May 2014 Open Thread

More thread.

Comments

  1. #1 Lotharsson
    May 13, 2014

    Stu 2, what papers has Bengtsson published to demonstrate that (say) the consensus is significantly flawed?

    Or is this another amazing coincidence whereby someone who is paid by a contrarian lobbying group professes to be a contrarian without actually being able to demonstrate good reason for that position from the scientific literature?

  2. #2 Lotharsson
    May 13, 2014

    Other than the link to the story about Bengtsson, what do you find dodgy about those sources @ # 94 L?

    I didn’t say they were dodgy.

    But while we’re there perhaps you could explain in your own words what the Nature article conveys and why you think the two BOM links are “paradoxical”, with special reference to your choice of South Australia and South Australia alone?

    Or failing that, maybe ask your cut-and-paste source to comment?

  3. #3 BBD
    May 13, 2014

    And then you can answer the questions put to you on the previous page.

  4. #4 BBD
    May 13, 2014

    Stu 2, what papers has Bengtsson published to demonstrate that (say) the consensus is significantly flawed?

    Bengtsson is confused about physical climatology. See his remarks on sensitivity:

    The warming of the climate system since the end of the 19th century has been very modest by some ¾°C in spite of the simultaneous increase in greenhouse gas forcing by 2.5-3 W/m2.

    He ignores the fact that this the transient response and he ignores the substantial increase in negative aerosol forcing that offsets the increase in CO2 forcing. Basic errors.

    I am concern that this as well as the lack of ocean surface warming in some 17 years has not been properly recognized by IPCC.

    WTF? Which data set is he using? And more disturbing still, further confusion about SSTs and what they tell us. SSTs are somewhat indicative of the amount of energy leaving the ocean; they do not tell us much about the amount entering it. The metric of interest there would be OHC.

  5. #5 bill
    May 13, 2014

    Yes, please do answer the questions Loth asked; so, do tell us what you (or, I suppose, whoever you’re neurally outsourcing from – we’ll check!) makes of the information you’ve presented.

  6. #6 BBD
    May 13, 2014

    It seems increasingly clear from his various public comments that Bengtsson believes that the recent slowdown in the rate of increase in surface temperatures indicates that sensitivity is low (note that reference to a 17 year period above). He has made the same basic errors that characterise “sceptical” commentary:

    – He has used an uninformatively short time-scale.

    – He cherry-picked the 1989 El Nino as the start point.

    – He has mistaken transient variability in the rate of ocean heat uptake for low S (see England et al. 2014)

    – He has ignored the effects of variability in TSI (solar output; volcanic aerosols; anthropogenic aerosols).

    And on the back of this catalogue of basic errors, he’s jumped into the arms of the organised denial machine. Note that the GWPF is linked with libertarian/right wing lobby groups in the US and Europe, and has refused to disclose its funding.

  7. #7 Lotharsson
    May 13, 2014

    Even ignoring the arguably false characterisation of changes required (given how long they have been mooted) Bengtsson is also advocating a failure in risk management by saying that:

    However, before radical and hasty changes to the current energy system are implemented, there must be robust evidence that climate change is significantly detrimental.

    I do not wait until I possess robust evidence that I will have a bad crash before applying the brakes in my car. But that’s essentially what Bengtsson is arguing for here.

    Meanwhile fellow GWPF member Richard Tol has recently corrected his analysis of the likely impacts of climate change eliminating almost all possibility of net benefit thus arguably making the case for mitigating the risk even stronger (although Tol attempts to spin it the other way).

    Bengtsson appears to be putting forth a number of opinions outside of his area of competence, but that won’t stop his claims being employed in fallacious appeals to authority – that disregard the much greater authority on the other side of the ledger.

  8. #8 cRR Kampen
    May 13, 2014

    Bengtsson is just one more climate revisionist. Paid denier who knows better and is actually poor at his spins.

  9. #9 Stu 2
    May 13, 2014

    Lotharsson.
    Your comment# 95 immediately followed the links I posted.
    BBD.
    I of course agree that representative organisations , think tanks, unions and all types of NGOs and advocacy groups receive donations.
    Who would deny that?
    I donate to a couple of charity organisations, an animal welfare
    organisation 2 unions and also to a representative organisation connected the industry I work in.
    Your question pertains however to the existence of something you call a ‘denial industry’.
    While I don’t disagree that there are some groups who advocate against the carbon tax or a global ETS , I don’t agree that ‘denial industry’ is what they’re called nor that they are the root of all evil in the world.
    That does not mean that I am therefore ‘firmly on the side’ of any organisation.
    I quite often disagree with the advocacy of the union I belong to and also the industry advocacy group I am a member of.
    Also Lotharsson.
    That was one example of BoM data from Southern Australia.
    If you look through the site you will find the others.
    The paradox is that the BoM data indicates rain has increased and winds have decreased with SW Western Australia being the only exception.

  10. #10 BBD
    May 14, 2014

    Stu2, the apologist for the denial industry.

    Stu2 the apologist for plutocratic elites subverting democracy.

    Stu2 the serial liar.

    Since all this has been brought up before when you were active on the April thread, I don’t believe you are unaware of the evidence.

    So you are exactly as describe above.

    Still, I want to see if you will crawl lower than your fellow vermin, eg GSW.

    So, a test:

    Brulle (2013):

    Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations

    This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.

    Do you deny these matters of fact?

    Yes or no?

    If yes, demonstrate why the evidence is invalid.

  11. #11 BBD
    May 14, 2014

    Note well:

    Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.

    Which brings us to Donors Trust:

    Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.

    The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising “wedge issue” for hardcore conservatives.

    The millions were routed through two trusts, Donors Trust and the Donors Capital Fund, operating out of a generic town house in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington DC. Donors Capital caters to those making donations of $1m or more.

    Do you deny these matters of fact?

    Yes or no?

    If yes, demonstrate why the evidence is invalid.

  12. #12 BBD
    May 14, 2014

    For the record, these are the two questions 2Stu has yet again refused to answer (see evasions above):

    1/ Why do you never comment to criticise the other vermin here like GSW who denies the fact that plutocratic elites have created and covertly funded a denial industry? Never. Not once. Ever.

    2/ Do you deny that it is a matter of fact that corporate vested interests created and now covertly fund a denial industry?

    Yes or no.

