rapid and sustained (accelerating, in fact) release of sequestered carbon, which is inexorably leading toward a planet inconsistent with human civilization, and possibly with human life.

  37. #37 ianam
    April 23, 2013

    “Humans are challenging nature to respond to massive anthropogenic changes across wide swathes of the biosphere, with GW just one additional but very important stress.”

    I think that seriously understates the consequences of AGW We’re looking toward an oceanic anoxic event on the one hand and 6+ degrees C increase in global average temperaure on the other.

  38. #38 Jeff Harvey
    April 23, 2013

    Ianam,

    I am not under-stating the seriousness of AGW – what I am saying is that it may be the final and most important nail in the coffin humanity is creating for itself. It will certainly exacerbate many of the other human-induced changes across the planet. But it is also dangerous to assume that humans can address GW whilst maintaining a slash-and-burn approach to ecosystems across the planet.

    This simply won’t do. We have to address all of the major human-mediated threats to the environment – with GW being prominent – if we are avoid plunging into the abyss in which we are headed.

  39. #39 chek
    April 23, 2013

    IMO he’s a lawyer

    That would explain why “Brad” doesn’t understand that John Cook, while not currently a professional scientist, will have practised enough science in pursuit of his degrees to be rightly called a scientist. Having undergrad and post-grad sons, from what they tell me I sometimes think they’re the ones who do all the donkey work anyway.

    Anyway, having skimmed “Brad’s” latest epic carpet munches, I can’t help wondering what the fully AGW-accepting “Brad” might have to say should he focus on vaudeville poseurs like Watts, McIntyre, the Idso clan, the Pielke clan and bit-part sketch artists like Montford.

    So offended is “Brad” at his perceived latterly bestowed – but make no mistake, fully deserved – crank status, he can’t bring himself to even acknowledge to public good in John Cook’s pointing to the correct and relevant science in response to denier PR disinformation. Science communication in action, effectively and in a very relevant medium and context. But null points from “Brad”.

    Hard to imagine being so petty-minded that imagined personal slights are worth fucking an entire planet up over, but that’s the “Brad” we’ve come to know over time. Stupidity masquerading as intelligence.

    But of course whilst fun to consider, we know such changes of focus are never going to happen in our AGW-believing “Brad’s” lifetime, and I’m pretty sure many here know perfectly well why that is. That’s really no mystery whatsoever.

  40. #40 Bernard J.
    April 23, 2013

    I’ve mentioned the phenomenon several times now over the last year or so, but it’s worth raising again.

    Brad Keyes is classically falling victim to the shifting baseline first detailed by Daniel Pauly. Most people do, as human perception – especially when it is untrained – operates on a time scale that is too short to comprehend serious change to the environment. This applies even to single life-times, but in the current global circumstance it is most particularly relevant to the context of intergenerational change.

    Keyes himself used the words “for all I know” over at Eli’s, which is the classic mantra of one who cunningly concedes in the abstract the possibility of a shifting baseline, but who refuses to acknowledge the actual existence of the same.

    Keyes may have mastered verbosity, but he’s still in scientific kindergarten. More than that, he’s in ecological and climatological day care.

  41. #41 bill
    April 23, 2013

    Um Bernard, that link is rather revealing, but it ain’t to Eli’s…

  42. #42 chek
    April 24, 2013

    that link is rather revealing

    Revealing?!?
    It’s the crank magnetism equivalent to a supermassive black hole.

  43. #43 David B. Benson
    April 24, 2013

    Bernard J. — I’m fairly certain he is an escapee:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethlem_Royal_Hospital

  44. #44 bill
    April 24, 2013

    Yes, well, I’m sure the Prince will be along shortly to explain why the moronic blog he’s following isn’t moronic, or something…

  45. #45 peterd
    April 24, 2013

    Brad at Nos 4, 5 and 6:
    You seem to have a lot of time on your hands, judging from the length of these posts. Perhaps the time would be better spent trying to engage in original scientific research. An appropriate sense of…..um, humility might emerge, as you begin to realise how difficult it is add even slightly to the corpus of scientific knowledge.

  46. #46 Craig Thomas
    St Leonards.
    April 24, 2013

    Brad says,

    Although the world’s English-speaking peoples may generally be stupid, lazy and even crazy, it simply isn’t epidemiologically plausible to maintain that half the population suffers from a psychosis specific to climate change.

    , says Brad.

    A significant proportion of the population suffers from an irrational belief in a sky-fairy, too, so it isn’t at all implausible to believe that a similar proportion could be led to similarly irrational beliefs about any scientific issue you might care to mention.

    Brad’s mention of “the Anglosphere” is telling: here we have an admission that the phenomenon of widespread irrational climate-related crank-belief correlates with the extent of the Murdoch media empire, dedicated as that evil empire has been to disinforming the ignorant on this issue.

    Brad’s obvious lack of scientific training could provide him the excuse of ignorance for his idiotic ramblings on this subject, but his persistence in this mindless blather in the face of the large amount of information he has been provided in order to better inform himself demonstrates that he is quite simply an uneducable and shameless liar.

  47. #47 Bernard J.
    April 24, 2013

    Brad Keyes.

    Pray tell me if you think that science progresses by the process of lay people ignoring, misunderstanding, misrepresenting, outright denying or otherwise bastardising the work of professional scientists?

  48. #48 Bernard J.
    April 24, 2013

    Bill, my bad.

    I meant to point to this link, but I was in a bit of a rush when I posted and hit Brad avatar link instead.

    Keyes’ predilections are revealing though…

  49. #49 Bernard J.
    April 24, 2013

    Brad Keyes.

    You seem to be all hot and bothered by John Cook’s Christianity, and yet you take it on faith that you know better than the trained, professional experts in the sciences of climatology and ecology. You believe that climate sensitivity is rather lower than the median values determined by science, and you believe that profoundly rapid climate change will have a merely benign effect on the world’s species and ecosystems.

    You’ve not arrived at your beliefs through any comprehensive and dispassionate examination, study or other consideration of the scientific evidence.

    Now what’s the word for that? Hippopotamus… hippocratic… hypocras…

  50. #50 Craig Thomas
    April 24, 2013

    Incidentally, Brad’s idiot “thesis” concerning personal political leanings and denial of climate change was answered (and, of course, therefore completely debunked) in 1989:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnAzoDtwCBg

    try from 6:06.

  51. #51 Craig Thomas
    April 24, 2013

    Or 7:38.

  52. #52 Craig Thomas
    April 24, 2013

    Being a moron (a pre-requisite for being a denier of science) does not correlate with being a conservative voter.

  53. #53 Wow
    April 24, 2013

    But conservative echo-chamber will make you a denier by repeatedly hearing the nutcase morons braying the zombie arguments.

  54. #54 chek
    April 24, 2013

    But conservative echo-chamber (snip)

    Although there is a school of thought that denounces the current labelling of ‘conservatism’ as a complete misnomer, as in practice it is a radical neo-liberal re-modelling of society every bit as damaging and corrosive to social cohesion as implementing an inflexible Trotskyite agenda.

    To current ‘conservatives’, those such as Richard Nixon and Ted Heath were pinko liberals whose policies of the 1970s wouldn’t even find traction with what is laughably called the left these days

  55. #55 bill
    April 24, 2013

    Yep – in this country there are more conservatives in the Greens than in the amusingly named Liberal Party; what gets labelled as ‘conservatism’ is now a species of radical Reaction that’s declared war on Reality for not living up to its ideals!

    My favourite question: what is the conservative position on conducting a radical experiment with the one atmosphere we possess?

    I’m infinitely more conservative than Tony Abbott – an evangelical Trotskyite of Capital if ever there was one! Look out, because he’ll be taking you to his Paradise, just like all the truly dangerous lunatics in History…

    Make no mistake, this bizarre inv (and perv) ersion is the last great ‘grand narrative’ ism that must be destroyed; before it destroys us…

  56. #56 Jeff Harvey
    April 24, 2013

    “To current ‘conservatives’, those such as Richard Nixon and Ted Heath were pinko liberals whose policies of the 1970s wouldn’t even find traction with what is laughably called the left these days”

    Correct… and to take this further, liberalism is virtually dead in the US (Hedges, 2010). Obama is so far to the right that his policies would probably fit in nicely with those of Barry Goldwater. Yet old Duffer thinks Obama is a Marxist. This is how utterly deluded those on the far end of the poltical right are.

  57. #57 Lionel A
    April 24, 2013

    And over at that Eli post is another classic irony meter breaker where our wunderkid wrote this:

    Bernard,

    I’m immune to your Jedi mind tricks. You’re just handwaving, and the total absence of content in your post is blatantly obvious.

