February 2013 Open Thread

Do you think the alarmists who predicted doom because of the carbon tax will shut up?

Comments

  1. #1 bill
    February 6, 2013

    But, Vince, the gold bars! Don’t forget someone’s really been fiddluing with the gold bars!…

  2. #2 bill
    February 6, 2013

    Chebbie, you appear to mistake me for someone who gives a damn what you ‘think’.

  3. #3 Vince Whirlwind
    February 6, 2013

    Chameleon says,

    The carbon tax will make no noticeable difference

    This is incorrect.

    The Carbon Tax is a classic application of Pigovian taxation, and has been devised by properly qualified professionals who understand the application of economic theory.

    It is perfectly clear that the Carbon Tax is a very straightforward application of a tax on a negative externality which will increase the cost of that externality and therefore both discourage the use of, and offset the cost of, that externality.

    Perhaps Chameleon can present her reasoning behind her assertion?

    Or is she just parroting something she doesn’t understand that she read it in The Australian?

  4. #4 Vince Whirlwind
    February 6, 2013

    Yep, WUWT has published a massive long rehashing buy the ever-cranky Tom Fuller of the entire panoply of climate conspiracy theories. from his apparently persisting inability to understand what “nature trick” and “hide the decline” mean all the way to cranky accusation of “fraud”.

    Funny how Tom Fuller hasn’t spotted Pat Michaels’ undeniable fraud, eh?

  5. #5 Marco
    February 6, 2013

    Vince, it’s immediately obvious Fullofit is full of it again. He clearly hasn’t even read either paper properly, as *neither* claims most pseudoskeptics are conspiracy theorists.

  6. #6 chameleon
    February 6, 2013

    Ummm Vince?
    It was actually DavidB who ‘asserted’ that the carbon tax will make no difference because of what’s happening in places like China.
    Bill also ‘asserted’ that it will make no difference in itself but claimed it was a type of mathematically induced moral choice to have it.
    My point was that Bill’s argument was not dealing with what David B pointed out.
    You’re off with the fairies somewhere talking about Pigovian taxation and external negativities which have NOTHING to do with any of the comments!
    The POINT that was made was that BECAUSE of what’s happening in the rest of the world, particularly in places like China (regardless of Bill’s comment re our trading relationship), the carbon tax will not make a difference (and we are talking about GLOBAL emissions in this instance I’m assuming?)
    Also Vince, just so I don’t have to keep repeating it at this thread and the BradK thread:
    I DO NOT VISIT WUWT MUCH!
    I only ever visit BLOGS when someone recommends a particular article or if a search for a particular piece of information sends me to a BLOG.
    That’s how I turned up here just before Xmas.
    I have also read articles at SS and RC and Climate Etc
    The only article I have read at WUWT recently is the Matt Ridley piece that was relevant to this site.
    Your accusation that my link re BEST was influenced by WUWT at the BradK site was highly amusing.
    I actually went to BEST (and linked it for you) and I also went to all your links (none of which supported your assertion about BEST and MBH98 and the hockey stick!)
    I linked the Lomberg article for some BALANCE as it discusses PRACTICAL concerns and NOT because I am a die hard supporter of Lomberg or anyone else in particular.
    What about a comment on Lomberg’s points in that article rather than just launching into an entirely irrelevant personal attack?

  7. #7 FrankD
    February 6, 2013

    Chameleon seems unable to read what she is typing:

    chameleon
    February 6, 2013

    Bill,
    Your comment does not deal with the actual point.
    The carbon tax will make no noticeable difference.

    (my emphasis)

    No “David said…” or anything, just a flat repetition of the statement. Reasonable readers will assume that this means Chameleon also supports this contention. Therefore, hiding behind Bolt-like implausible deniability is an obvious fail.

    And in any case, even were the “make no difference” meme correct, it would not invalidate the merits of a price on carbon (by whatever means). As Vince correctly states, the “carbon tax” is justified as a correction to a market distortion. It requires no further justification.

    If it has further benefits – whether measureable or intangible – excellent. If not, still worth implementing for economic reasons alone.

    Chameleon’s inability to discern this vital point as being any different from being “off with the fairies” is her problem, not Vince’s.

  8. #8 MWS
    February 6, 2013

    “‘Anyone can speak Troll,’ said Fred dismissively, ‘all you have to do is point and grunt.’ ”
    Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Chapter 8.

  9. #9 Lotharsson
    February 6, 2013

    The new Lewandowsky paper attracts a bunch of comments, including a series arguing something along the lines of “there was no conspiracy, Lewandowsky manufactured the whole controversy” from one A Scott.

    That’s the same commenter at Shaping Tomorrow’s World who tried to “recreate” the survey at WUWT and despite copious attempts to explain the issues, simply could not/would not grok that the difference in participant priming between the two surveys would mean that his was not directly comparable to Lewandowsky’s, even if it used exactly the same questions.

    (BTW, I seem to recall him promising at the time that the results would be processed and published quickly because it was a simple process to execute, but it’s been months and months and he reports that they are still being processed. Wonder what’s taking so long?)

  10. #10 Lotharsson
    February 6, 2013

    There are also commenters arguing that the UK Met Office has proved that the climate is not as sensitive to CO2 as previously thought (!) and that “there is little funding for scientists who do not support the theory that human greenhouse gas emissions are the primary climate driver” and those scientists experience “difficulty getting non-conforming papers published”.

    Hmmm…starting to sound a bit … conspiratorial there.

  11. #11 Lotharsson
    February 6, 2013

    The POINT that was made was that BECAUSE of what’s happening in the rest of the world … the carbon tax will not make a difference.

    And what an exceedingly misinformed POINT it is!

    That’s like arguing that if I my car brakes fail when I’m driving down a steep hill, that putting on the handbrake “will not make a difference”.

    Any idiot can tell you it will.