  13. #13 bill
    May 14, 2014

    2Pid attempts to flay us with a wet lettuce. Nearly as pointless an opponent as the Chebbie he so-closely resembles…

  14. #14 cRR Kampen
    May 14, 2014

    Bengtsson left the GWPF.

    Dear Professor Henderson,

    I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

    I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.

    Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.

    With my best regards

    Lennart Bengtsson

  15. #15 Stu
    May 14, 2014

    Oh dear, Bengtsson called the whaaambulance.

  16. #16 Lionel A
    May 14, 2014

    Are we not all terrible for making a scientist so uncomfortable with belonging to the GWPF.

    We should be ashamed of ourselves for throwing such an ill light on the GWPF, a fine upstanding and honest group of earnest people who are trying to engage in an honest debate about how little we know about the workings of climate and that we should not be attempting to reign in the use of fossil fuels until all the science is in.

  17. #17 cRR Kampen
    May 14, 2014

    So Lionel, we felt a twinge of moral conscience and maybe even a touch of, may I say the word, pity – and we cannot allow it. Not at all.
    Shit alors.

  18. #18 BBD
    May 14, 2014

    Cued in by Bengtsson’s utterly unapologetic letter in which he refuses to acknowledge his own foolishness in this matter and instead distastefully plays the victim, the yahoos are howling about oppression.

    Sod. The. Lot. Of. Them.

    They are not the victims here.

  19. #19 cRR Kampen
    May 14, 2014

    No. The perpetrators in a way that is becoming actual.

  20. #20 Lionel A
    May 14, 2014

    Well I figured that would happen BBD, hence my piss take.

  21. #21 chek
    May 14, 2014

    I wonder if he means 97% of the “community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc..”
    And can he really be that clueless of what the GWPF are about?

  22. #22 cRR Kampen
    May 14, 2014

    chek – with this, with climate revionism, with me, it is: guilty until proven beyond any doubt otherwise. Because the only alternative explanation is senility. The choice be his.

  23. #23 Lionel A
    May 14, 2014

    I also find it difficult to believe that Bengtsson would have walked in to the arms of the GWPF without appreciating their true status.

    But then ivory towers can tend to blinker.

  24. #24 bill
    May 14, 2014

    Australia’s State of the Climate 2014 has been released.

  25. #25 Stu 2
    May 14, 2014

    BBD. @#10 11 & 12.
    Can I suggest, yet again, that if you don’t like the answers that it may have something to do with your questions?
    Try asking a different question .
    I also note that while you are very happy to dish out criticism you are not demonstrating any ability to consider criticism of your own comments.
    You are stuck in some type of ‘groundhog day’ on this issue.
    Try & move on. Your interpretation of some if the literature is overly melodramatic and positively Orwellian.

  26. #26 BBD
    May 15, 2014

    Try asking a different question .

    Try answering the questions you were originally asked.

    Your wriggling intellectual dishonesty is sickening.

    * * *

    1/ Why do you never comment to criticise the other vermin here like GSW who denies the fact that plutocratic elites have created and covertly funded a denial industry? Never. Not once. Ever.

    2/ Do you deny that it is a matter of fact that corporate vested interests created and now covertly fund a denial industry?

    Yes or no.

  27. #27 BBD
    May 15, 2014

    Try & move on. Your interpretation of some if the literature is overly melodramatic and positively Orwellian.

    I don’t want self-serving lies. I want ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS YOU ARE BEING ASKED.

    See final line below:

    Brulle (2013):

    Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations

    This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.

    Do you deny these matters of fact?

    Yes or no?

    ****If yes, demonstrate why the evidence is invalid.****

    Can’t you fucking read?

  28. #28 bill
    May 15, 2014

    It won’t answer. But then again, it’s not worth the pixels it’s printed on.

  29. #29 BBD
    May 15, 2014

    Yet they whine when called vermin.

  30. #30 Lionel A
    May 15, 2014

    Meanwhile in the real world atmospheric CO2 levels have broached the 400ppm level in April 2014. At 401.33 ppm it is 2.97 ppm higher than at the end of April 2013.

  31. #31 Lionel A
    May 15, 2014

    Can I suggest, yet again, that if you don’t like the answers that it may have something to do with your questions?

    If you have not provided any answers how can they be liked, or not. You never do make sense do you. What a devious twerp you are.

  32. #32 Lionel A
    May 15, 2014

    Say hello to El Niño, maybe.

    Could it be a case of, ‘Holy shit Lieutenant!’?

  33. #33 Lotharsson
    May 15, 2014

    If this comment is accurate Brandon Shollenberger claims to have been the one who stole/hacked/spirited out data from Skeptical Science website.

    On that same thread Carrick argues that research participants who participated in the private SkS forum that was obviously intended to remain private thus deanonymised themselves via the hack/theft of private data – and this is a commenter who claims his concern is because “research ethics matter to me”.

    You can’t make this stuff up.

  34. #34 chek
    May 15, 2014

    I followed a link to BS (how appropriate!) site a few days ago and it really is amazing. The ideation is steaming that now they’ve got the data (never mind how legally or not) it’ll tell a different story, hoh yus!
    They really just don’t get it. At all.

    In fact they’re likely surprised that John Cook didn’t come running, hopping and jumping tout suite in response to BS’s kind offer not to let the cat out of the bag for 24 hours, if he had ‘good reason’.

    I sincerely hope that JC considered a response – a ‘fuck you’ in 72pt type, but I expect he just chortled to himself and let them get on with it. While forwarding copies of freely made confessions to his local computer crime unit.

  35. #35 Stu 2
    May 16, 2014

    BBD @#26 & 27
    I have not denied anywhere that entities such as donors trust exist. They are not illegal or particularly ‘covert’ or even out to destroy the world as far as I am aware.
    So my very basic and very simple answer, most definitely minus your melodramatic hyperbole, your personal abuse and overlaying preconceived assumptions remains unchanged -as
    in :NO! I do NOT deny they exist.
    I will however repeat they are not called ‘denial industry’, they are called ‘donors trust’ or GWFP or IPA etc. They advocate a different political /socio-economic agenda than what yours appears to be.

  36. #36 Jeff Harvey
    May 16, 2014

    Here I am in Iceland on a volcano vacation and I see Stu2 still living in his own myopic fantasy world.