    Accusing others of, ‘Jedi mind tricks’ indeed! Keyes has no sense of self, well the self that others perceive that is.

    So Keyes you understood this from Bernard J:

    You could do worse than to start by learning about the complexities of biotic response to “press” and “pulse” events, about “plasticity”, and about “adaptability” within the constraints of genetically/physiologically determined bioclimatic envelopes.

    Come on, out with it, tell us all what it all means. After all you are the Feynman fan around here you could channel him. OTOH you may just have to grasp the nettle and read up allot.

    The [unwarranted] self belief in this one strong it is.

  58. #58 Brad Keyes
    April 25, 2013

    Craig Thomas:

    Being a moron (a pre-requisite for being a denier of science) does not correlate with being a conservative voter.

    Well, it doesn’t correlate positively, if that’s what you mean. :-)

  59. #59 Brad Keyes
    April 26, 2013

    chek:

    IMO he’s a lawyer

    That would explain why “Brad” doesn’t understand that John Cook, while not currently a professional scientist, will have practised enough science in pursuit of his degrees to be rightly called a scientist.

    SkepticalScience was created by John Cook. He’s not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade. He did a Physics degree at the University of Queensland and while he achieved First Class Honours and could’ve continued onto a PhD, he instead quit academia and became a professional scrawler. Too much doodling in lectures, he thinks. Nevertheless, he’s pursued a keen interest in science and if anything, found his curiosity about how the world works increased once he wasn’t forced to study for impending exams.

    (Source: John Cook, self employed cartoonist and web programmer.)

    You say John Cook is a scientist. He says he isn’t.

    Hmm. Who to believe, who to believe?

    You concede that he’s “not currently a professional scientist,” implying that he was a scientist at some unspecified time in the past. Yet, as Cook’s own writing reveals, nobody has ever sat him down and told him the basics of scientific practice. (When he tries to say how science determines “truth” he fails spectacularly, likening science to the early Hebrew forensic system.) So you’re wrong. Even if he’d tried to do science he wouldn’t have been able to. He doesn’t know how.

    Anyway, having skimmed “Brad’s” latest epic carpet munches, I can’t help wondering what the fully AGW-accepting “Brad” might have to say should he focus on vaudeville poseurs like Watts, McIntyre, the Idso clan, the Pielke clan and bit-part sketch artists like Montford.

    I’ve read enough by Watts, McIntyre and Montford to know what they think of AGW. They accept it. Did you realize that, chek? If not, I can see why you might have thought your comment made sense. It didn’t.

  60. #60 Brad Keyes
    April 26, 2013

    Bernard J.

    Brad Keyes.
    You seem to be all hot and bothered by John Cook’s Christianity

    Then you’re reading properly.

    Did I say John Cook “suffers from an irrational belief in a sky-fairy”?

    No. That was Craig Thomas. Are you confusing me with Craig Thomas?

    Cook’s supernatural beliefs are eminently understandable. He’s the archetypal consensualist, so I’d be more surprised if he hadn’t joined the most successful cult in contemporary Australia. He has zero immunity to epidemics of error.

    The joke is not that Cook thinks Christianity is true. The joke is that he reckons science is a bit like Christianity.

    If you don’t know how ridiculous the following thought processes are, then the joke is on you too:

    So I’m writing an article for a Christian magazine – in that one, I start by referencing scripture about how truth is established by two or more witnesses and showing how science runs on the same principle.

  61. #61 funny pic
    http://www.gagmaniacs.com/
    April 26, 2013

    Howdy are utilizing WordPress for the weblog platform? I’m new towards the blog globe but I am attempting to obtain started and set up my personal. Do you require any coding knowledge to make your own weblog? Any assist could be really appreciated!|

  62. #62 Brad Keyes
    April 26, 2013

    Bernard J:

    , and yet you take it on faith that you know better than the trained, professional experts in the sciences of climatology and ecology.

    That’s rich, coming from someone who presumes to know better than Richard Lindzen.

    When you say global warming is a threat, you’re asking me to believe you somehow know better than all these people:

    1. Habibullo I. Abdussamatov, Dr. Sci., mathematician and astrophysicist, Head of the Russian-Ukrainian Astrometria project on the board of the Russian segment of the ISS, Head of Space Research Laboratory at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia
    2. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A.
    3. J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000, Pretoria, South Africa
    4. Bjarne Andresen, Dr. Scient., physicist, published and presents on the impossibility of a “global temperature”, Professor, Niels Bohr Institute (areas of specialization: fundamental physics and chemistry, in particular thermodynamics), University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark  
    5. Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant and former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
    6. Romuald Bartnik, PhD (Organic Chemistry), Professor Emeritus, Former chairman of the Department of Organic and Applied Chemistry, climate work in cooperation with Department of Hydrology and Geological Museum, University of Lodz, Lodz, Poland
    7. Colin Barton, B.Sc., PhD (Earth Science), Principal research scientist (retd), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
    8. Franco Battaglia, PhD (Chemical Physics), Professor of Environmental Chemistry (climate specialties: environmental chemistry), University of Modena, Italy
    9. David Bellamy, OBE, PhD, English botanist, author, broadcaster, environmental campaigner, Hon. Professor of Botany (Geography), University of Nottingham, Hon. Prof. Faculty of Engineering and Physical Systems, Central Queensland University,  Hon. Prof. of Adult and Continuing Education, University of Durham, United Nations Environment Program Global 500 Award Winner, Dutch Order of The Golden Ark, Bishop Auckland County, Durham, United Kingdom
    10. Richard Becherer, BS (Physics, Boston College), MS (Physics, University of Illinois), PhD (Optics, University of Rochester), former Member of the Technical Staff – MIT Lincoln Laboratory, former Adjunct Professor – University of Connecticut, Areas of Specialization: optical radiation physics, coauthor – standard reference book Optical Radiation Measurements: Radiometry, Millis, MA, U.S.A.
    11. Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biology (University of Freiburg), biologist (area of specialization: CO2 record in the last 150 years – see paper “Accurate estimation of CO2 background level from near ground measurements at non-mixed environments”), see http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/ for more from Mr. Beck, Biesheim, France
    12. Edwin Berry, PhD (Atmospheric Physics, Nevada), MA (Physics, Dartmouth), BS (Engineering, Caltech), President, Climate Physics LLC, Bigfork, MT, U.S.A.
    13. Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader Emeritus, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, Editor – Energy&Environment, Multi-Science (www.multi-science.co.uk), Hull, United Kingdom
    14. M. I. Bhat, PhD, formerly Scientist at the Wadia institute of Himalayan Geology, Dehra, currently Professor & Head, Department of Geology & Geophysics, University of Kashmir (areas of specialization: Geochemistry, Himalayan and global tectonics & tectonics and climate (Prof Bhat: “Arguing for deepening the climate frontiers by considering interaction between solar flares and core-mantle boundary processes. Clue possibly lies in exploring the tectonics of regions that underlies high and low pressure cells of the three global oscillations (SO, NAO, NPO)”), Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, India
    15. Ahmed Boucenna, PhD, Professor of Physics, Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Ferhat Abbas University, Setif, Algéria.  Author of The Great Season Climatic Oscillation, I. RE. PHY. 1(2007) 53, The Great Season Climatic Oscillation and the Global Warming, Global Conference On Global Warming, July 6-10, 2008, Istanbul, Turkey and Pseudo Radiation Energy Amplifier (PREA) and the Mean Earth’s Ground Temperature, arXiv:0811.0357 (November 2008)
    16. Antonio Brambati, PhD, Emeritus Professor (sedimentology), Department of Geological, Environmental and Marine Sciences (DiSGAM), University of Trieste (specialization: climate change as determined by Antarctic marine sediments), Trieste, Italy
    17. Stephen C. Brown, PhD (Environmental Science, State University of New York), District Agriculture Agent, Assistant Professor, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Ground Penetrating Radar Glacier research, Palmer, Alaska, U.S.A.
    18. Mark Lawrence Campbell, PhD (chemical physics; gas-phase kinetic research involving greenhouse gases (nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide)), Professor, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, U.S.A.
    19. Robert M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
    20. Arthur Chadwick, PhD (Molecular Biology), Research Professor, Department of Biology and Geology, Southwestern Adventist University, Climate Specialties: dendrochronology (determination of past climate states by tree ring analysis), palynology (same but using pollen as a climate proxy), paleobotany and botany; Keene, Texas, U.S.A.
    21. George V. Chilingar, PhD, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
    22. Antonis Christofides, Dipl. Civil Engineering, MSc Computing Science, Climate Specialties: co-author of relevant papers: here and here, author of http://hk-climate.org/, Athens, Greece
    23. Petr Chylek, PhD, Laboratory Fellow, Remote Sensing Team Leader, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, U.S.A.
    24. Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor (isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology), Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    25. Paul Copper, BSc, MSc, PhD, DIC, FRSC, Professor Emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University Sudbury, Ontario, Canada
    26. Cornelia Codreanova, Diploma in Geography, Researcher (Areas of Specialization: formation of glacial lakes) at Liberec University, Czech Republic, Zwenkau, Germany
    27. Michael Coffman, PhD (Ecosystems Analysis and Climate Influences), CEO of Sovereignty International, President of Environmental Perspectives, Inc., Bangor, Maine, U.S.A.
    28. Piers Corbyn, MSc (Physics (Imperial College London)), ARCS, FRAS, FRMetS, astrophysicist (Queen Mary College, London), consultant, founder WeatherAction long range forecasters, London, United Kingdom
    29. Richard S. Courtney, PhD, energy and environmental consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, Falmouth, Cornwall, United Kingdom
    30. Joseph D’Aleo, BS, MS (Meteorology, University of Wisconsin),  Doctoral Studies (NYU), Executive Director – ICECAP (International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project), Fellow of the AMS, College Professor Climatology/Meteorology, First Director of Meteorology The Weather Channel, Hudson, New Hampshire, U.S.A.
    31. David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.
    32. James E Dent; B.Sc., FCIWEM, C.Met, FRMetS, C.Env., Independent Consultant, Member of WMO OPACHE Group on Flood Warning, Hadleigh, Suffolk, England, United Kingdom
    33. Chris R. de Freitas, PhD, climate Scientist, School of Environment, The University of Auckland, New Zealand
    34. Willem de Lange, MSc (Hons), DPhil (Computer and Earth Sciences), Senior Lecturer in Earth and Ocean Sciences, The University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
    35. Geoff Duffy, DEng (Dr of Engineering), PhD (Chemical Engineering), BSc, ASTCDip., FRSNZ (first chemical engineer to be a Fellow of the Royal Society in NZ), FIChemE, wide experience in radiant heat transfer and drying, chemical equilibria, etc. Has reviewed, analysed, and written brief reports and papers on climate change, Auckland, New Zealand
    36. Robert W. Durrenberger, PhD, former Arizona State Climatologist and President of the American Association of State Climatologists, Professor Emeritus of Geography, Arizona State University; Sun City, Arizona, U.S.A.
    37. Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington, University, Bellingham, Washington, U.S.A.
    38. Willis Eschenbach, Independent Climate Researcher, Climate Specialties: Tropical tropospheric amplification, constructal theories of climate, See sample of scientific writings in Nature here, Occidental, CA, U.S.A.
    39. Christopher Essex, PhD, professor of applied mathematics, and Associate Chair, Department of Applied Mathematics, Former Director, Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, Former NSERC postdoc at the Canadian Climate Centre’s Numerical Modelling Division (GCM), London, Ontario, Canada
    40. Per Engene, MSc, Biologist, Bø i Telemark, Norway, Co-author – The Climate, Science and Politics (2009)
    41. Terrence F. Flower, PhD, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, St. Catherine University, studied and taught physics of climate (focus on Arctic and Antarctic), took students to study physics of climate change in the Antarctic and Costa Rica, St. Paul, Minnesota, U.S.A.
    42. Stewart Franks, BSci. (Hons, Environmental Science), PhD (Landsurface-atmosphere interactions), Associate Professor and Dean of Students, University of Newcastle, Climate Specialties: hydro-climatology, flood/drought risk, Newcastle, Australia
    43. Lars Franzén, PhD (Physical Geography), Professor, Physical Geography at Earth Sciences Centre, University of Gothenburg, Areas of Specialization: Palaeoclimate from global peatland and Chinese loess studies – see related scientific paper by Franzén et al, Gothenburg, Vastra Gotaland, Sweden
    44. Gordon Fulks, PhD (Physics, University of Chicago), cosmic radiation, solar wind, electromagnetic and geophysical phenomena, Corbett, Oregon, U.S.A.
    45. Robert. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor (retired), Hawai’i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai’i at Manoa, Hawaii, U.S.A.
    46. Katya Georgieva, MSc (Physics of the Earth, Atmosphere, and Space, specialty Meteorology), PhD (Solar-Terrestrial Physics – PhD thesis on solar influences on global climate changes), Associate Professor, Head of group “Solar dynamics and global climate change” in the Solar-Terrestrial Influences Laboratory at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, head of project “Solar activity influences of weather and climate” of the scientific plan of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, member of the “Climate changes” council of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Regional coordinator of the Balkan, Black sea and Caspian sea countries and member of the European Steering Committee for the International Heliophysical Year 2007-2008, deputy editor-in-chief of the international scientific journal “Sun and Geosphere”, Bulgaria
    47. Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey, U.S.A.
    48. Gerhard Gerlich, Dr.rer.nat. (Mathematical Physics: Magnetohydrodynamics) habil. (Real Measure Manifolds), Professor, Institut für Mathematische Physik, Technische Universität Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig, Braunschweig, Germany, Co-author of “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”, Int.J.Mod.Phys.,2009
    49. Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adj Professor, Royal Institute of Technology (Mech, Eng.), Secretary General KTH International Climate Seminar 2006 and Climate analyst (NIPCC), Lidingö, Sweden
    50. Stanley B. Goldenberg, Research Meteorologist, NOAA, AOML/Hurricane Research Division, Miami, Florida, U.S.A.
    51. Wayne Goodfellow, PhD (Earth Science), Ocean Evolution, Paleoenvironments, Adjunct Professor, Senior Research Scientist, University of Ottawa, Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    52. Thomas B. Gray, MS (Meteorology, California Institute of Technology and Florida State University), 23 years as Meteorologist with the U.S. Army and Air Force (retired) and 15 years experience with NOAA Environmental Research Laboratories.  Assignments include Chief, Analysis and Forecast Division, Global Weather Center, Omaha, Nebraska and Chief, Solar Forecast Center, Boulder Colorado, maintains active interest in paleoclimate and atmospheric physics, Yachats, Oregon, U.S.A.