    It may or may not be a sufficient difference on its own to meet whatever your near-term goal is – perhaps the goal of being able to make it safely around the corner at the bottom of the hill – but it sure as heck means you will be travelling slower than you would be if you didn’t apply it when you get to the bottom of the hill. That’s a difference.

    (And that analogy doesn’t address the wider problem of managing the Commons, which others have already touched on – and which I and others have previously explained to chameleon last time she tried this particular line of bullshit.)

  12. #12 Betula
    February 6, 2013

    Leave it to the denying scientists to believe that CO2 fertilization exists and can be beneficial…..I mean really, who who are these people?

    “It estimated that the damaging effects of warming would cause the release of 53 billion tonnes of carbon stored in lands throughout the tropics, much of it in the Amazon, for every single degree Celsius (1.8F) of temperature rise.”

    “The benefits of CO2 fertilisation exceeded those losses in most scenarios, which ranged up to a 319 billion tonne net gain of stored carbon over the 21st century. About 500 to 1,000 billion tonnes of carbon are stored in land in the tropics”.

    http://tinyurl.com/ancdxb6

  13. #13 Wow
    February 6, 2013

    Gosh, betty, since your opening statement isn’t supported by the quote you make, why did you make that statement and pair it to that quote?

    Anyone would think you’re an ignoramus for doing that!

  14. #14 mike
    February 6, 2013

    Hey Deltoids!

    Remember that great ol’ 60′s era flick where Mia Farrow gets, like, you know, date-raped by the Devil and then, like, 9 months later she gives birth to the anti-Christ or something like that? Remember that one, Deltoids?

    Well, I’m kinda thinking out loud, here,–not sayin’ anything, mind you, just thinkin’ out loud–that the demon-child in that movie would be, like, you know, age-wise, smack in the middle of the demographic cohort inhabited by Deltoid’s regulars and all. You following me, Deltoids?

    And so, like, I’ve noticed that you Deltoids have “Love-Potion No. 9″ , goo-goo eyes all over the place for rip-off carbon tax hustles, and all, but, like, in contrast, you never hear even a peep from you greenshirt, booger-brain, pit-spawn Beelzebubs about a “sulphur” tax. You know what I mean, Deltoids?

    So, like, my question is why is that, Deltoids?

  15. #15 Wow
    February 6, 2013

    It’s because you’re a loon, mike.

  16. #16 chek
    February 6, 2013

    It’s because you’re afraid of women Mike, and build your byzantine pathology around that.

  17. #17 P. Lewis
    February 6, 2013

    Re sulphur taxes: Norway, Sweden, and Denmark.

    And in the UK aren’t low-sulphur fuels taxed differently? I think they once were at least.

    And it’s for a different reason, but a number of US states that have sulphur production facilities are subject to a sulphur production tax per some mass produced.

  18. #18 Stu
    February 6, 2013

    Hey Mike! Remember when you were a completely irrelevant abrasive incompetently trolling douche-canoe?

    I do! It was just now.

  19. #19 mike
    February 6, 2013

    P. Lws,

    Yr: “R slphr txs…”

    h grt! P. Lws drps n hr lk sm Dbls x mchn wth sm ltrl-mndd, hmrlss-wrd, dsnfrmtn fctds bt slphr txs. h brthr! Y Dltds r sch mprbbl drks.

    S, snc y’r sch snppy-cmbck, smrty-pnts knw-t-ll, P. Lws, l’ sprt, myb y cld jst prvd vrybdy wth th ltst scp n th ntrntnl stts f “tnns rt” txs. Cld y d tht, gy?

    mn, lk, bt th nxt thng y’ll b srvn’ p, P. Lws, s, lk, y knw, lttl rmkn f chclt mss nd ll. Rght?! Thnks, bt n thnks!

  20. #20 rhwombat
    Upper Transylvania, NSW
    February 6, 2013

    Lil’ mike. You really need to go back and see your therapist, despite her being a woman and all that, mike, ’cause you are evidently escalating. We are not the (mainly) male authority figures you are looking for. I regret that your early adolescent experience left you with such scars, but it wasn’t us who abused you. While your personal (e)scatology is occasionally imaginative (’cause you’re not dumb, despite the problems), it is really not much more than standard half-bright DK trolling (a la Jonas &the STC, GSW & the confused chameleon etc.), with added poo-flinging. Boring.

  21. #21 P. Lewis
    February 6, 2013

    Sounds like micky has had extra portions of chef Neil Iron’s chocolate mousse.

  22. #22 bill
    February 6, 2013

    mike is the poster-boy for the dangers of early and severe potty-training…

  23. #23 chameleon
    February 6, 2013

    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/amazon-less-at-risk-from-climate-change-than-feared-study-20130207-2dzlf.html
    Wow,
    Here is a SMH report on the information that Betula posted.
    Seems it wasn’t taken out of context after all?

  24. #24 mike
    February 6, 2013

    This blog’s shrink-wannabe freud-toids are out in force tonight, I see. But then, sometimes a Deltoid, nerd-ball creep-out is just a Deltoid, nerd-ball creep-out.

    Though I am gratified to see, Deltoids, that your doofus, spastic-dork, whiny-retard, pathetic forays into the world of trash-talk so transparently reveal that my prior taunts directed at your conspicuous lack of stud-ready, masculine “charisma” has so deliciously touched a big-time, blood-raw hive-nerve.

    But, then, that mommie-dearest, wanker-fantasy, matriarchal, authority figure of yours–Gaia–you lefty, fratricidal, back-stabbing, Tim’s-little-moderator-protected-crybaby, momma’s pet, geek-sneak groupies so jostle, in that hissy-prissy-Aunt-Pittypat, passive-agressive, girlie-man way of yours, to please, is there to kiss away any psychic boo-boos I may have inflicted. So you Deltoids will all be O. K.. I know.

  25. #25 chek
    February 6, 2013

    Go give your mom a kiss, li’ll mike. You’ll feel less antsy. For a while at least.

