December 2013 Open thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 chek
    December 23, 2013

    The scenarios are based on incomplete models full of uncertainties

    You’ll have to do better than what looks like a 15 year old paper with a borked link Betty.
    And they’re paying you almost a billion for this incompetent, ineffectual garbage?

  2. #2 BBD
    December 23, 2013

    See the dishonest little fuck Betty wriggling desperately as it tries to avoid admitting the truth.

    See it obfuscate, then try and answer a question with a question. God you are vile, Betty.

    Let’s recap, shall we?

    ..because that is what this is really all about, the redistribution of the worlds wealth….compensation that is due, not for faux futuristic catastrophic scenarios, but for plundering the poor.

    This is a conspiracy theory wherein the IPCC is complicit in misrepresenting climate science in order to enable global wealth redistribution.

    You wrote it, so you are a conspiracy theorist. Why do you refuse to acknowledge what is obviously the case?

    Wow. Could it be that the IPCC is a tool of the U.N. used to justify the needed financing of the MDG’s, and later the SDG’s….. with many members having similar ideologies with a taste for global justice through wealth redistribution?

    But how do we justify taxing carbon? And how do we make it so the rich nations pay the carbon tax and the poor nations receive it?

    The same conspiracty theory with different words. You wrote it, so you are a conspiracy theorist. Why do you refuse to acknowledge what is obviously the case?

    We need some sort of official organization that is the sole authority, a world authority if you will, that we can point to and say…..”Look! The debate is over! This group of experts, made up of some scientists and other people lobbying for representing their countries, but all with the same ideological mindset, have proven beyond any doubt, that hypothetical future catastrophic scenarios will most likely definitely occur if the rich don’t pay what are they are morally obligated to pay!”

    But where can we find such an organization?

    A third iteration of the conspiracy theory involving the UN and the IPCC. You wrote it, so you are a conspiracy theorist. Why do you refuse to acknowledge what is obviously the case?

    Why, why, oh why, Betty? Whatever can be the problem here?

  3. #3 Betula
    December 23, 2013

    “Why, why, oh why, Betty? Whatever can be the problem here?”

    The problem seems be that the only answer you have is to repost the questions. In and of itself, that’s answer enough for me.

  4. #4 Stu 2
    December 23, 2013

    BBD.
    here is a definition of ‘conspiracy theory’ for you.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
    “A conspiracy theory is an explanatory proposition that accuses two or more people, a group, or an organization of having caused or covered up, through deliberate collusion, an event or phenomenon of great social, political, or economic impact. In recent decades the term has acquired a derogatory meaning, and a careful distinction must be made between the derisive use of the term and reference to actual, proven conspiracies.”

    You appear to have fallen into the trap of using the incorrect ‘derogatory meaning’ and therefore the ‘derisive use of the term’.
    As posted here many times, there is no conspiracy and no need for tin foil hats.
    Betula’s original question was valid.

  5. #5 BBD
    December 23, 2013

    The problem seems be that the only answer you have is to repost the questions. In and of itself, that’s answer enough for me.

    Eh? That’s your best effort?

    Betty, you are well and truly stuffed.

  6. #6 BBD
    December 23, 2013

    2Stupid

    You appear to have fallen into the trap of using the incorrect ‘derogatory meaning’ and therefore the ‘derisive use of the term’.

    You appear to have fallen into the trap of accepting an unsupported claim that a conspiracy exists as evidence of an actual conspiracy. You would make a piss-poor lawyer.

    As posted here many times, there is no conspiracy and no need for tin foil hats.

    But Betty says there is. Quite unequivocally, for all that he is too craven to admit it. So why haven’t you taken this up with him?

  7. #7 chek
    December 23, 2013

    2 Stup – having got no answer to the scientific case for AGW, Betty has flapped his arms and squawked uncertainty, and when that doesn’t wash he insinuates the science is merely a front for wealth redistribution. The whole time he’s been here, finally putting his High School Debating textbook to some use..

    He’s a mouthpiece for the paid US denial industry – witting, unwitting or most likely, just witless. .

  8. #8 BBD
    December 23, 2013

    It’s fun watching Betty refuse to admit that all he’s got left is a conspiracy theory.

  9. #10 Stu
    December 24, 2013

    ianam: I think that’s a poor example — it still allows for a “moderators are paid stooges” copout. I much prefer, as an example, what happens at Ars: stooges get the snot downvoted out of their pathetic screeds, they resort to whining and (commonly) get banned for repeatedly violating the posting guidelines,

    You know, good old free market democracy. *snicker*

  10. #11 Bernard J.
    December 24, 2013

    It’s moments like these when I wish that Tim Lambert was still active in the blogosphere:

    https://twitter.com/doyleclan1/status/414749989445705728/photo/1

  11. #12 Stu
    December 24, 2013

    *headdesk*

  12. #13 chameleon
    December 24, 2013

    Good grief!
    Ground hog day! You lot just go round and round and around in circles.
    Not proving much and not achieving much.
    :-)
    Merry Christmas Deltoids.
    The world will move on in 2014 despite all the ranting here.
    Chin up everyone. . . it’s not all bad you know.

  13. #14 Lotharsson
    December 24, 2013

    The scenarios are based on incomplete models full of uncertainties…

    As are the majority of medical decisions, an awful lot of combat decisions, a whole bunch of professional decisions, and practically every significant governmental policy decision. And yet they must still be made.

    Did you have an actual point? Or did you think you had one, other than throwing up more stupidity to try and evade previous questions that you can’t or won’t answer?

  14. #15 Lotharsson
    December 24, 2013

    You appear to have fallen into the trap of using the incorrect ‘derogatory meaning’ and therefore the ‘derisive use of the term’.

    That’s a really pathetic attempt.

    Firstly, the most basic fail: the derogatory meaning is not incorrect, because correctness is defined by usage. And as your quote points out, the derogatory meaning is in common usage. If you can’t get that right, there’s not much hope for your other “logic”, is there?

    Beyond that, your claim that “…there is no conspiracy…” is clearly counter-factual on either definition you proffered, because Betula has been implying that large numbers of scientists have colluded to falsify their research findings and refuse to point out the falsification by others, in order to justify the (by implication otherwise unjustifiable) “redistribution of wealth” that gets Betula so worked up. The public is not privy to proof that this Great Falsification Conspiracy has been going on (obviously!) because it would fail to meet its aims if the public knew that it had happened, so that covers the first definition. And the claim that there is a Great Falsification Conspiracy is not supported by examining the evidence, so that covers the derogatory definition. (You don’t seem to realise that both definitions can simultaneously apply to a given conspiracy theory…)

    Nothing you wrote changes the fact that Betula’s claims rely on there being a Great Falsification Conspiracy, nor have you successfully distracted from observations of that fact, and observations that Betula is ducking and weaving to try and avoid the issue.

    Smarter trolls, please.

  15. #16 Lotharsson
    December 24, 2013

    From the post about reddit:

    We discovered that the disruptive faction that bombarded climate change posts was actually substantially smaller than it had seemed. Just a small handful of people ran all of the most offensive accounts. What looked like a substantial group of objective skeptics to the outside observer was actually just a few bitter and biased posters with more opinions then evidence.

  16. #17 Stu
    December 24, 2013

    …and Lotharsson wins one (1) Interwebs.

  17. #18 Lotharsson
    December 24, 2013

    Thanks Stu. It will take pride of place on my mantelpiece.

    Now to find a mantelpiece ;-)

  18. #19 chek
    December 24, 2013

    Good choice, and much more practical than displaying it on either your earpiece or codpiece.