    Of course there is a well-organized industry of climate change denial. If Stu2 thinks that GWPF et al. are honest arbiters merely seeking the truth, then he is a lot dumber than I originally thought. And that is saying a lot. Every post he makes he skewers himself further. There is no socio-political agenda when it comes to the veracity of scientific truth. The evidence in support of AGW is, by now, overwhelming. Against this background we have a small number of corporate funded shills who argue incessantly that either it is not true, or that the problem is exaggerated. Underlying this perspective is the view that we should not do anything about the problem. Given that these denial organizations have about as much scientific credibility as a a kindergarten class, then one has to examine why the deny the scientific facts on the ground. And that is, or should be easy. Profit maximization. Clearly to Stu2 this never enters into it. Exactly why he is a waste of time.

  37. #37 BBD
    May 16, 2014

    More ridiculous denial from Stu2:

    I will however repeat they are not called ‘denial industry’, they are called ‘donors trust’ or GWFP or IPA etc. They advocate a different political /socio-economic agenda than what yours appears to be.

    Of course there is a denial industry, your ridiculous partisan denial of its existence notwithstanding.

    Donors Trust is a vehicle to anonymise funding for same. This is covert funding by entities that are deliberately hiding their identities. If you bothered to read the links, you would now understand that funding via known energy industry fronts is declining while covert funding through Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund has increased hugely. The fossil fuel industry is hiding its funding of the denial industry.

    Just because you are too intellectually dishonest to admit this does not mean that this is not what is happening. You deny but I can produce reams of evidence, eg Brulle (2013).

    I asked you to demonstrate why this evidence was invalid and once again, you haven’t done so because you can’t.

    Fact: there is a denial industry comprised of dozens, if not hundreds, of “think tanks” funded – increasingly via anonymising fronts like DT – by the fossil fuel industry.

    This network of fake think tanks produces large quantities of misinformation which is fed into the MSM and parroted by deniers everywhere. This is all well-established fact and you are denying it which is why we know you are an apologist for those plutocratic elites that seek to subvert democracy by misinforming the electorate and distorting political discourse/public policy.

    * * *
    Let’s continue with your lesson in reality and your exposure as a denier and an apologist for the worst kind of scum.

    Dunlap & Jaques (2013):

    Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think Tanks: Exploring the Connection

    The conservative movement and especially its think tanks play a critical role in denying the reality and significance of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), especially by manufacturing uncertainty over climate science. Books denying AGW are a crucial means of attacking climate science and scientists, and we examine the links between conservative think tanks (CTTs) and 108 climate change denial books published through 2010. We find a strong link, albeit noticeably weaker for the growing number of self-published denial books. We also examine the national origins of the books and the academic backgrounds of their authors or editors, finding that with the help of American CTTs climate change denial has spread to several other nations and that an increasing portion of denial books are produced by individuals with no scientific training. It appears that at least 90% of denial books do not undergo peer review, allowing authors or editors to recycle scientifically unfounded claims that are then amplified by the conservative movement, media, and political elites.

    Do you deny these matters of fact?

    Yes or no?

    ***If yes, demonstrate why the evidence is invalid.***

    Whiny denial of matters of fact is not sufficient.

  38. #38 BBD
    May 16, 2014

    More ridiculous denial from Stu2:

    I will however repeat they are not called ‘denial industry’, they are called ‘donors trust’ or GWFP or IPA etc. They advocate a different political /socio-economic agenda than what yours appears to be.

    Of course there is a denial industry, your ridiculous partisan denial of its existence notwithstanding.

    Here are the financial data showing the donations to various front groups (“think tanks”). Note the sources.

    More matters of fact. More evidence.

    Do you accept it or do you deny it?

    If you deny it, then demonstrate why the evidence is invalid.

    * * *

    Donors Trust is a vehicle to anonymise funding for the network of “think tanks” constituting the backbone of the denial industry. DT was created to enable covert funding by entities that are deliberately hiding their identities. If you bothered to read the links, you would now understand that funding via known energy industry fronts is declining while covert funding through Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund has increased hugely. The fossil fuel industry is hiding its funding of the denial industry.

    Just because you are too intellectually dishonest to admit this does not mean that this is not what is happening. You deny but I can produce reams of evidence, eg Brulle (2013).

    I asked you to demonstrate why this evidence was invalid and once again, you haven’t done so because you can’t.

    Fact: there is a denial industry comprised of dozens, if not hundreds, of “think tanks” funded – increasingly via anonymising fronts like DT – by the fossil fuel industry.

    This network of fake think tanks produces large quantities of misinformation which is fed into the MSM and parroted by deniers everywhere. This is all well-established fact and you are denying it which is why we know you are an apologist for those plutocratic elites that seek to subvert democracy by misinforming the electorate and distorting political discourse/public policy.

    * * *

    Let’s continue with your lesson in reality and your exposure as a denier and an apologist for the worst kind of scum.

    Dunlap & Jaques (2013):

    Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think Tanks: Exploring the Connection

    The conservative movement and especially its think tanks play a critical role in denying the reality and significance of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), especially by manufacturing uncertainty over climate science. Books denying AGW are a crucial means of attacking climate science and scientists, and we examine the links between conservative think tanks (CTTs) and 108 climate change denial books published through 2010. We find a strong link, albeit noticeably weaker for the growing number of self-published denial books. We also examine the national origins of the books and the academic backgrounds of their authors or editors, finding that with the help of American CTTs climate change denial has spread to several other nations and that an increasing portion of denial books are produced by individuals with no scientific training. It appears that at least 90% of denial books do not undergo peer review, allowing authors or editors to recycle scientifically unfounded claims that are then amplified by the conservative movement, media, and political elites.

    Do you deny these matters of fact?

    Yes or no?

    ***If yes, demonstrate why the evidence is invalid.***

    Whiny denial of matters of fact is not sufficient.

  39. #39 Lionel A
    May 16, 2014

    Jeff @#36

    Against this background we have a small number of corporate funded shills who argue incessantly…

    I hope you don’t mind my small substitution into:

    Against this background we have a small number of corporate funded shrills who argue incessantly…

  40. #40 FrankD
    May 16, 2014

    I take it we all saw Nutty Lubosh go the full “Final Solution” over at Hotwhopper? If not, it’s here, three comments from the top – although the frootloops are waving the torches and pitchforks over at Sou’s at the moment, so it may move down the list quickly…

    Could have knocked me down with a feather to see the Wudnerkind had so much anger inside. Still, that’s a nice little millstone hes hung round his own neck.