    Then you can go back to shooting and maiming digital figurines or whatever version of it your intellectual high water mark finds satisfying.

  26. #26 Bernard J.
    February 7, 2013

    Mike, please see your nursey for your overdue medication.

    Your hyperdysphemia is manifesting again.

  27. #27 bill
    February 7, 2013

    Hmmm – Dr. Bernard, my diagnosis was Tourettes characterised by marked Scatalogical Fixation and Castration Anxiety.

  28. #28 Bernard J.
    February 7, 2013

    Bill, I considered Tourette’s but without any capacity to observe other signs and symptoms, and with the likelihood that Mike’s generalised verbal spraying is voluntary rather than being an uncontrollable exclamation of specifically coprolalic terms, I settled on hyperdysphemia.

    This is not to say that scatalogical fixation and castration anxiety are not concurrent conditions, of course…

  29. #29 MikeH
    February 7, 2013

    I may be late to the party but I see that Uncle Roy has dropped the 3rd-order polynomial fit from his UAH temp graph.
    I wonder why?

  30. #30 Lotharsson
    February 7, 2013

    Remember Beenstock et al. which argued that climate change could not be caused by anthropogenic CO2 based on polynomial co-integration tests, with shades of Curtinesque thinking?

    Here’s a reply (PDF) to consider.

  31. #31 Vince Whirlwind
    February 7, 2013

    Chameleon, please point us to the exact point at
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/amazon-less-at-risk-from-climate-change-than-feared-study-20130207-2dzlf.html
    where Betula’s statement

    Leave it to the denying scientists to believe that CO2 fertilization exists and can be beneficial…..I mean really, who who are these people?

    is supported?

  32. #32 Russell Seitz
    February 7, 2013

    Congratulations are due ex- Economist writer Matt Ridley on his election to Britain’s Upper House.

    It will be intereesting to hear what perennial House of Lords reject Viscount Monckton has to say about this reversal of fortune, and to see what Matt, freed by tenure of the necessity of kowtowing to Monckton’s press baron inlaws, has to say for himself.

  33. #33 MikeH
    February 7, 2013

    Apparently none of the people who lost their jobs as a result of the collapse of Northern Rock got a vote.

    Although most hereditary peers were kicked out of the Lords in 1999 reforms, 90 were allowed to remain.

    Whenever one of them dies, a by-election is held to replace them where the voters and candidates are all hereditary peers.

    Ridley, who acquired the title last year after the death of his father, fought off competition from 26 other hereditaries, including former Tory MP Douglas Hogg, who quit after claiming for moat repairs on his expenses.

    Obviously a very classy field.

  34. #34 Lotharsson
    February 7, 2013

    It is good news of a sort, but I’m waiting for Chameleon to condemn Betula’s claim because it’s based on models, and as we all know Chameleon thinks they that models in climate science are merely statistical extrapolations that have essentially no predictive skill, or just aren’t good enough to take into consideration when formulating policy, or something along those lines.

    I reckon I’ll be waiting a looooooooooong time ;-)

    Meanwhile, the article only discussed outcomes up to 2100. Anyone know whether the research looked at timeframes beyond that?

    I also note the warning about the results not being so robust if methane plays a larger role, which dovetails with what seems to be more and more signs that methane releases are going to significantly increase.

  35. #35 bill
    February 7, 2013

    Matt Ridley is a peer? I’ll put down some sawdust…

  36. #36 chameleon
    February 7, 2013

    Vince,
    the article and the paper it refers to actually has some good news re CO2.
    However your assertion re the BEST papers and the Age article are not supported.
    Betula’s comment was employing irony or perhaps sarcasm.
    It was however valid in context :-)

  37. #37 chameleon
    February 7, 2013

    Lotharsson,
    I am interested in ALL the research, especially the updated research.
    Aren’t you?

  38. #38 Wow
    February 7, 2013

    Wow,
    Here is a SMH report on the information that Betula posted.
    Seems it wasn’t taken out of context after all?

    Huh? Where does your link show that?

  39. #39 Wow
    February 7, 2013

    And where did you get the idea that I was making Betty’s irrelevant quotation out to be out of context?

    You’re obviously reading in a different reality to the rest of humanity.

  40. #40 Lotharsson
    February 7, 2013

    Chameleon, do you subscribe to the concept that the models behind the article that Betula cited are just statistical extrapolations or projections of little predictive value? Or do you reckon this model is useful, unlike all those other models?

  41. #41 P. Lewis
    February 7, 2013

    Chameleon wrote: “I am interested in ALL the research, especially the updated research.”

    Now, it’s always nice to see someone express an interest in real research results, so some current and not so current climate research papers can be found here, here and here.

    And those are but a mere drop in the expanding ocean of climate-related research. Enjoy the reading.

  42. #42 chameleon
    February 7, 2013

    Of course they are useful statistical extrapolations Lotharsson,
    They’re particularly useful when they’re updated with real time data.
    That’s how they’re supposed to work aren’t they?

  43. #43 Wow
    February 7, 2013

    Try answering his question, chubby.

    I know understanding comes hard to you, but give it a go, eh?

  44. #44 Lotharsson
    February 7, 2013

    Of course they are useful statistical extrapolations Lotharsson,…

    OK, so let’s see if I’ve got this straight.

    You claim when you arrived – despite all evidence to the contrary – that (paraphrasing) climate models were merely statistical extrapolations of unproven predictive value, just like economics models were. (I think you went further and said – despite all evidence to the contrary – that climate models were obviously failing when compared to measurements.) You absolutely insisted they weren’t heavily based on well-known physics.

    You now claim the model that produces the result that Betula cited is also a “statistical extrapolation”, but that it is “useful”.

    Hmmm, I wonder? What property of the models seems to consistently correlate with Chameleon’s approval or disapproval of their usefulness?