    And a Merry non-secular Xmas to you and all at Deltoid.

  19. #20 adelady
    December 24, 2013

    Merry Christmas to all of us.

    I’m including everyone. I want every single one of you to have a good day. I live in hope that goodwill – just a smidgen will do – and good sense will prevail in the coming year.

    But for now, just enjoy whatever you do for this day. (I have to finish loading up all the gifts and goodies now and remember to get ice on the way to daughter’s house. First Xmas dinner with prospective in-laws!)

  20. #21 Lionel A
    December 25, 2013

    Pleasant Christmas one and all.

    Spare some thoughts for those who are not going to enjoy such this year, the refugees and beleaguered in Syria and back home in the UK all those without power and/or up to their ankles in flood water.

    Due another dose before the week is out, quit a few tiles off roofs around here as it is, but been there before in 87 and 91.

  21. #22 Betula
    December 26, 2013

    “Since the 1980s, sustainable development has moved from being an interesting but sometimes contested ideal, to now being the acknowledged goal of much of international policy, including climate change policy. It is no longer a question of whether climate change policy should be understood in the context of sustainable development goals; it is a question of how”

    Yes Barney, how?

    “By framing the debate as a sustainable development problem rather than only as climate mitigation, the priority goals of all countries and particularly developing countries are better addressed, while acknowledging that the driving forces for emissions are linked to the underlying development path (IPCC, 2007, Chapter 17 and 18; Yohe, 2001; Metz et al., 2002; Winkler et al., 2002a)”

    But how Barney?

    “For a development path[2] to be sustainable over a long period, wealth, resources, and opportunity must be shared so that all citizens have access to minimum standards of security, human rights, and social benefits, such as food, health, education, shelter, and opportunity for self-development (Reed, 1996). This was also emphasized by the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg in 2002 which introduced the Water, Energy, Health, Agriculture, and Biodiversity (WEHAB) framework.”

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch12s12-1-1.html

    Very honorable indeed. But how do we sharing the wealth Barney? Any ideas?

    http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/environmentandenergy/projects_and_initiatives/mdg-carbon/about.html

    “A global tax on gas or carbon-based fuels is the next step”

    Oh c’mon Barney, where do you get this crap?

    “750 billion in revenue from a global carbon tax, as
    cited by Sandmo, is taken from a Foreign Affairs article 5 by Harvard Professor Richard N. Cooper”

    “Cooper, in turn, said the source of the $750 billion figure is an OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) study”

    http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/rpt.glbl.gas.tx.pdf

    But what does OECD have to do with anything?

    “The OECD’s work is intrinsically linked to supporting the MDG effort, specifically through work related to financing the MDGs, building a global partnership for development, and supporting strategic areas contributing to progress in the MDGs.”

    http://www.oecd.org/dac/theoecdandthemillenniumdevelopmentgoals.htm

    But who would oversee such….?

    http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/tax/

    But what does the IPCC have to do with…?

    “Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, is now making the case for a carbon tax, to give clean energy a market advantage against fossil fuels. “An extremely effective instrument would be to put a price on carbon”, he says”

    http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2102367/the_ipcc_has_spoken_now_what.html

    But what does he have to do with the MDG’s?

    “The Chairman of the IPCC, Mr Rajendra Pachauri, will discuss the impacts of climate change and how they constrain the attainment of the Millennium Development Goals”

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press/flyer-25-09-UN.pdf

    But, but, but…Barney, what does scientific proof about the possible future have to do with MDG’s or redistribution of wealth? Oh sure, all the same players are involved and they all have the same goal, but this is clearly a crazy coincidence….
    What about all the scientific evidence that may possibly lead to catastrophes if we don’t act now? What about the scientific proof that the future is set….how do you explain that?

  22. #23 pentaxZ
    December 26, 2013

    Iamamoron #9

    It’s been common knowledge for ages that the only way for alarmiztas to win debates is with the help of delete buttons. What’s new?

  23. #24 pentaxZ
    December 26, 2013

    “Environmental alarmism is by now a well established phenomenon with nearly a four decade long history. In that time, we’ve been on the receiving end of doomsday predictions as diverse as holes in the ozone layer, overpopulation, resource wars, acid rain, a new ice age and the most successful one of all, global warming.
    Since there has been no upward change of global temperatures in over the last decade and a half, that scare had become embarrassingly untenable. In response, the alarmists switched from screaming about global warming to hyperventilating about climate change. That was an explicit admission that their specific prediction of a looming thermogeddon was wrong, which is why skeptics should never use the term climate change but keep on sticking it to them with reminders about the global warming us humans were supposed to be causing, which never actually materialised.”

  24. #25 pentaxZ
    December 26, 2013

    “The advantage about the rebranding away from a specific threat to a vague umbrella term, was that there are potentially a myriad of things which could be blamed on climate change, because climate does actually change. If it got colder, fine, that’s climate change in action. If it actually got hotter, that’s climate change as well. Whether it got wetter or drier, either could be attributed to climate change. It’s a wonderfully flexible scare.
    For example, the by now famous computer models of the UK Meteorological Office (UKMO) predicted a drought for 2012 that might stretch into 2013. Suddenly hose pipe bans were declared and a lockdown of precious water in reservoirs was initiated at the start of the year. After the wettest summer, autumn and winter for years, with attendant flooding and loss of life, what few gullible people left who had any confidence in the UKMO’s predictive powers, finally decided they were totally incompetent. Seemingly believing everyone is suffering from Alzheimers, the escape clause now being used by the UKMO is to blame climate change for one of the wettest years on record. It’s a win win piece of nomenclature.”

  25. #26 pentaxZ
    December 26, 2013

    “The really big advantage of the name change is that not having to prove a specific thing – that the world is heating up – you can cherry pick your proofs of climate change occurring. Any change, real or otherwise, will do.
    There appear to be five generic types of bogus proof that man-made climate change is occurring.
    The first type is studying some really obscure organism, like for instance the South Pacific Snailbat, that nobody has researched in any detail before and concluding their population is in decline because of man-made climate change. It’ll nearly always be a decline, because nobody is interested in population increases, as it wouldn’t gel with their worldview of us humans always damaging the environment. There’s no real longterm data on the species, though usually some sort of historical proxy is found, which indicates a decline. While the layman might think proxy measurements are reliable, they rarely are. It’s all a matter of interpretation, and in some cases, just cherry picking the right hockey stick shaped example which appears to back up the conjecture being made. For lack of a better name, we’ll call that type of proof a Snailbat. We must save the snailbat.
    It’s a very versatile sort of proof. You can do a snailbat on pretty much anything organic, from insects right up to sequoia trees.”

  26. #27 pentaxZ
    December 26, 2013

    “The second type of proof is the computer model predicting something untoward is going to happen. It’s nearly impossible to get across to someone who’s never tried their hand at computer modelling, how limited a domain of problems are actually amenable to modelling. I had a go at that a few years back and a link to the piece is below. The critical factors in any model are the physical nature of the problem, how complete your understanding of the problem is and the parameters, otherwise knows as guesses, built into the model.
    If you don’t really comprehensively understand the problem, no computer, no matter how powerful, is going to help you solve it. Climate is the result of the interactions between an undefined set of systems, many of which would be technically classified as non-linear complex systems. The mathematical reality is that any type of non-linear complex system cannot be modelled for predictive purposes anyway.
    Just to illustrate to you how a lot of very clever, motivated, hard-nosed and financially competent people can walk themselves over a cliff by having blind faith in computer models, consider the case of the hedge fund firm Long-Term Capital Management. They had a couple of Nobel Prize winning economists on board, a battalion of financial analysts and another battalion of software developers. They built a shiny computer model of their own business area and started using it to place their bets on the derivatives market. They bet heavy too, confident in how good their models’ predictions were. There was no way they could lose money.”