  41. #41 BBD
    May 16, 2014

    Sorry about the near-identical posts above. The first comment disappeared, so I tried again and ended up with two.

    * * *

    Re Lubos The Mild

    It’s rather wonderful when the mask slips. I actually wish they’d forget themselves and go into frills-out sociopath mode more often.

  42. #42 Lionel A
    May 16, 2014

    Yes I saw that FrankD, not surprised at all as I have seen much similar from ‘On with the Motley’ over the years, only Lub’oils signature tune is more like They’re Coming to Take Me Away Hahaaa! as Bernard J so accurately put it.

    I think it a shame that Sou took it down, it should stand as an epitaph. Delingpole & Motley what a double act that would be, fun enough for shrink wrapped video.

  43. #43 Bernard J.
    May 16, 2014

    Lotharsson.

    That comment has been removed. I don’t suppose that you have an archived copy?

  44. #44 Lotharsson
    May 16, 2014

    Sorry Bernard, didn’t think to save a copy.

  45. #45 BBD
    May 16, 2014

    Bernard J

    It’s in the HotWhoppery, currently third one down from the top.

  46. #46 jerryg
    May 16, 2014
  47. #47 bill
    May 16, 2014

    Woah!

    “The journal Environmental Research Letters is respected by the scientific community because it plays a valuable role in the advancement of environmental science – for unabashedly not publishing oversimplified claims about environmental science, and encouraging scientific debate.”

    “With current debate around the dangers of providing a false sense of ‘balance’ on a topic as societally important as climate change, we’re quite astonished that The Times has taken the decision to put such a non-story on its front page.”

    Frankly, I’m not. And do read the referee report.

  48. #48 bill
    May 16, 2014

    Underline fail on the emphatic ‘not’ in the original.

  49. #49 Stu 2
    May 16, 2014

    Jeff Harvey @ # 36,
    What nonsense here!!!!!
    That is a classic straw man you are beating up:

    “If Stu2 thinks that GWPF et al. are honest arbiters merely seeking the truth.”

    That is nowhere near close to what I think of GWPF et al or what I have tried to point out.
    I don’t think any of these organisations, including the ones you seem to support, are as pure as the driven snow.
    There are union organisations, environmental organisations, charity organisations, political organisations, academic organisations and so on and so on that are all guilty of the same behaviour at different times.
    The highly naïve and overly melodramatic black hat/ white hat interpretation that you and BBD and others here are spinning is looking increasingly ridiculous and I am starting to laugh at you.
    This is really a shame because I used to like coming to this blog before it turned into an endless stream of open threads.
    Also, I think if you took your blinkers off, you would discover that the indisputable fact that humans impact the globe and its climate and its environment is not denied by many people at all – mainly because that would be a ridiculous thing to deny.
    The actual debate and disagreements are indeed based on political/ socio-economic agendas, with both ‘sides’ using science and statistics as part of their artillery.

  50. #50 bill
    May 16, 2014

    God you’re boring. I think we already understand how sophistry works sufficiently well; why don’t you just sod off?

  51. #51 chek
    May 17, 2014

    2Stupid, from the text offered, finds the transformation from democracy to oligarchy (via Donor’s Trust et al.) all much of a muchness balanced by (false) equivalences and the hair-trigger self-sensitivities of any old concern troll.

    But they still feel compelled to face off for the whole nine yards. Keyster’s exactly the same. And Griselda and Olap would like to, but are too uninformed and stupid to reach even Cammy here’s level.

  52. #52 Jeff Harvey
    May 17, 2014

    Stu2, Look in the mirror, pal, because that should be enough to get you to break into fits of laughter. Your last post is an abomination. It cannot get much more puerile than the views you express here.

    When it comes to scientific veracity and accuracy, there is one side (which constitutes the vast majority of the scientific community and every major national scientific organization on Earth) which view AGW as fact based on the empirical data and who argue collectively that urgent measures are necessary to mitigate it, and you have a veritable pot pourri of anti-environmental front groups and think tanks heavily funded by industries with a vested interest (in terms of maintaining profits) in denial.

    These are simply facts. You clearly know diddly squat about any of this because you have never read any of the numerous publications which have examined this in detail. Not only have I read up on it for the past 20 years, I also give courses and lectures at universities on it, In other words, Stu2, you and I are discussing this on uneven intellectual playing fields. Until you have read the works of people like Beder, Rowell, Helvarg and many others, methinks you should keep your mouth shut.

    The bottom line is that of course there is a very well funded denial industry that hates science and does everything to influence public opinion and policy on the basis of profit-driven agendas. End of story.

  53. #53 Lionel A
    May 17, 2014

    Also, I think if you took your blinkers off, you would discover that the indisputable fact that humans impact the globe and its climate and its environment is not denied by many people at all – mainly because that would be a ridiculous thing to deny.

    So why is it that the likes of Lindzen and Bengtsson try to persuade that climate sensitivity is low and are backed by others in the GWPF and the extended alphabet soup of climate science crackpot think tanks?

    Why is it that the likes of Richard Tol and other economists try to push the message that climate change is not going to have a big impact on life? All these once again amongst that extended alphabet soup of climate science crackpot think tanks.

    Why is it that the ragtime media of Mail, Times and their US and Oz counterparts persist in trying to skew any message coming from the scientific community or when that fails try to skewer climate scientists.

    That these latter organisations have, using their underlings such as Rose and Delingpole, organised a campaign of hostility, often rabid as we see with Lub’oil, to a level where physical harm coming to those climate scientists, and more disturbingly their families, is more than a possibility.

    Spare us your faux concern, it is as nothing compared to the reality.

    You have to be ideological blind, stupid or dishonest to persist with this line of argument. Tough you don’t like Open Threads, threads where Gish Gallops fail to get traction, maybe that is why.

    ****
    This page, in common with wider Scienceblogs, never stops trying to load something.

  54. #54 Lionel A
    May 17, 2014

    Now 2Stupid will find the article on Matt Ridley’s blatherings over this Bengtsson circus linked here Matt Ridley – Times Makes A Fool Of Him instructive, not least on those who are the real subjects of bullying in this now acrimonious area. Well he would if he engages comprehension skills.