  45. #45 Bernard J.
    February 7, 2013

    Here’s a question for the old guard…

    A few years ago I commented on energy and human impact on the environment. In the process I came up with an equation:

    I = SPEND

    but try as I might I can’t dig up the thread on which it was posted.

    Anyone remember where it is?

  46. #46 Lotharsson
    February 7, 2013

    Google isn’t indexing a LOT of thread. Even recent ones miss large portions. Someone at National Geographic needs to fix this.

  47. #47 Lionel A
    February 7, 2013

    Google isn’t indexing a LOT of thread. Even recent ones miss large portions.

    Could, partly, explain Latimer’s recent remark in that Matt thread.

  48. #48 Lionel A
    February 7, 2013

    Lest anybody is still in doubt:

    Climate change and 2013 Queensland floods: Dispatches from the climate debate No.2 …

    and for those in the UK then

    there was a worrying section in last Sundays BBC ‘Countryfile’ programme on biomass burning. Here is an i Player link to that programme, note the caveat from about 31:00 in: Countryfile 27.01.2013

    When it becomes available the Sunday 2 Feb 2013 edition has a segment on the ‘flooded’ state of the countryside as exemplified by the plight of this farmer:

    Prize-winning North Devon beef farmer forced to sell herd due to ‘impossible’ weather. There is due to be a follow up on what this could mean for food supplies in general in the coming months, particularly in the light of other extreme weather events globally.

    and

    Africa: The Future. with David Attenborough i Player. Note the effects that climate change is already having across this huge continent.

    Keep up with that hand-waving Duff, you may find a use as a rescue chopper.

  49. #49 Lionel A
    February 7, 2013

    Scotland’s huge waves.

    I well remember following working up of ship and air group in the Moray Firth steaming through the Pentland Firth and then round the corner and down through The Minch overnight in a Force 11 or so on Ark Royal (IV with cat’s and traps) in June 1970.

    Who needed a flight in a modified C-130 to experience weightlessness. The thirty or so traps down on the for’ard heads on 4 deck were spewing 10 ft plumes of water as we hit trough bottom. Super bidet plus as one poor soul discovered. Working the flight deck ensuring all aircraft and ground equipment were secure and weather-proofed was ‘interesting’.

  50. #50 We the people
    February 7, 2013

    For the record: We heart Tim Lambert.

  51. #51 Vince Whirlwind
    February 7, 2013

    Chameleon does the type! type! type! and I for one have no idea what she’s on about:

    the article and the paper it refers to actually has some good news re CO2.

    You mean – trees fix CO2, therefore trees are good? Gee whiz, who knew?!

    However your assertion re the BEST papers and the Age article are not supported.

    What assertion is that?
    I doubt very much that I have ever though of BEST in relation to The Age, therefore I am in doubt that this alleged assertion exists outside of your imagination. Please prove me wrong.

    Betula’s comment was employing irony or perhaps sarcasm.

    It’s called sarcasm, not irony.

    It was however valid in context

    Can you explain why?

    And just to simplify it for you, this is what we’ve got:
    – A newspaper article reports that trees fix more CO2 if it’s available
    – Betula says, sarcastically, that ‘denying scientists believe in CO2 fertilisation and that it is beneficial’

    I *do* hope you and Betula aren’t going to go all Green on us and advocate the preservation of the environment including reforestation, because that would be so disappointing to see you adopt such a politically activist position.

  52. #52 bill
    February 8, 2013

    Re dodgy indexing, thread derailments and unfindable things – I’m finding that the ‘recent comments’ list is generally about an hour behind. I do wish that NG had more of a commitment to making this a truly first-class platform.

  53. #53 Lotharsson
    February 8, 2013

    I’d appreciate even 2nd class at the moment.

    BTW, SkS apparently has a new WYSIWGY comment editor that seems to be meeting with approval. Maybe NatGeo could license it from them?

  54. #54 Paul H
    February 8, 2013

    Anthony Willard has managed to simultaneously confuse absolute SSTs with anomalies, and anomalies with absolute SSTs, in the same post. A new low has been reached in the stupid.

    Anthony vs anomalies vs Willard vs absolutes

    Your charts are of anomalies not the absolute SSTs themselves. The Gulf stream looks like this:

    http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/metoc/nogaps/giffiles/globalsfcsst0.gif

    or this (at its start):

    http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/islands01/background/islands/media/bump_deflection.html

    Like it or no, there has been a persistent warm anomaly in the NE Atlantic along the coast of New England and Labrador for the past few months. Your basis for a claim that the warm anomaly falls apart? A map of the absolute SSTs. Of course it is cold in the NE Atlantic, it is winter. The point is it is actually relatively warm, as an anomaly chart shows.

  55. #55 Lionel A
    February 8, 2013

    Doh! First posted in the wrong thread.

    Climate change effect from a weather double (or even triple) whamy threatens US NE . Jeff Masters Perspective.

    ‘The times they are a changing…’

  56. #56 chek
    February 8, 2013

    Countering the latest bullshit from the Batshit Viscount recently brought to my attention via the ever reliable purveyor of vacuous ignorance epitomised by troll contributor PantieZ, is this study on the future viability of polar bears given the rapid decline in Arctic sea ice.

    From the Guardian article based on the paper:
    “The day may soon come when some of the 19 polar bear populations in Canada, Alaska, Greenland, Norway, and Russia will have to be fed by humans in order to keep them alive during an extended ice-free season or prevent them from roaming into northern communities. Some bears may have to be placed in temporary holding compounds until it is cold enough for them to go back onto the sea ice. In worst-case scenarios, polar bears from southern regions may have to be relocated to more northerly climes that have sufficient sea ice cover.

    Far-fetched, draconian, and unlikely as some of these scenarios may sound, 12 scientists from Arctic countries are, for the first time, suggesting that the five nations with polar bear populations need to start considering these and other management strategies now that sea ice retreat is posing serious challenges to the bears’ survival. In worst-case scenarios, the scientists say that polar bears with little chance of being rehabilitated or relocated may have to euthanized. Zoos, which are currently having a difficult time acquiring polar bears because of stringent regulations that prevent them from doing so, will at some point likely be offered as many animals as they can handle, according to the scientists.