  27. #28 pentaxZ
    December 26, 2013

    “The models were wrong. In less than five years, they went from an enterprise with assets of 130 billion USD and a trading position of 1.25 trillion USD, to going broke. It was so big a disaster, that there were genuine fears it might bring down the whole of the derivatives market, which forced a 4 billion USD bailout by the industry itself. A lot of supposedly very smart people lost a lot of money, because of that insidious idea that if a computer predicts something is going to happen, then it must surely be going to happen.
    While no reasonable person would believe anyone can foretell the future for decades ahead, it always amazes me how readily they accept that a silicone chip contraption somehow can. If we don’t know how to predict the future, we can’t program a computer to predict the future. Forget computers, forget science, forget math, it’s actually as simple as that.
    Computers can’t predict the future.
    If you’re a fan of the director Stanley Kubrick’s work, you’ve probably seen his movie 2001 a space odyssey. Although there are other themes in it, one of them is a supercomputer called HAL predicting things which actually didn’t happen. The crewmen believed HAL and suffered the consequences. Put too much uncritical faith in computer predictions and you’ll inevitably end up pleading with HAL to open the pod bay doors. Just tell the suckers that HAL says we’re heading for an eco-disaster, and they’ll believe it. That variety of proof, we’ll call a HALsays.”

  28. #29 pentaxZ
    December 26, 2013

    “The third type of proof is what can only be called a Scarem. Whatever extreme weather event comes along, attribute it straight away to climate change and scare the pants off them. It doesn’t matter if there’s not a single shred of scientific evidence to back up that assertion. The legacy MSM can always be relied on to run with an extreme weather event story and all you have to do is volunteer that opinion to them as a climate expert, irrespective of your qualifications, if any. That’s how tropical storm Sandy magically mutated into a Frankenstorm, as far as the ordinary person was concerned. Scare them, scare them again and keep right on scaring them.
    Next up would be the dark side of proofs. Global warming must be real because skeptics of it can’t be right. They have to be wrong because you’ve got some sort of proof they’re all either insane, conspiracy nuts or child molesters. They’re even the sort of people who should be executed. In all good taste and as a tender mercy to you good reader, I won’t dwell too long on this bottom feeding type of so-called science paper, except to lump them all into the general category of LewPapers, as a hat tip to one of their pioneers. Climate science has truly fallen before the onslaught of its own internal post-normal Visigoths. They own its ass.”

  29. #30 pentaxZ
    December 26, 2013

    “Finally we have weird sorts of Tammany Hall polls masquerading as a proof. There are simply too many ways of rigging polls or post-processing the numbers to yield the desired result, and every one of those techniques is actively used. The whole thrust of them is to give the impression that the threat is real and people are really weally worried about it. By and large, they’re ignored. In a previous article, I compared them to those elections dictators periodically have, which always come out with a 99% vote in their favour. I suppose the apposite name for this stripe of beastie is a DicPol or perhaps more appropriately a DickPol, when you look at the sort of people behind them.
    All of these proofs can be used in various combinations. Just mix and match as required and cook to taste but always take with a pinch of salt. For instance, based on a previous study of them, a new computer model predicts the endangered Snailbat will become extinct in less than a decade unless something is done to mitigate the impact of climate change on them. Of course, when you write it up for your paper, add in a lot of ass-covering caveats but you know the media will skip them all when your sensational research hits the front page. Sure, you’re going to have a squabble with the skeptics but that’ll all happen in the aftermath of the desired headlines and never be reported on anyway.
    You follow it up with a DickPol showing how outraged people are at the desperate plight of the poor suffering snailbat and demanding action. The finishing touch would be to get Greenpeace to launch a Save the Snailbat campaign.
    If that little lot doesn’t get you more research funding, nothing will.”

