March 2017 Open Thread

More thread.


  1. #1 Betula
    March 3, 2017

    One just needs to scroll through the comments to see that this article best describes Bernard and Hardley…

  2. #2 SteveP
    March 3, 2017

    Stalin had Trofim Lysenko. Trump has a whole stable of wrong-way scientists to chose from. Lindzen? Judith Curry? Roy Spencer? John Cristy? Fred Singer? Decisions, decisions. Not and easy “D”. But it is easy to make choices based on how much the outcome of that choice will cause pain to a political opponent, a concerned segment of the populace, or an opposing party. Trump seems to have predicated his predatory philosophy on going for soft underbellies. He seems to enjoy inflicting pain. And he has professed admiration for Vlad Putin. Interesting….

  3. #3 Lionel A
    March 3, 2017

    And with that at #1 you have just proven that you suffer from ‘confirmation bias’.

    Message for 2Stu.

    Why are you asking such supremely stupid, unproductive, questions?

    Why are you avoiding what is becoming more and more obvious, ghg emission linked catastrophes are mounting ? Simply scroll through to grab the headings for it is clear that any finer reading understanding is beyond you.

  4. #4 Betula
    March 3, 2017

    Keep those planes flying Lionel…

  5. #5 Stu 2
    March 3, 2017

    Why are you ignoring what is becoming more and more obvious that your favoured political and socio-economic solutions is not working?
    Bernard J’s vitriol, Jeff Harvey’s hubris & your attempts at elitism are all classic examples of this failing meme.
    Despite your assertions otherwise, people do care about the planet.
    They just don’t care for your attitude.
    I think writing sneering comments about your summation of other people’s intelligence or lack thereof is actually not intelligent.

  6. #6 Stu 2
    March 3, 2017

    And Lionel,
    The chief cause of famine in places like Africa and Somalia is poor governance.
    Trying to change the global weather and/or climate via global GHG reductions will not help those people.
    They are only interested in trying to survive.
    They have no time to care about the GBR.

  7. #7 kim
    March 4, 2017

    Shorter Hardley, in order to show how weak your fanatic stance on the extremely doubtful truth about abnormal global warming due to human activities really is, I give you a very simple question and your honest answer to it will show what I want do demonstrate:

    Question to Shorter Hardley: In case I pay you confidentially one million US $ on the condition that you consent to give up your fanatic acceptance of the AGW speculation and demonstrate your changed attitude by signing the Lindzen letter to the new US President that AGW is a fake ?

    Hardley, try an honest answer and also try to abstain for once from your usual sensefree blather without any relevance to anything except for your isatiable craving for personal recognition.

  8. #8 kim
    March 4, 2017

    Hardley, one other thing which has to be corrected and which emerges from your insane tendencies of craving for undeserved recognition: your comparison of scientific reputation of Dr. Judith Curry and your’s (“… bla bla … my impact factor… bla bla … my number of pubs .. bla bla …”) is utter bullshit, as Dr. Curry works and has worked in the field of atmospheric sciences, whereas you waste your spoiled lifetime and undeserved taxpayers money with totally irrelevant studies on wasps, fles and other boring and primitive subjects.


    1) In atmospheric sciences you are a TOTAL ZERO, completely irrelevant and unknown.

    2) From 1) follows that your, Hardley, assertions that AGW is something real is totally unfounded on own judgement arising from own knowledge and experience in the field of atmospheric sciences, but is therefore only and just a layman’s belief, Hardley’s belief, of what others have told him, Hardley, and what he, Hardley, emotionally likes.

    3) From 1) and 2) follows that any expressions of Hardley an AGW are completely irrelevant regarding the validity of the assertion that dangerous human-induced global warming is true or not.

    Therefore Hardley is an irrelevant moron regarding AGW: QED

  9. #9 Craig Thomas
    March 6, 2017

    But Curry has been proven wrong. She’s even retiring out of embarrassment.
    So clearly, regardless of whether he has relevant expertise, Harvey is a more reliable analyst of climate-related expert opinion.

  10. #10 Craig Thomas
    March 6, 2017

    ….and meanwhile, Arctic sea ice continues to vanish:

  11. #11 kim
    March 6, 2017

    Craig, what an incredible relevation from you on behalf of your religious climate group:

    “regardless of whether he has relevant expertise, Harvey is a more reliable analyst of climate-related expert opinion”

    regardless of Hardley’s expertise he is an expert without expertise: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you fool.

    Do dissect fully you incredibly silly idiocies: You allude in your “argument” to some “expert opinion” which stands above all in your view – this is the official green-soci IPCC Al Gore et al. “expert opinion”. When an “REAL” expert in the feld of atmospheric sciences like Dr. Curry does not agree the YOU paganly-adored “EXPERT HAHAHAH OPINION” than it cannot be, by your insane definition, any longer an “expert opinion”: YOU CANNOT GRASP HOW BIG AN IDIOT YOU REALLY ARE – nearly just as big an idiot as Hardley, LINNEL, Berntrar, INAMO or other Doltoid arselicks

    Yep, clear, in analogy: because Hardley believes the right thing, according to you and your climate religion he plays also better the piano as as worldwird acclaimed concert pianist who denies climate change.

    How deep of asshole idiots are you climate hysterics finally: just incredibe how dumb and silly you climate morons really are

  12. #12 SteveP
    March 6, 2017

    So the total global sea ice extent is currently the lowest that it has ever been during the period of the satellite record, for this day of the year. Sea ice data would be hard to fake. It is there for all the technologically oriented people of the world to see, literally. I suppose that the climate change denialists will say that this data has been faked, but frankly, wouldn’t that be akin to suggesting that the Earth is flat, that there are no satellites, and that the moon landing was faked? As a technologically oriented person, I see this data and want to know why this is happening, why there is this steady decline in polar sea ice. It is interesting. I am curious. According to the scientists who study changes in solar energy output, it is not related to that. According to scientists who study ice ages and their correlation with Milankovitch cycles in the Earth’s orbit, it is not related to that. According to a long unbroken line reasoning by great physicists and chemists going back to Joseph Fourier, it definitely appears to be related to the heat retaining characteristics of our atmosphere. And we of the species homo sapiens have been adding the heat retaining gas carbon dioxide to the atmosphere at a rate of around 38.2 billion tons per year last year, without doing anything to see that a corresponding amount of this gas is extracted from the atmosphere. That is essentially like adding 2.4 million pounds of waste to the atmosphere every second of the day with no attempt to clean up that waste. As a result, this gas is building up in the atmosphere. And the atmosphere closest to the surface of the Earth, where we live, is getting warmer. People of the certain political persuasions seem to want others to ignore these scientific observations, for reasons about which I can only speculate. That in itself is a curious scientific phenomenon. But human behavior and motivation is a complicated subject, far more complicated in many ways than the simple observation that carbon dioxide prevents heat from escaping to space as infrared photons and results in warming at the planet’s surface.

    So how will this all play out? I don’t know. The sea level will undoubtedly continue to rise, the climate will undoubtedly continue to change, and humans will, hopefully, be able to adapt. If they can’t, they will die out. One thing we need to do is see past the propagandists and their allies, keep our rationality about science, and continue to show compassion for our fellow humans. If we don’t, then we will be devolving into reptilian behavior patterns, and the results, I suspect, will not be fortunate. Peace.

  13. #13 Jeff Harvey
    March 6, 2017

    Craig, don’t engage with these idiots. The Arctic and Antarctic death spirals continue, and yet you are trying to discuss science with a psychotic (Kim) who thinks that one scientist (Judith Curry) has more knowledge about climate change than tens of thopusands of scientists who disagree with her,,,, I hate to hear his smears of Hansen, Trenberth, Schmidt, Ramsdorf, Mann, Santer, Mahalmann et al. whose combined publication records in climate science put Curry’s to shame.

    Furthermore, it appears that Curry has trouble telling a mole cricket from a giraffe, which isn’t hard given that she has no formal background in zoology or ecology. I do, and along with many hundreds of other scientists we are seeing all kinds of biological effects of warming… across multiple ecosystems.

    As for Stu2 accusing his critics of vitriol, elitism and hubris, well that just about takes the cake. Come on Stu, look who is on ‘your team”… a washed up tree pruner with no skills in anything and a psychotic God-knows what. I don’t see you calling them out, so it clearly shows that scum that you line up behind.

    But its time I write to Tim – he is a friend on Fb – and I suggest that he formally boots at least Kim our of here. He’s gone well over the line and its time he was tossed out for good. Betula is good for comic relief, given he has about as much scientific acumen as a piece of dried bark. But Kim is just a vile piece of shit. And I will get him/her/it out of here.

  14. #14 Stu 2
    March 6, 2017

    That’s one of my major criticisms of current politics Jeff.
    We’re all being exposed to the ridiculous idea that we’re a bunch of sporting fans barracking for a sporting team and we can only be either for it or against it.
    It’s unproductive tosh!!!!
    Thanks for pointing that out Jeff.
    I’m definitely not a fan (or member) of this team:
    If you are a somewhat intelligent and rational person, you will eventually come to the realization that humanity is fucked up and they all deserve to be wiped from the face of the Earth for their stupidity.
    This is called Misanthropy. I will be waiting for you when you join.

  15. #15 kim
    March 7, 2017

    Hardley, your reading comprehension is ZERO. You are unable to match even one criticism of your weak stance: how can you study warming when temperature on the average goes up within the error of noise and a temperature measuring method with permanently changing target (I know that you know zero about this, Craig also, that’s the reason why you flatter Craig). Your Dunning Kruger attitude in climatology is based on profound lack of knowledge and understanding on the processes in the atmosphere. Why do you have such enormous problems to admit that you are just a layman in climatology. It is your duty to behave honestly and you are given a salary for being honest.