    This crisis management plan for polar bears as Arctic sea ice disappears is laid out this week in an article in Conservation Letters, the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology. Polar bear experts Andrew Derocher, Steve Amstrup, Ian Stirling, and nine others say that with Arctic sea ice disappearing far faster than originally estimated, it’s time for Arctic nations to begin making detailed plans to save as many of the world’s 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears as possible.

    “We really never have been here before,” says Amstrup, chief scientist for Polar Bears International and a lead author of a landmark U.S. government-appointed panel that predicted in 2008 that two-thirds of the polar bears in the world could disappear by mid-century.

    The University of Alberta’s Derocher added, “We have covered the science side of the issue very well, but the policy and management aspects are locked in the past. We still manage polar bears in Canada like nothing has changed. Other countries are moving on some aspects of future polar bear management, but it is glacial compared to the actual changes we’re seeing in sea ice and the bears themselves.”

    The alien-sounding concepts presented in this week’s paper — with names like supplemental feeding, diversionary feeding, translocation, and intentional population reduction — may become increasingly put into practics as Arctic sea ice, continues to disappear in spring, summer, and fall. Forty years ago, when the first International Polar Bear Agreement was ratified, the threats facing polar bears were chiefly hunting and mining and oil development. But the overriding threat now is climate change.

    Without adequate sea ice for enough of the year, many bears will not be able to use the ice as a feeding platform to hunt their favored prey, ringed seals. As a consequence, polar bears will be forced to spend more time fasting on land, where they pose a greater risk to human populations in the Arctic. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Polar Bear Specialist Group recently concluded that only one of the 19 polar bear subpopulations is currently increasing. Three are stable and eight are declining. For the remaining seven subpopulations, there is insufficient data to provide an assessment of current trends.

    Derocher and some of his colleagues have been thinking about the need for dramatic rescue plans for polar bears for at least five years. The scientists say a record disappearance of Arctic summer sea ice in 2007 increased the urgency for emergency planning, as did research by Peter Molnar — Derocher’s one-time graduate student and now a post-doctoral fellow at Princeton University — suggesting that the collapse of some polar bear populations may occur sooner than climate models predict.

    Over the past two years, scientists began considering a specific list of actions to save polar bear populations. A draft paper by Derocher and others was circulated last August just as Arctic summer sea ice hit striking new lows, with sea ice volume dropping 72 percent from the 1979-2010 mean, and ice extent falling by 45 percent from the 1979-2000 mean.

    “If you talk to any of the polar bear biologists, you’ll find that the public is already asking us about the issues we cover in the paper,” Derocher said in an interview. “I’ve had well-positioned conservationists waiting to start the fund-raising to feed polar bears.

    “I don’t view the options we lay out as a way of not dealing with greenhouse gases,” he added, “because without action on that front, there’s little that could be done in the longer term to save the species, and we’ll see massive range contractions and possibly extinction.”

    Two key ideas in the current paper are supplemental feeding, to make up for the loss of ringed seals that polar bears can kill on ice, and diversionary feeding to draw hungry polar bears on shore away from human settlements. Supplemental feeding is nothing new; it is done for numerous species, from elk in the United States to brown bears in Eastern Europe. But feeding polar bears poses major challenges.

    Derocher said in an email that the goal would be to distribute food, such as seals, in sufficient quantities over large distances so that hungry bears, forced ashore by lack of ice, would not come into conflict by vying for the same food. The goal would be to keep bear populations widely scattered, as attracting too many bears to central locations could increase the risk of disease transmission. Helicopters could be used to deliver the seals, but the logistics and expense of such a plan would be daunting. Thousands of seals would have to be killed by wildlife officials every summer to meet the needs of hungry bears, who each consume up to five seals a week.

    “There is not a lot of experience with any of these issues, so it would take coordination and learning from the east Europeans, who already feed brown bears,” said Derocher. Still, he is convinced that we will someday be feeding polar bears in the wild. “The public pressure will be intense to do so,” he says, “and the public influences policy.”

    Another possible measure would be to relocate bears from more southerly regions, such as Hudson Bay, to more northerly regions, such as M’Clintock Channel in Nunavut in the high Canadian Arctic. The number of bears in the icier M’Clintock Channel area has been significantly reduced by overhunting, so there is room to relocate bears from Hudson Bay and James Bay without creating territorial conflicts, scientists say. Cubs from one population could also be flown to more northerly regions and placed with females that would rear them as “foster” cubs, Derocher said.

    In Derocher’s view, feeding and relocation will only work for polar bears so long as they have some habitat remaining, which is unlikely in the next century if greenhouse gas emissions are not curbed dramatically. “Keeping hundreds of semi-wild bears on a diet of bear chow doesn’t fit my personal philosophy, but perhaps centuries from now, it will be viewed as visionary, if we eventually control those greenhouse gases,” Derocher says.

    The paper notes that another option is holding polar bears temporarily in the Arctic in enclosures during low sea ice periods. A similar thing is now done with problem bears around Churchill, Manitoba on western Hudson Bay.

    The report acknowledges that in a worst-case scenario, where the primary goal is to preserve the genetic structure of the species, zoos around the world could play an important role. Amstrup, the U.S. zoologist, says there are signs that the U.S. is at least considering the idea of easing restrictions on the importation of orphan cubs found in the wild.

    “Regardless of whether reintroducing polar bears or their genes ever is practical, we cannot overlook other ways zoos may contribute,” he says. “Dozens of species are healthier and more abundant in the wild today because of captive breeding and other zoo programs.”