  30. #31 pentaxZ
    December 26, 2013

    “#22
    pentaxZ

    December 26, 2013
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “Environmental alarmism is by now a well established phenomenon with nearly a four decade long history. In that time, we’ve been on the receiving end of doomsday predictions as diverse as holes in the ozone layer, overpopulation, resource wars, acid rain, a new ice age and the most successful one of all, global warming.
    Since there has been no upward change of global temperatures in over the last decade and a half, that scare had become embarrassingly untenable. In response, the alarmists switched from screaming about global warming to hyperventilating about climate change. That was an explicit admission that their specific prediction of a looming thermogeddon was wrong, which is why skeptics should never use the term climate change but keep on sticking it to them with reminders about the global warming us humans were supposed to be causing, which never actually materialised.
    The advantage about the rebranding away from a specific threat to a vague umbrella term, was that there are potentially a myriad of things which could be blamed on climate change, because climate does actually change. If it got colder, fine, that’s climate change in action. If it actually got hotter, that’s climate change as well. Whether it got wetter or drier, either could be attributed to climate change. It’s a wonderfully flexible scare.
    For example, the by now famous computer models of the UK Meteorological Office (UKMO) predicted a drought for 2012 that might stretch into 2013. Suddenly hose pipe bans were declared and a lockdown of precious water in reservoirs was initiated at the start of the year. After the wettest summer, autumn and winter for years, with attendant flooding and loss of life, what few gullible people left who had any confidence in the UKMO’s predictive powers, finally decided they were totally incompetent. Seemingly believing everyone is suffering from Alzheimers, the escape clause now being used by the UKMO is to blame climate change for one of the wettest years on record. It’s a win win piece of nomenclature.
    The really big advantage of the name change is that not having to prove a specific thing – that the world is heating up – you can cherry pick your proofs of climate change occurring. Any change, real or otherwise, will do.
    There appear to be five generic types of bogus proof that man-made climate change is occurring.
    The first type is studying some really obscure organism, like for instance the South Pacific Snailbat, that nobody has researched in any detail before and concluding their population is in decline because of man-made climate change. It’ll nearly always be a decline, because nobody is interested in population increases, as it wouldn’t gel with their worldview of us humans always damaging the environment. There’s no real longterm data on the species, though usually some sort of historical proxy is found, which indicates a decline. While the layman might think proxy measurements are reliable, they rarely are. It’s all a matter of interpretation, and in some cases, just cherry picking the right hockey stick shaped example which appears to back up the conjecture being made. For lack of a better name, we’ll call that type of proof a Snailbat. We must save the snailbat.
    It’s a very versatile sort of proof. You can do a snailbat on pretty much anything organic, from insects right up to sequoia trees.
    The second type of proof is the computer model predicting something untoward is going to happen. It’s nearly impossible to get across to someone who’s never tried their hand at computer modelling, how limited a domain of problems are actually amenable to modelling. I had a go at that a few years back and a link to the piece is below. The critical factors in any model are the physical nature of the problem, how complete your understanding of the problem is and the parameters, otherwise knows as guesses, built into the model.
    If you don’t really comprehensively understand the problem, no computer, no matter how powerful, is going to help you solve it. Climate is the result of the interactions between an undefined set of systems, many of which would be technically classified as non-linear complex systems. The mathematical reality is that any type of non-linear complex system cannot be modelled for predictive purposes anyway.
    Just to illustrate to you how a lot of very clever, motivated, hard-nosed and financially competent people can walk themselves over a cliff by having blind faith in computer models, consider the case of the hedge fund firm Long-Term Capital Management. They had a couple of Nobel Prize winning economists on board, a battalion of financial analysts and another battalion of software developers. They built a shiny computer model of their own business area and started using it to place their bets on the derivatives market. They bet heavy too, confident in how good their models’ predictions were. There was no way they could lose money.
    The models were wrong. In less than five years, they went from an enterprise with assets of 130 billion USD and a trading position of 1.25 trillion USD, to going broke. It was so big a disaster, that there were genuine fears it might bring down the whole of the derivatives market, which forced a 4 billion USD bailout by the industry itself. A lot of supposedly very smart people lost a lot of money, because of that insidious idea that if a computer predicts something is going to happen, then it must surely be going to happen.
    While no reasonable person would believe anyone can foretell the future for decades ahead, it always amazes me how readily they accept that a silicone chip contraption somehow can. If we don’t know how to predict the future, we can’t program a computer to predict the future. Forget computers, forget science, forget math, it’s actually as simple as that.
    Computers can’t predict the future.
    If you’re a fan of the director Stanley Kubrick’s work, you’ve probably seen his movie 2001 a space odyssey. Although there are other themes in it, one of them is a supercomputer called HAL predicting things which actually didn’t happen. The crewmen believed HAL and suffered the consequences. Put too much uncritical faith in computer predictions and you’ll inevitably end up pleading with HAL to open the pod bay doors. Just tell the suckers that HAL says we’re heading for an eco-disaster, and they’ll believe it. That variety of proof, we’ll call a HALsays.
    The third type of proof is what can only be called a Scarem. Whatever extreme weather event comes along, attribute it straight away to climate change and scare the pants off them. It doesn’t matter if there’s not a single shred of scientific evidence to back up that assertion. The legacy MSM can always be relied on to run with an extreme weather event story and all you have to do is volunteer that opinion to them as a climate expert, irrespective of your qualifications, if any. That’s how tropical storm Sandy magically mutated into a Frankenstorm, as far as the ordinary person was concerned. Scare them, scare them again and keep right on scaring them.
    Next up would be the dark side of proofs. Global warming must be real because skeptics of it can’t be right. They have to be wrong because you’ve got some sort of proof they’re all either insane, conspiracy nuts or child molesters. They’re even the sort of people who should be executed. In all good taste and as a tender mercy to you good reader, I won’t dwell too long on this bottom feeding type of so-called science paper, except to lump them all into the general category of LewPapers, as a hat tip to one of their pioneers. Climate science has truly fallen before the onslaught of its own internal post-normal Visigoths. They own its ass.
    Finally we have weird sorts of Tammany Hall polls masquerading as a proof. There are simply too many ways of rigging polls or post-processing the numbers to yield the desired result, and every one of those techniques is actively used. The whole thrust of them is to give the impression that the threat is real and people are really weally worried about it. By and large, they’re ignored. In a previous article, I compared them to those elections dictators periodically have, which always come out with a 99% vote in their favour. I suppose the apposite name for this stripe of beastie is a DicPol or perhaps more appropriately a DickPol, when you look at the sort of people behind them.
    All of these proofs can be used in various combinations. Just mix and match as required and cook to taste but always take with a pinch of salt. For instance, based on a previous study of them, a new computer model predicts the endangered Snailbat will become extinct in less than a decade unless something is done to mitigate the impact of climate change on them. Of course, when you write it up for your paper, add in a lot of ass-covering caveats but you know the media will skip them all when your sensational research hits the front page. Sure, you’re going to have a squabble with the skeptics but that’ll all happen in the aftermath of the desired headlines and never be reported on anyway.
    You follow it up with a DickPol showing how outraged people are at the desperate plight of the poor suffering snailbat and demanding action. The finishing touch would be to get Greenpeace to launch a Save the Snailbat campaign.
    If that little lot doesn’t get you more research funding, nothing will.
    The Snailbat, HALsays and Scarem proofs rely on the very understandable but very erroneous human perception that the environment not only shouldn’t change, but also something strange is happening if it is. Too much of environmental thinking on all sides is unconsciously based on something I called the steady-state environment delusion in a previous piece. There’s a link to it below, but the following paragraph from it summarises the essence of the idea.
    We look at our world and the universe with human eyes and more importantly, with a human lifespan. In terms of the latter, we see an apparently ageless and unchanging view but it’s a false impression. When looked at through the eyes of “deep” time, it is dynamic, violent and forever changing. There is no ideal static harmonious state which must be maintained. There never was and there never will be either.
    The reality is that the Earth’s climate, like the entire universe, has always, is, and will always change. The fundamentally dishonest thing about all these proofs, is the insistence that we’re the cause behind any change.
    Any real scientific basis for the theory of man-made catastrophic global warming has by this stage been thoroughly shredded. What we’ve got coming at us in the future are; Snailbats, HALsays, Scarems, LewPapers and DickPols, because that’s all they’ve got left to use. Enjoy yourself sorting them into the appropriate categories as they come along.
    ©Pointman”

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/the-shape-of-things-to-come-snailbats-halsays-scarems-lewpapers-and-dickpols/

  31. #32 pentaxZ
    December 26, 2013

    “The Snailbat, HALsays and Scarem proofs rely on the very understandable but very erroneous human perception that the environment not only shouldn’t change, but also something strange is happening if it is. Too much of environmental thinking on all sides is unconsciously based on something I called the steady-state environment delusion in a previous piece. There’s a link to it below, but the following paragraph from it summarises the essence of the idea.
    We look at our world and the universe with human eyes and more importantly, with a human lifespan. In terms of the latter, we see an apparently ageless and unchanging view but it’s a false impression. When looked at through the eyes of “deep” time, it is dynamic, violent and forever changing. There is no ideal static harmonious state which must be maintained. There never was and there never will be either.
    The reality is that the Earth’s climate, like the entire universe, has always, is, and will always change. The fundamentally dishonest thing about all these proofs, is the insistence that we’re the cause behind any change.
    Any real scientific basis for the theory of man-made catastrophic global warming has by this stage been thoroughly shredded. What we’ve got coming at us in the future are; Snailbats, HALsays, Scarems, LewPapers and DickPols, because that’s all they’ve got left to use. Enjoy yourself sorting them into the appropriate categories as they come along.

    Pointman”

  32. #34 chek
    December 27, 2013

    I don’t think there can be a more eloquent display of the level of incompetent, ill-informed, know-nothing, fuckwitted, click-finger denialism that one billion dollars a year buys, than that kindly provided by PantieZ display above.

    It will obviously take trillions more to buy even one single socially functioning moron. (champion grifter Donna LaRaspberry excepted. She’s much,. much cheaper – bearing in mind you’re still only getting what you pay for).

  33. #35 chek
    December 27, 2013

    Btw PantieZ, while it might seem to you that your heroic efforts in service to the skill of copy’n'pasting and providing links is somehow in itself a worthwhile endeavour, bear in mind that you’re perceived as the most cretinous of morons and nobody except your easily impressed fellow cretins such as Olap, GSW and Jonarse will be impressed.

    Or indeed bother to read them.

  34. #36 Lotharsson
    December 27, 2013

    I don’t think pentaxZ realises that the more he posts the less credible he becomes.

    Then again, there’s an awful lot he doesn’t realise.

  35. #37 Turboblocke
    December 27, 2013

    Er Pentax you quote Since there has been no upward change of global temperatures in over the last decade and a half, that scare had become embarrassingly untenable. In response, the alarmists switched from screaming about global warming to hyperventilating about climate change.