    53. Vincent Gray, PhD, New Zealand Climate Coalition, expert reviewer for the IPCC, author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand
    54. William M. Gray, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A.
    55. Kenneth P. Green, Doctor of Environmental Science and Engineering (UCLA, 1994), Resident Scholar, Interim Director, Center for Regulatory Studies, American Enterprise Institute, Washington D.C., U.S.A.
    56. Charles B. Hammons, PhD (Applied Mathematics), climate-related specialties: applied mathematics, modeling & simulation, software & systems engineering, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Management, University of Dallas; Assistant Professor, North Texas State University (Dr. Hammons found many serious flaws during a detailed study of the software, associated control files plus related email traffic of the Climate Research Unit temperature and other records and “adjustments” carried out in support of IPCC conclusions), Coyle, OK, U.S.A.
    57. William Happer, PhD, Professor, Department of Physics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, U.S.A.
    58. Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor (Physics), University of Connecticut, The Energy Advocate, Pueblo West, Colorado, U.S.A.
    59. Warren T. Hinds, B.S. (Engineering), M.S. (Atmospheric Sciences), PhD (Physical Ecology, U. Washington, Seattle), Sr. Scientist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; consultant for USA EPA research on Global Climate Change Program, Specialist for Defense Programs, Department of Energy, Climate Specialties: atmospheric physics and quantitative empirical analyses regarding climatological, meteorological, and ecological responses to environmental stresses, Gainesville, Georgia, U.S.A.
    60. Art Horn, Meteorologist (honors, Lyndon State College, Lyndonville, Vermont), operator, The Art of Weather, U.S.A.
    61. Douglas Hoyt, B.S. (Physics, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute), M.S. (Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado), co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in climate Change, previously senior scientist at Raytheon (MODIS instrument development), with earlier employment at NOAA, NCAR, World Radiation Center and the Sacramento Peak Observatory, Berkeley Springs, West Virginia, U.S.A.
    62. Warwick Hughes, MSc Hons (Geology), Founder of the “Errors in IPCC Climate Science” Blog –  http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/, Areas of Specialization: Jones et al temperature data, Canberra, Australia
    63. Ole Humlum, PhD, Professor of Physical Geography, Department of Physical Geography, Institute of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
    64. Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.
    65. Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Tempe, Arizona, U.S.A.
    66. Larry Irons, BS (Geology), MS (Geology), Sr. Geophysicist at FairfieldNodal (Areas of Specialization: Paleoclimate), Lakewood, Colorado, U.S.A.
    67. Terri Jackson, MSc (plasma physics), MPhil (energy economics), Director, Independent Climate Research Group, Northern Ireland and London (Founder of the energy/climate group at the Institute of Physics, London), United Kingdom
    68. Albert F. Jacobs, Geol.Drs., P. Geol., Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    69. Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, DSc, professor of natural sciences, Senior Science Adviser of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, researcher on ice core CO2 records, Warsaw, Poland
    70. Bill Kappel, BS (Physical Science-Geology), BS (Meteorology), Storm Analysis, Climatology, Operation Forecasting, Vice President/Senior Meteorologist, Applied Weather Associates, LLC, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, U.S.A.
    71. Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Extraordinary Research Associate; Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Tartu Observatory, Toravere, Estonia
    72. Madhav L. Khandekar, PhD, consultant meteorolgist, (former) Research Scientist, Environment Canada, Editor “Climate Research” (03-05), Editorial Board Member “Natural Hazards, IPCC Expert Reviewer 2007, Unionville, Ontario, Canada
    73. Leonid F. Khilyuk, PhD, Science Secretary, Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Professor of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
    74. William Kininmonth MSc, MAdmin, former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology, Kew, Victoria, Australia
    75. Gerhard Kramm, Dr. rer. nat. (Theoretical Meteorology), Research Associate Professor, Geophysical Institute, Associate Faculty, College of Natural Science and Mathematics, University of Alaska Fairbanks, (climate specialties: Atmospheric energetics, physics of the atmospheric boundary layer, physical climatology – see interesting paper by Kramm et al), Fairbanks, Alaska, U.S.A.
    76. Leif Kullman, PhD (Physical geography, plant ecology, landscape ecology), Professor, Physical geography, Department of Ecology and Environmental science, Umeå University, Areas of Specialization: Paleoclimate (Holocene to the present), glaciology, vegetation history, impact of modern climate on the living landscape, Umeå, Sweden
    77. Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, President – Friends of Science, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    78. Jay Lehr, BEng (Princeton), PhD (environmental science and ground water hydrology), Science Director, The Heartland Institute, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
    79. Edward Liebsch, B.A. (Earth Science, St. Cloud State University); M.S. (Meteorology, The Pennsylvania State University), former Associate Scientist, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; former Adjunct Professor of Meteorology, St. Cloud State University, Environmental Consultant/Air Quality Scientist (Areas of Specialization: micrometeorology, greenhouse gas emissions), Maple Grove, Minnesota, U.S.A.
    80. Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
    81. William Lindqvist, PhD (Applied Geology), Independent Geologic Consultant, Areas of Specialization: Climate Variation in the recent geologic past, Tiburon, California, U.S.A.
    82. Peter Link, BS, MS, PhD (Geology, Climatology), Geol/Paleoclimatology, retired, Active in Geol-paleoclimatology, Tulsa University and Industry, Evergreen, Colorado, U.S.A.
    83. Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Science, Department of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, U.S.A.
    84. Qing-Bin Lu, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, cross-appointed to Departments of Biology and Chemistry, Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) New Investigator, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
    85. Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor (emeritus) for Meteorology and Climatology and former director of the Institute for Meteorology at the Free University of Berlin, Germany
    86. Björn Malmgren, PhD, Professor Emeritus in Marine Geology, Paleoclimate Science, Goteborg University, retired, Norrtälje, Sweden
    87. Oliver Manuel, BS (Chem), MS (Geo-Chem), PhD (Nuclear Chem), Post-Doc (Space Physics), Fulbright Scholar (Astrophysics), NSF Post-Doc Fellow (UC-Berkeley), Associate – Climate & Solar Science Institute, Professor (now Emeritus)/Dept Chair, College of Arts & Sciences University of Missouri-Rolla, Fulbright Scholar (Tata Institute- Mumbai), previously Research Scientist (US Geological Survey-Denver) and NASA Principal Investigator for Apollo, Climate Specialties: Earth’s heat source, sample of relevant papers: “Earth’s heat source – the Sun”, Energy and Environment 20 131-144 (2009); “The sun: a magnetic plasma diffuser that controls earth’s climate”, paper presented at the V. International Conference on Non-accelerator New Physics, Dubna, Russia, 20 June 2005; “Super-fluidity in the solar interior:  Implications for solar eruptions and climate”, Journal of Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2002), Cape Girardeau, Missouri, U.S.A.
    88. David Manuta, Ph.D. (Inorganic/Physical Chemistry, SUNY Binghamton), FAIC, Climate Specialties: Gas Phase Infrared Studies, Thermodynamics of Small Molecule Formation (e.g., CO2, HF, and H2O), President, Manuta Chemical Consulting, Inc., Chairman of the Board, The American Institute of Chemists, Past Positions include Adjunct Professor of Physics, Ohio University-Chillicothe, Ohio, Assistant Professor of Chemistry and Physical Science at Shawnee State University, Ohio, Assistant Professor of Chemistry and Physical Science at Upper Iowa University and US Enrichment Corp. (nuclear), Waverly, Ohio, USA
    89. Francis Massen, PhD, Physics Lab and meteoLCD, Lycée Classique de Diekirch, 32 av. de la gare L-9233, (see interesting scientific paper by Massen et al), Diekirch, Luxembourg
    90. Irina Melnikova, PhD (Physics & Mathematics), Head of the Laboratory for Physics of the Atmosphere INENCO RAN, specialization: radiative regime of the cloudy atmosphere – see interesting paper on this topic by Dr. Melnikova, St. Petersburg, Russia
    91. Patrick J. Michaels, A.B., S.M., Ph.D. (ecological climatology, Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies, CATO Institute, Distinguished Senior Fellow in the School of Public Policy, George Mason University, a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, past program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society, past research professor of Environmental Sciences at University of Virginia, contributing author and reviewer of the UN IPCC, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
    92. Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences, Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University (article by Dr. Michel: “Climatic hubris: The Ellesmere Island ice shelves have been disappearing since they were first mapped in 1906”, January 16, 2007, National Post), Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    93. Ferenc Mark Miskolczi, PhD, atmospheric physicist, formerly of NASA’s Langley Research Center, (in his 2010 paper, Dr. Miskolczi writes, “The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the apparently observed global warming. A hypothesis of significant positive feedback by water vapor effect on atmospheric infrared absorption is also negated by the observed measurements. Apparently major revision of the physics underlying the greenhouse effect is needed.”), Hampton, Virginia, U.S.A.
    94. Asmunn Moene, PhD, MSc (Meteorology), former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Oslo, Norway
    95. Nils-Axel Mörner, PhD (Sea Level Changes and Climate), Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
    96. Nasif Nahle, BSc (Biology), C-1L on Scientific Research, climatology and meteorology, physics, and paleobiology, Director of Scientific Research at Biology Cabinet (Areas of Specialization: Climatology and Meteorology (certification), San Nicolas de los Garza, Nuevo Leon, Mexico
    97. David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    98. James J. O’Brien,  PhD., Emeritus Professor, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University, Florida, U.S.A.
    99. Peter Oliver, BSc (Geology), BSc (Hons, Geochemistry & Geophysics), MSc (Geochemistry),  PhD (Geology), specialized in NZ quaternary glaciations, Geochemistry and Paleomagnetism, previously research scientist for the NZ Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Upper Hutt, New Zealand
    100. Cliff Ollier, D.Sc., Professor Emeritus (School of Earth and Environment – see his Copenhagen Climate Challenge sea level article here), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, W.A., Australia
    101. R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Chair – International Climate Science Coalition, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    102. Alfred H. Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Deptartment, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota, U.S.A.