    As a last resort, the paper mentions “intentional population reduction’” — the killing of starving bears. “Controlled reduction of population size through harvest might be necessary to ensure both human safety and a viable but smaller polar bear population as a result of declining habitat,” the paper said. “Euthanasia may be the most humane option for individual bears in very poor condition that are unlikely to survive. Under these circumstances, it will be important to develop clear guidelines for identification of starving animals.”
    Amstrup emphasizes that the purpose of the article is not to promote one management strategy over another or to suggest that they will all work. “The purpose is to remind the readers, and hopefully policy people, that the long-term future of polar bears is in jeopardy,” he says. “It makes managers and policy people aware of the various kinds of on-the-ground actions that may be applied and makes them begin to think of the varying levels of cost that may be involved in the different options they may choose.”

    Stirling, a biologist at the University of Alberta, said in an e-mail that the paper is “a starting point that clarifies the need to be developing some preliminary plans for dealing with such problems.” The scientists realize that it will be difficult to sell these controversial management strategies to the public and to policy makers. One impetus for action will likely be an increasing threat to humans in the Arctic from hungry bears being forced off the ice and onto land. “The sooner we consider the options, the sooner we’ll have a plan,” said Derocher. “The worst-case scenario is a catastrophically early sea ice break-up with hundreds of starving bears, followed by inappropriate management actions.

    “It has always seemed that we’ve been behind the curve on climate change and polar bears,” he said, noting that conservation planning for polar bears has typically extended several decades into the future. “That time frame leads one to think you’ve got time. But the science is clear that this is a fallacy.”

    We can be sure that the stench from Brenchley kept that information well away from his moronic flock.

  57. #57 Lionel A
    February 8, 2013

    Thanks chek.

    Link to article: Polar bears ‘may need to be fed by humans to survive’. Stay clear of the batshits below in the comment thread – some will hurt the brain.

    So who was that demeaning those images of polar bears on melting floes?

    The plight of polar bears was indicated in a BBC documentary which used innovative remote cameras to film them, the Discovery Channel in the US (land of the free and the brave – hic) refused to broadcast the final, climate change, episode of Attenborough’s ‘Frozen Planet’.

    Note that polar bears Ursus maritimus are a different species from the brown bears Ursus arctos such as the Kodiak Ursus arctos middendorffi and Grizzly (North American Brown) Ursus arctos horribilis so any talk of saving the polar species by mixing with the land-based brown species is founded on mendacious ignorance, and largely due to the imbalance in broadcast programming which Attenborough was irked by, and rightly so.

  58. #58 Lionel A
    February 8, 2013

    How is this for an idea, coming from that once used to send offenders on holidays to Africa or such.

    As Brenchley is a repeat offender at wild claims of belonging to the legislative House of Lords maybe he should be rounded up and forced to go on an Arctic holiday long enough to span the seasons and taking in points of special interest. He could build himself a fancy igloo with a pink portico (cochineal in the ice).

  59. #59 chek
    February 8, 2013

    Maybe the bears will mistake him for a food parcel, with a bit of luck….

  60. #60 Lionel A
    February 8, 2013

    There is a great article up over at Tamino’s Open Mind showing how one Willis Eschenbach posting at WUWT misreads an article about area loss of Greenland marine-terminated glaciers thinking that it is all about the whole of the Greenland ice.

    Eschenbach then produces a graph, with a very misleading Y axis which makes confusion worse by bearing the legend ‘Total Ice Are of Greenland (km3)’.

    You just cannot make this kinda stupid up.

    Now, do you DKs around here Pentax, Betula, OP, Duff, chameleon, GWS, Karen etc., realise why your links to sites such as WUWT (that includes Cardinal Puff, Nova, etc,) are treated with such derision?

  61. #61 Stu
    February 8, 2013

    Lionel, are you serious? They quote Monckton for crying out loud.

  62. #62 Lotharsson
    February 9, 2013

    For anyone who finds that kind of thing interesting, there’s a guy on a post about the latest Lewandowsky et al. paper who is trying to claim that his “skepticism” of scientific propositions is reasonable – for various bad reasons, including citing “skepticism” of economic actions to reduce carbon emissions thereby generating still more data for Lewandowsky. (He also relies on a whole load of simplistic “analysis”, most of which seems to be trivially incorrect or confused – par for the course. One of his latest claims is that I don’t understand feedback because a loop gain of 0.67 apparently implies instability.)

    Meanwhile on the other post about the paper the “skeptics” are (predictably) trying to co-opt Annan’s statement about the tails of the climate sensitivity distribution as a statement about the most likely value, and Peter Cox’s updated research on the Amazon as proof that science isn’t settled, so “skepticism” must be reasonable. I haven’t waded in there thus far.

  63. #63 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    February 9, 2013

    Lotharsson, you have my admiration.

    I got fed up with that lot long before you’d got even halfway into dealing with all that icecream-jelly-cordial-swirl after-party mess.

  64. #64 Lotharsson
    February 9, 2013

    He’s dug in deeper, which is kind of amusing in a sad way, and now performed the all-important “You’re wrong and I’ve made my point” First Flounce.

    We’ll see if he sticks it.

  65. #65 Lotharsson
    February 9, 2013

    And adelady, everyone’s got to have a hobby ;-)

  66. #66 David B. Benson
    February 9, 2013
  67. #67 Anthony David
    February 9, 2013

    The Australian Financial Review have an article in their weekend edition which at first glance is a weekend paper puff piece abut catching up with Mr Monckton for lunch. Reading the article with more care, the writer makes three main points in the article – Mr Monckton likes to talk up his education and his accomplishments; he likes to lecture his interviewers; and he never lets the facts get in the way of a good story.

  68. #68 Lotharsson
    February 9, 2013
  69. #69 Lotharsson
    February 10, 2013

    My correspondent at Lewandowsky’s is back.

    Not to answer any of the pertinent questions, mind you. Just to assert that this talk of conspiracy theorising doesn’t apply to him, no sir, and what’s more his reasons for disbelieving are perfectly valid.