    Do you know that the IPCC was set up in 1988, so predates that “last decade and a half”. Do you know what the CC in IPCC stands for? Hint: it isn’t global warming.

  36. #38 chek
    December 27, 2013

    They’re called ‘zombie arguments’ TB.
    Not only because they get slaughtered (as you just did above) yet rise again and again, but also because of their enduring appeal to the brain-dead.

  37. #39 Turboblocke
    December 27, 2013

    #33 Pentax: I posted the same comment there about two hours ago. Funnily enough it hasn’t appeared yet…

  38. #40 Betula
    December 27, 2013

    Turd…

    “Do you know that the IPCC was set up in 1988, so predates that “last decade and a half”. Do you know what the CC in IPCC stands for? Hint: it isn’t global warming”

    “global warming became the dominant popular term in June 1988, when NASA scientist James E. Hansen had testified to Congress about climate, specifically referring to global warming. He said: “global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and the observed warming.”4 Hansen’s testimony was very widely reported in popular and business media, and after that popular use of the term global warming exploded”

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

    So yes, hyperventilating about climate change was going on for a long time until the brain dead Hansen started screaming about Global Warming. When the warming wasn’t responding to the screams, the hyperventilating started again….

  39. #41 BBD
    December 27, 2013

    Betty wriggles and writhes but does not answer the question:

    Lets try again.

    ..because that is what this is really all about, the redistribution of the worlds wealth….compensation that is due, not for faux futuristic catastrophic scenarios, but for plundering the poor.

    This is a conspiracy theory wherein the IPCC is complicit in misrepresenting climate science in order to enable global wealth redistribution.

    You wrote it, so you are a conspiracy theorist. Why do you refuse to acknowledge what is obviously the case?

    Wow. Could it be that the IPCC is a tool of the U.N. used to justify the needed financing of the MDG’s, and later the SDG’s….. with many members having similar ideologies with a taste for global justice through wealth redistribution?

    But how do we justify taxing carbon? And how do we make it so the rich nations pay the carbon tax and the poor nations receive it?

    The same conspiracty theory with different words. You wrote it, so you are a conspiracy theorist. Why do you refuse to acknowledge what is obviously the case?

    We need some sort of official organization that is the sole authority, a world authority if you will, that we can point to and say…..”Look! The debate is over! This group of experts, made up of some scientists and other people lobbying for representing their countries, but all with the same ideological mindset, have proven beyond any doubt, that hypothetical future catastrophic scenarios will most likely definitely occur if the rich don’t pay what are they are morally obligated to pay!”

    But where can we find such an organization?

    A third iteration of the conspiracy theory involving the UN and the IPCC. You wrote it, so you are a conspiracy theorist. Why do you refuse to acknowledge what is obviously the case?

  40. #42 BBD
    December 27, 2013

    the brain dead Hansen

    Thus an ignorant denialist pillock on the internet describes one of the world’s pre-eminent climate scientists.

  41. #43 Turboblocke
    December 27, 2013

    Oh Pentax: did you think that I wouldn’t read the rest of that link? How silly of you… it continues… Hansen’s testimony was very widely reported in popular and business media, and after that popular use of the term global warming exploded. Global change never gained traction in either the scientific literature or the popular media.

    But temperature change itself isn’t the most severe effect of changing climate. Changes to precipitation patterns and sea level are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone. For this reason, scientific research on climate change encompasses far more than surface temperature change. So “global climate change” is the more scientifically accurate term. Like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we’ve chosen to emphasize global climate change on this website, and not global warming.

  42. #44 BBD
    December 27, 2013

    What about the scientific proof that the future is set….how do you explain that?

    Radiative physics and paleoclimate behaviour. Keep up, Betty.

    If you wasted less time regurgitating conspiracist claptrap and more time studying the actual science you claim is being used to defraud the developed world, you would post less horse-shit on the internet and the world would be a fractionally better place.

    And yes, I know you are copy-pasting your paranoid fantasies from elsewhere and that you have never so much as looked at the primary materials you reference because you aren’t even an original conspiracy theorist, just a sheep.

  43. #45 BBD
    December 27, 2013

    Teh Stupid has come back with a vengeance, eh TB?

  44. #46 Turboblocke
    December 27, 2013

    Did it ever go away?

  45. #47 BBD
    December 27, 2013

    Ah, no. You’ve got a point there.

  46. #48 chek
    December 27, 2013

    Hyperventilating Betty only gets his ‘facts’ from the trash heaps of denial where they do memes, not science and therefore wouldn’t inform their congregations of pointy heads, fake marines and paranoids that Gilbert Plass’ “The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change” was published in 1956.

    Fumbled smear attempts on James Hansen are far more important than acknowledging established fact to such trash.

  47. #49 BBD
    December 27, 2013

    Hyperventilating Betty and all the rest of the deniers here are completely unable to explain how we get out of a Snowball Earth, what causes hyperthermals, and how orbital forcing triggers deglaciation unless GHGs are efficacious forcings and feedbacks net positive.

    Completely unable. So we get all this crapola about the IPCC instead. If you ask me, it’s just an attempt to divert attention away from the very public, very comprehensive and very painful failure of the deniers here to address the above points.

    As I said earlier, it’s fun watching Betty finally reduced to denying that a conspiracy theory is all that he’s got left.

  48. #50 Betula
    December 27, 2013

    Because that is what this is really all about, the redistribution of the worlds wealth….compensation that is due, not for faux futuristic catastrophic scenarios, but for plundering the poor.

    Could it be that the IPCC is a tool of the U.N. used to justify the needed financing of the MDG’s, and later the SDG’s….. with many members having similar ideologies with a taste for global justice through wealth redistribution?

    But how do we justify taxing carbon? And how do we make it so the rich nations pay the carbon tax and the poor nations receive it?

    We need some sort of official organization that is the sole authority, a world authority if you will, that we can point to and say…..”Look! The debate is over! This group of experts, made up of some scientists and other people lobbying for representing their countries, but all with the same ideological mindset, have proven beyond any doubt, that hypothetical future catastrophic scenarios will most likely definitely occur if the rich don’t pay what are they are morally obligated to pay!”

    But where can we find such an organization?

  49. #51 BBD
    December 27, 2013

    Betty, we know that you are a conspiracy theorist. You have made that abundantly, redundantly plain.

    The question to you was: why won’t you admit this?

  50. #52 BBD
    December 27, 2013

    Or this? You skipped lightly over #49, Betty.

  51. #53 adelady
    December 27, 2013

    I’m pretty impressed with this one as a conspiracy theory, though. It’s not like shapeshifting alien lizards concealing themselves from the rest of us and working in the mysterious background. This one’s Gi.Gan.Tic. and done completely out in the open – in universities, insurance companies, publications, 1000s of government agencies on various continents, and in UN negotiations which are hardly the most private or discreet environments one can think of.

    I’ve chaired more than enough meetings to know that getting majority agreement, on anything, is often a bit much to ask. How someone thinks that you can get nearly 200 individuals to unanimously concur on the words of a document like the IPCC report is a bit of a mystery. Getting almost 200 countries to do that is waaaay beyond anything I’d ever dream of.

    Anyone who thinks that all the countries who have obviously different motivations and wildly divergent demands in relation to climate are somehow secretly agreeing to advance covert unexpressed intentions … is a conspiracy theorist.

  52. #54 Betula
    December 28, 2013

    “Anyone who thinks that all the countries who have obviously different motivations and wildly divergent demands in relation to climate are somehow secretly agreeing to advance covert unexpressed intentions … is a conspiracy theorist”

    Really? But what if they aren’t covert or unexpressed intentions?