    103. Stanley Penkala, BS (Chemical Engineering, Univ. of PA), PhD (Chemical Engineering, Univ. of PA.), Asst. Prof. Air Engineering and Industrial Hygiene, University of Pittsburgh GSPH (1970-1973), Environmental Scientist, DeNardo & McFarland Weather Services (1973-1980), Air Science Consultants, Inc. (VP 1980-1995, President 1995-Present), Areas of Specialization: Air Dispersion Modeling, Anthropogenic Sources of Global CO2, Quality Assurance in Air Pollution Measurements, Pittsburgh, PA, U.S.A.
    104. Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide; Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Australia
    105. Oleg M. Pokrovsky, BS, MS, PhD (mathematics and atmospheric physics – St. Petersburg State University, 1970), Dr. in Phys. and Math Sciences (1985), Professor in Geophysics (1995), principal scientist, Main Geophysical Observatory (RosHydroMet), St. Petersburg, Russia. Note: Dr. Pokrovsky carried out comprehensive analysis of many available long climate time series and came to conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 impact is not main contributor in climate change as declared by IPCC.
    106. Daniel Joseph Pounder, BS (Meteorology, University of Oklahoma), MS (Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign); Meteorological/Oceanographic Data Analyst for the National Data Buoy Center, formerly Meteorologist, WILL AM/FM/TV, Urbana, U.S.A.
    107. Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology (Sedimentology), University of Saskatchewan (see Professor Pratt’s article for a summary of his views), Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada
    108. Tom Quirk, MSc (Melbourne), D Phil (physics), MA (Oxford), SMP (Harvard), Member of the Scientific Advisory Panel of the Australian climate Science Coalition, Member Board Institute of Public Affairs, Melbourne, Areas of Specialization: Methane, Decadal Oscillations, Isotopes, Victoria, Australia
    109. Vijay Kumar Raina, Ex. Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India, author of 2010 MoEF Discussion Paper, “Himalayan Glaciers – State-of-Art Review of Glacial Studies, Glacial Retreat and Climate Change”, the first comprehensive study on the region.  Mr. Raina’s field activities covered extensive research on the geology and the glaciers of the Himalayas, Andaman Islands that included research on the volcanoes in the Bay of Bengal.  He led two Indian Scientific Expeditions to Antarctica that earned him the National Mineral Award and the Antarctica Award. He has authored over 100 scientific papers and three books:  ‘Glacier Atlas of India’ dealing with various aspects of glacier studies under taken in the Himalayas; ‘Glaciers, the rivers of ice’ and ‘Images Antarctica, Reminiscences’, Chandigarh, India
    110. Denis Rancourt, B.Sc., M.Sc., Ph.D. (Physics), Former physics professor, University of Ottawa (then funded by NSERC in both physics and environmental science), Climate Specialties: global carbon cycle and environmental nanoparticles science, statistical physics, as well as the politics, sociology and psychology of the climate debate, current research includes radiative effects and phenomena (albedo, greenhouse effect), Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    111. Oleg Raspopov, Doctor of Science and Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation, Professor – Geophysics, Senior Scientist, St. Petersburg Filial (Branch) of N.V.Pushkov Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowaves Propagetion of RAS (climate specialty: climate in the past, particularly the influence of solar variability), Editor-in-Chief of journal “Geomagnetism and Aeronomy” (published by Russian Academy of Sciences), St. Petersburg, Russia
    112. S. Jeevananda Reddy, M.Sc. (Geophysics), Post Graduate Diploma (Applied Statistics, Andhra University), PhD (Agricultural Meteorology, Australian University, Canberra), Formerly Chief Technical Advisor — United Nations World Meteorological Organization (WMO) & Expert-Food and Agriculture Organization (UN), Convenor – Forum for a Sustainable Environment, author of 500 scientific articles and several books – here is one: “Climate Change – Myths & Realities”, Hyderabad, India
    113. George A. Reilly, PhD (Geology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor), areas of specialization: Geological aspects of paleoclimatology, Retired, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
    114. Robert G. Roper, PhD, DSc (University of Adelaide, South Australia), Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.
    115. Nicola Scafetta, PhD (Physics, 2001, University of North Texas), Laurea (Dottore in Physics, 1997, Universita’ di Pisa, Italy), Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor Experiment (ACRIM), Climate Specialties: solar and astronomical causes of climate change, see intresting paper by Scafetta on this), Research Scientist – Physics, Duke University, Durham, NC, U.S.A.
    116. Rob Scagel, MSc (forest microclimate specialist), Principal Consultant – Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, British Columbia, Canada
    117. Tom V. Segalstad, PhD (Geology/Geochemistry), secondary Web page here, Head of the Geological Museum, Natural History Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway
    118. Gary Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California, U.S.A.
    119. Thomas P. Sheahen, PhD (Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology), specialist in renewable energy, research and publication (applied optics) in modeling and measurement of absorption of infrared radiation by atmospheric CO2,  National Renewable Energy Laboratory (2005-2008); Argonne National Laboratory (1988-1992); Bell Telephone labs (1966-73), National Bureau of Standards (1975-83), Oakland, Maryland, U.S.A.
    120. S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Environmental Sciences), University of Virginia, former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service, Science and Environmental Policy Project, Charlottesville, Virginia, U.S.A.
    121. Jan-Erik Solheim, MSc (Astrophysics), Professor, Institute of Physics, University of Tromso, Norway (1971-2002), Professor (emeritus), Institute of Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Oslo, Norway (1965-1970, 2002- present), climate specialties: sun and periodic climate variations, scientific paper by Professor Solheim “Solen varsler et kaldere tiår”, Baerum, Norway
    122. Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama, U.S.A.
    123. H. Leighton Steward, Master of Science (Geology), Areas of Specialization: paleoclimates and empirical evidence that indicates CO2 is not a significant driver of climate change, Chairman, PlantsNeedCO2.org and CO2IsGreen.org, Chairman of the Institute for the Study of Earth and Man (geology, archeology & anthropology) at SMU in Dallas, Texas, Boerne, TX, U.S.A.
    124. Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), member of American Chemical Society and life member of American Physical Society, Chair of “Global Warming – Scientific Controversies in Climate Variability”, International seminar meeting at KTH, 2006, Stockholm, Sweden
    125. Edward (Ted) R. Swart, D.Sc. (physical chemistry, University of Pretoria), M.Sc. and Ph.D. (math/computer science, University of Witwatersrand). Formerly Director of the Gulbenkian Centre, Dean of the Faculty of Science, Professor and Head of the Department of Computer Science, University of Rhodesia and past President of the Rhodesia Scientific Association. Set up the first radiocarbon dating laboratory in Africa. Most recently, Professor in the Department of Combinatorics and Optimization at the University of Waterloo and Chair of Computing and Information Science and Acting Dean at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada, now retired in Kelowna British Columbia, Canada
    126. Roger Tanner, PhD (Analytical Chemistry, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana), 40-yr career in atmospheric chemistry and air quality measurement science at Tennessee Valley Authority, Desert Research Institute, Reno, and Brookhaven National Lab, Climate Specialties: atmospheric chemistry and air quality measurement science, Florence, Alabama, U.S.A.
    127. George H. Taylor, B.A. (Mathematics, U.C. Santa Barbara), M.S. (Meteorology, University of Utah), Certified Consulting Meteorologist, Applied Climate Services, LLC, Former State Climatologist (Oregon), President, American Association of State Climatologists (1998-2000), Corvallis, Oregon, U.S.A.
    128. Frank Tipler, PhD, Professor of Mathematical Physics, astrophysics, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.
    129. Edward M. Tomlinson, MS (Meteorology), Ph.D. (Meteorology, University of Utah), President, Applied Weather Associates, LLC (leader in extreme rainfall storm analyses), 21 years US Air Force in meteorology (Air Weather Service), Monument, Colorado, U.S.A.
    130. Ralf D. Tscheuschner, Dr.rer.nat. (Theoretical physics: Quantum Theory), Freelance Lecturer and Researcher in Physics and Applied Informatics, Hamburg, Germany. Co-author of “Falsification of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics, Int.J.Mod.Phys. 2009
    131. Göran Tullberg, Civilingenjör i Kemi (equivalent to Masters of Chemical Engineering), Co-author – The Climate, Science and Politics (2009) (see here for a review), formerly instructor of Organic Chemistry (specialization in “Climate chemistry”), Environmental Control and Environmental Protection Engineering at University in Växjö; Falsterbo, Sweden
    132. Brian Gregory Valentine, PhD, Adjunct professor of engineering (aero and fluid dynamics specialization) at the University of Maryland, Technical manager at US Department of Energy, for large-scale modeling of atmospheric pollution, Technical referee for the US Department of Energy’s Office of Science programs in climate and atmospheric modeling conducted at American Universities and National Labs, Washington, DC, U.S.A.
    133. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD (Utrecht University), geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, Christchurch, New Zealand
    134. A.J. (Tom) van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geologyspecialism: Glacial Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors
    135. Michael G. Vershovsky, Ph.D. in meteorology (macrometeorology, long-term forecasts, climatology), Senior Researcher, Russian State Hydrometeorological University, works with, as he writes, “Atmospheric Centers of Action (cyclons and anticyclones, such as Icelandic depression, the South Pacific subtropical anticyclone, etc.). Changes in key parameters of these centers strongly indicate that the global temperature is influenced by these natural factors (not exclusively but nevertheless)”, St. Petersburg, Russia
    136. Gösta Walin, Professor, i oceanografi, Earth Science Center, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden
    137. Anthony Watts, ItWorks/IntelliWeather, Founder, surfacestations.org, Watts Up With That, Chico, California, U.S.A.
    138. Charles L. Wax, PhD (physical geography: climatology, LSU), State Climatologist – Mississippi, past President of the American Association of State Climatologists, Professor, Department of Geosciences, Mississippi State University, U.S.A.
    139. Forese-Carlo Wezel, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Stratigraphy (global and Mediterranean geology, mass biotic extinctions and paleoclimatology), University of Urbino, Urbino, Italy
    140. Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
    141. David E. Wojick, PhD,  PE, energy and environmental consultant, Technical Advisory Board member – Climate Science Coalition of America, Star Tannery, Virginia, U.S.A.
    142. Dr. Bob Zybach, PhD (Oregon State University (OSU), Environmental Sciences Program, EPA-sponsored peer-reviewed research on carbon sequestration in coniferous forests — mostly in relation to climate history and quality of climate predictive models), MAIS (OSU, Forest Ecology, Cultural Anthropology, Historical Archaeology), BS (OSU College of Forestry), President, NW Maps Co., Program Manager, Oregon Websites and Watersheds Project, Inc., Cottage Grove, Oregon, U.S.A.