  55. #55 BBD
    May 17, 2014

    More ridiculous denial from Stu2:

    The highly naïve and overly melodramatic black hat/ white hat interpretation that you and BBD and others here are spinning is looking increasingly ridiculous and I am starting to laugh at you.

    Some time earlier I wondered aloud whether Stu2 would sink lower than GSW when it came to blatant evasion of direct questions.

    We have our answer.

    Thank you, Stu2, for confirming beyond any reasonable doubt that you are an apologist for the plutocracy. Thank you for confirming that you will go as far as denying matters of fact in your tacit support of the plutocratic war on democracy.

    You may now leave. Please don’t return in a hurry.

  56. #56 BBD
    May 17, 2014

    Funding of Think Tanks Working on Climate Denial

    1. Donors Capital Fund

    Think tanks with funding from Donors Capital Fund, 2002-2011
    Total: $107,889,251

    Source: IRS 990 tax forms for Donors Capital Fund

    2. Donors Trust

    Think tanks with funding from Donors Trust 2002-2011
    Total: $41,001,117

    Source: IRS 990 tax forms for Donors Trust, Inc.

    3. ExxonMobil

    Think tanks with funding from ExxonMobil, 1998-2012
    Total: $27,424,735

    Source.

    * * *

    Jaques et al. (2008):

    The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism

    Environmental scepticism denies the seriousness of environmental problems, and self-professed ‘sceptics’ claim to be unbiased analysts combating ‘junk science’. This study quantitatively analyses 141 English-language environmentally sceptical books published between 1972 and 2005. We find
    that over 92 per cent of these books, most published in the US since 1992, are linked to conservative think tanks (CTTs). Further, we analyse CTTs involved with environmental issues and find that 90 per cent of them espouse environmental scepticism. We conclude that scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection.

  57. #57 Stu 2
    May 18, 2014

    BBD.
    I am starting to become amused at and fascinated with this Stu 2 you have created who you have progressively claimed is delegitimising you, is firmly on the side of something or other, is an apologist for plutocracy, who denies that entities such as donors trust exist, who is a denier of science and on and on and on and on and on?
    Apparently you have somehow ‘ideated’ this Stu 2 and constructed him from ‘reading between the lines’ and aggressively articulated him as some type of personal enemy of yours and then by some inexplicable progression of logic that, even worse, this Stu 2 is someone who wants to see the globe destroyed in the name of right wing conservatism and BAU?
    All of this seems to be because you have concluded, through your ‘ideation’ of this Stu 2, that if he dares to EVER question your comments (putting aside the fact that you are forever asking and re asking aggressive questions that are overlayed with melodramatic and emotional preconceptions) then it automatically means something very sinister and covert about this Stu 2.
    Unlike you BBD, I recognise that you are passionate about these issues and I respect your right to express your views. I also respect your right to ask questions (although I do think you could learn to ask better questions). Consequently, as previously mentioned, I don’t view you or anyone else who comments here as some sort of dastardly enemy of the world.
    Your insistence that you can psycho analyse me based on political positions I have not advanced that you repeatedly claim are there somewhere between the lines is starting to make me laugh out loud at you.
    But anyway.
    What an interesting source you have provided @ # 56.
    I would point out, of course with some respect, that you have perhaps inadvertently confirmed some of my earlier comments that most of the argument has very little to do with anything other than politics. This does NOT mean that I am constructing some sort of ‘conspiracist ideation’ about environmental politics. I do however recognise that there is such a thing as environmental politics or perhaps to use your terminology an “environmentalist industry’ or maybe even ‘big environment’, which far too regularly has very little to do with the environment or anything even remotely scientific.
    http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=aimsScope&journalCode=fenp20#.U3f0JTZ-_IU
    http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?show=editorialBoard&journalCode=fenp20#.U3f54TZ-_IU
    Also BBD,
    I was completely unaware that it was a requirement for people to ask for your personal permission to either stay or leave at Deltoid.
    Wouldn’t that be the brief for the moderator of this site?

  58. #58 BBD
    May 18, 2014

    More waffle. No answers. No demonstration that the evidence is invalid.

  59. #59 Stu 2
    May 18, 2014

    That’s because I have not claimed the evidence is invalid.
    A number of times I have questioned your personal, almost Orwellian interpretation of the material, including your interpretation of ‘conspiracist ideation’ .

  60. #60 BBD
    May 18, 2014

    A number of times I have questioned your personal, almost Orwellian interpretation of the material, including your interpretation of ‘conspiracist ideation’ .

    But it’s NOT my personal interpretation of the evidence, you clown.

    Can’t you fucking read?

    Read the words:

    Brulle (2013):

    Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations

    This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over $900 million, with an annual average of $64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.

    Do you deny these matters of fact?

    Yes or no?

    If yes, demonstrate why the evidence is invalid.

    *******************************************

    Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.

    Which brings us to Donors Trust:

    Conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120m (£77m) to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change, the Guardian has learned.

    The funds, doled out between 2002 and 2010, helped build a vast network of thinktanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarising “wedge issue” for hardcore conservatives.

    The millions were routed through two trusts, Donors Trust and the Donors Capital Fund, operating out of a generic town house in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington DC. Donors Capital caters to those making donations of $1m or more.

    Do you deny these matters of fact?

    Yes or no?

    If yes, demonstrate why the evidence is invalid.

    ******************************************************

    Dunlap & Jaques (2013):

    Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think Tanks: Exploring the Connection

    The conservative movement and especially its think tanks play a critical role in denying the reality and significance of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), especially by manufacturing uncertainty over climate science. Books denying AGW are a crucial means of attacking climate science and scientists, and we examine the links between conservative think tanks (CTTs) and 108 climate change denial books published through 2010. We find a strong link, albeit noticeably weaker for the growing number of self-published denial books. We also examine the national origins of the books and the academic backgrounds of their authors or editors, finding that with the help of American CTTs climate change denial has spread to several other nations and that an increasing portion of denial books are produced by individuals with no scientific training. It appears that at least 90% of denial books do not undergo peer review, allowing authors or editors to recycle scientifically unfounded claims that are then amplified by the conservative movement, media, and political elites.

    Do you deny these matters of fact?

    Yes or no?

    If yes, demonstrate why the evidence is invalid.