    You do agree there is a need for climate justice don’t you Adelady? That is, you do agree that the rich developed nations have created this problem and the poorer nations will bear the brunt?

    And do you believe that in the future, “when affected countries demand assistance from the rich countries of the world in helping address climate-related disasters such as floods, it will not be for a request for charity but for compensation, appealing to their moral responsibility, if not their legal liability, to make good the damage and destruction for which their activities have, directly or indirectly, been partially responsible.” ……don’t you?
    http://www.scidev.net/global/climate-change/editorials/bangladesh-floods-rich-nations-must-share-the-bl.html

    And would you agree that the best instrument to do this would be a carbon tax, right?

    So, would you agree that “one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”?

    http://www.thegwpf.org/ipcc-official-climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth/

    And you do agree there is a need for Global Justice, don’t you Adelady? That is, you do believe that the rich developed nations have only become rich and developed due to the plundering of the poor nations resources? Correct?

    And it is the moral obligation of the rich nations to help the poor nations, right?

    Would you agree with this statement?:

    “We need rich countries to transfer money to poor countries, to be sure, and in much greater quantities than they presently do. But these transfers should not be considered charity; they should be considered a form of justice. Franz Fanon puts it best: “Colonialism and imperialism have not settled their debt to us once they have withdrawn from our territories. The wealth of the imperialist nations is also our wealth. Europe is literally the creation of the Third World. The riches which are choking it are those plundered from the underdeveloped peoples. So we will not accept aid for the underdeveloped countries as ‘charity’. Such aid must be considered the final stage of a dual consciousness – the consciousness of the colonised that it is their due, and the consciousness of the capitalist powers that effectively they must pay up.” (from Hardley’s link at #45 pg 7)

    And the best way to do this is with a carbon tax, correct?

    And you are well aware of the Millennium Development Goals, am I right?

    And you know these honorable goals are the baby of the United Nations, the same United Nations that formed the IPCC, correct?

    And you are aware of the funding needed to accomplish these goals?

    And would you agree that this funding needs to come from rich nations in the form of a carbon tax?

    So it would appear that a carbon tax would solve many problems and grant many wishes….climate justice, global justice, development, catastrophes, the apocalypse etc..

    But how do we justify taxing carbon? And how do we make it so the rich nations pay the carbon tax and the poor nations receive it?

    We need some sort of official organization that is the sole authority, a world authority if you will, that we can point to and say…..”Look! The debate is over! This group of experts, made up of some scientists and other people lobbying for representing their countries, but all with the same ideological mindset, have proven beyond any doubt, that hypothetical future catastrophic scenarios will most likely definitely occur if the rich don’t pay what are they are morally obligated to pay!”

    But where can we find such an organization?

  53. #56 Bernard J.
    December 28, 2013

    PentaxZ’s, betula’s, and other trolls’ amnesia is notable, and should concern each of them as it is also quite significant.

    You see, it’s not as if they haven’t been told about Frank Luntz’s involvement of the promotion for political reason of the term ‘climate change’ over ‘global warming’. Even on Deltoid there’s been a long history of such education:

    scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/02/13/climate2/#comment-3651

    scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/02/09/bolt2/#comment-3608

    scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/06/28/inhofes-war-on-science/#comment-15526

    scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/02/open-thread-11/#comment-44818

    scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/20/97-of-active-climatologists-ag/comment-page-2/#comment-50604

    scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/06/firedoglake-book-salon-on-jame/comment-page-1/#comment-73881

    scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/03/01/the-empirical-evidence-for-man/comment-page-13/#comment-85818

    scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/09/monckton-interviewed-by-adam-s/#comment-118843

    More reminders here of their clinical stupidity:

    webcitation.org/6MByuw8Ii

  54. #57 Stu 2
    December 28, 2013

    @# 53 Adelady:
    precisely!
    Even though it is clearly not a conspiracy (as several people, including Betula, have pointed out with supporting links) Jeff Harvey and others have demonstrated it isn’t working anyway,precisely for the reasons you have outlined.
    here:
    “How someone thinks that you can get nearly 200 individuals to unanimously concur on the words of a document like the IPCC report is a bit of a mystery. Getting almost 200 countries to do that is waaaay beyond anything I’d ever dream of. “

  55. #58 adelady
    December 28, 2013

    I’m not sure what you’re saying Stu2. All those countries did agree on the words. The big issue is whether they are persuaded or driven by some over-arching but never admitted conspiracy to do so. I don’t think they are.

    A lot of them would rather have the problem just go away and not bother them, but they have no argument against the scientific findings they’re working with. So some stick to arguing just to water down the bare scientific statements as much as they can get away with while the rest try to hold the line. (Because they know that the scientific stuff is too tentative in its projections of future scenarios and watering them down as much as the others prefer would make them completely unrealistic.)

  56. #59 Wow
    December 28, 2013

    “Betty, we know that you are a conspiracy theorist. You have made that abundantly, redundantly plain.

    The question to you was: why won’t you admit this?”

    There’s a conspiracy by Betty to hide the conspiracy!!!

  57. #60 Betula
    December 28, 2013

    Adelady at #53…
    “How someone thinks that you can get nearly 200 individuals to unanimously concur on the words of a document like the IPCC report is a bit of a mystery. Getting almost 200 countries to do that is waaaay beyond anything I’d ever dream of. “

    Stu2 at #56…..”precisely!”

    Adelady at #57…”I’m not sure what you’re saying Stu2. All those countries did agree on the words”

    Classic Deltoidian Dementia.

  58. #61 chek
    December 28, 2013

    #59 , in which Betty takes careful aim, a long run-up and soundly gives himself a flying kick in the teeth.

    Too thick to live, too stupid to go away and too dumb to keep quiet. Classic Betty ‘bola bile.

  59. #62 BBD
    December 28, 2013

    Notice how none of the deniers will touch #49?

    See how they misdirect with silly conspiracy theories while the fact that they have no scientific argument is doggedly ignored?

    That’s denialism, folks. That and nutty tinfoil conspiracist ideation of course. Watching Betty flatly refuse to admit that his conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory is an absolute treat. Behold an intellectual dishonesty that goes beyond parody into something rich and strange.

  60. #63 Lotharsson
    December 28, 2013

    Watching Stu 2 pretend that Betula hasn’t advanced a conspiracy theory by resolutely ignoring the part that is a conspiracy theory, despite several people explicitly pointing the conspiracy in that part out to him, is also an “absolute treat”, albeit in a rather sad and ironic sense of the term.

  61. #64 Betula
    December 28, 2013

    “Notice how none of the deniers will touch #49?”

    What’s the matter Barney, can’t discuss the present?

    Why don’t you try and help Adelady solve the mystery?….

    It would appear that a carbon tax would solve many problems and grant many wishes….climate justice, global justice, development, catastrophes, the apocalypse etc..

    But how do we justify taxing carbon? And how do we make it so the rich nations pay the carbon tax and the poor nations receive it?

    We need some sort of official organization that is the sole authority, a world authority if you will, that we can point to and say…..”Look! The debate is over! This group of experts, made up of some scientists and other people lobbying for representing their countries, but all with the same ideological mindset, have proven beyond any doubt, that hypothetical future catastrophic scenarios will most likely definitely occur if the rich don’t pay what are they are morally obligated to pay!”

    But where can we find such an organization?