  16. #17 Jeff Harvey
    March 7, 2017

    Come on Stu, admit it… you say nothing about the frankly insane rants of Kim, who is clearly on unattended leave from a mental facility, yet you continually vent your vacuous rants at me, Lionel, Bernard and others. You have emerged from the ‘luke warmer’ camp, those who somehow think that we can ‘adaptively manage’ a process that is a full frontal assault on ecosystems across the biosphere. Adaptive management requires technology to replicate conditions lost by the combined human assault, technology that we just do nit possess and probably never will. Humans have known about the collision course we are on with natural systems for well over 30 years and since then we have done bugger all to deal with it; indeed, judging by the rampant neoliberal order running amok across the globe and the embracing of right wing populists as a backlash against the liberal elites (who have pushed this rancid political system) one might even say that we are going in reverse. In the post below one needs only to look at the state of the Arctic/Antarctic ice extent (the cryosphere) to realize that the situation is veering into critical territory.

    Now to our new psychotic, Kim, who for some reason thinks that the lonely figure of Judith Curry has reinvented the field of climate science. Note that he/she/it did not answer my point as to why 97% of the climate science commubnity agree that humans are the main driver behind climate change, including a number of climate scientists whose publication records put Curry’s into the shade. Instead, Kim comes back with a complete comprehension fail with respect to the term ‘ Dunning-Kruger’, revealing how utterly stupid (as well as deranged) he/she/it is.

    Kim habitually ridicules the concept of ecosystem services – by now a core subject in economic and ecological courses in universities around the world. So what expertise does he/she/it possess in the field? Well, you guessed it – NONE! So that places he/she/it at the base of the x axes (near the junction of the x and y axes on the D-K graph, in the know-nothing area) whereas on the y-axis he would be placed very high, reflecting high confidence. Pure D-K effect; a textbook example. And in keeping with that, he/she/it is so utterly stupid that he/she/it doesn’t know that he/she/it is stupid, also explained in D-K presentations. Once again, a textbook case of the D-K effect. Also, I would like to see proof of Kim’s ‘infinitely superior intelligence’ in the form of bonafide qualifications e.g. a PhD degree, or some other example of his relevant education. Kim has none, so he/she/it is left to tell the world how utterly brilliant he/she/it is without the letters after his/her/its name to prove it.

    So Kim, put up or shut up. What is it that you do professionally sweetheart? Afraid to let the cat out of the bag? Of course you are, because for all we know you sit in your padded cell spewing out this nonsense.

  17. #18 Jeff Harvey
    March 7, 2017

    Stu, I won’t even bother to read your link from a denier blog. Its not an interesting perspective, its total bullshit. Trust you to be getting your world views from blogs that are not science-based. When are you going to start pasting links up here revealing the death threats levied against scientists raising the alarm? Let’s start here:

    Then lets go to the cryosphere:

    Class dismissed.

  18. #19 Li D
    March 7, 2017

    From last page Jan thread.
    Kim opines…
    “People like Betula or Stu 2, of course Olaus, not to speak of myself, are infnitely superior in any significant and important aspect of modern life, because we represent the strong future-oriented direction of mankind … ”
    You can shove your superiorness up your arse you muppet.
    Honestly, where i live, only complete cockheads talk like that.

  19. #20 SteveP
    March 7, 2017

    Global sea ice extent is the lowest ever recorded for this day of the year. Interesting. I’m sure it’s just a natural variation. Meanwhile, the supreme meany is getting his information for guiding the country from Breitbart and Alex Jones.Isn’t it great that he is in synch with the greatest conservative thinkers of our era? Well, I have to go make a sacrifice to the fire God, Fafofu. Bye!

  20. #21 Jeff Harvey
    March 7, 2017

    You are, of course, right Li. Kim is beyond an idiot. He’s a raving lunatic. He doesn’t udnerstand that the Dunning-Kruger effect is actually written to describe uneducated minions like himself – he’s effectively too stupid to know he’s too stupid. He berates the term ‘ecosystem services’ while it’s clear he’s never studied them. He defends Judith Curry as if she is the only climate scientist on Earth – strange considering >95% of climate scientists don’t agree with her at all. And then he tries to play the qualifications gambit, against me of all people, with 182 papers, ~5300 citations with an h-factor of 41. Kim’s tallies are 0, 0 and 0.

    But let’s compare the CVs of Curry and several other leading climate scientists who are not AGW deniers:

    Judith Curry, 210 papers, h-factor 42;
    Kevin Trenberth, 240 papers, h-factor 78;
    Michael Mann 180 papers, h-factor 51;
    Ben Santer, 147 papers, h-factor 51;
    Gavin Schmidt, 107 papers h-factor 48;

    Recall that Curry published her first paper in 1980, and that Mann, Schmidt and others not until the 1990s… I published my first paper in 1993, and already i have an h-factor of 41 for my work. On a per capita basis we are miles ahead of her.

    The thrust of Dunning-Kruger is that those who are trained in certain fields know what their intellectual and cognitive limitations are in those fields. I have never said that I know more about climate science than Judith Curry, BUT and its a big BUT, I defer to the opinions of the vast majority of climate scientists whose views on climate change are very different from hers. Indeed, she is an outlier, a lonely denier whose views lie well outside the mainstream view. So how is Kim, with his ZERO qualifications in anything related to science, able to say that Curry’s views on climate change are correct and the >95% of climate scientists who disagree with her are wrong? Where did he miraculously obtain this wisdom? The same is true when he ritually belittles the field of ecolgical services. Kim has ZERO qualifications in that field, either, but that doesn’t stop him writing as if he is an expert.

    Once again, Kim is so utterly stupid that he doesn’t know it.

  21. #22 Jeff Harvey
    March 7, 2017

    One last demolition of Stu2 and I am off:

    He cites an appalling, childish article on a climate change denial blog. Here is the stated aim of CCD:

    “Climate Change Dispatch (CCD) is a science and environmental news site showing its visitors the facts behind the theory of global warming, which are not being told by the mainstream media and the global-warming zealots”.

    Facts? Whose facts? And global warming zealots? And Stus2 expects me to take this seriously?

    Good grief, Stu2, you are even more stupid than I thought. You try and debate citing infantile climate change denial blogs. Wow’s nickname for you fits.

  22. #23 Jeff Harvey
    March 7, 2017

    Sorry, I just read this howler from Stu2… I thought he couldn’t get any worse but then he does:

    “The chief cause of famine in places like Africa and Somalia is poor governance”

    Yes, for sure. And who supports these vile regimes? Who often helped them into power and maintains them? Come on Stu2, I am all eyes and ears.

    Perhaps you ened a primer:

    I can’t wait for Stu’s insidious denial gear to kick in here…

  23. #24 Stu 2
    March 7, 2017

    Trying to change the global climate/weather via GHG reductions will do nothing to address the issues you raise @#20.
    Which was my point @#5
    The piece I linked was not written by climate dispatch.
    It was written by Dr Danusha V Goska and it was her perspective.
    From my perspective neither you or Kim appear interested in discussing a sensible way forward.
    Which part of my comment about ‘team sports’ are you failing to understand?
    I guess perhaps none of it as you are continuing to accuse me of barracking for a ‘team’.
    I’m not even slightly interested in doing that.
    I’m interested in discussing the actual solutions.
    You have therefore just wasted your time and energy.

  24. #25 Stu 2
    March 7, 2017
    And seriously?
    Jeff & Kim’s references to Dunning Kruger are both exhibiting classic symptoms of the Dunning Kruger effect.
    It’s amusing to read but that’s all.

  25. #26 Craig Thomas
    March 8, 2017

    kim, on March 6, 2017

    Quotes Craig:

    ““regardless of whether he has relevant expertise, Harvey is a more reliable analyst of climate-related expert opinion””

    And paraphrases this as:

    “regardless of Hardley’s expertise he is an expert without expertise: ”

    This reveals the basic problem shared by many deniers – they are irrational, lack the ability to parse sentences accurately, and constantly demonstrate that they fail to understand what they read.

    I didn’t say Harvey was an “expert”, I said he was a reliable analyst of expert opinions.

    An unreliable analyst would be, for example, somebody who,
    – places undue weight on the opinions of non-experts, eg, Watts, Tol, Lomborg, McIntyre, McKitrick
    – places undue weight on what they read on crank blogs
    – places insufficient weight on primary sources, for example, published research
    – places undue weight on media articles written by the likes of David Rose or the laughable James Delingpole
    – awards undue credibility to unqualified individuals with a history of CV padding, eg Monckton.
    – awards undue credibility to researchers with a history of publishing poor quality work, eg Lindzen

    By conducting a proper analysis that places the correct weight on expert and inexpert opinion, somebody like Harvey can form their own opinion in a competent way.

  26. #27 Jeff Harvey
    March 8, 2017

    “Jeff & Kim’s references to Dunning Kruger are both exhibiting classic symptoms of the Dunning Kruger effect.”

    Bullshit. And you know it, Stu2. You are a vacuous moron who never hesitates to comment in fields well outside of your expertise. I am a qualified scientist and population ecologist; you are not. You are a wannabe. You don’t remotely understand what the Dunning-Kruger effect is, but you are a luke warmist/denier who wants to impose your own layman’s wisdom in discussions on here. Kim is an uneducated fool.

    D-K are actually planning to write a paper in which they use their model to explain climate change denial. I am NOT a denier. I am a scientist who, among other things, studies the ecological effects of warming. My views on climate change reflect the views of >95% of the climatew science community. I defer to their opinions, which are categorically clear: humans are the primary driver behind the recent current warming. End of story. The science, at least when it comes to causation, is in. The debate is now to postulate what effects there will be in the future. I am trained well enough as a professional scientist to know that I rely on scientists like Mann, Hansen. Trenberth, Santer and the majority of others.