    By the ancient rules of reason, AGW is either an existential threat to civilisation or it isn’t. Which throws up a fascinating dilemma: one of us is right. One of us apparently knows better than a whole heap of experts. Forgive me if I don’t believe it’s you, Bernard.

  63. #63 Brad Keyes
    April 26, 2013

    Sorry Bernard,

    In case it’s not obvious, I meant you’re not reading properly.

    D’oh!

  64. #64 Brad Keyes
    April 26, 2013

    Pray tell me if you think that science progresses by the process of lay people ignoring, misunderstanding, misrepresenting, outright denying or otherwise bastardising the work of professional scientists?

    Har har har. No, Bernard, I obviously don’t think that.

    What lay people choose to do with scientific knowledge is entirely up to them; it has no effect on the state of science, which moves desultorily forward, day by day, with or without their knowledge, comprehension or approval.

  65. #65 Brad Keyes
    April 26, 2013

    Bernard J.,

    Talk about paranoid over-interpretation:

    [Brad] Keyes himself used the words “for all I know” over at Eli’s, which is the classic mantra of one who cunningly concedes in the abstract the possibility of a shifting baseline, but who refuses to acknowledge the actual existence of the same.

    LOL! If you say so, Bernard.

    It’s also the classic mantra of people who don’t want to overstate their certainty; people who think knowledge is provisional on information. (Sometimes called ‘skeptics,’ ‘Skeptics,’ or ‘sceptics.’)

    Maybe you should get out more. Go to a non-climate-change department and you’ll hear scientists using such phrases all the time.

  66. #66 Brad Keyes
    April 26, 2013

    Bernard trots out climate pseudopsychology’s latest excuse for the failure of anyone outside academia to give a toss about The Greatest Moral Challenge of our Generation:

    Brad Keyes is classically falling victim to the shifting baseline first detailed by Daniel Pauly. Most people do, as human perception – especially when it is untrained – operates on a time scale that is too short to comprehend serious change to the environment. This applies even to single life-times, but in the current global circumstance it is most particularly relevant to the context of intergenerational change.

    Let me get this straight:

    The climate is warming at a rate unknown in history. You don’t need the peer-reviewed literature to tell you the environment is changing dramatically; just look out your window. Children aren’t going to know what snow is. Hardly a week goes by that nature doesn’t force the world’s top scientists to toss out their worst-case projections… for being too conservative. It’s worse than anyone thought, say the scientists. People are telling us they’ve never experienced seasons like this. Climate change is already killing 300,000 people every year. The question now is whether or not our children are going to inherit a livable atmosphere. For the planet, time is fast running out.

    Oops, I mean slowly. Climate change is so slow it escapes human perception. People are going to need special training just to notice anything different. Yeah, that’s it.

    ROFL…

    Make up your mind, clowns!

    Because right now your spiel is such a dog’s breakfast you’d be lucky if an intellectual believed it, let alone a normal person.

    :-)

  67. #67 Brad Keyes
    April 26, 2013

    bill,

    You try and fail to understand me:

    Yes, well, I’m sure the Prince will be along shortly to explain why the moronic blog he’s following isn’t moronic, or something…

    I take it you’re alluding to that “Friends of Carbon Dioxide” link uncovered by Bernard’s cyberstalking background research on me. I must have pressed “subscribe” or “follow” or whatever because I liked the name, but I don’t recall ever getting around to reading it. I’d be surprised if it was moronic, but I can’t remember it so I’m not going to be drawn on the subject.

  68. #68 ianam
    April 26, 2013

    I am not under-stating the seriousness of AGW

    Regardless of your intent, the words “GW just one additional but very important stress” do understate it. And you continue to do so, similar to saying to an obese man who comes into the OR with a hatchet in his head that, while the hatchet is “prominent”, he needs to address his other lifestyle issues as well.

  69. #69 Brad Keyes
    April 26, 2013

    Lionel A:

    Oh look. Dana Nuccitelli a science literate colleague of that other scientific literate John Cook have raised awareness that the myth of a slowdown in global warming is just that a myth. No wonder Keyes has to keep trying to shoot the messenger particularly if allied to SkS.

    Oh, wake up. The messenger has shot himself, Lionel. Keep calling Cook scientifically literate if you enjoy the embarrassment. He makes a liar out of you by confusing the Modern Scientific Method with Old Testament legal theory:

    So I’m writing an article for a Christian magazine – in that one, I start by referencing scripture about how truth is established by two or more witnesses and showing how science runs on the same principle.

    If you still don’t see what this reveals about John Cook’s educational defects, which is trivially obvious to the rest of us, you’re in deeper denial than I thought.

  70. #70 BBD
    April 26, 2013

    ianam

    Jeff Harvey says:

    I am not under-stating the seriousness of AGW – what I am saying is that it may be the final and most important nail in the coffin humanity is creating for itself.

    And:

    We have to address all of the major human-mediated threats to the environment – with GW being prominent – if we are avoid plunging into the abyss in which we are headed.

  71. #71 bill
    April 27, 2013

    What a hoot!

    Your ‘argument from authority’ post – relying on the ICSC – at #62 is just plain dumb, Bradley, much like that blog you ‘accidentally’ subscribed to, but only to look at the articles, certainly…

    Clearly we can provide a much more heavy-weight ‘coming-right-back-at-yer’ list. Sans some of the outright comedy material on that one! The science-literate – and more-and-more frequently published – SkS crew will be doing this shortly, in fact.

    (And don’t feel bad about their successes, because, after all, you own the Philosophy of Science. You really do! They just do it.)

    Ah, Prince, you really needed to learn when to stage a strategic retreat, because by now it’s obvious you don’t even manage to have feet of clay – it’s more like sodden papier mache…

  72. #72 Bernard J.
    April 27, 2013

    Brad Keyes at comment #66 of 26 April.

    It is entirely consistent that climate can change faster than species and ecosystems are able to adapt, and that at the same time many humans are not able to perceive these changes in the environment – especially when their sensibilities, perceptions and priorities are profoundly removed from the biosphere that sustains them.

    You are confabulating very different processes that operate on vastly different scales, and you are doing so in a mendacious (and/or gobsmackingly ignorant) attempt to obfuscate otherwise misrepresent the underlying issues. This shows very clearly that you are not arguing from a base is consistent with logic and fact, but rather from ideology.

    On the matter of your argumentum ad auctoritatem cut-and-paste of your 142 “heap of experts”, they have been roundly and soundly refuted for their various permutations of non-acceptance of the fact of human-caused climate change. If you are not aware of this you need to do some serious background checking. Further, for your 142 recalcitrant deniers there are many tens of thousands of scientists who are completely in agreement with the paradigm of human-caused climate change, and especially of the serious negative impacts that are resulting and that will continue to result, ever more seriously, in the coming decades and centuries. Heck, I could list more than that number who work for my own institution alone, and I could do the same for each of the other four institutions and government departments where I’ve worked.

    When all is said and done those who deny or otherwise reject the consensus are nothing but a statistical tail of predictable contrarian dross that rises from the weight of thecarefully considered thought of professional experts.

    Further, these tens of thousands of consensus scientists have yet to be shown to be in error, unlike many on the list that you proffered. Perhaps you’d care to point to any of the fundamental underpinnings of the consensus about climate change, or about the biospheric sensitivity to such, that you believe are in error and that are more appropriately described by the clowns in your list?

    With respect to your rabid antipathy to John Cook, I stand by my comment that:

    You seem to be all hot and bothered by John Cook’s Christianity

    You protest at #60 above (via #63) that:

    Then you’re [not] reading properly.