  62. #65 Betula
    December 28, 2013
  63. #66 BBD
    December 28, 2013

    I wonder what it must feel like to be absolutely dependent on obvious lies and nonsense? I’m sure that it can’t be very nice.

    Betty knows that he is proposing a conspiracy theory and Stu knows it too but like Betty, is forced to pretend otherwise, revealing himself to be as intellectually dishonest as Betty himself.

    This can’t be doing much for the self-esteem.

  64. #67 BBD
    December 28, 2013

    Why don’t you try and help Adelady solve the mystery?….

    Because there isn’t one, Betty. But there *is* a conspiracy theory. Why don’t you admit that what you propose is a conspiracy theory when it clearly is and denying it makes you look like a stupid and desperate liar?

  65. #68 BBD
    December 28, 2013

    @#65 that is of course Stu2, not the real Stu.

  66. #69 BBD
    December 28, 2013

    What’s the matter Barney, can’t discuss the present?

    What’s the matter Betty, can’t discuss the science?

  67. #70 BBD
    December 28, 2013

    Threat reported from link at #64

    Other commenters please note that Webroot SecureAnywhere has blocked access to Nofrakkingconsensus on the basis of malware threat. This is really quite unusual.

  68. #71 chek
    December 28, 2013

    The fact that – as pointed out before at #34 – that Dr Pauchuri can point to around one billion dollars a year funding to the climate change denial effort means he’s not talking about a ‘theory’, but bought and paid for organised fact.

    Another massive fail for Bettybola.

  69. #72 BBD
    December 28, 2013

    Reminds me of the classic denier plaint of “but i’m not funded by the energy industry” – which is trivially true. What the sheep seem unable to grasp is that the denier talking points they endlessly spew out wherever they go were mostly written by people who *are* funded by the fossil fuel industry.

    They never seem to grasp that they are useful idiots, but I suppose inability to recognise that you are being used is a prerequisite here.

  70. #73 chek
    December 28, 2013

    The excruciating spectacle of watching Bettybola clownshoe his way through a circus ring of denial filled with giant mousetraps and sundry buckets of paint perched atop stepladders in pursuit of his stupid, long lost arguments is, for all the inevitability of his swollen fingered and paint splattered finale, strangely compelling.

  71. #74 Turboblocke
    December 28, 2013

    Every once in a while most governments have a budget where they set taxes. Remind me again why we need a big hoax to justify a new tax…

  72. #75 Lotharsson
    December 29, 2013

    Let’s discuss conspiracy theories

    Why?

    You are merely linking to a piece on a known denialist site to dodge the central element of your current conspiracy theory in order to continue to refuse to admit that it is a conspiracy theory: your implication that zillions of scientists (and governments and civil servants around the world) are ALL colluding to publish false science…

    …so very very carefully and remarkably constructed so that all of the falsehoods are consistent with each other(!)…

    …and yet so cunningly falsified that their divergence from reality is practically impossible to demonstrate (even by other highly qualified scientists)…

    in order to advance a set of political and sociological goals.

    Take your meds.

  73. #76 Betula
    December 29, 2013

    Sloth..

    “your implication that zillions of scientists (and governments and civil servants around the world) are ALL colluding to publish false science”

    In terms of climate change, they publish science filled with uncertainties, along with statements about the need for more data and better ways to collect data.
    The rub lies in the IPCC boiling down those uncertainties to where they can claim to predict an almost certain future outcome. But why they create a message that can be used to push a climate policy that just so happens to coincide with redistribution of global wealth appears to be a complete mystery and is anybody’s guess.

    “When writing the SPM, the authors are facing a dilemma: either they speak as scientists and must therefore recognize that there are too many unknowns to make reliable predictions, both in the mechanisms at play and in the available data; or they try to convey what they
    “consensually” think is the right message but at the price of giving up scientific rigour. They deliberately chose the latter option. The result is they have distorted the scientific message into an alarmist message asking for urgent reaction, which is quite contrary to what the
    scientific message conveys”

    “What we are witnessing are successive distortions of the scientific message of the AR5 report on the Physical Science Basis: first from the report to the SPM by those who wrote
    and/or amended the SPM, then from the SPM to the press by those who speak in the name of the IPCC (including the IPCC chairman) then from the press to the general public by green activists who too often behave irresponsibly in misrepresenting the findings of the work.”

    “Such a report must refrain from ignoring basic scientific practices, as the SPM authors blatantly do when claiming to be able to quantify with high precision their confidence in the impact of anthropogenic C02 emissions on global warming. Statistical uncertainties, inasmuch as they are normally distributed, can be quantified with precision and it can make sense to distinguish between a 90% and a 95% probability, for example in calculating the probability of getting more than ten aces when throwing a die more than 10 times. In most physical problems, however, and particularly in climate science, statistical uncertainties are largely irrelevant. What matters are systematic uncertainties that result in a large part from our lack of understanding of the mechanisms at play, and also in part from the lack of relevant data. In quantifying such ignorance the way they have done it, the SPM authors have lcist credibility with many scientists. Such behaviour is unacceptable. A proper scientific summary must rephrase the main SPM conclusions in a way that describes properly the factors that contribute to the uncertainties attached to such conclusions”.

    “In such a context, I consider that the IPCC scientists should feel morally compelled to produce a scientific summary of their work while refraining from giving the world a message.”

    http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/WrittenEvidence.svc/EvidencePdf/4360

  74. #77 BBD
    December 29, 2013

    A very old retired physicist who is not competent to comment offers some readily ignorable testimony to a UK ECC ‘inquiry’ into a review (yawn).

    In which he recommends that we consider questions raised by the 2013 NIPCC ‘report’ brought to us by the fossil fuel industry and the Heartland Institute.

    Yawn some more.

    Hey, Betty, when are you going to admit that a conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory? We can’t do much more here until you touch base with reality.

  75. #78 BBD
    December 29, 2013

    In other words, the professor (who is in fact not a professor but simply Dr, retired) is another useful idiot. Still, he has an interesting-sounding correspondence address of which I am faintly envious.

  76. #79 Lionel A
    December 29, 2013

    There has been much vacuous propaganda from certain quarters on the amount of funding enjoyed by climate science researchers with the broadcasters of such propaganda having only the woolliest of ideas on the huge numbers of fields of research which have provided data and insight. At the same time, these purveyors of ill formed opinion appear blind to the monstrously large sums of money ploughed into the denial machine.

    This wilful blindness is in spite of being pointed to sources that demonstrate proof of denial funding sources.

    Now we have more such evidence as pointed out the Rabett’s place where we find a timely link to more by the tireless John Mashey in an article at DesMogBlog Study Details Dark Money Flowing to Climate Science Denial. Figure 4 is very interesting reminding me of the webs one can construct using this:

    web where names are added and links made, one I created some time back, I have several.

    Note that one of the names in the above has recently cropped up as misleading Congress, again, as reported at the SkS article, ‘More misleading Congressional climate testimony‘. Are there not penalties for such behaviour?

  77. #80 Lionel A
    December 29, 2013

    In other words, the <ProfessorDr, retired has to resort to citing to WUWT as a font of knowledge (footnote page 6 – unnumbered, how non-academic is that FFS).

    BBD, these fools don’t realise how foolish they make themselves look.

  78. #81 BBD
    December 29, 2013

    Yup, I noticed that, but also his choice of two named raisers of “legitimate objections” to the validity of the IPCC process and its various conclusions: Curry and Lindzen.

    So that’s WUWT, Curry, Lindzen and Heartland/NIPCC.