    For your part, clowns like you and Kim write as if you possess some inherent wisdom that has escaped the trained specialists. You are driven by your own narrow, ideological beliefs, and seek confirmation for these. Craig has explained why I am more than competent enough, as a scientist, to evaluate credible science from garbage. You clearly can’t, and your inability to grasp what Dunning and Kruger showed is clear evidence of this.

  27. #28 Jeff Harvey
    March 8, 2017

    Furthermore, Stu, the article may not have been written by Climate Change Dispatch but they sure liked to spread the word. Danusha Goska is entitled to her right wing views. Claiming that its only those on the left who are ‘intolerant’ is actually quite hilarious, and if one looks further into her views one sees that there is a lot more to her ‘miraculous conversion’ than simple behavior. She is a fundamentalist Christian who tends to support a lot of policies that emerge from groups like the Tea Party in the U.S. Indeed, as an example fo someone changing ship, so to speak, she is quite utterly pathetic.

    And please don’t also try and tell me that people on the political right are tolerant. Fox News? Alex Jones? Rush Limbaugh? James Delingpole? Marc Morano? Tolerant? The political right is full of hatred and vitriol. Given that liberal though is actually quite dead in America, one wonders what left thinking people Goska was referring to. Under the Clinton and Obama the Democratic Party swung far to the right. They bailed out the banks on public money, waged wars on behlaf of the military industrial complex, created a prison-industrial complex to go along with the military industrial complex, supported ‘free trade’ agreements like NAFTA and TPP that were actually investor’s rights agreements and were happy to see the US futher entrench itself as a fully fledged corporate state. So if Goska is referring to these ‘liberals’ then she is dumber than I thought.

    I have been going through climate change blogs – indeed, almost a hundred of them – to examine their perspectives on the science. What I found is that the two ‘sides’ presentt their arguments in a very different way. One side – those defending science and supporting the broad consensus – actually focus on the empircal studies and most pay lip service to deniers. The deniers, on the other hand, come across as a spoiled bunch of childish bullies, much like playground thugs who are not getting their way. The difference is actually quite striking. They rotuinely deride and smear climate scientists with who they disagree.

    So you can take your kindergarten-level views elsewhere. You are ritually humilated on here and just don’t like it.

  28. #29 Olaus Petri
    March 8, 2017

    Jeff, my friend, you read Goska wrong, of course. Surprise! She talks about you and your embedded likes. She has no trouble recognizing that conservatives also can be intolerant.

    She understood though, that the “liberal” black-and white views were destructive, cultivating intolerans and a dislike for others.

    Like I convincingly told you before Jeffie friend, it is no wonder that fascism and communism share so many common ideological features: anti-capitalism, anti-liberalism, anti-parlamentarism and a whorship of strong leaders and direct action = Mussolini kept his old commie-views when he developed fascism.

    Hate on, my friend.

  29. #30 Stu 2
    March 8, 2017

    Jeff @#25.
    That’s a classic display of the DK syndrome.
    I note that you’re still also assigning people to ‘teams’ .

  30. #31 Stu 2
    March 9, 2017
    Read this.
    Dr Longstaff actually has quals in the relevant field that you are commenting on @#25.

  31. #32 Jeff Harvey
    March 9, 2017

    Olaus…. please do me a favor and take a flying leap… your latest musings are the usual bullshit I expect from you. You conflate regulations limiting the highly destructive effects of capitalism with being ‘anti-capitalist’. You are the kind of idiot who would accuse me of being against some corporation that was proven to be dumping loads of toxic waste into a river, contaminating the water supply and destroying the biodiversity found in the river. Its a reflexive argument of those trying to camouflage the harmful things that they are doing. Your argument is typical jargon used by those hiding nefarious activities who smear your opponents with the ‘anti’ label. Its a tried a trusted means of greenwashing and anti-environmental PR and I have demolished it many times before, so no need to do it again here. You are a creep. No more needs to be said.

    Stu2, my take on that Climet Change Dispathc has nothing whatsoever to do with the D-K effect so fucking well stop it… She is entitled to her own opinions. The political right is hardly tolerant; look at the levels of abuse and death threats heaped upn Mann and other climate scientists by those on the political right. If anything, the right is far less tolerant of dissenting views than are those on the progressive left. Read Breitbart News and that becomes patently obvious.

    As for the article that you linked to, I read it. What has this got to do with debates about science? In most cases one side is right and another is wrong. Nowhere is that more true than in the climate change ‘debate’. One side bases their arguments on the prevailing empirical and theoretical science and the other doesn’t. One side has almost unanimous support amongst the experts in the field and the other doesn’t. One side is politically and ideologically driven and one side isn’t.

    I aside with those promulgating the truth, as elusive as that is, and not the aother side made up primarily of right wing shills and corporate lobbyists.

    And finally, Dr. Longstaff does NOT have the qualifications to comment on issues related to science. By the way, when are you going to start referring to me as Professor? We had Dr. Goska and now Dr. Longstaff, so there you go: assigning titles to people whose views you respect and avoiding to apply them to people with whom you disagree. I hate formality, but its interesting how deniers always do this with people they support. Kim, GSW et al. routinely inflate the quaifications of people they like, and always refer to them by thgeir professional titles, but I am simply Harvey or Hardley or worse, despite the fact that I am every bit as qualified or even more so than the ‘luminaries’ they ritually wheel out.

    You are the same. I’ve seen you respectfully put up people here with their title (Dr.) when they are downplaying the effects of warming on coral reefs, terrestrial ecosystems etc. In many cases these ‘experts’ you have rolled out have about 3 papers in their careers. I have 182. No comparison.

  32. #33 Stu 2
    March 9, 2017

    Professor Jeff.
    Longstaff was not commenting on science.
    He was commenting on Philosophy and Ethics.
    Re-read your comment @#25.
    It had nothing to do with ‘science’.
    Classic demo of DK.

  33. #34 Lionel A
    March 9, 2017

    You are, of course, right Li. Kim is beyond an idiot. He’s a raving lunatic.

    In some ways Kim reminds me of Squealer from Orwell’s Animal Farm.

  34. #35 Lionel A
    March 9, 2017

    Why are you ignoring what is becoming more and more obvious that your favoured political and socio-economic solutions is not working?

    You are assuming allot there StuPID!

    What are my, favoured political and socio-economic solutions?

    I don’t think you understand my motives at all.

    Bernard J’s vitriol, Jeff Harvey’s hubris & your attempts at elitism are all classic examples of this failing meme.

    Ah! Yes! The put down of those who have troubled to learn what is really going on and where the problems lie now, and where they are likely to go in the future. In other words those who have studied the issues of climate and change, social history and much more. That is not elitism but an honest journey along the data – information – knowledge – understanding – wisdom continuum with sources cited along the way.

    That you chose to ignore those sources and continue with selective storyism, which is self-contradictory over time, is to behave like Napoleon in Orwell’s well known book.

    Now for this simplistic stupid:

    The chief cause of famine in places like Africa and Somalia is poor governance.

    Absolute tripe, except for the fact the the influence of the World Bank, IMF and Vulture Capitalism (check that one out) have replaced the rape of Africa (see ‘Scramble for Africa’) by the imperial powers.

    However, and in a trend continuing since the days of the first city states in e.g. Mesopotamia and Egypt climate change induced drought has a large influence in promoting famine. That is a most informative blog BTW, click on the title for the main page then scroll down through many of the topics to take in the breadth of information. Breadth of knowledge promotes understanding something which you need to work towards. [1]

    Research the histories of ancient civilisations in that region if you doubt the validity of that.

    Now I distinctly remember putting this information in front of you on numerous previous occasions, that you should continue to engage in such vacuity shows that any elitism on our part is a figment of your imagination being more a product of your existing in (as Bernard J would write) an epistemic bubble.

    Eventually, we shall see, unless there is a turn around in agricultural policies, similar trends across Amazonia and across Indonesia–Papua New Guinea and more widely Oceana in general.

    [1] This is where such as Lindzen and Curry come a cropper as they have only narrowly studied certain aspects of science and lack the breadth of vision to do anything other than make nuances of themselves having long abandoned true scientific enquiry for advocacy.

  35. #36 Lionel A
    March 9, 2017

    Hum, Freudian slip:

    [1] This is where such as Lindzen and Curry come a cropper as they have only narrowly studied certain aspects of science and lack the breadth of vision to do anything other than make nuances nuisances of themselves having long abandoned true scientific enquiry for advocacy.

  36. #37 Jeff Harvey
    March 9, 2017

    Go ahead Stu and tell me where I was exhibiting the D-K effect in post 25. By the way, you do it all the time for the record; as when you comment on anything related to the environmental effects of climate change; you haven’t got a clue what you are talking about. And your views on governance in Africa made me cringe. Kindergarten level stuff. But I digress.

    Back to post 25. I looked up the sad woman who ‘saw the light and is no longer a leftist’. Indeed, she provided no proof that she actually ever was a ‘leftist’; we have to go on her word. I read some of her assertions. Her views are those of a right wing Republican. That she ends up as a poster child for an anti-environmental/climate change denying blog is informative.

    But, like Kim, who is as daft as a brush, you are twisting and distorting Dunning and Kruger’s model to suit your own ends. These scholars would laugh at you, and for those like Kim who cannot see the wood from the trees.

    One thing though: I love shitting all over a moron like you on Deltoid. Its fun. For me, hammering you is like picking cherries. You tried to camouflage your ideological bias but it bleeds through in everything that you write. You are an idiot, yet you don’t know it. There you go. D-K personified. Now go back to your desk, hole, or wherever it is that you live and lick your wounds.