  70. #70 bill
    February 10, 2013

    On a scale from 1-10 for ‘lack of self-awareness’ – with 0 being pretty-damn-self-aware-indeed and 10 being, well, James Delingpole, how high would most deniers you’ve encountered rank?

    I’d say 8+, in my experience; It’s a feature, not a bug…

  71. #71 Lotharsson
    February 10, 2013

    Definitely 8+, mostly 9 and above – and several 10s who’ve spent time at Deltoid.

  72. #72 adelady
    city of wine and roses
    February 10, 2013

    It’s pretty well all or nothing. I’ve come across just one at another site who goes along pretty well for a while and then, whammo, yet another cite of yet another paleo paper which seems unfailingly to have overturned all preceding conclusions of the whole of the aggregate body of paleo work.

    It’s almost like playing peek-a-boo with a littlie. You go along happily and next time, out of the blue, angelic little Phoebe is sticking her tongue out at you!

    But the rest, it’s either 3 or less or 8 or more. There is none of the famous “middle ground” here.

  73. #73 mike
    February 10, 2013

    h, xcs m, Dltds….

    Ht t ntrrpt yr ntrmnbl, gk-bll, flccd, grnshrt-pk cht-cht, bt y mght b ntrstd t knw tht ths thrd hs, lk, ttlly dgnrtd nt trsm-br, c-lsr, t-plt-grp-thnk, drk-pt, dlt-fst crpshw. Bt thn tht’s th nrm n Dltd-lnd–rght, hv-bzs?

  74. #74 zoot
    February 10, 2013

    mike scores at least a 15

  75. #75 bill
    February 10, 2013

    Oh lordy yes!

  76. #76 Lionel A
    February 10, 2013

    I am beginning to wonder if

    mike = Delingpole

    therefore

    Delingpole = 15

    Something about the modus lingua (Amos, Amas, Amat… and all that ).

  77. #77 Lionel A
    February 10, 2013

    Lotharsson

    your comments at shapingtomorrowsworld are beautiful to watch as your antagonist doubles down on the stupid with his confusion between conspiracy theory and conspirators being a classic of its type of failed logic and poor comprehension.

  78. #78 Lionel A
    February 10, 2013

    Nemo attacks NE US not just with snowflakes but with needles of ice . Ouch!

  79. #79 Lotharsson
    February 10, 2013

    Thanks Lionel.

    I thought about responding to Sapa as well, but those comments seemed even further into the land of vague generalisations only loosely connected with reality.

  80. #80 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    Belief in anthropogenic climate change based on New Hampshire voters’ political party affiliation and current temperature.

    Republicans mostly reject it, no matter the temperature. Democrats mostly accept it regardless. Independents swing with the ambient temperature.

  81. #81 Lotharsson
    February 11, 2013

    I think someone mentioned Ridley’s “ten tests” document on this thread? Ridley gets another mention at SkS in a post about lukewarmers. The background is Ridley’s Wired magazine article, the SkS-sourced debunk, and Ridley’s attempted debunk-debunk – including the GWPF “Ten Tests” piece.

    Ridley and Fuller get some attention from Stoat as well with regard to the same Ridley presentation.

  82. #82 Lionel A
    February 11, 2013

    And if you would like to step in another pile of poo we find Matt trying to moving the goal posts here where he consults another oracle of the calibre of WUWT, namely CO2Science.org whilst pointing out that that entity is run by ‘Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change’.

    As if an impressive sounding title makes it so. Here is SourceWatch’s take on that:

    The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change is one of Mother Jones magazine’s 2009 global warming skeptic “Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial”[1]. Founded in 1998 by members of the Idso family, its income has increased in recent years.

    Idso hard to take Ridley seriously when he cites this shower as well as Nova and WUWT.

  83. #83 bill
    February 12, 2013

    Lord Bonckers outloons even Bolt.

    After the great winnowing Denial is now made up of people who think the world is secretly run by the ‘banking families’ *wink wink*, while others project their toxic fantasies outward outward, hysterically wailing that fully-justified criticism of Seitz and Singer is ‘anti-Semitism’, and wittering on about Rachel Carson being ‘worse than Hitler’.

    Truly, has there ever been a more ridiculous and appalling rabble?

    Denial is unravelling at the seams at the moment.

    As I’ve said before, you can tell A LOT about a movement by assessing the calibre of people it raises to prominence…

  84. #84 Wow
    February 12, 2013

    Denial is unravelling at the seams at the moment.

    Hell, see Joan, chubbie and Brat for ample evidence of the decline.

  85. #85 bill
    February 12, 2013

    Fueling the self-importance of dissembling, narcissistic prats is a significant error, in my opinion.

  86. #86 Stu
    February 13, 2013

    I disagree. After a certain point, it becomes pointless to attempt engage them into meaningful discussion since they are by definition not interested in anything of the kind… but I think there is still value in backing them into a corner and poking them occasionally to expose them for the sad, narcissistic douche-canoes they really are. For example, I’ve already seen references on low-traffic blogs to the Jonas thread. Without fail, things end really badly for deniers when people actually follow that delusional black hole all the way down.

  87. #87 Lotharsson
    February 13, 2013

    I think after last night it’s patently clear that Brad has no scientific basis – indeed, he appears to have actively chosen to remain ignorant of the relevant evidence – for his claims about ECS (and it’s almost as clear that he’s full of shit when he talks about Mann’s work). And in an attempt to maintain his self-delusion that his opinion carries as much weight as the scientific consensus does he’s tying himself in logical and rhetorical knots.

    On that basis I don’t think there’s any point adding further to that thread :-)

  88. #88 bill
    February 13, 2013

    I think we’re contending with bona-fide pathology there – and that particular Emperor in His Own Mind is now so far beyond merely naked he’s pretty-well flayed alive. It’s literally grotesque.

    Ridley and the lukewarmers get a further caning at SkS.