    *******************************************

    Jaques et al. (2008):

    The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism

    Environmental scepticism denies the seriousness of environmental problems, and self-professed ‘sceptics’ claim to be unbiased analysts combating ‘junk science’. This study quantitatively analyses 141 English-language environmentally sceptical books published between 1972 and 2005. We find
    that over 92 per cent of these books, most published in the US since 1992, are linked to conservative think tanks (CTTs). Further, we analyse CTTs involved with environmental issues and find that 90 per cent of them espouse environmental scepticism. We conclude that scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection.

    Do you deny these matters of fact?

    Yes or no?

    If yes, demonstrate why the evidence is invalid.

    * * * * * * * * *

    Answer me.

  61. #61 BBD
    May 18, 2014

    The problem we have here, Stupid, is that you *are* denying matters of fact while pretending not to. It is the epitome of intellectual dishonesty.

    Compounding this behaviour, you have repeatedly – and falsely – claimed that *my* take on the evidence is “Orwellian”, but most of it has been presented without comment and speaks eloquently for itself.

    Your denial of matters of fact and your dishonest refusal to answer direct questions and your dishonest attempts to claim that this is some personal interpretation of the evidence coming from me and not what the evidence clearly shows all make you an apologist for the ongoing subversion of democracy by vested interests.

    As always with you, it’s hard to know if stupidity or rank dishonesty prevents you from acknowledging what is obvious to the rest of us here.

    – You wave away the clear evidence that

  62. #62 Stu 2
    May 18, 2014

    BBD.
    ‘You are denying matters of fact while pretending not to’
    Plus the accusation of ‘dishonest’ and/or ‘false claims’ no less than 7 times.
    Re read my comment @ # 57.
    You are ranting and posturing at your ‘ideation’ of Stu 2. You have constructed this Stu 2 from spurious assumptions that you believe you have gleaned from between the lines.
    The real Stu 2 has answered the actual direct question minus your ‘ideation’ and your black hat/white hat political assumptions.
    The real Stu 2 has become highly amused. I am neither your enemy nor the enemy of the environment.
    You need to learn to ask better questions if you have any intention of engaging in a mature discussion. If you are only interested in behaving like a school yard bully , please continue , as you are doing a magnificent job on that score.
    Have you ever heard of the term ‘prisoner syndrome’?

  63. #63 BBD
    May 18, 2014

    The real Stu 2 has answered the actual direct question minus your ‘ideation’ and your black hat/white hat political assumptions.

    No he hasn’t.

    1/ Why do you never comment to criticise the other vermin here like GSW who denies the fact that plutocratic elites have created and covertly funded a denial industry? Never. Not once. Ever.

    2/ Do you deny that it is a matter of fact that corporate vested interests created and now covertly fund a denial industry?

    Yes or no?

  64. #64 chek
    May 19, 2014

    if you have any intention of engaging in a mature discussion

    Good moment to take time out to ask if anyone can recall, ever, the last time Cammy engaged in “a mature discussion”.

  65. #65 Stu 2
    May 19, 2014

    BBD.
    I have answered those questions.
    1. I don’t believe you or GSW or anyone else here are vermin or some type of enemy of the globe. I have never been asked a direct question by GSW, but I certainly have by you .
    2. No I don’t deny that those organisations exist and/or that they are funded by donations. As far as I am aware they are not illegal . They exercise their right to represent and advocate as do countless other representative organisations across a wide spectrum.

  66. #66 Lionel A
    May 19, 2014

    David Rose and the Daily Fail strike again, this time over the Bengtsson brouhaha. Don’t eat or drink before or during reading this article as it is vomit inducing vomit:

    Revealed: How green zealots gagged professor who dared to question global warming.

    This should have you retching in your bucket:

    For several years, this newspaper has been at the forefront of efforts to publicise the highly inconvenient truth that real world temperatures have not risen nearly as fast as computer models say they should have, thanks to the unexpected ‘pause’ in global warming which has so far lasted some 17 years.

    One fix for the above (maybe others can offer more elegant versions) here:

    For several years, this newspaper has been at the forefront of efforts to undermine the public understanding of climate science by trying to make a case out of the false premise of the highly inconvenient truth that real world temperatures have not risen nearly as fast as computer models say they should have, thanks to the unexpected ‘pause’ in global warming which has so far lasted some 17 years‘.

  67. #67 cRR Kampen
    May 19, 2014

    It’s just another laugh.
    What’s after Bosnia/Serbia, tomorrow or so?

  68. #68 FrankD
    May 19, 2014

    Stu2: I have answered those questions.

    As ever, Stu2 prefers to answer the questions he wishes he’d been asked, rather than the questions he was actually asked.

    Fucken tedious.

  69. #69 BBD
    May 19, 2014

    Frank

    I’m about done with the mendacious little shit. As usual, although it’s easy enough to expose the intellectual dishonesty, it is impossible to penetrate it and get the Liar to engage in good faith dialogue. You just end up going round in circles while the Liar hides behind the most childishly obvious evasions imaginable.

    And then whines when described – accurately – as vermin.

  70. #70 Jeff Harvey
    May 19, 2014

    The problem with Stu2 is that he is arguing from a position of complete and utter ignorance – whilst proclaiming to be enlightened. This is hardly new for anti-environmentalists and climate change deniers – what is so loathesome about then are their feeble attempts to convince otherws that their views are independently reached and that the current debate on AGW somehow pits two sides against each other who are either (1) equally equipped with empirical arguments, or else (2) are equally in search of the truth. But of course, both points are absolute bulllshit: the empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports AGW and one side is made up of essentially honest but cautious scientists whereas the other is dominated by confident liars.

    That Stu2 does not see this says everything we need to know about him. BBD sums it up well @69.

  71. #71 Stu 2
    May 20, 2014

    Yes BBD it is circular or, as previously mentioned, a somewhat ‘groundhog day’ experience.
    I find it amusing that your MO is continuing to ask the same question but expecting to have a different answer.
    You clearly don’t like the answer.
    That is not my problem despite your ‘ideated’ assumptions and accusations.
    As I have suggested a number of times, you could consider asking a different question or maybe ask the same question in a different way.

  72. #72 Stu 2
    May 20, 2014

    Jeff Harvey,
    I am neither anti the environment nor in any way do I deny that the climate changes.
    You must be arguing with that Stu2 that BBD has ‘ideated’ from something he claime resides between the lines.