  37. #38 Jeff Harvey
    March 9, 2017

    Lionel, these idiots are so stupid that they don’t know it. Thanks for your excellent posts. Its a shame that Bernard was only passing through. Love your demolition of Stu’s kindergarten level musings above about ‘poor governance in Africa’. It’s a bit like saying that ‘Iraq is a bit of a failed state these days’ without applying the proper attribution.

    I really didn’t know people could be so willfully ignorant until Stu showed up. He tries so hard, oh yes, to show that he is ‘informed’, but he is so utterly vacuous. Linking to anti-environmental blogs when making points about how bad and intolerant we leftists are, and to Sky News when suggesting that some ‘jihadists’ are seeing the light and mending their ways. Nothing about the far greater intolerance of the politicial right, or why there are jihadists in the first place. Its like they emerged from the ether to attack our wonderful civilizations. Seems like the fact that our governments have dropped industrial numbers of bombs on countries in the Middle East, killing hundreds of thousands of men, women and children does not exist in Stu’s lexicon. That we create hatred and nurture it. Instead, these jihadists are just all bad people who are inherently evil because they hate our wonderful bastions of civilization. Even Trump doesn’t believe that. Its pure Blair and Bush.

    Kindergarten level stuff, really. But Stu’s been spewing this crap for several eyars on here. He shows no signs of stopping.

  38. #39 kim
    March 9, 2017

    Hardley, are you aware of the fact that there are no thermometer readings of air temperatures 2m above the ground from the continent Antarctica in the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) database of NOAA before the year 1950???

    Answer requested!!

  39. #40 Jeff Harvey
    March 9, 2017

    Kim, could you please send me your list of peer-reviewed publications in any fields… given your expertise in, well everything, I assume that you must be a tenured professor with hundreds of papers. I am sure that you are continually invited to universities around the world to impart your incredible wisdom, and I am sure that you also have publsihed sveral books. So please, may I, a humble professor who swoons at your wisdom, please have a list of your paers, boosk etc? If its not too hard…

    On a serious note, it will take Kima about three seconds because he has no papers, no books, has no relevant degrees in anything, and indeed, he’s an uneducated idiot.


    Ultimately, Stu is just a simpleton whereas Kim is a raving lunatic…

  40. #41 Stu 2
    March 9, 2017

    Jeff Harvey @#34.
    To answer your question.
    Your entire comment @#25 was based on fields like philosophy, politics, ethics and psychology.
    It’s judging and commenting by:
    ‘illusory superiority’, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is”
    Classic DK effect.
    There is also a good dose of ‘cognitive bias’ in your comment @#25.
    Classic DK effect.
    I note that you’re also still assigning people to teams?
    Trying to change the global climate/weather via reducing global GHG emissions is not going to help those people, nor is it going to stop the ‘rape of Africa’.

  41. #42 Stu 2
    March 9, 2017

    However, to be fair to Lionel,
    Sensible agricultural policy as per his second last paragraph @#32 is something that needs attention.
    Poor policy is due to poor governance not to the weather/climate.

  42. #43 Stu 2
    March 9, 2017

    Good agricultural policy occurs when govts and depts and academics work with the people who farm and are directly involved in land and water management rather than the current mindset that sees them alienated and demonised by ‘environmental politics’.

  43. #44 Jeff Harvey
    March 10, 2017

    Where is post 25 do I say anything about illusory superiority? And what the hell has that got to do with D-K? If we are talking about right wing pundits, then this has nothing to do with D-K; its evident from their double speak.

    Again, explain exactly what you mean by cognitive bias? The fact that people on the right are less tolerant than people on the left? That they are often much more violent and resort to smears? Nothing biased about that. Its true.

    Some advice Stu: you are a pseudo-intellect. You have essentially childish views of the ways in which the world works that are actually hilarious, and so, so easy to demolish. You have absolutely no expertise in any areas related to environmental science or ecology, yet you freely spew out bullshit on here over and over. I an one-on-one debate with someone with the requisite qualifications, you’d be humiliated. I would have no trouble getting an audience to laugh and snicker at you as I did with Lomborg (much to his distress). Your comments re: poor governance is your latest howler. Note how I present evidence (and I can present a lot more) on how corrupt regimes in Africa are more often than not installed and supported by western governments and our corporate sector. How the aim is and has always been to loot the continents vast stores of wealth primarily for the benefits of western investors. Read the words of influential planners and politicians like Kennan and Kissinger, or read any number of declassified state planning files of the US and UK governments and the aims become manifestly clear: suppression of democracy and indigenous nationalism and to ‘interfere with decision making processes’ in countries with vast stores of mineral wealth. I’ve read many of them. Stu hasn’t. He’s as thick as a sack of potatoes, so he resorts to a last desperate measure: bait and switch. The only strategy when your ignorance is ritually exposed.

    Stu, you are an intellectual lightweight. Its clear that you have never read the D-K paper either. Instead, you surf the internet, glean a bit here from Wikipedia or a bit there from a blog – usually some puerile climate change denying blog referring to the vast majority of scientists as ‘ zealots’ – or a corporate news outlet like Sky – and then promulgate your views. Over the years I have read your garbage on here, I have continually cringed. You never surprise me with your pathetic attempts to suggest that the current predicament faced by humanity is not very serious and can successfully be dealt with by technology and various management practices. You interact with a few scientists and get the idea that you are some knowledgeable hot shot.

    You’re not. You’re an ignoramus.

  44. #45 kim
    March 10, 2017

    Hardley, I have asked you a simple question:

    Hardley, are you aware of the fact that there are no thermometer readings of air temperatures 2m above the ground from the continent Antarctica in the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) database of NOAA before the year 1950???

    The answer could be either “yes” or “no”, but you ranted some blather, as always when your climatological incompetence is exposed.

    In order to elevate a little bit your missing knowledge in climatology I will give a series of lessons.

    Lesson 1: What is the GHCN database of NOAA

    The GHCN database of NOAA contains all thermometer readings from over 7000 thermometer sites around the world of air temperatures close to the ground (ideally in 2m above the ground, but not everywhere). These thermometer reading values were are used by three institutes to calulate a so-called global temperature: 1) NOAA itself, 2) GISS, an institue within NASA, 3) CRU (Climate Research Unit, East Anglia University, UK). These three institutes compile a global temperature independently from each other, but all using the thermometer reading values from the GHCN database of NOAA.

    I would welcome that you abstain in the future from your Dunning-Kruger habits of willful ignorance in scientific fields where you completely lack any knowledge, but blather evily around with your green-soci vile based on ideological prejudices which misguide your deranged views of our world.

  45. #46 Jeff Harvey
    March 10, 2017

    Kim and I asked you a simple question: what is your educational background? How many peer-reviewed papers do you have in the empirical literature? You won’t answer of course because the answers are nil and nil. For all I know you clean public lavatories for a living. And stop distorting the meaning of the Dunning-Kruger study. I have read the paper; you haven’t. It argues that people like you, who have no relevent education in specific fields, vastly overestimate what you think you know about them. Given that you clean toliets for a living, as is clear from the resounding silence I get every time that I ask what your qualifications are, you are a model D-K subject.

    The scientific organizations that you list above verify the effects of warming in botgh the Arctic and Antarctic.

    Start here:

    I tend to go along with the peer-reviewed literature over a toliet cleaner. So don’t bloody well waste my time with your histrionics. If you are the genius that you profess yourself to be, then let’s see you publish your Earth-shattering views in scientific journals. Otherwise, STFU.

  46. #47 Jeff Harvey
    March 10, 2017

    One last question for the toliet cleaner (Kim) who thinks that he knows more than climate scientists working in Antarctic and the British Antarctic Survey. When you have written and published your Earth-shattering rebuttals of the papers I linked to above, please send me the PDFs. You see, unlike you, I defer to the expertise of the climate scientists studying climate change and its effects on the polar regions (Antarctic and the Arctic) and who pretty well unanimously agree that there are all kinds of signs of AGW on both regions. The lastest cryopshere data back that up. Whatever means one uses of measuring temperatures, one thing is for certain: ice extent at both regions is at record low levels for this time of the year. And just about every climate scientist who studiees these regions attributes this record low ice cover to AGW.

    So who do I believe: them…. or you?!?!?!?!?!?! Gee, that’s a toughie. Statured experts with hundreds of peer-reviewed publications or a guy who appears to clean public lavatories?
    Kim you are such a dork. Yet, in true D-K fashion, you are simply too stupid to realize it.

    Here you go Kim: the D-K effect which describes climate change deniers to a tee:

  47. #48 Betula
    March 10, 2017

    Look at Hardley’s comments over the years….he is more than obsessed with Dunning Kruger, in fact, he can’t answer a simple question without hiding behind it.

    You can’t hide behind yourself Hardley, we can see you.

  48. #49 Lionel A
    March 10, 2017

    Poor policy is due to poor governance not to the weather/climate.

    And just what do you think causes ‘poor policy’? WRT the Amazon, is it the fault of the indigenous peoples of the area?

    No it is not.

    Irresponsible land use such as that carried out by global agribusiness with the backing of banks and other capitalists will precipitate climate change across tropical regions for such rainforests have a very short hydrological cycle. As swathes of forest are cut down for growing cash crops (so as to pay the horrendous interest on loans) such as soy then ability of the forest to continue generating its own, damp, climate will attenuate.

    This has potential global impact. Taking action to mitigate such issues is not a locally achievable task, it is global.

    Substantial losses of Amazonian forests and the species diversity they house would impact climate at regional and intercontinental scales through changes in land–atmosphere energy exchange and precipitation (Werth & Avissar, 2002; Marengo, 2006), and globally through increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations and changes to the global balance of other key greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide and methane.