    Did I say John Cook “suffers from an irrational belief in a sky-fairy”?

    when in fact you did just this in your (secularly) righteous umbrage at #7 above where you said:

    I know what you’re thinking! Surely this is some climate consensualist’s stab at self-parody. The alternative is almost too horrific to contemplate.

    And I’d assume the same thing, except for one detail: it appears to have been written by the well-known specimen of pre-scientific cretinism, John Cook!

    Pathetic as it is, I believe it almost certainly represents a good-faith effort by John Cook to make an accurate claim about the way science works. He’s dead serious, I’m afraid.

    in response to Cook’s reference to his Christianity. So I’ll keep my point, thank you very much, and add to that the point that you have not demonstrated that Cook applies religious faith to his analysis and assessment of empirical matters and scientific conclusions derived there from. More confabulation on your part, and more logical fallacitousness.

    Once again, if there’s a climatological or ecophysiological conclusion of Cook’s that you believe is predicated on and only sustained by religious thinking I would invite you to profer it as evidence, and to show how the underlying premise is not in support of the consensus scientific position pertaining to global warming and other manifestations of climate change.

    I don’t expect you to do so though, because ever since you first manifested with your denial of the seriousness of climate change you have failed to produce anything that would lend any credence whatsoever to your position.

    You are very much inclined to logical fallacy, aren’t you? I guess that all that apparent philosophical education leads to you understand the many ways that logic can be bastardised in order to make an apparent argument when you lack for actual training, for sufficient understanding, for real logical analysis and for geniune supporting evidence.

    You twist and weave, duck and didge, but you have yet to offer any evidence that climatological science is wrong in it’s assessment of the climatic consequences of human carbon emissions, and that ecological, physiological and other biological sciences are wrong in their assessments of the biological consequences of changing the climate in the way that humans are putting in train.

    Why is it so difficult for you to pick one at a time from the basic points of the science, and mount an evidenced argument against the consensus? Is it that you are an intellectual coward, that you rely on scoring fatuous and spurious counterpoints that support your ideology, because to rely on substantive science and empirical evidence would completely disembowel your stance?

    Occasionally I invoke the name of Tim Curtin, who was as silly as a cut snake but who at least had the courage to put forward the bases on which he rejected science. It made for displays of tragically comic absurdities of scientific incomprehension on Curtin’s part, but at least he had the guts to do so – you are just another Jonas character who refuses to actually put forward anything that we can dissect, because you know that to do so would be to remove the only card that you have to play.

    Stop your shadow boxing. Put your best out there, so that we can finally swing at it and see whether it stands up to the rigours of the scientific method.

  73. #73 Lionel A
    April 27, 2013

    Keyes screams (does allot of that):

    When you say global warming is a threat, you’re asking me to believe you somehow know better than all these people:

    After which follows a list with some characters of very dubious climate science repute, with some science in general. Clearly Keyes, it is YOU who needs to wake up.

    There are some real corkers in that list. You being a neophyte are incapable of red-flagging them.

    Would you like us to work through that list and give examples of why they are not to be trusted.

    As for Watts and co., it is the anthropogenic factor in the dangerous global warming that is the point. It is this that they are using all manner of tricksy words to hide from lay people who don’t know any better. And it seems that now you can be classed in that group. Your own words betray you.

  74. #74 Lionel A
    April 27, 2013

    Your ‘argument from authority’ post – relying on the ICSC – at #62

    Yep!
    The ignorance with this one strong it is.

    The web sites of the International Climate Science Coalition, the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, and the Australian Climate Science Coalition are all hosted at the same IP address, by a single Internet service provider in Arizona.[6]. ICSC’s executive director [Tom Harris] was unwilling to comment on this apparent linkage.[7]

    found at: International Climate Science Coalition

    One has to ask, is Keyes setting himself up as some sort of Poe?

  75. #75 BBD
    April 27, 2013

    Brad

    First, in future just provide a link to whichever contrarian blog hosts your preferred list of cranks and non-climatologists. Carpet-bombing cut’n’pasts are irritating and – in your case – counter-productive.

    Second, your list is a laugh a minute. I’m not wasting time going through the lot, but from the top and off the top of my head:

    Abdussamatov (crank)
    Akasofu (wrong)
    Tim Ball (liar, shill)
    David Bellamy (wrong)
    Ernst Beck (wrong)
    Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen (non-expert promoter of wrongness and crankery)
    Bob Carter (wrong)

    (No climatologists so far!)

    Etc.

    As an exercise in intellectual curiosity (and honesty, and integrity) I leave it to you to find out why. Google is your friend.

    But remember Brad – these are your people, from your preferred list, that you brought here to support your case.

    You are in deep trouble with this ;-)

  76. #76 BBD
    April 28, 2013

    # 66 Brad Keyes

    I’m not sure why you are having trouble with this.

    Start with the evolution of forcings over the C20th.

    GHG forcing increased rapidly post-1960 and its influence on net forcing begins to show up from around 1970. The result is a ~0.5C increase in GAT since ~1970 (the *transient* response!).

    AGW is just getting started. The scientific position is that if GHG forcing continues to increase rapidly then much greater warming will result, with increasingly disruptive effects on agriculture and infrastructure etc.

    My understanding of the catastrophist argument is that if GAT increase exceeds ~3C, the carbon cycle will be disrupted. Standard examples are the warming ocean evolving from a carbon sink in to a carbon source and high latitude NH permafrost melt emerging as a new source.

    Once this happens, the increasing atmospheric fraction of GHGs is no longer under even notional human control because the lagged response to previous anthropogenic forcing keeps on coming. And oh dear.

    Because right now your spiel is such a dog’s breakfast you’d be lucky if an intellectual believed it, let alone a normal person.

    You project like a tomcat ;-)

  77. #77 Bernard J.
    April 28, 2013

    Lionel A asks:

    …is Keyes setting himself up as some sort of Poe?

    If Keyes’ hamfisted performance at Eli’s is any indication, he must surely be a poe – it would be nigh on a crime against intelligence to be as ill-informed as Keyes portrays himself to be.

  78. #78 Jeff Harvey
    April 28, 2013

    Ianam,

    Come off it man, I am on your side. And I am not understating it – what you seem intent on saying is that it outweighs every other anthropogenic stress by a huge magnitude. And this would be completely wrong because it would therefore consign habitat loss, overharvesting, invasive species, other forms of pollution and loss of biodiversity to a weak supporting role. Like it or not, Ianam, I AM an environmental scientist and few, if any of my colleagues underestimatr the threat posed by GW, nor several other assaults to the biosphere caused by humanity. You are picking at straws here. Cut it out.

    Moreover, this is exactly the behavior that deniers want: to downplay a wide range of serious environmental problems in order to focus on a single one, climate change. Its easier for deniers to try and slay a single dragon than a whole herd of them: hence why you are playing right into their hands.

    I don’t think you’ve forgiven me ever since I claimed that Obama was as far to the right as many Republicans, and certainly farther right than Richard Nixon. I don’t retract a word of it: the US in my view is a plutocracy and hasn’t had real functioning democracy for a long, long time. Liberalism is dead or at least in very critical condition in the US; the Democrats and the Republicans are effectively copycats of one another: one Property Party with two right wings, as the late Gore Vidal described it. The Pentagon, White House, Congress and corporations all work together to tirelessly promote the interests of the privileged few in their foreign policies. In that context every president since (and including) Truman were and are war criminals; essentially, as John Pilger put it in “New Rulers of the World”, ‘terrorism barbarism and mass murder are standard practices on ”our side” – only the technology is different’.

    That about sums it up. And Obama is no different.

  79. #79 Jeff Harvey
    April 28, 2013

    I won’t even bother to try and debunk Keyes’s woeful discussion of polar bear demographics on Rabett Run. His arguments fall below even those comedy-level comments of Lomborg and Jonas – and that is saying it tall. Let me put it this way: if polar bears were released in large numbers into habitats adjacent to Sydney and Hamburg the populations would crash to extinction in about 2 years. And I am not referring to the animals being culled by humans – I would be talking about biotic and abiotic conditions to which they are completely not adapted. In no time at all: finito.

    If the Arctic continues to warm along the same trajectory as it has over the past 30 years, and conditions there continue to unravel as they did in 2007 and 2012, then bear populations, at leas tin the wild, are doomed. Its over in other words. Read that Brad? Has it sunk in yet? OVER. GAME, SET, AND MATCH. The animals are adapted to high tundra and Arctic habitats. Their ecophysiology is finely tailored to a set of conditions that fall within an envelope. Outside of that envelope they must invest more metabolic energy in order to survive and reproduce. Moreover, their diet is largely specialized to seal prey. Diet switching for specialists is not just something that will evolve overnight, at least not in K-slected species at the terminal end of a plant-vertebrate food chain. Already the recruitment/natal rate of polar bears is going down and the population is being skewed towards older animals.