  73. #73 Lotharsson
    May 20, 2014

    …nor in any way do I deny that the climate changes.

    This is the kind of mendacious evasion of the obvious intent of the writer that makes people think you’re not here to engage in honest dialogue – or that you have a very serious problem with English comprehension, which seems to be a much less likely hypothesis, since this kind of misuse of pedantry has been called out a bunch of times before here.

  74. #74 Stu 2
    May 20, 2014

    Mendacious evasion of the obvious intent?
    That is rather cryptic Lotharsson @ # 73.
    Seems like you are also arguing with that ‘ideated’ & between the lines Stu 2.

  75. #75 Lotharsson
    May 20, 2014

    Stu 2, it is plainly evident to everyone else from the context that “climate change deniers” here does not mean “those who deny that climate changes”.

    As I said, either you have a serious problem with English comprehension, or …

  76. #76 bill
    May 20, 2014

    …it’s just yet more mendacious evasion from a tedious fool.

  77. #77 BBD
    May 20, 2014

    As I have suggested a number of times, you could consider asking a different question or maybe ask the same question in a different way.

    No. You refused to answer the questions put to you because you are dishonest scum.

    And that’s the end of that. You had repeated chances to redeem yourself and repeatedly refused to take them.

  78. #78 Jeff Harvey
    May 20, 2014

    Stu2, I can see that you are playing the childish game that climate change is a natural phenomenon, hence you are not a climate chqange denier. Grow up you clown. You know exactly what I mean. ANTHROPOGENIC driven CC. You know damned well that I am referring to this – change occurring well outside of natural forcings based on the infintisimally small time scales at which significant changes are occurring.

    In this regard you very well are a climate change denier, given some of the garbage you are discussing here. The thrust of the argument is that CC denial is not based on science but on he perceived threat to profit maximization, hence the creation of a veritable industry of denial that finds itself through industry funded think tanks and front groups. None of these are remotely interested in the truth but in obscuring it – doing everything they can to downplay the problem in order to maintain the status quo.

    Your behaviour on here is a joke. You clearly are ill-informed and have pre-determined views on the subject that are devoid of scientifc reality but clearly reflect some ill-guided sympathy for those intent on taking our planetary life support systems into the abyss.

  79. #79 Lionel A
    May 20, 2014

    It s clear that the numpty brigade like to engage in sophistry whilst playing the pedantic ass against others.

    Having shed light on them, let them crawl away back under their rocks whilst we can get on with making sure that important matters are well broadcast.

    To whit, two (whoo) important aspects of the vanishing cryosphere have been the subject of more advanced research findings now brought to the fore at Climate Crocks.

    One is More Bad News on Ice Melt: This Time Greenland

    the other

    Eric Rignot on “the Holy Shit Moment”, which has been the subject of much counter propaganda from the usual suspects. But they should take note of the article at the BBC, ‘Esa’s Cryosat mission sees Antarctic ice losses double‘ where we see this in a caption:

    Antarctica is now losing about 160 billion tonnes of ice a year to the ocean – twice as much as when the continent was last surveyed.

    So, Antarctic sea ice has been increasing, although variable and patchy at that so that is not the take home point is it, this to all those who have argued it.

    To fully understand the complex issues one needs to factor in the topography and geomorphology of both the Antarctic and Greenland. There is a tool available for anyone to create their own surface transects see GeoMapApp (Java required) which can also be used to study the incidence of seismic events and much more.

  80. #80 Lionel A
    May 20, 2014

    The ignorantasaur offered:

    Mendacious evasion of the obvious intent?
    That is rather cryptic Lotharsson @ # 73.

    Not the slightest attempt at differentiating participants.

    Little wonder you fail to appreciate the true nature of ‘conspiracy ideation’, clearly a concept too subtle for your addled brain. Now that is not an Ad Hominem but a statement of fact, another concept of which your grasp is demonstrably weak.

    Obvious lack of understanding of the meaning of ‘cryptic’.

  81. #81 BBD
    May 20, 2014

    Excellent synopsis of the GWPF and the Bengtsson affaire here.

    Notable quotes:

    “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”

    – Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda, 1928.

    And from the text itself:

    The dent in Bengtsson’s reputation is history now. The real damage, however, is the way this story has provided a handy smoke-screen, covering up several crucial issues that were worthy of far more discussion than this sorry mess. While Bengtsson’s resignation and a follow-up story about his work being ‘suppressed’ (that even Bengtsson was quick to refute) dominated even the front page of the UK’s Times newspaper, two unfolding stories of enormous import were drowned out, if you’ll forgive the pun.

    The first was the discovery that glacier decline in the West Antarctic ice sheet had passed a tipping point, from which there can be no recovery. The loss of this ice, accelerated by global warming, and the concomitant sea-level rise, can no longer be prevented. The second item of alarming news came from the opposite end of the Earth, when Phys.Org reported that “Greenland will be far greater contributor to sea rise than expected”.

    This is the news that the GWPF doesn’t want you to read. This is the dire prognosis that reveals the GWPF’s agenda as a sham, a shabby trick designed to cater to the gullible and credulous, to conflate ideology with science as if by repeating ‘there is no real problem’ enough times, the ice will stop melting. True to Bernays’ “conscious and intelligent manipulation of the … opinions of the masses”, Lawson’s GWPF seeks to be a key player in that “invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country”.

    It isn’t just free speech that is being abused here. It is democracy itself: Lawson exerts a perfidious influence far beyond that of any member of the public, not through merit, but through connections to an old boy’s network of the equally privileged. Lawson and the GWPF are entitled to say what they like, but when they are afforded biased media coverage and exposure that favours and gives credibility to their agenda irrespective of its merit, they fail to distinguish between free speech and cheap speech. When that happens, it isn’t only scientists like Bengtsson that will get burned.

    This is what is going on. This is what Stu2, GSW etc will sink to any depth of dishonesty rather than admit.

    They can deny it from the rooftops, but there can be no doubt whatsoever: they are apologists for the vested interests actively engaged in the subversion of democracy.

  82. #82 BBD
    May 20, 2014

    Oh, and be sure to note, this isn’t my personal “Orwellian interpretation” of the evidence.

    Once again, I am quoting someone else. Just as the author quoted Edward L. Bernays from back in 1928.