    Time and again we can see that greedy capitalists fail to understand the fable of the ‘Goose that laid the golden eggs’ probably from their being products of narrow, e.g. home, schooling. Epistemic bubbles from birth.

  49. #50 Jeff Harvey
    March 10, 2017

    Betula, what’s the point? You seem to love our Kim. Figures. He’s a lunatic and you get all lovey-dovey. Idiot.

    The question is meaningless because the Antarctic is warming. Every major scientific organization acknolwedges it. Look at the current state of coastal ice extent there. The problem with you and your lover is that both of you singularly fail to have a point in any of your posts. Kim makes some bullshit up about thermometers and temperature readings as if this has all bypassed the scientific community. I realize that the both of you are complete morons, but anybody with half a brain should be able to see that NASA, NOAA, the British Antarctic Survey, and American Geophysicits Union, the American Meterorological Society, and every National Academy on Earth affirms both AGW and its effects across the biosphere INCLUDING in the Antarctic. Then there are you, Kim, a few shills and other idiots who continually whimper, ‘We disagree. It’s natural’. The scientific community by-and-large either laughs at you or ignores you.

    But again, what the hell is your point? What was your point when you wrote to Elberling? Do you ever have a point on here with respect to climate except to smear me and intimate that my views on AGW are somehow different from most of the climate science community? The fact is that if you and me stood in a gigantic room with all of the world’s climate scientists and they were asked to take sides in this ‘debate’, virtually all of them would come over to me. You’d be left almost alone, sucking your tumb or whatever it is that you do.

    Moreover, if you and Kim are such intellectual luminaries, write a fucking paper and send it to a journal. See what they do with it (I can tell you right now). If not, as I said to Kim, STFU.

  50. #51 kim
    March 10, 2017

    It’s really funny with these climate religion morons in the rear rows in the audience like the Hardleys, Linnels, Craigs, you name them: it just suffices to say something like “I am going to look at the methodology how the global temperature is calculated by the climate alarmists who believe in AGW” to elicit immediate utter vile and incivil rants with unimaginable offending calling of names towards they have never met and about which they know truly nothing but call them asshole, piece of shit, toilet cleaner etc etc etc and at the same time appeal to very questionable authority of post-modern pseudoscience entirely based on primitive computer games constantly failing to project the future weather, in order to accept their scientifically unproven assertions against the person who is interested in the very basics of the climate religion’s weak scientific methodology, i.e. primarily of how these lunatic dreamers and wannabe new communist world dictators want to overthrow our well established demicratic systems as well as capitalism with their evil desire to destroy our world of culture, science, technology, achievements to all of which these anticapitalist assholes have effected zero contribution, but are only nasty parasites.

    Hardley the next lesson in climatology I will give you deals with clarifications of your completely wrong picture from Antarctica.

  51. #52 Lionel A
    March 10, 2017

    kim, your buzz phrase generator is rambling.

  52. #53 kim
    March 10, 2017

    LinnelU, your latest high-intellect “contribution” will elicit enthousiastic acclaim from shorter Hardley: what intelligent companionship you represent: chapeau, my full respect to your lingual creativity “buzz generator”: we climate deniers can never ever so inventive as you acolytes of the true verity

  53. #54 Stu 2
    March 10, 2017

    Sigh 🙁
    Out here in the real world, real people are kicking real environmental goals.
    They’re making a difference.
    It’s got nothing to do with your ability or lack thereof to debate or what ‘team’ you think I do or don’t barrack for or whether you think you do or don’t have amazing academic qualifications or how many papers you have published or how many conferences you have been to or even Dunning Kruger.
    In fact, quite clearly, any good work that is being done must have nothing at all to do with you as you spend all your time here dismissing any possibility of a civil discussion about actual solutions to specific environmental issues.
    Amusingly you base your arguments and accusations on a simplistic ‘black hat/white hat’ perspective and on fields that you have neither experience or qualifications while at the same time accusing everyone else who questions you of the same thing.
    Your comments @#25 was largely based on amateur psycho analyisis of people who you have assigned sides.
    That’s a classic demo of ‘illusory superiority’ and arguing with a ‘cognitive bias’.
    Contrary to your assertions otherwise, ‘ the bulk of the scientific community’ are not demonstrably supportive of your personal ‘black hat/white hat’ socio-economic and political opinions.

  54. #55 Stu 2
    March 10, 2017
    I agreed that land use practices are an issue.
    My point however was focusing on trying to change the global weather/climate by reducing global GHG emissions will not help those people in Africa.
    As far as the Amazon is concerned here us ONE(!!!) example of how to work on implementing sensible land and water management policies based on practical, workable solution based on principles such as ‘adaptive management’ and ‘citizen science’ & etc.
    The idea that some type of benevolent global bureaucratic dictatorship that simply trades in ‘alarmism’ and thinly disguised misanthropy is NOT WORKING!
    We all know that humans are not perfect and that en masse and via our ‘darker side’ we have made mistakes.
    It’s POOR POLICY to keep trading on the emotional and ideological and is actually assisting the type of POOR GOVERNANCE that stops any sensible ‘doing something about it’

  55. #56 Stu 2
    March 11, 2017

    And Lionel,
    How on earth did you possibly come to the conclusion that I’m ‘blaming’ the ‘indigenous people of the area’ ?
    My comment @#43 said pretty much the opposite.

  56. #57 Jeff Harvey
    March 11, 2017

    Stu, let’s start our dialogue again. I thought about this last night and I am tired of arguing. I apologize for my insults at you. Look me up at my work page and write me an email if you like and we can engage in a meaningful conversation. Otherwise, we can discuss these issues on here. I am defensive because people like Kim calls me and those concerned about climate change on Deltoid like Lionel as ‘climate morons’ as if we are the only people on Earth who believe in AGW. I have repeatedly and categorically stated that AGW is the consensus position of every major scientific organisation on Earth as well as among the vast majority of Scientists. But on Deltoid this argument is ritually ignored by Kim, Betula and their kind as if somehow it’s all fictional.

    I am simply deferring to the wisdom and expertise of my peers in the relevant fields who are part of the consensus. I am certainly qualified to discuss the effects of AGW on communities and ecosystems, where there is certainly abundant evidence that it warming. Right now it’s a slam dunk. The causes for the warming are clear, as proven empirically. Again, I personally know many climate scientists and they all leave me with no doubts.

    I agree with you that we need to be exploring ways to deal with AGW. I have been baited so many times over the years on Deltoid by deniers that I have lost focus on here. I know that your heart is in the right place. What we need to be doing now is discussing ways and means to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions and, as you write, devise management plans to deal with AGW. There is little doubt that both approaches are vital.

    What I do not intend to do on here any more is to engage in ridiculous toing and froing with uneducated laymen like Kim, Betula and Olaus who are trying to drag the debate to the lowest common denominator of causation. We are past the IPCC Working Groups 1 and 2; the scientific community is focusing on what we should do about the problem. This is where our discussion can be focused. The others: Is it warming? Are humans the primary culprit? Are there potentially serious consequences if we do nothing? have been addressed by the IPCC and are confirmed by the positions of every major scientific organisation on Earth, as I said above. And to reiterate, the empirical literature is full of studies reporting effects on ecosystems across the biosphere

    So once again, I apologize for my language and behaviour. But with respect to the deniers on here I will adopt the Dr. Dade approach. Don’t respond, don’t answer, don’t engage.

  57. #58 Jeff Harvey
    March 11, 2017

    My final riposte to Kim, who I believe is now on moderation, is that I don’t care what means scientists used to measure temperature in the Antarctic. What is beyond doubt is that the ice extent in coastal waters is by far the lowest in recorded history, declining at an incredibly alarming rate, and 4 standard deviations below the 1981-2010 mean. Ditto for the Arctic. This categorically proves that the oceans are warming. And every major organisation which studies polar climate agrees that the primary cause is AGW. If people want to challenge that position then go ahead, but sniping away on blogs won’t suffice. Only by submitting a.major study to a peer reviewed journal will the deniers be heard. This is where the science is advanced, and not through the anonymous musings of laymen on blogs.

    Betula asked me why I did not answer Kim’s question. Because it is irrelevant, as the current state of the cryosphere proves. I wonder why he never challenged Kim to answer my simple questions: do you have a PhD or any degrees in any field of Science? Yes or no. Have you published any scientific papers in any peer reviewed journals? Yes or no. Does every major scientific organisation on Earth concur as to AGW and the potential threats it posed to humanity? Yes or no.

    I wrote a paper with Stuart Pimm 15 years ago in which we evaluated the credibility of scientific arguments.
    1. Follow the data. We find that the data trails of AGW deniers and anti environmentalists usually goes cold very quickly.
    2. Follow the credentials. Few statutes Scientists are AGW deniers; most are retired and we’re experts in unrelated fields. And the ratio of statutes Scientists supporting or refuting AGW theory is about 30:1.
    3. Follow the money. Many of the most prominent AGW deniers have had to admit that they are or have been on the corporate payroll. Specifically, funded by the oil and/or coal lobby or by think tanks supported by these

    Certainly number 1 us by far the most important of the three we raised. And as I said, evidence in support of AGW is immense and growing.

  58. #59 Li D
    March 11, 2017

    #58 “And as I said, evidence in support of AGW is immense and growing.”
    And notably, VERY BLOODY NOTABLY,
    no remotly credible alternative mechanism has
    been advanced to explain the observations.
    Conspiracy dosnt cut it as a mechanism.
    Natural cycles dosnt cut it as a mechanism if
    they cant be comprehensivly explained and detailed.
    You deniers have got NOTHING.
    Its a movement of almost sublime futility.
    A very special type of sickness actually. Quite obscene.