    But I digress… Brad’s comments at Eli’s site were so gumbified that I wonder that even HE could write that crap seriously.

  80. #80 FrankD
    April 28, 2013

    BBD,

    You probably didn’t look so far but there’s also Corbyn (crank), Easterbrook (liar), Eschenback (masseur), Gerlich (wrong)*, Mörner (crank), Plimer (crank and liar), Tscheuschner (wrong)*, Watts (liar), etc…

    *so wrong they probably rate “crank”, but I’m feeling generous.

    All the usual suspects! I was circling names on my card so fast it caught fire. But since no one else has yet called it let me be the first to say:
    BINGO!
    ­
    I haven’t followed this thread so much so I don’t know if Brad has strapped on the waterskis before now, but if not, that post so vaulted the Carcharadon that it’s all just “LOL” from here… :)

  81. #81 BBD
    April 28, 2013

    FrankD

    Heh. Looks like a pretty comprehensive list of the entire troupe of climate clowns.

    Brad has made a terminal arse of himself already, so this is sauce, but it’s good sauce!.

    ;-)

  82. #82 BBD
    April 28, 2013

    # 78 Jeff Harvey

    Brad knows nothing, so quite where he derives his certainty that “CAGW is bullshit” is a mystery.

    Perhaps the exhaustive list of mistaken non-climatologists, cranks and liars currently found at # 62 provides a clue.

  83. #83 ianam
    April 28, 2013

    I am on your side.

    Irrelevant ad hominem/tribal appeal.

    And I am not understating it

    Yes you are.

  84. #84 ianam
    April 28, 2013

    If Keyes’ hamfisted performance at Eli’s is any indication, he must surely be a poe

    The whole point of Poe’s Law is that, no matter how outrageous you try to parody the cranks, there is always some genuine crank who is that demented.

  85. #85 ianam
    April 28, 2013

    Jeff Harvey says

    Yes, I know, as is obvious from my hatchet analogy. And what’s with all his absurd personalization? I had quite forgotten about his silliness about Obama. As bad as Obama is, Romney would have been far worse.

  86. #86 Jeff Harvey
    April 28, 2013

    Ianam,

    Splitting hairs again are we? Give it a break.

    What you are doing is understating the significance of other environmental threats. You appear to be saying that GW is the mother of all threats to the health and functioning of ecosystems across the globe, and that other human-mediated stresses pale by comparison. Am I correct? If I am, then I say that you are completely wrong. And since I am in a professional position to be able to evaluate various threats to the health and functioning of ecological systems across the biosphere a lot better than you are for sure, then my suggestion to you is to BACK OFF.

    Furthermore, read my posts on the ecological consequences of AGW and tell me that I am understating it. Go ahead and try.

    Ianam, you really make it hard for yourself. You seem intent on attacking your allies in this fight. Not a smart move on your part. Rather dumb, I am afraid.

  87. #87 ianam
    April 28, 2013

    Jeff, you do good work but you’re terribly neurotic. I’m done talking to you.

  88. #88 Jeff Harvey
    April 28, 2013

    Ianam,

    Glad to hear it. But its you who is neurotic… after all, who claimed in the first place that I was ‘understating the seriousness of AGW’? It was you. And this after all the times I have countered nonsense on GW spewed forth by GSW, Jonas, Betula, Brad Keyes, Karen and the rest of the army of the ignoranti.

    Bad move on your part; actually, it was quite stupid. God only knows what made you start it. I will assume that you were having a bad day at the office.

  89. #89 ianam
    April 28, 2013

    I will say one more thing about Jeff: He’s being quite the hypocrite, attacking me left and right for simply stating the relative importance of AGW. Since he’s so concerned about whose side people are on, he should focus all his attention on Brad.

  90. #90 ianam
    April 28, 2013

    ” who is neurotic… after all, who claimed in the first place that I was ‘understating the seriousness of AGW’? It was you.”

    Yes, but that claim is not neurotic, your overreaching attempt to defend against a very mild criticism is.

    “And this after all the times I have countered nonsense”

    Irrelevant strawman … I never claimed otherwise, and your counters have nothing to do with my assertion.

    Ok, bye.

  91. #91 Jeff Harvey
    April 28, 2013

    “I will say one more thing about Jeff: He’s being quite the hypocrite, attacking me left and right for simply stating the relative importance of AGW”

    Give me a break, Ianam. You attacked me first for allegedly understating the seriousness of GW, which I have never frigging well done. This after all of the times I have countered the deniers and despite the truckloads of shit I have taken from them for not hiding behind an anonymous monicker.

    I am one of few scientists who ventures into blogs to counter disinformation of GW and other environmental threats, and over the years I have taken a lot of lumps for not being anonymous (I honestly identify myself because this counters those who would argue, ‘what do you know about ecology and/or environmental science’?). Hence why I laid my credentials on the line. I believe that qualified scientists have a responsibility to do enter the public arena and to engage those who distort the science, but if I start getting attacked over pedantics by people who ought to be on my side, then I might as well leave it to you to counter the ecological arguments the deniers make.

    Good luck. I have a lot of other things to do with my time and its people like you, Ianam, and not the D-K lame-brained deniers who would drive me away from here. You are doing a pretty good job of it.

  92. #92 David B. Benson
    April 29, 2013

    Demented and also boring.

  93. #93 Craig Thomas
    April 29, 2013

    Why on earth is ianam recommending that somebody “focus all their attention on Brad”?

    Is this proposal some sort of new-fangled replacement for the US Army interrogators’ use of Barney the Purple Dinosaur?

  94. #94 bill
    April 29, 2013

    We all have our run-ins with ianam at one point or another! Aren’t you supposed to be avoiding these sites, incidentally?

    Seems The Prince, or Bradley the Purple Dinosaur as I shall now think of him, does know when he’s licked, after all. Leastwise, he ain’t here or over at Eli’s defending either the Argument from Authority via the Ridiculous List, or the Taronga Bear Hypothesis. True Genius is always misunderstood; both were doubtlessly intended as online situationist installations anyway…

  95. #95 Lionel A
    April 29, 2013

    Seems The Prince, or Bradley the Purple Dinosaur as I shall now think of him, does know when he’s licked, after all.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the ‘Keyes of the Kingdom’ are rattling elsewhere in the blogosphere, bragging about how he has pulled our chains and flushed us out, or something like.

    Of course he could always be reading up on some reliable stuff to pick nits out of later.

  96. #96 BBD
    April 29, 2013

    # 95 Doubtless.

    # 92 Eh, you’re a hard man to please.

  97. #97 Craig Thomas
    April 29, 2013

    The Taronga Bear hypothesis”, indeed – that was a beauty.

    Come to think of it – wasn’t there a Thylacine being held in the Hobart zoo in 1931? Does that prove it can’t have gone extinct? Or have I misunderstood Brad’s hypothesis?

  98. #98 David B. Benson
    April 30, 2013
  99. #99 BBD
    May 1, 2013

    # 98 Mohs rating 9. Well ‘ard.

    Thanks for the pointer re Green Sky. I am reading it now.

    Have you read this btw? It’s mainly about the end-Permian event, but to my knowledge the best (only?) popular treatment available. Recommended.

  100. #100 Lionel A
    May 1, 2013

    Michael J Benton looks interesting, I might just add that to my Wish List.

    Awhile back, about 13 years I bought the first edition of this book, Architects of Eternity: The New Science of Fossils by Richard Corfield. A couple of years back I had notification through my The Society for Nautical Research membership that Richard was giving a seminar in a room in the Historic Dockyard (Portsmouth. England – Warrior, Victory, Mary Rose etc) and I purchased a couple more of his books on the spot, two copies of ‘The Silent Landscape’ one for my father.

    Cesare Emiliani makes an appearance in that book, as he does in Wally Broecker’s ‘The Great Ocean Conveyor’, the Emilliani picture on the Wiki page is replicated therein too.

    I also read Richard Fortey and Ted Nield.

    Now if you have youngsters in your family then this now old book will fascinate and educate, provided caveats WRT more recent information are given, Cassell’s Atlas of Evolution: The Earth, its Landscape, and Life Forms.

    In the front of this book is what I think a very good method for laying out geological time, as a spiral. So taken with this was I that I recreated this in a vector graphic format and added a tree below. I have modified it in the interim to further divide up that large pre-Cambrian section see here: Geological Time Spiral.

Current ye@r *