  83. #83 Lionel A
    May 20, 2014

    Amongst others I have been plugging Bow Ward’s challenge of the GWPF (global Warming Policy Foundation) but also appreciated the probable back story to the Bengtsson affair.

    Now it looks like others have noted how the GWPF, now under a new guise as the Global Warming Policy Forum (a sneaky [1] ) have drowned out the disturbing confirmation of our worst fears about the fate of planetary ice, hence my post at #79.

    H/T to Lars Karlsson on Eli’s ‘The Third Referee Waits In The Wings‘ post for this excellent article:

    GWPF and Bengtsson: Burning Ivory Towers provide convenient smoke screen for the melting ice

    I advise the numpty brigade to note carefully the connections, modus operandi and raison d’etre of the GWPF (whatever airs and graces they may give themselves) and don’t bother looking for honesty from that direction.

    [1] I will leave it as an exercise for the reader as to the ethics of this devious modification of title so as to preserve the initials rather than adopting a more accurate title such as Society for Climatological Undermining Media.

  84. #84 Lionel A
    May 20, 2014

    Were we connecting telepathically BBD? I was stunned when I saw my post was re-empted by yours. Great minds and all that. I should be so lucky.

  85. #85 Lionel A
    May 20, 2014

    And now just what WE do not need:

    This transatlantic trade deal is a full-frontal assault on democracy.

    Just how is this going to be compatible with de-carboning the way we do things?

    38Degrees has this in their sights.

  86. #86 GSW
    May 20, 2014

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.(?)

  87. #87 Stu 2
    May 20, 2014

    Jeff Harvey @ # 78.
    In that case you are misrepresenting yourself.
    The argument is indeed about the politics and formation of policy and not about the indisputable fact that human activity impacts the environment.
    Way back somewhere I asked you direct questions about solutions to the well known issues.
    One was related to increasing population (and thus increasing consumption).
    The other was related to land use (and thus increasing land degradation)
    I don’t disagree that corporate and government focus on profit maximation is a contributing factor but, considering the touted solution is to create a global ETS via an apparent academic belief in the existence of a benevolent global bureaucratic dictatorship is based largely on the same focus, I don’t believe the real human created environmental issues are being solved by that approach.
    While everyone is scrapping over that, nothing pro active is being achieved.

  88. #88 bill
    May 20, 2014

    There are not many people I’d describe as contemptible, 2Pid, but you’ve earned your place as one of them.

  89. #89 Stu 2
    May 21, 2014

    Bill.
    Your opinion of me is entirely irrelevant and so is any opinion I would have of you.
    Perhaps you could consider following your own earlier advice and engage with some substance that is relevant to the issue of human impact on environment

  90. #90 bill
    May 21, 2014

    Oh, sod off, you faux-sanctimonious turkey!

  91. #91 Stu 2
    May 21, 2014

    Bill.
    See if this helps.
    In your opinion, is the implementation of a global ETS likely to reduce unsustainable population growth or reduce unsustainable agricultural practices?

  92. #92 BBD
    May 21, 2014

    Stu2

    You have just been exposed as profoundly intellectually dishonest in the matter of your tacit support for the subversion of democracy by vested interests. You have no credibility and no friends here. You are making no headway with your stunted and clumsy arguments, hobbled as they are by your support for corporate vested interest.

    Why not take bill’s advice and go? You are wasting your time here.

  93. #93 Lotharsson
    May 21, 2014

    It’s rather odd – almost Lomborgian – to ask whether an ETS will reduce unsustainable population growth, since I am unaware of anyone who has touted it for that purpose.

    There are reasonably well known strategies for reducing population growth, and to the extent that population growth is causing problems one should look to those.

    But one would be quite the fool if one were to argue that we don’t need to do anything about human induced climate disruption because … population growth. That would be almost as smart as saying that we don’t have to do anything about our case of pneumonia because we don’t have enough food for winter.

    Similar logic applies to the mention of unsustainable agricultural practices.

  94. #94 BBD
    May 21, 2014

    We could argue that limits to agricultural productivity are a major part of what defines a “sustainable” maximum global population. Since agricultural productivity will be negatively impacted by rapid warming and alterations in rainfall patterns, then limiting emissions may be seen as one method for increasing a “sustainable” maximum global population.

  95. #95 bill
    May 21, 2014

    More dreary bad-faith strawman rambling from 2Pid, the absolute Pyne. Sod off.

  96. #96 FrankD
    May 21, 2014

    As he did in February, Stu seems to labour under the delusion that his obvious false dichotomy is a clever argument. Trust me Stu, it just makes you look like a cock.

    If you want to argue the merits of the ETS, try doing that on the basis of its efficacy in addressing the problem it is supposed to.

    Stu2nd-grade sophistry: Anti-smoking campaigns don’t help solve child abuse, so they’re obviously a waste of money.

    When asked a question he doesn’t want to answer, he answers a different one. This “ETS wont solve overpopulation” is just more of the tedious evasive bullshit he’s been spouting for six months.

  97. #97 Lionel A
    May 21, 2014

    Michael Mann has provided his perspective to the Bengtsson-GWPF affair:

    Climate Contrarians Cook Up New ‘Controversy’

    from which I quote the last para’ which has a direct message for 2Stupid and his ilk:

    All that said, I wish the best for Bengtsson, and hope he never has to experience real McCarthyism. But in any event he is a pawn in this affair. The real story here is how desperate the professional climate change denial machine is to fan this dubious matter into yet another faux scandal, even as the observations of climate change come more sharply into focus, from drought to wildfires to flash floods to ice sheet collapse. History will not look back kindly on those who sought to sow false doubt about the growing threat of climate change at the expense of all humanity.

  98. #98 Stu 2
    May 21, 2014

    Very interesting.
    OK.
    Let’s try these.
    1. In your opinion, what is the major driver/s of increased human GHGs in the atmosphere?
    2. Is the implementation of a global ETS administered by a global bureacracy an effective policy tool to address the increase of human GHG s.

  99. #99 chek
    May 22, 2014

    Is that @ #98 supposed to be some kind of random Turing test??
    I’m completely failing to grasp how Cammy’s program is (trying hard to be) working.

  100. #100 bill
    May 22, 2014

    DNFTT. Why let this patent clown set the agenda?

Current ye@r *