  59. #60 Stu 2
    March 12, 2017

    AGW is not the key issue.
    Trying to change the global weather/climate via ONLY focusing on reducing global human GHG emissions and linking that to genuine local environmental degradation is NOT WORKING!
    All it is doing is alienating the demographic groups that are the best equipped to actually improve land and water management practices.
    Despite your assertions otherwise, that includes highly qualified and highly experienced scientists.
    The bulk of the scientific community agrees that human activity impacts ‘the environment’ and that we need to work towards building on what works and repairing or rehabilitating what doesn’t.
    The bulk of the scientific community DOES NOT(!!!) agree that there is ‘only one way’ to achieve that.
    That means that the bulk of the scientific community DOES NOT(!!!!) agree with your personal socio-economic, political, amateur psychology, revisionist & etc opinions.
    There is NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE or any other evidence that some type of benevolent global bureaucratic dictatorship will save the global climate or the environment.
    The damage and mistakes happened one at a time as did the successes.
    There is no evidence that a magic silver bullet can suddenly make it all better.
    And at no time did I feel personally insulted even though I recognize that was what you were trying to engage me in.
    I’m not interested in that sort of crap.
    Perhaps you have finally got that?
    I’m interested in discussing genuine specific solutions to genuine specific issues.

  60. #61 Jeff Harvey
    March 12, 2017


    I nevr said that the bulk of the scientific community believes that mitigation of C02 emissions is the ONLY solution… but it is a vital step. If the global temperatures are allowed to pass 2 C in the coming few decades then we are entering into unchartered territory… and if we go beyond 3-5=4 C then our species is in deep, deep trouble… the effects on complex adaptive systems that permit our existence will be so utterly devastating that they will generate widespread systemic collapse which we simply do not have the technology (and never will) to deal with. I wholeheartedly agree that there are a suite of environmental stresses that humans are inflicting across the biosphere and we need to address all of them. But climate change represents the final nail in the coffin. If we do not find some way to keep temperatures form rising above 2 C and beyond then the rest won’t matter. Period.

    As for saying the ‘ bulk of the scientific community’, what do you think I am? I am a leading scientist who studies two areas related to global change: invasive species and climate change, on species interactions and communities. My publication record puts me among the top 5% in the world. I am not some country hick who speaks off the cuff and sees these issues flippantly. I am every bit as qualified as any of the scientists whom you say are the ‘ bulk’ so why on Earth you would preach that to me, of all people, is somewhat bizarre. I can tell you that if I announce to universities in Australia that I will visit many will very rapidly invite me to lecture. This has nothing to do with ego but with stature. I am actually very well known among my peers. Moreover, at every major conference and workshop I attend climate change and its effects represents a major topic. None of them downplay it or say that we should not be dealing with it. NONE. They all agree that its a very serious threat to the environment. I was recently at a Gordon Conference in California and many of the scientists there discussed this with me. None of us would again say that it is the only threat but they would say that it is a key issue.

    With respect to amateur psychology, I warn you that I was attempting to be polite yesterday. I offer you an olive branch and you throw it back in my face as if you are some famous statured expert and I am some lower minion. Let me put it this way: on the international arena, you are a total and utter unknown. I am not. I was a Nature editor and now as I said I am one of the leaders in my field and I am very well known around the world. I seriously believe that significant political changes are necessary to deal with the growing threats that humanity poses to the environment. My views are shared by many leading ecological economists and scientists, so its not remotely amateur. I am willing to discuss these issues with you in a civil manner, BUT, and its a big BUT my views are not amateur, simply because you say they are so.

  61. #62 Stu 2
    March 12, 2017

    In answer to your question.
    I don’t have an opinion on what you are.
    Apparently, you haven’t figured that out after all?

  62. #63 Jeff Harvey
    March 12, 2017

    Stu, I expected a civil response from you, not one accusing me of making ‘amateur’ comments. That is your opinion which does not make it a fact. There are a large number of scholars in economics and science who very strongly believe, like me, that the current form of capitalism under the guise of neoliberalism is not only unsustainable in the mid to longer term but that it is incompatible with life. I am not espousing amateurish views here but views that have considerable empirical support. Economist Tom Athanasiou in his book ‘Divided Planet: The Ecology of Rich and Poor’ concluded with the words that only social justice and equity will save the living world from destruction. He makes compelling arguments to show this. Just because you appear to believe that the current system can be reconciled with sustainable development does not mean that I and many experts in various fields necessarily think that you are right. I am as qualified if not more so than the vast majority of people who you work with to comment on topics related to development as it impacts natural ecosystems. So my advice to you is to cease with the snide remarks and tell me how you think a system where 15% of the world’s population controls 80% of the world’s wealth can be temporally sustained.

  63. #64 David Duff
    March 12, 2017

    I am so glad that the Chapel of Global Warming is still in existence here, albeit with a much reduced congregation, and even if you are still singing the same old hymns.

    Anyway, I just wanted to commiserate with you all over the early demise of the Australian Climate Institute due to a lack of financial support. How could the Australian public be so hard-hearted?

  64. #65 Jeff Harvey
    March 12, 2017

    Oh God, I thought that Duff would have taken his brainless denial after the three warmest years on record and a terrifying cryosphere and hidden under a rock.

    No such luck.

    His brainless stupidity is clearly incurable in spite of the overwhelming empirical evidence. He clearly has cognitive issues.

  65. #66 Stu 2
    March 12, 2017

    I merely answered your direct question.
    You may or may not be more qualified than the people I work with.
    So what?
    Out here in the real world, real people are kicking real environmental goals.
    They’re making a difference.
    That includes highly qualified and highly experienced scientists.
    So apparently your assertion that there is only one way to save the world and that everyone agrees with you is perhaps not correct?
    The actual environment actually doesn’t care about the distribution of wealth Jeff.
    Redistribution of wealth is not an environmental, ecological, climate & etc goal.
    Quite some time back, I asked you to define one particular issue whether it be socio-economic or environmental and what specific plan you would put in place to successfully manage or improve outcomes.
    We have just had international womens day.
    Accross the globe, gender inequality is still a huge problem.
    What has worked to improve that in not enough countries?
    What works and what doesn’t?
    But that’s just one example of course.

  66. #67 Jeff Harvey
    March 12, 2017

    Stu, I never said that there is one way to ‘save’ the world. Moreover, essentially we are talking about saving the human species; the world will continue long after we are gone.

    With regards to issues, there are many. The loss of wetlands is pandemic, and the effects of this on biodiversity across a range of scales is of great concern. How do we stop this destruction? For one thing we need to acknowledge that environmental destruction has enormous economic costs. I advocate full cost pricing to internalise the value of supporting and regulating ecosystem services. One of the major impediments to this has been the fact that governments in the developed world have been increasingly deregulating their economies in order to stimulate investment. This has effectively allowed the corporate sector to increase the amount of damage they do and to hold governments to random. Trump is caving in by dismantling the FDA and EPA, sure signs that corporations run the show. It’s imperative that we recapture democracy from the bottom up, or else we are witnessing the ravaging effects of a runaway train.

    I agree with Athanasiou that the solutions to environmental problems are locked up in politics and economics. And I won’t shy away from saying that the current system is unsustainable. Small programme and policies built within this system will only delay the inevitable. If we don’t rein it in – and given the swing towards right wing populist movements across much of the world it appears that we are instead going in the opposite direction – then I am very pessimistic.

  67. #68 Stu 2
    March 13, 2017

    Pessimism and negativity is not the answer, it never was, it isn’t now and it’s highly unlikely that it ever will be.
    I agree that politics and economics are part of the answer.
    Unfortunately the introduction of ‘enviromentalism’ that trades in alarmism and emotions is proving to be more of the same & obstructing positive action.
    Taxing is about money and internal revenue and there is no evidence that it delivers anything truly worthwhile for the natural environment.
    One of the programs I’m directly involved in is about the rehabilitation of wetlands.
    Not unlike the link I posted above re the Amazon it involves a suite of practical, sensible, measureable management and monitoring techniques that also encourages people to work together on shared TBL goals.
    People’s political ‘teams’ or ‘taxes’ play no part in it.
    In my experience as soon as politics and bureaucratic entities get involved, that’s the beginning of the end of sensible NRM.

  68. #69 Stu 2
    March 13, 2017

    And Jeff.
    You have oft claimed to me that there’s only one way & you have done so again @#63 quoting Athanasiou that ONLY social justice and equality will save the world.
    The real environment does not hold an opinion about the redistribution of wealth.
    It doesn’t care.

  69. #70 Stu 2
    March 13, 2017

    But please do outline how ‘full cost pricing to internalize the value of supporting ecosystem services’ is actually achieving worthwhile, measurable goals in relation to wetlands.
    Which specific wetlands are benefiting from this tax and how are they benefiting?
    Who is paying for these ‘ecosystem services’ and who are they paying?
    What are the people who are being paid actually doing for the wetlands and surrounding natural and human environments?

  70. #71 Craig Thomas
    March 14, 2017

    Stu2, it is entirely rational and reasonable to conclude from the the overwhelming climate forcing that is constituted by human emissions of CO2 that humans should devise ways to cease those emissions.
    We can put people on the moon, we can view parts of our universe dating back to very close to the moment of the big bang. Generating power without emitting CO2 *really* shouldn’t be something that goes in the too hard basket – an opinion pretty much confirmed by the fact that the “too hard” argument is only coming from lobbyists whose interests conflict with those of disruptive technologies.