  89. #89 Lotharsson
    February 13, 2013

    My correspondent at Lewandowsky’s failed to stick the flounce again.

  90. #90 Lionel A
    February 13, 2013

    Tamino has another excellent take-down of goings on over at WUWT with a very apposite title Some people can’t be reasoned with considering that monster thread of BK’s.

    Where are all the trolls on this still open thread?

    Yeah I know over at that BK thread which appears to have gotten way past the point where BK has enough thread to hang himself with.

  91. #91 bill
    February 13, 2013

    Yep, the Brunning-Kruger thread is a good exemplar of where Denial is at – the Arrogant Sophist, the Giggling Cretin, the Bona-fide Psycho, the Libuurtard Fanboy; virtually all the Denio-fauna caged in our private zoo (all we need is The Pretentious Old Tosser to make a reappearance there and we’ve got the whole set!)

    Speaking of denial, dishonesty, dimwits, and desperation – ‘The Greatest Ever Sea Ice Recovery’; what a frickin’ hoot!

    This chart says it all

    Goddard and Watts are behaving like men who know full well they’re going to end up despised – as well they should be – and they’ll clutch at any risible straw to forestall the inevitable…

  92. #92 bill
    February 13, 2013

    Tamino calls it as it is -

    What’s really rather hard to believe is that these people can actually be that blinded by ideology, or gullible, or stupid, or all three. What’s really stunning is the vanishing of Arctic sea ice, during all months, all seasons of the year, at its annual minimum and its annual maximum.

    This much is certain: they are not skeptics. Don’t call them that, and don’t put up with it when they call themselves that. They aren’t…

    This is so deliberately misleading, it’s a bit hard to believe they would sink so low. It’s so transparently stupid, it’s a bit hard to believe they would risk revealing their willingness to buy into such drivel.

    There is absolutely no hope — none whatsoever — for any kind of “dialogue” with such blind ideologues. You can’t reason with some people.

    Hear hear!

  93. #93 Lotharsson
    February 14, 2013

    It is reported that a peer-reviewed study finds that the roots of the Tea Party “movement” extend back to tobacco industry anti-tax campaigners and the Koch Brothers (and most of us are familiar with the strong crossover in both methods and personnel/entities between anti-climate science and pro-tobacco advocates for hire). It’s also reported that the anti-tax advocacy on behalf of the tobacco industry is an ongoing effort.

    Go read the whole thing – and check out the 2002 “US Tea Party” website archive!

  94. #94 Lionel A
    February 14, 2013

    Thanks Lotharsson,

    That was info’ I was looking for yesterday to throw at some ignoramus on another blog but could not find, although it wasn’t sourced from Esquire.

    On another topic I have just got hold of Ben Goldacre’s new book Bad Pharma: How drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients

    and it makes me wonder if systematic studies have ever been carried out across the climate change research field.
    In other words, how many did Idso, Lindzen, Michaels etc bury never to see the light of day.

    Bad Pharma and how GPs are deceived made me think of that scenario where during a televised presentation ‘down under’ Stephen Schneider had an uphill struggle trying to inform, using the bathtub analogy, an Aussie GP on how the CO2 quantity in the atmosphere is affected by human activity. It would seem that some GPs are not the brightest of candles.

  95. #95 bill
    February 15, 2013

    Bad Pharma is so freakin’ depressing I had to stop reading it! It’s like David Michaels’ Doubt is Their Product – imagine Merchants of Doubt with a scope an order of magnitude larger – page after page of institutionalised bad-faith, cynicism and criminality pretty-well all of which goes willfully unnoticed and unlamented gets pretty wearing!

    (Similarly I tried to take up Matt Taibbi’s Griftopia again last night, but the big insurance cartel’s ‘we see no wind damage from Hurricane Katrina’ was too much for me!)

    In a nutshell, pharmaceutical companies are not obliged to publish inconclusive or outrightly unfavourable results of supposedly scientific studies. The gap between the number of pre-announced studies and the actual numbers published in the literature is what gave this away.

    Basically, these companies have been failing to cure, making sicker, and even killing people in order to maintain profitability.

    Now, that’s sick.

    And it’s because we live in a world like this that Jim Hansen has been arrested again, I note.

  96. #96 bill
    February 15, 2013

    Further to Loth’s link, what those sick of the endlessly recursive meanderings of narcissists and sociopaths might also find interesting – The Guardian does a thorough take-down of Donors Trust.

    To see the unpaid footsoldier Useful Idiots of this vile clique of oligarchs, plutocrats and literal tobacco scientists in action, just hit the other ‘prison’ thread…

  97. #97 bill
    February 15, 2013

    Getting in ahead of John Mashey(?) – watch the video from 1:17:45 – turns out you’ve been working for the tobacco lobby all along, guys!

  98. #98 Lotharsson
    February 15, 2013

    Over at TheConversation, “There’s no such thing as climate change denial”. (Nitpick: there is, but you don’t see it very often. But the article is about scientific consensus denial.)

    I was thinking about consensus of evidence the other day in the light of the Brangelina consensus denialfest, and this timely article is about scientific consensus denial. makes the point that probably hasn’t been brought out strongly enough on the Brangelina thread that the consensus of evidence leads to the consensus of scientists. Maybe someone can point Brad at it and start using the term “consensus of evidence” to make a point (but I’m pretty confident it won’t make any difference to his opinions, let alone to his hangers-on ;-) )

  99. #99 Lotharsson
    February 15, 2013

    Forgot to add that deliberately stoking scientific consensus denial was pointed out in links in earlier comments as a necessary and likely effective strategy in one or both of the set of “roots of the Tea Party” articles and the Guardian’s articles on the Donors Trust.

  100. #100 Lotharsson
    February 15, 2013

    And BTW, the very first comment on that Conversation article fulfils the specific cherry-picking prediction made in the body of the article.

    ‘twould be astonishing, if we hadn’t seen it all before at Deltoid.