    At a quick glance, I can see that Dr Darriulat doesn’t understand the difference between TCR and ECS (that’ll be Lindzen fogging his brain) and does not understand that climate models are designed to examine centennial-scale climate change, not predict what will happen next decade. So it is misguided to claim that ‘the models are wrong’ because they failed to predict a specific transient slowdown in the rate of surface warming. Another common fake-sceptic confusion/bit of dodgy rhetoric. And there’s more, but ho-hum.

    But the good Doctor self-describes as:

    a neutral scientist observing the climate debate

    I think not.

  79. #82 Wow
    December 29, 2013

    The slowdown doesn’t disprove the IPCC predictions either: the error on the 15 year trend bandied about are too large to show the prediction wrong.

  80. #83 Jeff Harvey
    December 29, 2013

    Betula’s ‘expert’ has, according to the Web of Science, a career total of 17 publications with 62 citations and an h-factor of 3. This is less than puny; it is invisible. Yet bark brain has the audacity to question my qualifications in science, merely because I disagree with just about everything he writes. Betty has tendency to write without thinking. Pretty well all of his posts are vacuous musings.

  81. #84 BBD
    December 29, 2013

    Nor is he a climate scientist.

  82. #85 Chris W
    December 29, 2013

    A lurker’s quick OT note to advise how I’ve scored 2013 for Deltoid (rating is between 0 and 1) …

    Deltoid Regulars + 1
    Betty and the Deniers – 5 Million

    Keep up the great work you’re doing as a bunch of blithering idiots Betty et al. You have real talent.

    Cheers,
    Chris W

  83. #86 Turboblocke
    December 29, 2013

    …Betty et al.
    Et al? I thought there was only one with multiple sock puppets?

  84. #87 Chris W
    December 29, 2013

    Yeah, you’re probably right Turboblocke. One sock for each of Mrs Palmer’s daughters.

  85. #88 Stu 2
    December 30, 2013

    BBD @ # 77 & #81 and Lionel A @ # 79
    According to your own definitions this must therefore be a conspiracy theory too?
    BBD
    “A very old retired physicist who is not competent to comment offers some readily ignorable testimony to a UK ECC ‘inquiry’ into a review (yawn).

    In which he recommends that we consider questions raised by the 2013 NIPCC ‘report’ brought to us by the fossil fuel industry and the Heartland Institute. ”
    and:
    Yup, I noticed that, but also his choice of two named raisers of “legitimate objections” to the validity of the IPCC process and its various conclusions: Curry and Lindzen.

    So that’s WUWT, Curry, Lindzen and Heartland/NIPCC. ”
    and:
    “Another common fake-sceptic confusion/bit of dodgy rhetoric. And there’s more, but ho-hum.

    But the good Doctor self-describes as:

    a neutral scientist observing the climate debate

    I think not. ”

    Lionel A
    This wilful blindness is in spite of being pointed to sources that demonstrate proof of denial funding sources.

    Now we have more such evidence as pointed out the Rabett’s place where we find a timely link to more by the tireless John Mashey in an article at DesMogBlog Study Details Dark Money Flowing to Climate Science Denial. Figure 4 is very interesting reminding me of the webs one can construct using this:

    web where names are added and links made, one I created some time back, I have several.

    Note that one of the names in the above has recently cropped up as misleading Congress, again, as reported at the SkS article, ‘More misleading Congressional climate testimony‘. Are there not penalties for such behaviour? ”

    Apparently it doesn’t matter which side you barrack for : the other side is calling ‘conspiracy’ ?????
    No offence, but this sounds more like fans arguing at a football match than anything else.

    In the meantime, as Adelady sort of pointed out and Jeff Harvey has repeatedly inferred, what either side wants won’t happen anyway because of the politics involved.
    It is however a great way to take up lots of space in the media and the blogosphere, spend lots of money whether it’s taxpayer money, NGO money or the ‘denial machine’ money and create lots of extra CO2 (along with the hot air).

  86. #89 BBD
    December 30, 2013

    2Stupid

    According to your own definitions this must therefore be a conspiracy theory too?

    Why?

  87. #90 chek
    December 30, 2013

    Don’t you see, BBD?
    Some say ‘to-may-to’, others say ‘to- mah-to’.
    It really is just that silly, if I’m translating #88 correctly.

  88. #91 Stu 2
    December 30, 2013

    BBD @ # 89
    Why not?

  89. #92 Lotharsson
    December 30, 2013

    In terms of climate change, they publish science filled with uncertainties, along with statements about the need for more data and better ways to collect data.

    Yes, of course they do. If they didn’t do so it would not be scientific. In contrast, many of those arguing against the science express (and brook) no uncertainty, which is a dead giveaway that they aren’t making a science-based case.

    And as I pointed out previously almost all medical and military decisions and the bulk of corporate and governmental decisions must be undertaken in the presence of uncertainty. So the mere presence of uncertainty doesn’t rebut the case for action.

    The rub lies in the IPCC boiling down those uncertainties to where they can claim to predict an almost certain future outcome.

    Firstly, that’s an incorrect characterisation of much of what the IPCC reports as the uncertainties vary widely across the different claims, but we rather expect that from you and your sources.

    Secondly, those claims are backed by the scientific evidence. Key claims for which high confidence is reported are backed by strong evidence and a demonstrated absence of any serious scientific counter argument.

    Thirdly and most importantly, for a few of those key claims you only need to have marginal confidence or sometimes reasonable confidence – not even reasonable or sometimes high confidence! – in order for best practices in risk management to kick in. And those best practices say that we cannot afford to roll the dice and hope that our current best understanding is wrong.

    And given the accumulated scientific evidence, we have already cleared that confidence bar on key claims by a mile even if we were to throw out the IPCC synthesis reports. Out of all of your waffling here over the years, precisely NONE of it has demonstrated that we haven’t cleared that bar. That is because you, like everyone else both less and more qualified and insightful who is opposing policy responses, have been unable to demonstrate this and have to settle for trying to muddy the waters instead.

  90. #93 Wow
    December 30, 2013

    “In terms of climate change, they publish science filled with uncertainties,”

    Whereas religion brooks no uncertainty to the laity and make claims like “there has been a cooling trend for the past 15 years”. No mention of the uncertainty in the trend when deniers like you wibble on about it.

  91. #94 Wow
    December 30, 2013

    “BBD @ # 89
    Why not?”

    Because it doesn’t have to.

  92. #95 Lionel A
    December 30, 2013

    2 Stupid

    FFS learn to quote, using HTML tags would be good even if only italic, but failing that quote marks are there for a purpose..

    But I forget, to do so would involve expenditure of effort and that is anathema to you and your kind.

    So why should we be expected to expend effort sorting out who wrote what in your lazy, content free posts?

  93. #96 BBD
    December 30, 2013

    2Stupid

    What I wrote is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a conspiracy theory. Yet you, most unwisely IMO, claim that it is.

    So please demonstrate why and how this is the case.

    This I have to see.

  94. #97 BBD
    December 30, 2013

    And what Lionel A said. FFS learn to use HTML and quote properly. It is a discourtesy to post as illegibly as you do. Get it sorted out.

  95. #99 Lionel A
    December 30, 2013

    Ah! So Betty joins the Ugly Bunch i.e. The really ugly side of Anthony Watts and his science deniers at WUWT .

    No surprises there then.

  96. #100 chek
    December 30, 2013

    Williwatts displayed similar derision towards an Arctic expedition in difficulties several years ago.
    He and his back-slapping troll platoon are vermin incapable of comprehension.