  71. #72 Craig Thomas
    March 14, 2017

    …and Stu2, Longstaff says – among other things, that,
    “…I have learned one of the least productive things one can do is seek to prove to another person they are wrong…
    …Far better it is to make the attempt (and it must be a sincere attempt) to take the person and their views entirely seriously. …”

    This is the problem with people who approach philosophy (sociology is even worse, it is pretty much 99% pseudo-science) pseudo-scientifically.

    If something is wrong, the *most* productive thing you can do is prove it and move on.

    Shopuld you listen to some idiot’s opinions about chemtrails and “take them seriously”?
    Answer: yes – then investigate, prove them wrong, at which point they should admit their mistake and accept the truth.

    Anybody who repeatedly peddles opinions that have been demonstrated to be false should *not* be taken seriously. They are clearly idiots.

  72. #73 Jeff Harvey
    March 14, 2017

    Full cost pricing will take into account the fact that wetlands provide a critically important range of ecosysteem services including provisioning of fresh water, detoxification of wastes/water purification, habitat for fish, amenity valse etc. No need to say any more about this. These values are externalized in economic scenarios and thus these values are only factored in when wetlands are lost. This is elementary ecological economics and its not my job here to educate you in this field. Look it up. Its easy to find a huge amount of literature in the field as well as economists and ecologists advocating full cost pricing. The only ecologists who oppose it are those who fear commodifying nature, but by now most of u’s realize that it may be the only way to prevent a continuation of the rampant destruction of the environment. For their part, developers and corporations mostly oppose full cost pricing because they are able to pass these costs off onto the public who have little choice but to accept them. The value of services must be captured in what we pay for goods. But again, its not my job on a blog to start an elementary discussion over the supporting and regulating value of ecosystem services. Stu is eminently capable of doing that for himself. I have no need either to defend my arguments as that has already been done by many others in the literature.

    As for the redistribution of wealth, read the book before you attempt to critique it. The same goes for several texts detailing the western/corporate plunder of wealth from Africa. Athanasiou’s point is that poverty and inequality drive environmental destruction in the developing world. The environment may not have an opinion about the redistribution of wealth but then again that is a ridiculous assertion because it has not got an opinion on anything else. The point is that if our species cannot embrace more egalitarian policies that promote social justice across the biosphere, then the future is very bleak. It is simply not possible to promote an environmentally sustainable future when 15% of the world’s population controls more than 80% of the world’s wealth – and, even more obscenely, that a tiny fraction of the population within the 15% controls the power and the vast majority of the wealth.

    Of course Athanasiou is correct. It is a no brainer.

  73. #74 Stu 2
    March 14, 2017

    Craig @# 71 & 72.
    I agree that anything is possible with a mindset that that is rational and based on building on successes.
    Unfortunately in ‘environmental politics’ & ‘environmental ecinomics ( as opposed to the actual environment’) the miindset is not rational and is based on alarmism, negativity and very unfortunately, thinly veiled misanthropy.
    While we should of course work towards reducing harmful emissions, the pretense that it’s the only key issue and must be solved by taxing is not helping to solve genuine environmental issues.
    I note that @#73, Jeff is unable to answer specific practical questions but instead defaults to sweeping theoretical statements.
    He once again ignores that real people (including highly qualified and highly experienced scientists) are out here in the real world kicking real envirinmental goals such as rehabilitating wetlands.
    The actual environment doesn’t care about human politics, economics and the redistribution of wealth.
    The natural environment doesn’t care for or practice the human concept of ‘egalitarianism’.
    As evidenced by such things as the bushfires in Vic in recent times, the whole concept of ‘lock up and leave’ is not conducive to good management for either the human or the natural environment.

  74. #75 Stu 2
    March 14, 2017

    Your theory has been tried before at local and national scales.
    It does not deliver worthwhile environmental outcomes.
    Rather, it delivers the opposite.
    It’s a nice theory, it just doesn’t work.
    IMHO there’s no point in trying to prove that even though something is not right it’s ‘not wrong’.
    We all know that human greed is a problem when it gets taken to extremes.
    But that is also applicable to almost every human emotion, including the good ones.

  75. #76 Craig Thomas
    March 15, 2017

    Personally, I don’t care if they concrete over all the wetlands instead of “rehabilitating” them (whatever that means). This has no effect on me.
    The thing that *does* have an effect on me is the obvious threat to my economic and physical wellbeing posed by the fossil fuel industry causing rapid climate change and rising sea levels.
    The thing that *does* affect me is when MY TAXES are being spent on subsidies to the fossil fuel industry, which in turn is being allowed to 100% externalise the cost of its CO2 pollution. MY TAXES will then be spent on addressing the effects of those externalised costs, namely:
    – protecting or relocating coastal communities due to sea level rise
    – relocating, abandoning, or developing new agricutures in response to climate shifts
    – funding the government spending needed to keep our economy running after the inevitable climate-related global economic slump occurs. (As Wayne Swan did very successfully in response to the GFC).
    – border security to keep out hundreds of millions of desperate and lawless climate refugees
    – massive expense associated with providing welfare and policing of climate refugees we’ve been unable to keep out

    See Nordhaus if you are in any doubt as to whether these costs are anything but a looming disaster.
    Or the CIA:

  76. #77 Stu 2
    March 15, 2017

    Which subsidies to which fossil fuel industry/s are your taxes being spent on?
    Subsidies are being granted to renewable energy are they not?
    Rehabilitation of wetlands is not a difficult concept to understand.
    It’s restoring them to health.
    All practical land & water management principles are quite simple to understand and implement.
    They too play a major role in the behaviour of local climate/weather patterns.
    I think just calling refugees ‘climate refugees’ is just a tad unrealistic.
    They’re not fleeing their countries in droves primarily because of the climate.
    Why on earth would they choose to come to Australia based on climate?
    Ours is supposedly the driest continent on earth and is indeed the ‘land of drought and flooding rains’

  77. #78 Craig Thomas
    March 15, 2017

    We are here deep in the 21st Century already and yet Stu2 is apparently unable to access the information required to post informed comment.

    When you say, “restoring (wetlands) to health” do you mean people are actually creating new malaria reservoirs? Doesn’t sound very sensible to me.

  78. #79 Stu 2
    March 15, 2017

    The questions was about your specific taxes and which specific fossil fuel industry/s are your taxes subsidising?
    I’m no fan of entities like the IMF. Are you objecting to what they’re doing? How are your taxes subsidising them?
    And yes, people who don’t know what they’re doing would certainly be facilitating mosquito breeding grounds just like they’re facilitating bushfire hazards and feral pests and weedsin national parks.
    That’s not what I was referring to.
    Jeff is correct that wetlands and water management principles play a major role in water quality but his idea that completely alienates the demographic that is best placed to implement, manage and monitor the adaptive management of natural resources has proven to be a massively expensive policy error and a facilitator of perverse outcomes, such as your example of mosquito breeding grounds.

  79. #80 Stu 2
    March 15, 2017

    I’m also wondering about your use of the term ‘climate refugees’?
    I don’t believe that ‘climate’ per se is the major cause of people trying to flee their countries and illegally enter countries like Australia & England & US & other western style democracies .. do you???

  80. #81 Stu 2
    March 15, 2017

    & yes, Syria is most definitely affected by a highly variable climate
    Poor governance & ongoing political conflict based on human priorities is however the major overwhelming cause of widespread famine & refugee numbers.
    Syria, like Australia does not have a stable or reliable climate.
    It’s climate, also like Australia’s, is not reliably predictable , especially in the highly important area of seasonal precipitation forecasting.

  81. #82 Stu 2
    March 17, 2017
  82. #83 Craig Thomas
    March 22, 2017

    Syria has emitted something like 8 million refugees as a direct result of climate change.
    Yemen has a similar situation, although fewer refugees so far..
    When it hits Bangladesh, those numbers are going look like a mere drop in the ocean.

  83. #84 Lionel A
    March 22, 2017

    Trying to change the global weather/climate via ONLY focusing on reducing global human GHG emissions and linking that to genuine local environmental degradation is NOT WORKING!

    First, we are not trying to change the climate, that is a totally inadequate way of looking at this. What needs to be done is a reduction of GHG emissions to less than zero. IOW we need to roll back to pre-industrial levels.


    Because the physics of atmospheric science is clear Study: humans have caused all the global warming since 1950

    Now, multiple studies of local environmental conditions is what informs those conclusions. To attempt to blame the information gathering for the lack of progress, or slower than optimal progress, on mitigating climate change is beyond crass.

    How the hell can we take you as an informed and reasonable commentator on this when you come out with such malformed statements. Statements indicative of confused thinking.

    Poor governance & ongoing political conflict based on human priorities is however the major overwhelming cause of widespread famine & refugee numbers.

    No, No and thrice No!

    Here you are again repeating another ill formed appraisal after it has been repeatedly debunked, with examples.

    Imperialist legacy as well as ongoing interference from other states such as Russia, the US and EU members including the UK. Sykes-Picot? What do you think Lawrence of Arabia was doing? I’ll give you a clue, the bidding of, amongst others Churchill. What is this about? Read the history that has been suggested to you.

    Which subsidies to which fossil fuel industry/s are your taxes being spent on?

    Subsidies are being granted to renewable energy are they not?

    Lordy, lordy oh lordy what is up with you?

    In the UK it is very clear, the disparity between fossil fuel subsidy and that for renewable energy:

    North Sea Oil Industry Asked the Government for More Help to Drill and Decommission — Got Both

    Climate change subsidy slashed by Government days after Brexit vote

    and they are but one example each for the two environmentally disparate energy sources.

    I just knew you couldn’t keep up any pretence of balanced debate.

  84. #85 Lionel A
    March 22, 2017

    To underline the points further.

    There is one excellent blog which carries articles, recent at that, that covers each one of your sorry miss-characterisations in some detail, especially if you bother to follow external links.

    Look for these articles:

    Let’s be Very Clear — 100 Percent (or More) of Recent Warming was Caused By Humans

    An Agenda Harmful to the American People

    and those further afield I would add.

    Now to that thorny question of why we must achieve negative emissions increases, IOW start drawing down what is already up there.

    “Climate Change in Your Face” — Great Barrier Reef Suffers Second Consecutive Mass Bleaching as Potential for Record Warm 2017 Looms

    The Oceans are Warming Faster than Previously Thought; Rate of Heat Build-up Accelerating

    and in the following is the message that we may soon be triggering, indeed there are signs that we already have, disassociation of methane from permafrost and clathrates (methane hydrates), as well as other salient points:

    Friday, March 3, 2017 Climate Change Open Discussion: Permafrost Decay, Ocean Acidification, Renewable Energy Advances, Trump Turning EPA into Fossil Fuel Vending Machine

    But do look up other articles there and learn, before replying.

  85. #86 Stu 2
    March 23, 2017
    Craig @#83
    This is a summary of the woes in Syria.
    Lionel, the question was for Craig. It was actually about our Australian taxes and subsidies.

  86. #87 Stu 2
    March 23, 2017

    & Lionel.
    I note the overuse of variations of the word ‘catastrophe’ at that blog plus other negative, emotional language.
    No workable solutions. Just more of the same.

  87. #88 Lionel A
    March 23, 2017

    I note the overuse of variations of the word ‘catastrophe’ at that blog plus other negative, emotional language.

    Clearly the implications of the scale of problems unfolding are beyond your capability to grasp. As is you clear inability to understand that before one can find solutions the nature and scope of the problems have first to be understood.

    One of the aims of blogs such as that is to put information starkly in front of the wider population to create a shift in the Overton Window.

    Now you can believe what you like, such as

    ‘that ‘climate’ per se is the major cause of people trying to flee their countries

    but I have shown why that is not true. You seem to believe ‘many a strange thing before breakfast’.

    It matters not who your statements are aimed at, AFAIK on this blog we are free to critique any erroneous statements we consider as such. Especially as you persist in throwing lots of straw into the wind and should expect to get it back.

    Jeff has provide numerous content filled posts with carefully worked arguments based upon knowledge and experience (I can say this because I read enough around numerous aspects to appreciate their validity) that counter your simplistic views.

    It seems that you are incapable of a mode of learning and thought that is echoed by a good computer operating system, such as UNIX or Linux (and other I could name) which are modular in design. There is generally a core with connected modules which add other functions to carry out particular useful extraneous tasks. These modules communicate with the core and via that core with other modules. A requirement to alter one module does not mean that one has to mess with any of the others or the core. Sometimes the core may have special ‘handling facilities’ for specific modules which may be modified without affecting the function of the remainder of the core or the other modules.

    What this means is that modules to fix problems can be created to solve particular problems without a need to re jig the whole with these latter modules being informed by output from the existing modules which must come first.

    If I had time to waste I could refine that analogy but I expect it to serve for now.

    Oh, and BTW your link at #82 goes off into the weeds. But then you are still huffing and puffing.

  88. #89 Stu 2
    March 23, 2017

    The link works for me Lionel.
    Maybe one of your modules need adjusting?
    Amongst other things it outlines the reasons why people are fleeing Syria.
    Attempting to shift the Overton window by overstating the case is just an academic way of saying that the writer is using negativity and emotion instead of just stating the facts.
    It’s a political theory not a practical one.
    It is quite clearly failing as indicated by such phenomena as Brexit and Trump etc.
    I would suggest, with respect, you might need to widen your reading habits Lionel.
    Your accusations about ‘simplistic’ are actually funny.
    Flogging a dead horse is about as unproductive and childish as it gets.

  89. #90 Stu 2
    March 23, 2017

    So just in case that link is faulty for Craig too.
    There’s no mention of Climate change as a contributing factor of the massive refugee crisis emanating from Syria.
    I agree that Syria’s climate/weather doesn’t help matters.
    However, the contention that the refugee crisis is a direct result of that is not a realistic assumption.
    Focusing on global climate is not going to help the Syrian refugees or change the fact that Syrian weather/climate is highly variable.

  90. #91 Turboblocke
    March 23, 2017

    Climate change is also a “threat multiplier” in many of today’s conflicts, from Darfur to Somalia to Iraq and Syria. The Arab Spring is commonly seen as leading to Syria’s conflict, but people tend to forget the five-year drought in Syria’s northeast that preceded the war and the displacement of some 1.5 million people. Climate change sows seeds for conflict, but it also makes displacement much worse when it happens.

  91. #92 Stu 2
    March 24, 2017

    However, the solution to those conflicts is not going to be found by only focusing on Global weather/climate.
    Droughts are a feature of weather patterns in places like Syria.
    Drought & floods and other extreme weather events are of course a huge problem. No one anywhere has ever said otherwise.
    But the weather/climate is not the main reason for Syrians fleeing Syria nor the main reason for the ongoing conflict.
    There would be a refugee crisis emanating from Australia if that was the case!!!

  92. #93 Craig Thomas
    March 24, 2017

    On March 23, 2017, Stu 2 burbled:

    “So just in case that link is faulty for Craig too.
    There’s no mention of Climate change as a contributing factor of the massive refugee crisis emanating from Syria.”

    Well, thank you for illustrating the dangers of considering yourself informed on the basis of having read a single media article.
    The article is wrong.

    If you feel the urge to read more widely in order to address the deficiencies of your chosen single source:

  93. #94 Craig Thomas
    March 24, 2017

    Australians fleeing weather/climate they don’t like do not need to leave the country due to this country’s economy being buoyant enough to absorb movements of this nature.

    Bangladesh does not have the resources to deal with mass population movements anymore than Syria did.

  94. #95 Stu 2
    March 24, 2017

    I agree with both of your comments & posts @# 93 & 94.
    I disagree with your blanket comment @#83.
    The link @#93 does not say that 8 million refugees from Syria are a direct result of Climate change.
    It names 6 causes ahead of CD.

  95. #96 Stu 2
    March 24, 2017

    Sorry. CC

  96. #97 Lionel A
    March 24, 2017

    Maybe one of your modules need adjusting?

    Tried it twice just now and all I see is a window filled with black.

    A third try put me to The Australian with invitations to pay to view. Sorry but that is still in the weeds AFAIAC.

    The remainder of your #89 demonstrates that your thinking is remains off in the weeds. You are not grasping the points we are making. Well your responses indicate that.

    The many strands of scientific research and investigation which leads to the knowledge that a big bad train is coming is not political theory, it is a huge body of facts.

    That body of facts represents inconvenient truths for some so the use the worst elements of the media to aid and abet the installation of policy makers who can continue delaying mitigation actions. That is what produced Trump and Brexit..

    There is another side to the elevation of Trump, who is an empty vessel which those with vested interests prime and then let go like a clockwork mouse making silly waggling of whiskers (hands) and nonsensical squeaking noises., whilst they get on with the business of dismantling anything that may get in the way of their progress towards accruing more wealth and power at the expense of the poor ignorati duped into voting for him.

    But there are signs that the Overton window is shifting with some advertising the fact they made a huge mistake (in voting for Trump).

    The aim on both sides of the Atlantic is to widen the poverty gap with the endgame (read Jensen – no really read and study him — not the selective reading you engage in) of making nations a population of serfs ruled over by oligarchs and megalomaniacs — collectively socio-paths. Dennis Thatcher has been quoted as wishing that, one reason for the push to increase home ownership by the occupants. What happened of course was that it was the banks etc that really owned the houses and the occupants had to be good little people and play the monopoly game where defaulting on repayments meant financial penalties and possible homelessness.

    Homelessness is now becoming more common as the job market changes. Where once upon a time one breadwinner could support their family whilst the other kept home base working now families need to have both parents working to keep heads above fiscal waters. This can leave children without the essential help and guidance required for producing a balanced individual as they progress through puberty.

    I have a daughter, a chemistry graduate with a husband a chemistry PhD they still need the support of my wife and I at awkward times of the day. Through knowing the interaction of their boys (one in each stage of education; primary, secondary, tertiary and university) with their peers the problems some of them have through less supportive home backgrounds is clear. My own experience as a graduate teacher (necessarily read widely to gain that qualification BTW with a core of maths & Science) made me aware of these potential problems as did the experiences of our other three children back a few decades.

    Me widen my reading habits, you have no idea, clearly when you bother not to follow links in RobertScribbler’s articles, you responded too quickly to allow such a process.

    I await more bubkes from you with interest.

  97. #98 Lionel A
    March 24, 2017

    The link @#93 does not say that 8 million refugees from Syria are a direct result of Climate change.

    Oh the slipperiness of the careful word chooser, it did contain this:

    As described here, water and climatic conditions have played a direct role in the deterioration of Syria’s economic conditions.

    and that economic deterioration created what?

    Your special pleading doesn’t work here!

  98. #99 Lionel A
    March 24, 2017

    Turboblocke @#91 laid it out straight and then you Stu slalomed around that with your intellectually impoverished ideas of the nature of population displacements and boundaries. Your responses are almost malicious.

    Meanwhile things can only get worse.

  99. #100 Stu 2
    March 25, 2017

    I have no idea why that link # @82 is not working for you.
    It’s an article by Warren Mundine.
    I will try & post it from his blog page.
    The one @# 86 is actually the more relevant one.
    Most of your commentary @# 93 is about human politics & not about CC.
    No one said that climate has no influence, so I’m not sure who you are arguing with as it’s not relevant to my comments, rather it backs up what I said.
    Let me try and find that article for you.

1 2 3 5

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.